13 Reasons To Question The Official Story

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Here's a good example of your trustworthy, honest, do-no-harm media:

Seriously? You are trying to make a point that when media gets something wrong, it is a huge indicator of malfeasance?

Ever heard of Dewey Defeats Truman?
Ever heard of Jim Brady?
Ever heard of Gabrielle Giffords?

Happens all the time in the rush to snag ratings. Not to mention the fog of war - or in this case the fog of the aftermath of an absolutely unprecedented act of terror in one of the world's largest cities. You'd make more converts if you discovered there *weren't* any media foul-ups - now *that* would be news.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
So while the famed nanothermite is incapable of turning concrete into dust, a more powerful explosive such as RDX (detonation velocity of 8750 m/s) or HDX (detonation velocity of 9100m/s) could have done the destruction.

IMO, nanothermite could have been used to weaken certain components of the buildings structure, possibly even setting off the initial drop of the top section, and once that was done, the more high powerered explosive did the real damage by progressively exploding the building in a top-down demolition and bringing the tower to the ground.

So NOW the story is "thermite" was used in conjunction with a more powerful explosive - and holograms and fake passengers and laser beams and missiles and all the other jazz..

Funny how every time someone proves one part of your Vast Consparicy wrong, you just make up another element to it.

Occam's razor has never looked as good as it does when one looks at your ever-growing "Plan".

Originally posted by trebor451
So NOW the story is "thermite" was used in conjunction with a more powerful explosive - and holograms and fake passengers and laser beams and missiles and all the other jazz..

Are you GoodOldDave? You sound like him.

No one is talking about holograms, or laser beams.

Maybe if you actually payed attention to the arguments being put forward... wait what am I saying?

You're not here for that, you're just part of the smear campaign. Mix the illogical with the logical until no one can tell the difference and it's just easier to dismiss it, and anyway those 'truthers' are just a bunch of loons...

reply to post by TupacShakur


It all boils down to this one statement.

What I am saying is the damage that the building sustained is incapable of producing a symmetrical free-fall implosion, however explosives can produce those things.

How do you know that the damage sustained was "incapable" of causing that sort of collapse??

You don't "know", you assume.. But, that it is fitting, for that is what your group should worship.. The assumption fairy... She blesses people on here daily with a shot of delusion and "facts"....

One of you truthers need to finally ADMIT that the basis for your belief is based on assumptions and connecting the dots.... Exactly how Hellen Keller would... At random!!

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by trebor451

 

Dude just stop posting. None of that off-topic crap you're spewing relates to the OP, so unless you want to discuss any of the 13 points in the OP and actually try to debunk them, stop wasting our time with your emotion fueled nonsense.

If you noticed I am responding accordingly to comments from YOUR posts. If you want me to stop posting, perhaps you should stop, yourself.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Just to clarify... To put your view point in to perspective... Are you under the impression that the explosion from a demo, would somehow mince the concrete? So it seems you dont have a tight grasp.. You are relying on people smarter than you to make assumptions that you can put on your resume...

HOW would the concrete differ between a controlled and a free fall?? chop chop, go google the answer.

please be specific...

reply to post by ShaunHatfield



lol. Its proven that jetfuel couldn't cause the collapse, bend the steel, etcetera. And WTC 7 only suffered from fallen debris and fire, tho, all 3 did fall in a simular way (no, not just going down). We are talking about something that caused extreme heat, heat that stayed for more than 2 months! Molten steel in the basements, weeks after....go figure

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by trebor451

 

Dude just stop posting. None of that off-topic crap you're spewing relates to the OP, so unless you want to discuss any of the 13 points in the OP and actually try to debunk them, stop wasting our time with your emotion fueled nonsense.

If you noticed I am responding accordingly to comments from YOUR posts. If you want me to stop posting, perhaps you should stop, yourself.

and this is your problem :

Originally posted by trebor451

 

and holograms and fake passengers and laser beams and missiles and all the other jazz..

YOU are adding these details to this topic, to derail everything again. We didn't mention it at all. Stop being a child, grow up, and stay to the topic

reply to post by Yankee451

Well, he's right about that, it seems mid construction the building codes were changed, negating the necessity for concrete cores in the towers. So although they may have encased the base of the core columns in concrete, it appears they may well not have used it above that point.

