3 Questions about 911

a reply to: onehuman

Building 6 has a cylindrical shaped charge look to it. Symmetrical hole appears like what would happen with a shaped charge blowing upward would make.
Lots of very odd facts not explained including not one toilet was found in all the mess. Pulverized and vaporized.

Whatever happened, it definitely has not been explained factually or truthfully by the official story, which is exactly what it is, a story. Tall Tale fits better.

a reply to: markosity1973

It's a good theory, except the steel in that example is mild steel or pot steel, not high carbon steel like what the trade center was constructed with.
Comparing that little building with a fire in it to the trade center buildings is the same as comparing apples to oranges.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: markosity1973

It's a good theory, except the steel in that example is mild steel or pot steel, not high carbon steel like what the trade center was constructed with.
Comparing that little building with a fire in it to the trade center buildings is the same as comparing apples to oranges.

It doesn't matter

The building's columns had a much higher weight on them than that little barn, so yes it would have been a much higher grade of steel.

The building also had a much hotter fire burning in it.

My point was that a mild steel building with very little load on ir's structure warped and collpased with a not that hot in the shceme of things bush fire. It's not beyond belief that a plane made of aluminiun and full of aviation fuel plus all the combustibles inside the buidling would get hot enough to do the same thing.

Don't forget that the plane itself weighed 179 tonnes. That is a lot of weight to slam into a building near the top of it. That in itself would have caused it to sway no doubt.

The one thing I have never seen data on is the load bearing capability of the floors. I know when we built a new shop in Auckland we had to get steel plates put on the floor to support the bank safe we installed otherwise it would have gone through the floor.

I'm imagining an extra 179 tonnes of weight would not have helped things on that day.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: onehuman

After researching 9/11 thoroughly since 2006,

let me guess, from youtube videos and other conspiracy sites/blogs. Rather than researching the actual science?

I swear you guys need a better hobby

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: firerescue

There are 2 tower blocks currently on fire in the UAE

Lets see how it goes will they collapse into their own footprint and a 3rd tower fall in sympathy

Who can argue with logic like that. Well done!

/s

Maybe folks should ask the building's chief engineer when it was constructed what went wrong.

Oh no wait, somebody already has and my fire theory is correct. The sprinklers were destroyed by the plane and the outer wall that was severely damaged by the plane was load bearing. Had there been no fire, it would not have collapsed.

www.bbc.com...

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: onehuman

Building 6 has a cylindrical shaped charge look to it. Symmetrical hole appears like what would happen with a shaped charge blowing upward would make.
Lots of very odd facts not explained including not one toilet was found in all the mess. Pulverized and vaporized.

Whatever happened, it definitely has not been explained factually or truthfully by the official story, which is exactly what it is, a story. Tall Tale fits better.

Thank you for actually addressing one of my questions. Seems other folks want to go willy nilly off the question path.

I did actually ask three question. None really had to do with dust, or melting steel, or anything to do really with the towers.
This thread is about how most of the paper remained pretty much intact, which I suppose has been kind of answered, but I'm not totally satisfied yet about that.

I have also asked about the Photographer Kurt Sonnenfeld who claimed he had photos that would blow the lid off 911. Fled the country and last heard we wanted to bring him back for murder. Go figure. Seems he fell of the earth since his boast of what he had. Does anyone know anything else recent about him and where this story stands?

Lastly I asked about building 6. I appreciate the couple people that have tried to discuss that. Seems even NoCorruptionAllowed finds it curious as well and even goes so far to say it looks like it may have had a specific type of charge. Do you folks not find this curious as well?

Perhaps if we actually stay on topic here, we might have something somewhat new to actually dig into. Hidden in plain site as they say. Lets kick a new rock shall we?

originally posted by: onehuman


Lastly I asked about building 6. I appreciate the couple people that have tried to discuss that. Seems even NoCorruptionAllowed finds it curious as well and even goes so far to say it looks like it may have had a specific type of charge. Do you folks not find this curious as well?

Perhaps if we actually stay on topic here, we might have something somewhat new to actually dig into. Hidden in plain site as they say. Lets kick a new rock shall we?

It has a logical explanation too

The severe damage to Building 6 is often cited as evidence of the alleged explosion. However there is another explanation for the damage that much better accounts for its features documented by aerial and satellite photographs of the building's exterior, such as the one on the right, and by interior photographs, such as the one on page 93 of Painful Questions. They show that the damage consisted primarily of a series of holes with the following features:

Run almost the height of the building

Have vertical walls, where the different floors have virtually identical damage profiles

Are mostly rectilinear in shape

Show metal pieces hanging down and bent down but not up

Mimic the profile of the North Tower's footprint, which is parallel to and has about the same length as the rectangle formed by combining the two holes. (Remains of the North Tower are visible immediately left of the two holes in Building 6.)

