13 Reasons To Question The Official Story

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Darkwing01

 

That is the core structure. The core remained standing after the collapse for 10-15 seconds before it also collapsed. The outer colums provided lateral suppport to the core and when they collapsed, that support was lost.

The core did not stand after the collapse, one column out of 47 did. The core was one mechanical structure, not separate columns independent from each other. The outer columns only provided lateral support when the building swayed from wind etc. Lack of lateral support would not cause the core to telescope down into an increasing mass, it would cause it to topple if it could not stand without that support. Try holding a broom stick vertically with the bottom on the floor, then remove the lateral support you are providing, does the broom stick fall straight down?

The broomstick argument is about as reasonable as crazy Gage and his cardboard box collection. Thousand foot tall buildings don't topple like trees; they are not strong enough to remain in one piece when they are off the vertical.
How's this video? www.youtube.com...

reply to post by pteridine

The broomstick argument is about as reasonable as crazy Gage and his cardboard box collection. Thousand foot tall buildings don't topple like trees; they are not strong enough to remain in one piece when they are off the vertical.
How's this video? www.youtube.com..

OK so some of the core remains after the tower falls, but the antenna dropped first, indicating that the core failed first. And since the fire damage was insufficient to cause the core to fail, what caused it to fail?

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by pteridine

 

OK so some of the core remains after the tower falls, but the antenna dropped first, indicating that the core failed first. And since the fire damage was insufficient to cause the core to fail, what caused it to fail?

Is it your contention that the antenna was directly attached to the core? As I remember there was a cap structure astride the outer columns that tied them together at the tops.

reply to post by pteridine

Is it your contention that the antenna was directly attached to the core? As I remember there was a cap structure astride the outer columns that tied them together at the tops.

I'm saying that the antenna was in the center of the building, and it fell first, meaning that the center of the building fell first, meaning that the core fell first.

FEMAs take on the subject of the antenna?:

Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. [color=limegreen]This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building.

But as I've explained in this thread, the damage from the fires were insufficient to cause even a single one to fail from the heat.

NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC.

reply to post by TupacShakur



"Hat trusses (or "outrigger truss") located from the 107th floor to the top of the buildings were designed to support a tall communication antenna on top of each building. Only 1 WTC (north tower) actually had an antenna fitted; it was added in 1978.The truss system consisted of six trusses along the long axis of the core and four along the short axis. This truss system allowed some load redistribution between the perimeter and core columns and supported the transmission tower." en.wikipedia.org...

Do you think that it is possible that the hat trusses could have failed without the core, itself, failing?

reply to post by pteridine

Do you think that it is possible that the hat trusses could have failed without the core, itself, failing?

Absolutely not, and here's why:

Accordingly, NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the [color=limegreen]fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers....... [color=limegreen]All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.......the results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.

reply to post by TupacShakur


The hat trusses and the floor trusses were structurally different. Did they test hat trusses separately?

reply to post by pteridine


No but they sure felt comfortable placing a good deal of responsibility on the hat trusses for the collapse. Click me.

Why wouldn't they test those in their open and thorough investigation? Our government couldn't dish out some more money? Ah that's right, we were saving money for the wars that resulted from those attacks. Here's a fun comparison that shows exactly how committed our government was to getting to the bottom of the 9/11 attacks:

-- Compare the time it took to begin this investigation compared to other disasters-
[color=limegreen]9/11: 411 days
Pearl Harbor: 9
Challenger Disaster: 7
Kennedy Assassination: 7

-- And the starting budgets of those investigations-
[color=limegreen]9/11: $3 million
Clinton's Indiscretion: $40 million
Columbia Disaster: $50 million
Challenger Disaster: $75 million

It took 28 days to invade Afghanistan though, or 15X less time than it took to begin the poorly funded investigation.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Do you thrive off assumptions?

Did I state that our Govt. wouldn't kill 3000 of us for it's own struggle? Did I say anything, you just implied that I thought or said? There a twoofer goes again, putting words into peoples mouths. Turning opinions into facts, and or truths..

You guys live in an all or nothing world. You go around telling people THEY need to "open their eyes" or "Letting TPTB or MSM spoon feed us" ... When in fact it is YOU that needs to open your eyes...

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by pteridine

 

No but they sure felt comfortable placing a good deal of responsibility on the hat trusses for the collapse. Click me.

Why wouldn't they test those in their open and thorough investigation?

So the answer is "no," they did not test the hat trusses. That means that the falling antenna could have been failure of the trusses and not the core.

As to your rhetorical questions and mini-rant; I don't know why they did not test the hat trusses. Maybe it is a hat truss coverup conspiracy or maybe the engineers thought that testing the trusses was not important.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Then why is it reasonable for a truther to demand the same? Why is the hypocrisy so heavy in the truth movement... Truthers question EVERY SINGLE word the MSM says.. Except if they slip and make an error, that fits the truthers delusion.. THEN and only then are the MSM really telling the truth.. Its pathetic at this point..

I just realized I am arguing a losing argument.. NO amount of proof could change your mind.. And to date all I have seen from the truth movement... is just that a big pile of "movement"

Stretch reality to fit opinions... Tweak facts to fit theories.. Believe what benefits you, yet deny what hurts the delusion.. I quit.. It is not worth it.. I am going to ignore all delusions from this point on.. have a nice day, and thanks for the realization.

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by dillweed
We are getting stronger every day.

Something is getting stronger....the stench that is the decaying Truth movement. Looking at the absolutely hilarious efforts of the 9/11 "Truth" movement to gather up some sort of enthusiasm for a NYC Ground Zero protest (imagine that... a "protest" on a commorative anniversary.....talk about a classy move) keeps me chuckling day in and day out.

"Gettign stronger every day." Yep. Sure.

