An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T's List of Demolition Signs

Originally posted by pteridine

Would you agree that the planes were sufficient to destroy WTC1 and 2 and all the rest were collateral damage?

No, the towers were designed to absorb mulitple plane hits, you know that.
Is this your first debate.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

You still haven't addressed the point I raised on page 3 in response to an earlier post of yours.

In brief, if the perps went to so much trouble to disguise the alleged cd's of WTC 1 & 2, by flying planes into them, why was no attempt made to disguise the alleged cd of WTC 7 ?

It was only by chance that debris from the North Tower inflicted damage, set fires, and cut off the water supply ; it couldn't have been part of the planning.

So, if it was a cd, are we to assume that the plan was to just blow it up as it stood with no attempt at disguise ?

I never addressed your question because it doesn't really make sense and seem rather rediculous. Why would they go through the trouble of launching planes into the towers if they were already rigged? Do I really need to answer this?

thedman-
And those are words of people in on it, words from the official establishment report... right? In my opinion, the whole basis of truth is compromised, so why would I pay attention to what the skeptical group in all of this has to say?

edit on 27-1-2012 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

They went through the trouble of launching planes into the towers beacuse NOONE in their right mind, would believe that Arabs plotting in caves could possibly have rigged two enormous buildings with explosives, without someone noticing. The owners of the towers on the other hand, had the time and means to do so.
The planes were required to sell the story, BinLaden loading the towers with explosives was so improbable and impossible to foist on the world... they knew that..

reply to post by Tw0Sides


Nope. This is yet another untruth that is spread amongst the many ridiculous "9/11 conspiracy" websites:

No, the towers were designed to absorb mulitple plane hits...

This time, it's elevated to a whole new level...."multiple plane hits"...very creative embellishing, there.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

Nope. This is yet another untruth that is spread amongst the many ridiculous "9/11 conspiracy" websites:

No, the towers were designed to absorb mulitple plane hits...

This time, it's elevated to a whole new level...."multiple plane hits"...very creative embellishing, there.

You say no, but you prove nothing, fail
Give me a little something more, original thought about the multiple hits.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


At no time was there a claim made that a Tower could withstand "multiple hits". What was your source for that?

Now....as to the buildings themselves surviving the initial impacts? They did, obviously. But when some claim designer, architect Minoru Yamasaki intentionally accounted for the impact of a Boeing 707 sized airplane, there is a bit of Public Relations at work, that was spun out back in the early days of the controversy over those buildings.

In any case, even for the B-707 (largest jet of the time, similar to a DC-8 as well) the impact would NOT have been at around 500 MPH! The amount of force due kinetic energy and momentum is vastly higher due to those speeds seen on 9/11.

Finally.....any envisioned "impact" scenario only looked at the damage and structural compromises from that....not the ensuing fires.

Had there been no fire, then those Towers probably not have collapsed.

Even though the towers were built to withstand the impact of a jetliner, they were not designed to withstand and remain standing during a fire of such great magnitude. The jet-fuel fire caused by the impact was impossible to contain in the Twin Towers. The World Trade Center had not been designed to fight hydrocarbon fires of such magnitude and high temperature – up to 1500 degrees Celsius. The fire-suppression system consisted of water sprinklers that were useless because water, at this temperature, would vaporize almost instantly. Instead, these fires had to be fought with chemical foam, which the Towers lacked (Ashley 2001).


The fireproofing system in the Towers was also insufficient. First, the Towers were lightweight because of their extensive use of steel and were devoid of masonry or concrete which made them difficult to insulate from the fire. Second, a more sophisticated fireproofing system could have been incorporated during the building process. Most of the supports and trusses could have been coated with extra fire proofing material (Ashley 2001). Third, the World Trade Center incorporated a novel, yet very flammable, elevator system (Wilkinson 2002). The engineers worried that, without masonry, the conventional elevator shafts would buckle and collapse with the intense air pressure exerted by the high speed elevators. To solve this problem the engineers used a drywall/plaster system fixed to a reinforced steel core; this made the shafts more flexible though much more flammable (Wilkinson 2002).

If the World Trade Center Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner...

reply to post by ProudBird


What is the source of your content please.
i like to check links, its a quirk.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

At no time was there a claim made that a Tower could withstand "multiple hits". What was your source for that?

Why would you need a source?

If you understood engineering and design you would understand why the steel mesh could have multiple holes in it without it collapsing.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by pteridine

Would you agree that the planes were sufficient to destroy WTC1 and 2 and all the rest were collateral damage?

No, the towers were designed to absorb mulitple plane hits, you know that.
Is this your first debate.