The last feature is a dead give-away of the real cause of the damage: primarily the thousands of tons of steel from the North Tower's northeast perimeter wall falling from as high as 1300 feet.

911review.com...

The building collapsed because the north tower rained debris on it. If it were built like the main two towers, then the main strength of the building is in the outer walls, which did not collapse. The inner columns were not as strong and the floors collapsed.

a reply to: markosity1973

Fair enough, but that still doesn't answer where did all the physical structures that would make it identifiable as a office building go? Desk, file cabinets, furniture, electronics, toilets?


And why don't we see more of the debris from the tower. Of course I saw the perimeter wall laying near the top, the big chunk of it, but for the most part the rubble looks like it comes from itself.

Still most curious about where everything went.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your responses. Just trying to wrap my head around these few things. The paper has bugged me from day one, but I don't find it as curious as building 6 and its oddness.

originally posted by: onehuman
a reply to: markosity1973

Fair enough, but that still doesn't answer where did all the physical structures that would make it identifiable as a office building go? Desk, file cabinets, furniture, electronics, toilets?


And why don't we see more of the debris from the tower. Of course I saw the perimeter wall laying near the top, the big chunk of it, but for the most part the rubble looks like it comes from itself.

Still most curious about where everything went.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your responses. Just trying to wrap my head around these few things. The paper has bugged me from day one, but I don't find it as curious as building 6 and its oddness.

It was there - just all smashed up and pulverised.

I saw the paper going everywhere as the towers collapsed one by one too. Have you ever compressed bellows and felt the air rush out?

The same thing happened the towers collapsed. There was no fire on the lower floors but a lot of air was compressed and blown out of the windows as it came down. Anything light enough, especially paper would have been strewn everywhere.

The fire really got going after the towers came down. Everything that was left - people, cars, office furniture, paper, you name it got burnt up where it burnt through.

Don't forget that there was a Westfield's shopping mall and a subway station in the basement of these buildings. These were destroyed too - though not to the extent of the towers above. This is what one would expect at the base of the building if it collapsed top down - survivable space.

I remember seeing eerie footage of the mall underneath showing it empty and partially collapsed. I have linked to an article with photos below

www.dailymail.co.uk...

a reply to: onehuman

They were office buildings. Lots of paper in offices. When the plane hit you saw paper flying everywhere from the big gaping hole in the building. It looked like a ticker tape parade.

a reply to: onehuman
By watching the video I came upon this video that I also raised some "new" points. Comparing the recovery of the Space Shuttles debris to The Pentagon and Shanksville etc. Worth a watch.

i can't answer your questions, but I'll ask you one. Why is it that when the pentagon got hit, probably one of the most filmed buildings in the world, (really, how many security cameras are there pointed at the pentagon?) why did we only see that crappy four frame bs?! I mean, i sat and watched people jump out of building for like three days straight, IN SCHOOL. we saw the towers fall millions of times over the broadcasts. but we get that blurry stop motion film from the pentagon? that just seems like a red flag to me.

a reply to: ugmold

By watching the video I came upon this video that I also raised some "new" points. Comparing the recovery of the Space Shuttles debris to The Pentagon and Shanksville etc. Worth a watch.

I agree.

I believe that our government that controls our propaganda media, want our eyes to lie to us.

Oh, and don't think, the government will tell you how to think about 911. George Bush said in a speech, (do not believe in conspiracy theories about 911.)

The government has made themselves very clear that there are no conspiracy theories to 911.

However, when it comes to the government's evidence to support the Official narratives of 911, it doesn't support it.

Head back in sand.

a reply to: onehuman

Well first of all the video, the video maker obviously doesn't look close enough at his own video.



That looks like a column tree from the Tower collapse you seen others as well.

No office equipment just fkn



Spot the desk & file cabinets obviously HE doesn't want to see those

Now paper from the Towers most desks will have some paperwork on them in file trays etc mine does so does every other one I visit. Huge hole in side of building also exit holes paper gets blown out from areas with & without fires it's not rocket science it's common sense.

Cars on the street one question WHEN were the pictures taken.

9/11 has turned into being the Moon Landing conspiracy for this generation.

