Invitation to post for lurkers

reply to post by maxella1


No, because NIST didn't fake their data. They don't just look at pictures and declare that things look similar. They did the math and calculated it.

Funny thing you should post a video showing both simulations they did. The first one showed their simulation of the building collapse, had there been no damage to the building, but somehow failed from the same point. The second one is their simulation with the damage taken into account. Notice how the building seems to be crumpling where there is an 8 story gap in the corner? (We have pictures of it, by the way, so you cannot deny it) Remember how there was 8 stories of "free-fall?"

It's nice when the facts fit together and make sense.

reply to post by GenRadek

You should also read up on the accounts from inside the towers, and the reports of structural integrity loss.

Minutes after the south tower collapsed at the World Trade Center, police helicopters hovered near the remaining tower to check its condition. "About 15 floors down from the top, it looks like it's glowing red," the pilot of one helicopter, Aviation 14, radioed at 10:07 a.m. "It's inevitable."

Wasn't there fire 15 floors down from the top?

Where is the part about the glowing red columns ?

(I.E. NYPD helicopter pilots reporting the columns at the WTC impact areas were glowing red from the fires and looked like they were going to collapse).

How could the pilots see columns?

Also they reported that a large piece of the south tower looked like it was about to FALL .... ( To drop or come down freely under the influence of gravity.) Little did they know that in 4 minutes the tower was going to take that piece and commit suicide with it.

NYPD aviation did not foresee the collapse of the South Tower, though at 9:55 a.m., four minutes before the collapse, a helicopter pilot radioed that a large piece of the South Tower looked like it was about to fall.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by NWOwned

 

I'm sure that what im about to ask has been discussed here before but honestly I never paid any attention to it.

Can you briefly explain to me what does it mean if the video if faked? Were there anything that flew into the building at all? Was it a plane just not the one they say? Or was it missile?

Basically what I don't understand is what exactly does it change besides that it's a fake video? I can believe that it's fake since most of the OS is fake I just don't get get why it matters because there is so much of other things that disproves the OS. Unless you're saying that there were nothing flying into the buildings at all because if you are that would mean that all of the people who heard and saw planes with their own eyes and ears were tripping on drugs or something like that.

edit on 10-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Thanks for responding.

Well for starters to me it is Proof of Deception.

What do I mean by that and why is that important to me? I'll try and explain.

When I seen the towers come completely down on 9/11 I immediately thought 'something was up'. But what proof did I have? For anyone who thinks something is up with 9/11 what proof do they really have?

I have found that sometimes even though you know or suspect something is up without a shred of evidence to back up that scenario you can become tired and disillusioned over the whole thing and it can be frustrating. It can be frustrating to feel something is up in your mind and your bones but everything shown and said about it seems to go lockstep against this.

Now a lot of people "KNOW" and will say something is up with 9/11. A lot of people say, "9/11 is an inside job!" And things like, "Just look at building seven..." Or things like, "The laws of physics obviously took a vacation on 9/11."

All these things are nice to think and promote but it's the same problem I was having. Thinking it's a certain way and proving it is that way, well there's a gap there. And the gap can affect your conviction. So personally I wanted to find one or two things that proved something was up with 9/11 (just as I had suspected) that would move me out of frustration and into a greater conviction.

To me it's like a thread to pull, like a break in a dam, like the movie Predator: "If it bleeds, we can kill it."

So Proof of Deception generally, globally, means to me like Grand Jury level strong inference of guilt.

Let's say the Naudet clip is faked or fraudulent. Why is it? Why would it be? Indeed, (as you ask) what does it mean?

Dave, for instance, supports the official story while claiming there really is no "official story" but everyone can agree I think that the 'story' is that a Boeing 767 went headfirst into the North Tower, that's the generally accepted tale etc. Further to that, the 'jet fuel' (and damage from the 'plane') and fire acted on the tower structure and contents and eventually collapsed it to the ground. That's another part of the 'story'.

I say, "Wait a minute... Can you prove a plane went in there? Because I have evidence that shows one didn't." (The clip may be faked but what it proves as it now is is that no 767 crashed in there. Check my other recent posts and reasoning to see if you agree.)

And that of course means no 'jet fuel' or damage from a 'plane'.

If the first bit of that story about flight 11 is true and if the Naudet clip shows what it has been promoted to actually show then why does it show what it does? Why does what it shows not match the story we've been sold?

I made the comment in another post that I think it's great what the Naudet clip shows doesn't fit the "official story" because it's a semi-official video from the day, used to promote and uphold the official tale. If it doesn't show what it should then that either means that a 767 didn't crash in there (which is what it actually shows - see my other recent posts) OR the Naudet clip is in some way fraudulent and 'faked'.