Cars are designed to be safe in collisions, too, but there are still casualties aren't there? The rumor that the towers were designed to 'absorb mulitple plane hits' is unsubstantiated and is more of a 'truther legend.'
You know that.

Is this your first debate?

Originally posted by PrecogPsychicSensitive
They went through the trouble of launching planes into the towers beacuse NOONE in their right mind, would believe that Arabs plotting in caves could possibly have rigged two enormous buildings with explosives, without someone noticing. The owners of the towers on the other hand, had the time and means to do so.
The planes were required to sell the story, BinLaden loading the towers with explosives was so improbable and impossible to foist on the world... they knew that..

Interestingly, on February 26, 1993 no one did notice until a 600kg truck bomb exploded in a garage under the North Tower. How improbable was that? en.wikipedia.org...

If the owners did demolish WTC 1&2 after the impacts, using the planes as cover, then all other buildings not impacted must be collateral damage of the collapse, right?

reply to post by ANOK


Oh for Pete's sake!!:

...you would understand why the steel mesh could have multiple holes in it without it collapsing.

Sorry, but that is irrelevant here. Can't believe anyone wrote that in seriousness.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


Each tower was designed to resist a lateral force of 45 lbs per foot. Calculated over the entire face of the
building is some 13 million pounds of force. Adding in a safety margin of 30 % meant each building
could resist a force of 17 million pounds.

The designers calculated that a plane striking the building would not exceed the safety margins and topple
over the building or shear off the top

That was one plane....

The other factor was the resulting fire from the fuel. The designers realized would create a massive fire
yet failed to consider the consequences of such a fire

Also failed to consider effects of the impact on other building systems - that the elevators would be rendered
non operational preventing FF from reaching the impact. That the impact would destroy the standpipes
delivering water for the FF. Ot that the stairways would be blocked preventing occupants from escaping.

The calculations are from the book "CITY IB THE SKY: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center"

Originally posted by ANOK
If you understood engineering and design you would understand why the steel mesh could have multiple holes in it without it collapsing.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

You still haven't addressed the point I raised on page 3 in response to an earlier post of yours.

In brief, if the perps went to so much trouble to disguise the alleged cd's of WTC 1 & 2, by flying planes into them, why was no attempt made to disguise the alleged cd of WTC 7 ?

It was only by chance that debris from the North Tower inflicted damage, set fires, and cut off the water supply ; it couldn't have been part of the planning.

So, if it was a cd, are we to assume that the plan was to just blow it up as it stood with no attempt at disguise ?

I never addressed your question because it doesn't really make sense and seem rather rediculous. Why would they go through the trouble of launching planes into the towers if they were already rigged? Do I really need to answer this?

Are you saying the Towers were not rigged for cd ?

You say you think WTC 7 was so rigged so what was the plan ? The damage inflicted by the falling North Tower was a chance happening, so was the plan just to blow it up as it stood in broad daylight ? Seem likely to you ?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

You still haven't addressed the point I raised on page 3 in response to an earlier post of yours.

In brief, if the perps went to so much trouble to disguise the alleged cd's of WTC 1 & 2, by flying planes into them, why was no attempt made to disguise the alleged cd of WTC 7 ?

The TSA is said to have 'authority' over the travelling public in the United States. If you study the information indicating the United States referred to is actually a corporation and that authority only exists with consent there is a lot in the previous sentence that can be dismissed. However many people imagine the United States is a place and authority is a fact of life so a body like the TSA is actually something relevant to their lives.

The word according to Wikipedia is "The TSA was created in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks." This is presumably because passenger aircraft are part of the 9/11 story. A big part. Without the planes no TSA. Without the TSA no centralised 'authority' over the travelling public in the 'United States'. How many of you love the TSA? And why would that be? Because of their behaviour? Historically where have we seen this behaviour before?

The use of planes has given an excuse for the TSA. Two in Manhattan was sufficient for that purpose.

To answer one of the points made by GenRadek, he's correct in saying the BBC reporter is just a reader/speaker with little knowledge of the subjects she addresses. However the BBC clearly knew the Salomon Brothers building was a 47 storey building "close to the World Trade Centre" as shown in this video at 2 minutes 7 seconds. This narrows down its identity considerably.

reply to post by Kester


Thanks for your description of the TSA but I don't find it helps answer my question as to why the perps made extravagant arrangements to disguise cd of WTC 1 & 2 and made no provision for WTC 7.

If WTC 7 had not by chance been clobbered by the North Tower collapse the perps would have been faced with just blowing it up as it stood, 100% intact. Doesn't make any sense to me and I am sure it wouldn't to any perp anxious to avoid firing squad, electric chair, you name it.