Conspiracy theorists think the only have to show one thing seems WRONG to confirm the conspiracy yet the other side has to PROVE EVERYTHING is correct THE exact same process still happens in Moon Landing threads.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: onehuman

Well first of all the video, the video maker obviously doesn't look close enough at his own video.



That looks like a column tree from the Tower collapse you seen others as well.

No office equipment

just fkn

Spot the desk & file cabinets obviously HE doesn't want to see those

Now paper from the Towers most desks will have some paperwork on them in file trays etc mine does so does every other one I visit. Huge hole in side of building also exit holes paper gets blown out from areas with & without fires it's not rocket science it's common sense.

Cars on the street one question WHEN were the pictures taken.

9/11 has turned into being the Moon Landing conspiracy for this generation.

Conspiracy theorists think the only have to show one thing seems WRONG to confirm the conspiracy yet the other side has to PROVE EVERYTHING is correct THE exact same process still happens in Moon Landing threads.

Ah, so you cherry pick one thing that you feel not only supports your worthless argument, but also destroys any other theory that people mention, even though they clearly show the official claims have more holes than Swiss cheese, and then you lump it in with fake moon land conspiracy to do what? Help your claim? If you have to do that, then you have no argument in the first place. But we all knew that already. Thanks for the update

GOOD NEWS!

University Of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Launches New 9/11 Research Project

Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, Chair of the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ (UAF) Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, is conducting a study into the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001.

Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and two Ph.D. research assistants are partnering with the non-profit Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for an engineering study known as “World Trade Center Building 7 Evaluation.” The researchers are using finite element modeling to evaluate the possible causes of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse.

“Over the next year, with a team of PhD students, I will be rebuilding World Trade Center building 7, using the same drawings that were used to build it originally we will reconstruct it digitally,” said Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey. “NIST says the building fell down due to office fires. Our investigation will evaluate the probability that this was the cause of the collapse.”

The researchers are promising a “completely open and transparent investigation into the cause of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse,” and will post every step of their scientific process on WTC7Evaluation.org. The WTC7 Evaluation project will also include a review by a committee of technical experts who will vet the research being conducted by Dr. Hulsey and his students. The professor and his team are soliciting financial support from the public from now until the completion of the study in April 2017.

Ted Walter, Director of Strategy and Development for A&E 9/11 Truth, is in charge of working with the professor and raising money to fund the WTC7 Evaluation. Walter told Activist Post that the project began in May 2015 and should should wrap up in April of next year.

“They are coming up with different scenarios of how hot the fires could have been in different parts of the building, and then for the next 6 months they will be running tests and scenarios,” Walter told Activist Post. “The last few months, early next year, will be all about putting the findings into a final report.”

www.activistpost.com...

There is more to read in my above source.

This is going to open a big can of worms for the Neocons.

And when the results come back supporting the OS, they will bury it claiming they couldn't fully model the plans.

a reply to: samkent

And when they don't come back supporting the Official Narratives, then what?

If one part of the official narrative can be proven a lie, then why would anyone want to believe the rest of the 911 official narratives?

When some witnesses are in a trail and they have been caught in a lie, lawyers in many cases will asked the judge to have that witness testimony stricken from the record, and for the jury to ignore all of his testimonies.

In most arguments, lawyers will state to the judge why should the jury believe in anything the witness has to say, once he or she has been caught lying.

The same goes for the government official narratives of 911, when one part of the story is proven a lie, why believe in anything else the government has to say, when it comes to 911.

There is already overwhelming evidence of a grand cover up to 911. If the government told the truth then there shouldn't be any cover up should there?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Its hardly cherry picking as it wasn't the only parts of the video that looked like you can see evidence of OFFICE equipment but we are used to youtube truthers clutching at straws for this and every other conspiracy.

Want to EXPLAIN why when he makes his claim of NO office equipment that DESK is clearly in the shot a total fkn joke.

It's also notable that YOU lot didn't seem to see it either that's how good you guys are at looking at evidence

9/11 parallels the Moon Landing hoax claims very nicely you had a group of so called educated intelligent people jumping up at no stars because they had NO idea of photographic exposure then all the other claims re shadows etc etc.

We have the same for 9/11 from holographic planes/ missiles, energy weapons, nukes etc.

I have spent many many years on sites testing various components sometimes to destruction on every thing from one off house to buildings costing £100's+ millions also civil projects like hydro power projects UNLIKE 99.99999% of 9/11 posters, also my career started in a design drawing office of a structural steelwork company