What you are referring to is the fire codes concerning protection of the steelwork in the building

The older 1938 code required steel to be protected by several inches of concrete or terra cotta brickwork
to achieve the desired fire rating . This code was often referred to as the "specification code" because it
mandated exactly what was needed to achieve fire rating

Architects and construction people has longed complained that the code was too restrictive and added
unnecessary weight and expense to buildings

They demanded that rather than mandating exactly what materials to use to achieve rating that officials
simply state what level of protection was needed. The architects and engineers would figure out a solution
to achieve the fire rating - which is given as so many hours needed to protect steel from heating up and buckling

Result was 1968 code, often called the "performance code" . Lightweight materials like sheetrock and spray on
coatings, first using asbestos and later mineral fibers after asbestos banned were developed to protect
the steel. Unfortunately these new materials lacked the strength and resistence to impact of the older
materials - what would you want to protect you? Several inches of concrete/brick or couple slabs of 5/8 in
sheetrock? The spray on fireproofing was even more problematic often peeling/flaking off steel . Also
the application of the spray on materials was uneven - at first only 1/2 in coating was applied. Later Port
Authority chief engineer ordered it raised to 1 1/2 in.

When the planes hit the fire proof coating on the steelwork was stripped off by the impact exposing steel to the
fires which caused the columns to deform and buckle from the heat

Compare the performance of WTC with 90 West Street across the street from towers. It burned for 2 days
yet suffered very little structural damage. This was do the constructions methods. 90 West was built in 1907
using brick. concrete and steel. No lightweight trusses, no sheetrock fire protection

The building was severely damaged in the September 11, 2001 attacks when the south tower of the World Trade Center collapsed directly across the street. Scaffolding which had been erected on the facade for renovation work did nothing to stop the fiery debris from raining into the building and tearing a gash deep down its northern face. Two office workers were killed when they were trapped in an elevator. The firestorm raged out of control for several days; the building, which had housed businesses including Hanover Capital, Frost & Sullivan and IKON Office Solutions, was completely gutted. It is believed that 90 West's heavy building materials and extensive use of terra cotta inside and out helped serve as fireproofing and protected it from further damage and collapse, as opposed to the more modern skyscraper at 7 World Trade Center, which suffered similar damage and collapsed later that day

Refer to book "CITY IN THE SKY: The Raise and Fall of the World Trade Center" - which goes into detail about
fireprrofing problems

reply to post by trebor451

Seriously? You are trying to make a point that when media gets something wrong, it is a huge indicator of malfeasance?

Ever heard of Dewey Defeats Truman?
Ever heard of Jim Brady?
Ever heard of Gabrielle Giffords?

Happens all the time in the rush to snag ratings. Not to mention the fog of war - or in this case the fog of the aftermath of an absolutely unprecedented act of terror in one of the world's largest cities. You'd make more converts if you discovered there *weren't* any media foul-ups - now *that* would be news.

You can view the situation however you like and try to rationalize it. I believe that the media was being handed scripts, and they screwed up by airing that story too early, following it up with "technical difficulties" mid-interview because somebody probably realized the epic failure and pulled the plug. If you want to tell yourself that accurately predicting an event that has never happened in history before that day is a simple rush for ratings, go ahead and look yourself in the mirror and be proud when you say it.

So NOW the story is "thermite" was used in conjunction with a more powerful explosive

Yep, because previously I had the impression that nanothermite was highly explosive when in reality it's just a powerful incendiary.

Sure, I was wrong about nanothermite, I can admit it. I'm pretty sure I was also wrong about the pole being cut by thermite on the front page, but ironically I was the one that debunked that portion of my OP since you guys can't really bring facts to the table and have a mature discussion, with you guys it's just smartass comments and a condescending attitude with no real debunking.

- and holograms and fake passengers and laser beams and missiles and all the other jazz..

Yeah I've never suggested that before. But it's OK, I'm sure it makes you feel very secure when you generalize like that and make fun of people who don't believe the official story.

Funny how every time someone proves one part of your Vast Consparicy wrong, you just make up another element to it.

Weird how things work huh? When people find out that information is false, why don't they stick to that information and continue pushing that false info?

