Some WTC History You Might Not Know

Originally posted by septic

The simplest explanation is they weren't there to begin with...just as occurs in every conventional demolition

Again WTC was not a conventional demolition. How many times does that have to be said?



You wonder why we stick to the same old arguments, because anything else is nothing but speculation, and speculation is not evidence of anything, it's people making stuff up and hoping other posters agree with them.
It seems these debates are not about facts and truth anymore, but about people wanting their egos stroked.

Maybe you just don't realise it, but the only real obvious evidence we have that we have been lied to, for whatever reason, is in the physics of the collapses.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by septic

The simplest explanation is they weren't there to begin with...just as occurs in every conventional demolition

Again WTC was not a conventional demotion. How many times does that have to be said?

It was demolished using conventional means. If that doesn't fit your definition of conventional demolition, pardon the misunderstanding.

Originally posted by septic

It was demolished using conventional means. If that doesn't fit your definition of conventional demolition, pardon the misunderstanding.

What are 'conventional means'?

But regardless you calling it 'conventional' doesn't prove your point, and you have no proof conventional methods were used anyway.

I think you are a closest OSer, you use the same stupid semantics arguments they do.

reply to post by ANOK

You wonder why we stick to the same old arguments, because anything else is nothing but speculation, and speculation is not evidence of anything, it's people making stuff up and hoping other posters agree with them.
It seems these debates are not about facts and truth anymore, but about people wanting their egos stroked.

Maybe you just don't realise it, but the only real obvious evidence we have that we have been lied to, for whatever reason, is in the physics of the collapses.

Your speculation runs rampant! You speculate videos are genuine and not tampered-with; based on the statements from the most likely suspects, you assume the buildings were completed and all floors were in place AND occupied at the time of destruction; you disregard anything that doesn't suit your presumptions and rely on physics calculations based on pure speculation.

If you weren't so dead sure of yourself, you might be able to use your physics to calculate what rate of collapse would have occurred had the towers been mostly pre-demolished and empty. You might consider the astonishing lack of floor contents in the debris pile as a supporting piece of evidence for the hypothesis that the buildings were empty. You might consider the lack of bodies to be a further piece of supporting evidence. You might envision the dust cloud erupting from the very top as further supporting evidence that something is amiss with your physics assumptions.

You seem content with arguing physics, not searching for answers.

Originally posted by septic

Your speculation runs rampant! You speculate videos are genuine and not tampered-with; based on the statements from the most likely suspects, you assume the buildings were completed and all floors were in place AND occupied at the time of destruction; you disregard anything that doesn't suit your presumptions and rely on physics calculations based on pure speculation.

Oh of course the videos had to be tampered with...

If you weren't so dead sure of yourself, you might be able to use your physics to calculate what rate of collapse would have occurred had the towers been mostly pre-demolished and empty.

No I couldn't lol. Again what is the point? I don't need calculations to know a smaller mass can not crush a larger mass. If you think you do than you don't know enough about the subject.

Do you not get it that to do calculations you need more information than what is known? Without knowing what pressure the structural components were rated for there is no way to do any calculations, do you not understand that? You can't simply say the falling mass had X amount of force without also including the amount of pressure the comments could withstand before failure. That is what the 'safety factor' is all about, how much pressure a component will stand before failure. Unless you know that then doing any calculations will not replicate reality.

Safety factor is the structural strength divided by the minimum structural strength required. The greater the safety factor, the lower the likelihood of structural failure and the more stress cycles the structure can take.

www.members.axion.net...

Originally posted by ANOK

What are 'conventional means'?

But regardless you calling it 'conventional' doesn't prove your point, and you have no proof conventional methods were used anyway.

I think you are a closest OSer, you use the same stupid semantics arguments they do.

Conventional means means what it means. Conventional means used to demolish large buildings. Largely dismantled of all non-attached items...appliances, office contents, bathroom fixtures, plumbing, desks, partitions, etc.

What do you mean I have no proof conventional methods were used anyway? Why would I think anything else was used? What would proof of "non conventional" means look like? To you anyway.

I don't really care what you think of me, or the "stupid semantics" you are projecting on me.

Originally posted by ANOK

Oh of course the videos had to be tampered with...

