How fast can you wire a building to blow up?

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

"http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80331&page=1#.T57VjLNSTwM"

"Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all we had hoped for," the translation reads."- Osama bin Laden

"bin Laden" never expected the towers to fall.

So if his "experience in the field" told him how many tons of steel were in the vicinity of the fire why don't we have the data now?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So if his "experience in the field" told him how many tons of steel were in the vicinity of the fire why don't we have the data now?

We do. Its in the NIST report. Someday you should sit down and give it a good read.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So if his "experience in the field" told him how many tons of steel were in the vicinity of the fire why don't we have the data now?

We do. Its in the NIST report. Someday you should sit down and give it a good read.

Oh yeah, the one that you READ and CLAIM has the total for the concrete but you can't tell us because keeping the secrete shows how smart you are.

psik

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by homervb

 

The U.S. government (not the military) is killing innocent people. The CIA has coined the term "bug splat" for a drone strike in which a multitude of innocent humans are killed along with someone who they think is a terrorist. It doesn't have to be confirmed.

And you think that the death of innocent people in war is something new? Really. Its been a reality for centuries.

War? I don't remember the US declaring war on any other countries besides Iraq (which turned out to be a completely fabricated pretense aka the Al-Qaeda/Iraq connection) And if this was war then the military would be doing this not the CIA.

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed [ Washington Post ]

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

9/11 terrorists’ connection to Saudis is being hidden, says former commission chief

Former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who co-chaired the 9/11 commission, claims there is more to the hijacker’s so-called Sarasota connection than the FBI is letting on. Graham says classified FBI documents he’s seen contradict the agency’s public pronouncement that there was no sinister link between the terrorists and a Saudi couple that mysteriously fled the U.S. just weeks before the terror attacks. “There are significant inconsistencies between the public statements of the FBI in September and what I read in the classified documents,” Graham told MSNBC.

Does anyone not see a problem with this?

Originally posted by homervb



Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed [ Washington Post ]

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

So the guys who managed to keep secret a gigantic public mass murder involving hijackings, bombs, missiles, stock shorting and a ton of other insanely sensitive information were unable to plant some fake WMDs? I find that hard to believe.

9/11 terrorists’ connection to Saudis is being hidden, says former commission chief

Former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who co-chaired the 9/11 commission, claims there is more to the hijacker’s so-called Sarasota connection than the FBI is letting on. Graham says classified FBI documents he’s seen contradict the agency’s public pronouncement that there was no sinister link between the terrorists and a Saudi couple that mysteriously fled the U.S. just weeks before the terror attacks. “There are significant inconsistencies between the public statements of the FBI in September and what I read in the classified documents,” Graham told MSNBC.

Does anyone not see a problem with this?

edit on 1-5-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)

I do. But it's not that surprising to me that a load of Saudi hijackers whose boss was a Saudi Arabian would have connections to Saudi Arabia. It's also not surprising to me - although it is worrying - that the authorities would cover up that connection, given the USA's relationship with SA. What this has to do with anything Truthers have ever said I'm not sure.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


concrete...lol...still....how about alot...a #load...there was a #load of concrete. But do you know what there was none of...not one bit......explosives.

reply to post by esdad71


I think psk's big problem is how the building could chew itself to the ground not the mythical explosives.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

concrete...lol...still....how about alot...a #load...there was a #load of concrete. But do you know what there was none of...not one bit......explosives.

So I guess the NIST cannot be more specific than a sh#load. Very scientific.

But however much concrete there was the steel had to be properly distributed to support it. That is an unavoidable consequence of the buildings standing for 28 years.

So why don't we have a good and COMPLETE explanation of how they could be totally destroyed as a result of impacts by airliners of less than 200 tons? One concrete slab outside of the core was 600 tons though we hardly ever hear that. We never hear what the trusses and corrugated pans weighed. It is certainly interesting that the nation that put men on the Moon can't resolve a grade school physics problem.

I haven't even heard David Chandler discuss the significance of the weight distribution though the NIST said in three places that the info was needed to analyze the impacts. Curious contradictions here.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

It is certainly interesting that the nation that put men on the Moon can't resolve a grade school physics problem.

They did. You just didn't get the call.

I'll bet you can find thos same trusses online and get the weight yourself. And the corrigated pans are standard for the industry so they shouldn't be a problem either.

But what would you do with the weights if you had them??

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

It is certainly interesting that the nation that put men on the Moon can't resolve a grade school physics problem.

They did. You just didn't get the call.

I'll bet you can find thos same trusses online and get the weight yourself. And the corrigated pans are standard for the industry so they shouldn't be a problem either.

But what would you do with the weights if you had them??

The usual drivel. You can't find it either but we are supposed to regard this farce as SCIENTIFIC.

psik

reply to post by hooper

We do. Its in the NIST report. Someday you should sit down and give it a good read.

What, all 10,000 pages? It'll take me at least 3 years. Have you read it all? Be honest, now.

reply to post by Nathan-D

What, all 10,000 pages? It'll take me at least 3 years. Have you read it all? Be honest, now.[/quote
No, not all of it. Lot of stuff about fire and smoke protection and occupant evacuation. However, please bear in mind that I am not running around saying its all lies and that certain information is or is not contained in a report that I have not read.

And so what if it is 10000 pages? If you think its important than it should be required, particularly if you've formed the opinion that its all lies. Most of the drafts have been around since 2005. That's seven years.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Nathan-D

 

What, all 10,000 pages? It'll take me at least 3 years. Have you read it all? Be honest, now.[/quote
No, not all of it. Lot of stuff about fire and smoke protection and occupant evacuation. However, please bear in mind that I am not running around saying its all lies and that certain information is or is not contained in a report that I have not read.

And so what if it is 10000 pages? If you think its important than it should be required, particularly if you've formed the opinion that its all lies. Most of the drafts have been around since 2005. That's seven years.

ROFL

You are just telling people that it is impossible to search a document in electronic form for a simple word and then read the vicinity of that word for specific information. So tell us the total for the concrete and where it is.

I have been saying it ain't there fore about 5 years. Not one person has has proven me wrong by saying where it is. And Gregory Urich is the only person I know who claims to have read the whole thing and seems to have an encyclopedic knowledge about it to give the impression that he is telling the truth. And he admit the he did an interpolation of the perimeter steel so the document sucks.

Where was the center of mass of the top block of the south tower?

psik