Those crazy conspiracy theorists are always refining their theories and making them more factually accurate based on the available evidence, damn them!

reply to post by thedman


Thanks for the details, thedman. Yep, that's the code I was referring to.

excellent post tupac...thanks.

The fact that hatfield and trebor refuse to address the points you've raised, choosing instead to play silly childish games tells me everything i need to know about their objectives....the fact that you are even giving of your time answering their twaddle shows you are a better person than I am....

I would have told them where to go long ago.....

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield

One of you truthers need to finally ADMIT that the basis for your belief is based on assumptions and connecting the dots.... Exactly how Hellen Keller would... At random!!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8dc083823301.gif[/atsimg]



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c2191920e072.gif[/atsimg]



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f2e743a1a9d5.gif[/atsimg]

reply to post by Joey Canoli


I see the smear campaign is in full swing.

Obviously due to the deflect and deceive campaign failing under a barrage of logic and common sense.

reply to post by ANOK


You gotta admit that's an original post. It's not every OSer who calls us crazy...

reply to post by ShaunHatfield

It all boils down to this one statement.



What I am saying is the damage that the building sustained is incapable of producing a symmetrical free-fall implosion, however explosives can produce those things.


How do you know that the damage sustained was "incapable" of causing that sort of collapse??

You don't "know", you assume.. But, that it is fitting, for that is what your group should worship.. The assumption fairy... She blesses people on here daily with a shot of delusion and "facts"....

One of you truthers need to finally ADMIT that the basis for your belief is based on assumptions and connecting the dots.... Exactly how Hellen Keller would... At random!!

First you can't even admit that the collapse of WTC 7 matches up perfectly with a controlled demolition, and then you associate me with Hellen Keller? Was that a lame attempt at humor or are you really that ignorant?

Let me run you through it again, very slowly, step by step, so hopefully you can understand why the damage is incapable of causing that collapse.

OK, so let's assess the damage to the building. Try to keep up, I'm about to show you an image of the damage sustained to the core columns: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f0003de429eb.jpg[/atsimg] OK, see the numbered dots in the center of the building? You must have mixed that up with a connect-the-dots book, but this is actually an image of the location of the steel columns of the building.

What the steel columns do is hold the building up and keep it nice and sturdy, understand? Now, looking at the above image, we can see that the columns that are circled have sustained damage during the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Add to that fires that were scattered randomly throughout the building, and you have a random damage pattern. Now when I say "random", that means the pattern was non-symmetrical, understand? Symmetry is the key term to understand.

Now, for a building to collapse symmetrically, the core columns have to fail symmetrically. If the core columns fail asymmetrically, the building will tilt, fall over sideways, and so on. But, one thing that cannot happen if the core columns fail asymmetrically is a symmetrical collapse. Simple, right?

I'm sure you will find some poor way of refuting this concept, so let's do a thought exercise. You have just successfully built a lego bridge, and you're very proud so you show it to Mommy and Daddy. There are six legs/columns of square legos supporting your bridge. If you pull one of the legs from the end of the bridge out, the lego bridge will not fall straight down, correct? For the lego bridge that you worked very hard on to fall symmetrically, you would have to remove the lego supports symmetrically.

So we have falling debris damage localized to one side of the building, as well as fire damage scattered randomly throughout the building. What Tom Sullivan says here is important, so read it a few times and make sure you understand exactly what he is saying:

We were told by the NIST report that fire caused one column to fail, and from that point we had a global collapse of the building in a classic implosion. I don't see how this could actually happen in real life. [color=limegreen]When we load a building, we have to have all of the support columns on a given load floor fail at the same time, within milliseconds of one another, and therefore the entire building comes down in a synchronized implosion.

OK, so try to visualize what is happening inside of the building: there are fires burning randomly in the building. These fires are heating the core columns, and let's up the ante on the official story and say that the fires were heating the majority of the core columns rather than just one to the point of failure.

So we have most core columns being heated by fire, but for the building to collapse symmetrically, they would have to fail within milliseconds of each other, but lets give your point of view some breathing room and say within 3 seconds of each other.