Still assuming I see. Some people just need to believe.

Do you not get it that to do calculations you need more information than what is known? Without knowing what pressure the structural components were rated for there is no way to do any calculations, do you not understand that?

So how can you be so sure your beginning figures are accurate for any of your calculations? They are provided by the prime suspects, the Port Authority which is a "paramilitary engineering" outfit who were laws unto themselves and had every reason to provide false information.

reply to post by ANOK


My apologies for my testy attitude. I get jaded and jumpy out here on my limb.

I do believe the simplest way to explain the dust and lack of building contents is that the dust was the camouflage, and the contents weren't there at the time.

Some of the video is indeed tampered with, but not all of it (IMHO).

If I had the financial means and the need to try to fake a terrorist attack on buildings that needed to be completely demolished, I would try find a way to obscure the event as much as possible. I believe the jet images to be fake, but the collapse images to be mostly genuine, but that they show the buildings were empty and probably packed not just with explosives but lots of concrete dust on what floors remained.

Laugh if you like, but it's a lot more realistic than a little kerosene disintegrating the contents of 220 floors, and it would use completely conventional means. It would require a much bigger criminal network at the top than what people are comfortable with, but for me it's the simplest explanation.

reply to post by septic


Observe:



A small portion of this building collapses during non-explosive demolition, and it generates tons of dust as it crashes down. Drywall dust, most likely.

Do you remember how much drywall, sheet rock, and fireproofing there was throughout the WTC? A whole lot.

Here's some information on how much effort goes into dust suppression in regular demolitions. Companies aren't allowed to demolish without it:

www.erosioncontrol.com...

dustboss.com...

www.osti.gov...

Just spreading what should be common sense. Thanks for reading.

reply to post by Varemia


It's a concrete building.

Notice all the furniture and fixtures by the way? No? That's because the building was stripped for demolition.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia

 

It's a concrete building.

Notice all the furniture and fixtures by the way? No? That's because the building was stripped for demolition.

So you're denying that every floor had tons of concrete, drywall, sheetrock, and fireproofing in the WTC? This is common knowledge. The fireproofing was powdery stuff by itself, which you would be able to break off and crumble like ash. Gypsum board would create massive amounts of dust, and the columns were each insulated by this.

You can't say this didn't exist. This is fact.

reply to post by Varemia


Apples to oranges.

If you're saying the contents were there but can't be seen through the dust, I disagree. I think the contents weren't there but can't be seen through the dust.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia

 

Apples to oranges.

If you're saying the contents were there but can't be seen through the dust, I disagree. I think the contents weren't there but can't be seen through the dust.

edit on 24-10-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)

But you don't know for sure. I have photos, radio transmissions from before collapse, videos, witness testimonies, firefighters trapped in the rubble, and more.

You have speculation at best. This is no basis for an argument.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia

 

Apples to oranges.

If you're saying the contents were there but can't be seen through the dust, I disagree. I think the contents weren't there but can't be seen through the dust.

edit on 24-10-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)

But you don't know for sure. I have photos, radio transmissions from before collapse, videos, witness testimonies, firefighters trapped in the rubble, and more.

You have speculation at best. This is no basis for an argument.

I'm not impressed with repeating the propaganda; It is to be expected.

After examining all the evidence I can find and eliminating the impossible as best as possible, this is my conclusion. It was a "state" demolition of a ridiculously large NY tourist trap that was as flawed as the men who built it.

Originally posted by Varemia

So you're denying that every floor had tons of concrete, drywall, sheetrock, and fireproofing in the WTC? This is common knowledge.

Yes it had tons of concrete, that turned to dust along with your Sheetrock.

There is no way there was enough Sheetrock to cover lower Manhattan.

But you are ignoring the fact that the dust was analyzed and found to be, concrete, aluminum and iron particles, body parts, office contents. In fact all the contents of the building was in that dust, not just sheet rock.

Where in you collection of vid and pics do you see anything from the towers other than steel and dust?

Originally posted by septic
I'm not impressed with repeating the propaganda; It is to be expected.

After examining all the evidence I can find and eliminating the impossible as best as possible, this is my conclusion. It was a "state" demolition of a ridiculously large NY tourist trap that was as flawed as the men who built it.