Hate (not) to tell you, but believers in the OS are the minority.
www.infowars.com...

Originally posted by dillweed

Hate (not) to tell you, but believers in the OS are the minority.
www.infowars.com...

lol...Infowars? You are using that as a legitimate reference? Knock yourself out. I bet you think the UN is the ideal organization to work for world peace, too. What's next? Iran heading up some disarmament talks?

reply to post by randalljm


Your link was to a 2006 infowars post. This is 2011.

Additionally, the idea that the government was "hiding something" doesn't mean that those respondents ascribed to the theory that the towers were blown up. Many truther sites try to make that connection but the phraseology of the question doesn't say that. Rather than hiding the great plot to demolish the WTC and blame it on the terrorists, the government could well be hiding the incompetence and in-fighting of the Bush appointees and their failure to act on information that was handed to them. I'd bet on many squirming political hacks trying to distance themselves from any blame while the administration covered their tracks. Given the records of GWB's appointees [see FEMA and Hurricane Katrina for an example], this is a far more likely scenario than having his fellow idiots hatch and execute the plot of the ages.

reply to post by ShaunHatfield



if you have an open, clear mind, and dare to look & THINK, especially to the whole picture (especially what the US is doing SINCE 9/11), its very clearly to see, but obviously not for people like you. We can keep on dancing around on each other, you will never get my mouth shut. Partly it is all so obvious, even if no one know all the details, which you all love to demand. People like you (writing general now, like you do for us, truthers) do also rarely post something constructive, to counter us. If you can't counter us, you ignore the question, try to derail the thread, talk arrogant and rude,......no wonder you won't win anyone over with that kind of tactics, cause that is so boring old. Airplanes or not, the whole story has many gaps on all parts which the government can't fill in or clear up. Also, the US has a very strong known political and military history of interfering around on world level, and it only became worse since 9/11. Isn't it logical, the ways the media and governments are going and influencing the sheep, people believe there is more going on (aka the growing NWO)? I know, there are governments who only want sheep, who don't want to be questioned, EVER!

i make up my own mind, i m part of no movement where ever, i judge & think for myself


remember the JFK assassination? Almost 48 years later, still unsolved


bleat on!

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

Then why is it reasonable for a truther to demand the same? Why is the hypocrisy so heavy in the truth movement... Truthers question EVERY SINGLE word the MSM says.. Except if they slip and make an error, that fits the truthers delusion.. THEN and only then are the MSM really telling the truth.. Its pathetic at this point..

I just realized I am arguing a losing argument.. NO amount of proof could change your mind.. And to date all I have seen from the truth movement... is just that a big pile of "movement"

Stretch reality to fit opinions... Tweak facts to fit theories.. Believe what benefits you, yet deny what hurts the delusion.. I quit.. It is not worth it.. I am going to ignore all delusions from this point on.. have a nice day, and thanks for the realization.

The Truth Movement is controlled opposition whose goal is to foment contention and discord, and to be sure that no one who points out the fact that planes could not possibly have caused the damage to the towers, will be taken seriously.

The Truth Movement has been directing suspicion away from the media and "no planes" explanations from the beginning. By their fruits you will know them.

reply to post by randalljm

Hate (not) to tell you, but believers in the OS are the minority.

Your link is to Infowars.
Infowars is owned by Alex Jones. Look at bottom the bottom of the page.

Here is the link to the article at NY Times.

No where does it say that 84% reject the OS.

Alex Jones is lying to profit off the deaths of 3000 people.

reply to post by bing0
Never let up, BingO! They're floggin' a dead horse, and they know it. Have you noticed that not one of these posters is genuine. They are all shills, every last one of them. That fact speaks volumes.

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

Then why is it reasonable for a truther to demand the same? Why is the hypocrisy so heavy in the truth movement... Truthers question EVERY SINGLE word the MSM says.. Except if they slip and make an error, that fits the truthers delusion.. THEN and only then are the MSM really telling the truth.. Its pathetic at this point..

I just realized I am arguing a losing argument.. NO amount of proof could change your mind.. And to date all I have seen from the truth movement... is just that a big pile of "movement"

Stretch reality to fit opinions... Tweak facts to fit theories.. Believe what benefits you, yet deny what hurts the delusion.. I quit.. It is not worth it.. I am going to ignore all delusions from this point on.. have a nice day, and thanks for the realization.

The Truth Movement is controlled opposition whose goal is to foment contention and discord, and to be sure that no one who points out the fact that planes could not possibly have caused the damage to the towers, will be taken seriously.

The Truth Movement has been directing suspicion away from the media and "no planes" explanations from the beginning. By their fruits you will know them.

isn't it weird.....the government is allowed uncountable mistakes, but ooooo, if a 'truther' makes a mistake, the whole movement is in error? A bit out of balance, don't you think? The government made more mistakes involving 9/11 than the 'truther movement'. Those tactics are so old

reply to post by bing0


Can you do some searching and list the MISTAKES the Govt. made on 9/11.

be very specific... List the "mistakes" - mean what you say and say what you mean.

Dictionary
Search Results

mis·take

noun /məˈstāk/ 
mistakes, plural
An action or judgment that is misguided or wrong
- coming here was a mistake
- she made the mistake of thinking they were important

Something, esp. a word, figure, or fact, that is not correct; an inaccuracy
- a couple of spelling mistakes

verb /məˈstāk/ 
mistaken, past participle; mistakes, 3rd person singular present; mistaking, present participle; mistook, past tense
Be wrong about
- because I was inexperienced, I mistook the nature of our relationship

Wrongly identify someone or something as
- she thought he'd mistaken her for someone else


Now please be specific about the "mistakes" the Govt. made. If you could provide that in list form, it would be appreciated.

Keep on fighting the good fight, keep your head up, and by no means accept reality.