This means that the fires would have to be fueled by the exact same amount of office furniture on the exact same location of the column burning at the exact same temperature for the exact same amount of time in a symmetrical orientation. A symmerical orientation meaning that if a fire of X degrees is burning on column 80, then a fire of exactly X degrees is burning on column 59 with the above conditions. (Refer to the image of the columns above in case you're lost)

Only with these extremely exaggerated conditions can the core columns fail in such a way that the building collapses symmetrically. The odds of that happening during random office fires are astronomically slim. The odds of explosives performing those tasks during a controlled demolition are 90-100%.

Then, the next thing we're going to look at is the free-fall collapse of the building. We're going to compare two situations, OK? Let's say we take your favorite red bouncy ball and drop it from the top of WTC 7. It would take 6.0 seconds for the bouncy ball to hit the ground in an unimpeded fall to the earth. When I say unimpeded, I mean that it doesn't hit Alladin's magic carpet while it's falling through the air, it falls straight through the air with nothing disturbing it until it contacts the ground.

The collapse of WTC 7 took right around 6.5 seconds. For the building to fall so quickly, that means the mass below that the falling section should impact provides almost no resistance. That means when the upper floors should be hitting the bottom floors, they are actually already moving and the top section doesn't hit them. You can see this in the video of the collapse, the floors stay the same distance from each other but they're all falling towards the ground at the same speed. Compare it to this controlled demolition in which the floors also stay the same distance apart from each other yet are falling towards the earth:

And then we have the fault during the collapse. This is seen in many controlled demolitions, and occurs when the core of the building fails first so that the rest of the building falls inwards rather than making a big mess. That image provided by ANOK illustrates the aftermath of the implosion: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1ebef892c56d.jpg[/atsimg] Here is the debris of other implosions for you to compare: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a81c5ba25f6a.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2faee3143001.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/183bfae6655b.jpg[/atsimg] Here is a video of a controlled demolition that very clearly illustrates a fault:

The building fell symmetrically, it free-fell, and it had a fault indicating a core column failure, all of which are trademarks of controlled demolitions. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ac61a07a46d5.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/10b76f1dd03c.jpg[/atsimg]

Despite your claim, none of those things are assumptions, they are all facts. If you can prove to me how the building didn't fall symmetrically, didn't free-fall, or didn't have a fault, I will be more than willing to look at your evidence. But until then, claiming that I'm making assumptions when I slap you in the face with cold hard facts doesn't disprove anything I'm saying but instead just makes you look stupid.

I hope you enjoyed the condescending tone of this post, because that tone of superiority and arrogance is what most of yours and trebor451's posts contain.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Joey Canoli

 

I see the smear campaign is in full swing.

Obviously due to the deflect and deceive campaign failing under a barrage of logic and common sense.

Uh huh.

Well, as your old signature line stated, you don't really believe what you type here, which is a de facto admission that your goal here is to troll. Therefore, there's no reason to make any kind of reply about the delusional statement about some kind of "campaign".

reply to post by bing0


LOL, it has not been proven by anyone! If it had been proven, there would be a court case right now.. No court case has made past the early stages. Let me guess, all the judges are in on it too? Judges - Demo men - firefighters- newscasters- witnesses... You people have lost touch with reality and logic!

How many people do you think took part in the conspiracy?? 10K?? 20K??

Your "experts" say it would take 40 SKILLED charge placement experts... 3 buildings... That's 120 people.. Then all of the people, including myself, that saw the plane hit the Pentagon, must be in on it too?

USE YOUR HEAD!!! There is no way that 5 people can keep a secret, let alone 1000 people.. The theory that you truthers employ, would take a minimum of 500 people...

reply to post by TupacShakur


First of all... "the damage to the building" How can you assume to know what the damage was?? Were you on those floors? Was there an engineer there to asses the situation? You and your "experts" have an IDEA of how it SHOULD react to the impact.. But you don't know.. You don't know anything.. Your "movement" is completely based on assumptions. PERIOD!

This is ridiculous! You want to believe SO damn bad, that our Govt. did this.. You will twist and skew all the facts and opinions to form fit this little theory that you have.. Its pathetic!

reply to post by ShaunHatfield


why is it so difficult to discuss with you? You start to exaggerate, adding things we don't speak of in this thread. Trying to be an intellectual bully doesn't impress anyone. And i thought you would leave the 9/11 threads alone? I wouldn't mind, cause you seem unable to act in a normal/constructive way