Propaganda? What planet is this? You can't know impossibilities unless you run objective tests to prove what can and can't happen. Ever watched mythbusters before? They often encounter results completely the opposite to what they expect to see.

Originally posted by Varemia

Propaganda? What planet is this? You can't know impossibilities unless you run objective tests to prove what can and can't happen. Ever watched mythbusters before? They often encounter results completely the opposite to what they expect to see.

Speaking of propaganda...here's mythbusters.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by ANOK

 

My apologies for my testy attitude. I get jaded and jumpy out here on my limb.

Hey, no prob so do I.

I do believe the simplest way to explain the dust and lack of building contents is that the dust was the camouflage, and the contents weren't there at the time.

Well again I can't agree with that assessment, as I see no need for them to have gone to that trouble, and it would have been so obvious people would have mentioned it.

Some of the video is indeed tampered with, but not all of it (IMHO).

Not sure about that either, seems every time someone claims fake is because it contradicts their claims.
Video manipulation is not that easy to do and usually leaves obvious signs of it.

Laugh if you like, but it's a lot more realistic than a little kerosene disintegrating the contents of 220 floors, and it would use completely conventional means. It would require a much bigger criminal network at the top than what people are comfortable with, but for me it's the simplest explanation.

That is true, but for it to have been a 'controlled demo', the internals would not have to be removed so I don't see your point on that? It was obvioulsy a controlled demo but there would be no reason to empty the building to do that. In fact there would no reason to follow any conventional demolition methods, such as pre-weakening columns etc. Plant enough 'explosives' on the core and the tower would collapse, they didn't need to control the collapse itself to fall in any particular direction like they do with conventional collapses.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Varemia

So you're denying that every floor had tons of concrete, drywall, sheetrock, and fireproofing in the WTC? This is common knowledge.

Yes it had tons of concrete, that turned to dust along with your Sheetrock.

There is no way there was enough Sheetrock to cover lower Manhattan.

But you are ignoring the fact that the dust was analyzed and found to be, concrete, aluminum and iron particles, body parts, office contents. In fact all the contents of the building was in that dust, not just sheet rock.

Where in you collection of vid and pics do you see anything from the towers other than steel and dust?

You're ignoring a lot of other facts, such as not having a source for a lot of what you say here. Yes, there were metal particles found in the dust. It's expected. Metal will shed. Paint has metal in it, and it breaks into little pieces which can be carried by the dust.

Also, don't forget all the gypsum board and fireproofing. That made up a significant amount of the dust. Only a third of it was pulverized concrete.

These survivors were pinned by a concrete wall. How do you explain that:

www.usatoday.com...

reply to post by ANOK

Well again I can't agree with that assessment, as I see no need for them to have gone to that trouble, and it would have been so obvious people would have mentioned it.

heh...I didn't expect it to be accepted, but again, there's a big assumption that someone would have mentioned it. If it was the CIA's project, I sincerely doubt it would be mentioned, and if mentioned, who would believe it? I imagine the reaction would be similar to yours.

That is true, but for it to have been a 'controlled demo', the internals would not have to be removed so I don't see your point on that? It was obvioulsy a controlled demo but there would be no reason to empty the building to do that. In fact there would no reason to follow any conventional demolition methods, such as pre-weakening columns etc. Plant enough 'explosives' on the core and the tower would collapse, they didn't need to control the collapse itself to fall in any particular direction like they do with conventional collapses.

They needed to remove the contents or it would have become shrapnel, and it's much easier to reach the structural areas to plant the cutting charges when the buildings are gutted. This is why every building that is demolished is gutted first...it's also part of the way the demolition companies make money, by recycling the contents. This would have required years to accomplish, and could not be done under the prying eyes of the tenants. The CIA is famous for creating brass plate companies, blah, blah, blah...

Because they didn't burst into chunks and dust punctuated with a few thousand desks, dividers, urinals, stoves, cubicles and people, I surmise the above contents weren't there, and to hide that fact, they created a literal smoke screen. Even you can admit the dust cloud was WAAAY too big to account for the concrete that was in the building, To cover Manhattan like that? The result of the dust was to create a smokescreen, and I believe that was the intent.