With regard to the premature BBC report of WTC 7's demise I am amazed that this is frequently brought forward as if of some significance. The BBC say they got an incorrect report from Reuters that the building had gone. One of many false reports from that day but with the excuse that the collapse had been expected most of the afternoon.

What is the alternative ? that the Perps thought it a good idea to give a foreign news outlet a script ? Isn't that quite mad ?

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I never addressed your question because it doesn't really make sense and seem rather rediculous. Why would they go through the trouble of launching planes into the towers if they were already rigged? Do I really need to answer this?

Would you agree that the planes were sufficient to destroy WTC1 and 2 and all the rest were collateral damage?

Nope. If the planes were sufficient to destroy the buildings they hit, then it would have happened immediately. Instead, we are told that the plane fuel (that burned up on impact) seeped all the way down the towers, melting the main steel support structure until the whole building managed to collapse in on itself.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Nope. If the planes were sufficient to destroy the buildings they hit, then it would have happened immediately. Instead, we are told that the plane fuel (that burned up on impact) seeped all the way down the towers, melting the main steel support structure until the whole building managed to collapse in on itself.

What happened was that the fires started by the impacts did not 'melt' anything but only weakened the steel structure. The structures were already compromised by the planes and failed at the impact points. No demolitions needed.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Kester

 

Thanks for your description of the TSA but I don't find it helps answer my question as to why the perps made extravagant arrangements to disguise cd of WTC 1 & 2 and made no provision for WTC 7.

If WTC 7 had not by chance been clobbered by the North Tower collapse the perps would have been faced with just blowing it up as it stood, 100% intact. Doesn't make any sense to me and I am sure it wouldn't to any perp anxious to avoid firing squad, electric chair, you name it.

With regard to the premature BBC report of WTC 7's demise I am amazed that this is frequently brought forward as if of some significance. The BBC say they got an incorrect report from Reuters that the building had gone. One of many false reports from that day but with the excuse that the collapse had been expected most of the afternoon.

What is the alternative ? that the Perps thought it a good idea to give a foreign news outlet a script ? Isn't that quite mad ?

I can't see how we can do anything other than speculate what the perps motives for various actions were. I prefer to stick with evidence. Going out on a limb with speculation carries the certainty of creative discussion not necessarily leading to an improvement in public safety.

I cannot defend my speculation that both towers failed to detonate on impact, the resulting delays giving us the immense amount of photographic and video evidence so useful to all of us regardless of our position. Building 7 was intended to be felled under cover of 1 and 2s destruction. The catastrophic double detonation failure left the whole plan in chaos and orders were eventually given to drop building 7 and just leave it out of the story as far as possible, as evidenced by the general lack of knowledge that led to the 'Building What?' campaign. The pentagon wall also failed to fall as planned again giving useful photographic evidence. My speculation obviously puts me at odds with the majority of viewpoints and contradicts the often expressed view that it was or should have been an efficient operation. I cannot defend my speculation and will make no attempt to do so.

My point regarding the BBC report is that while Jane Standley clearly didn't know what she was talking about the BBC most likely did. I don't see any real significance in that report, far more damming evidence exists, physical, photographic and video. Having grown up with the BBC as background noise I can't take anything they say seriously.

It can be said with certainty that the TSA exist because planes were used on 9/11. The TSA are deeply unpopular due to their behaviour and we have seen historically where such behaviour leads to if isn't pulled up short. Rather than waste my words on fruitless speculation I would ask every American to crush the TSA.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Doesn't make any sense to me and I am sure it wouldn't to any perp anxious to avoid firing squad, electric chair, you name it.

When the bankers and war profiteers fear execution the 9/11 perps will also. As things stand they are suffering from the delusion that they are on the whole protected from justice. As the tide turns their bodyguards will realise their own path to safety lies in reversing their role.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I never addressed your question because it doesn't really make sense and seem rather rediculous. Why would they go through the trouble of launching planes into the towers if they were already rigged? Do I really need to answer this?

Would you agree that the planes were sufficient to destroy WTC1 and 2 and all the rest were collateral damage?

Nope. If the planes were sufficient to destroy the buildings they hit, then it would have happened immediately. Instead, we are told that the plane fuel (that burned up on impact) seeped all the way down the towers, melting the main steel support structure until the whole building managed to collapse in on itself.

You are not very consistent. On page 3 you said "Why would they go through the trouble of launching planes into the towers if they were already rigged ?" The obvious inference being that the towers were not rigged for cd.

But now, you are suggesting the planes were insufficient to cause collapse so the obvious inference is that you think they were cd's.

Which is it ? or do you just flip flop as the mood takes you ?