To me, EITHER WAY that Proves Deception.

And that's what I was really aiming for, proof of deception. In the Grand Jury strong inference of guilt kind of way.

It would be like, "Let's gather up all these 'witnesses' and show them what we found by closely examining the Naudet clip and see if any of them might want to change their story any..." "Let's sit Naudet down and ask him why his little clip don't look like it should if a real 767 went in there..." "Let's look at all the Naudet footage now because him and his brother were all over 9/11 and all his other 'work' now comes into question..." "In fact, this little 'impossibility' throws ALL of 9/11 into question, every tiny miniscule bit..."

So I've upgraded myself you see, from a nagging suspicion of doubt about 9/11 to more like a "licence to doubt."


Cheers

reply to post by NWOwned

I made the comment in another post that I think it's great what the Naudet clip shows doesn't fit the "official story" because it's a semi-official video from the day, used to promote and uphold the official tale. If it doesn't show what it should then that either means that a 767 didn't crash in there (which is what it actually shows - see my other recent posts) OR the Naudet clip is in some way fraudulent and 'faked'.

Do you think that it was something else that crashed, or are you saying that nothing at all crashed into the buildings?

i have never believed the official story. i do believe the basics of it though. i think four planes did crash. i dont think it was possible for building 7 to fall at basically free fall speed which defies physics. the 911 commission reports that someone on the 106th floor of the south tower had said that a floor 'somewhere in the 90's' was crumbling in a 911 call, which the operator mistakenly reported as being the 106th floor that was crumbling. govinfo.library.unt.edu... were people from the 90th floors calling this person and telling them that floors were collapsing? i dont know how you would be able to discern what floors were crumbling. this was supposedly at 9:37 and the tower collapsed at 9:58:59. why does the commission say the tower collapsed in ten seconds when ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN EVIDENCE the tower supposedly started collapsing at 9:37.

a reply to: blondegiraffe

I am having difficulty using this site how do you just post a statement without quoting?

Bottom right of the page, directly to the right of the page numbers, is a filled in bubble that says REPLY.

You're welcome

a reply to: exponent

The WATS requirement as well as constant derailment of OP topics certainly made me stay away from these forums. I was once heavily involved in some discussions here only to find that they always went past the point of reason, devolving into personal attacks and highly emotional perspectives.

honestly exponent, I just think that's part of the phenomenon here. something about this event is *not over yet,* as it clearly still presents massive cognitive dissonance between otherwise like minded people.

with respects to the twin towers specifically, it's important to keep basic Newtonian principles in mind. momentum, path of least resistance, the relationship between kinetic vs. potential energy.. this boils down to science, so in my conversations with people on the topic, this is always my main focus.

I do think it is possible to reach a consensus on this issue for the vast majority of people - we just need to get past our own barriers of perception on the issue.

simply put, ~30 floors will never have enough kinetic energy to "pulverize" through ~80 floors of thicker reinforced steel. in addition, the lack of building material after the dust settled is staggering, and was bothersome to mainstream reporters on the day of as well. this is where the "pulverized" concept came from, and it's completely wrong.

hard and committed statements like these are often met with vigorous contention, however it's most important to be confident in the facts at hand these days.

should the requirements change, I have MUCH material to review & discuss.

a reply to: facedye

simply put, ~30 floors will never have enough kinetic energy to "pulverize" through ~80 floors of thicker reinforced steel.

Clearly you haven't looked at unique way they built WTC.
There wasn't "thicker reinforced steel" below.
Just cheap floor trusses supported at the two ends.
Any weight heavy enough to bust through one floor would continue through each floor below.
That's the flaw in the design and why no other sky scraper will be built like WTC.

a reply to: exponent

There's a large hurricane off the coast of NYC this Labor Day weekend! So should I be afraid of another terrorist attack? Doesn't Judy Woods relate the hurricane off the coast of NYC to some fantasy weapon????

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: facedye

simply put, ~30 floors will never have enough kinetic energy to "pulverize" through ~80 floors of thicker reinforced steel.

Clearly you haven't looked at unique way they built WTC.
There wasn't "thicker reinforced steel" below.
Just cheap floor trusses supported at the two ends.
Any weight heavy enough to bust through one floor would continue through each floor below.
That's the flaw in the design and why no other sky scraper will be built like WTC.

I have looked at the unique way they built the WTC - this experience and research is precisely where I'm getting my point of view from.

see this is what I'm talking about - why automatically assume that I "haven't done my homework" instead of directly rebuttal my claim? tread carefully.

STRAIGHT from Wikipedia, with an applicable source from NIST for the claim:

"The perimeter structure was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces, which consisted of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates. The perimeter columns had a square cross section, 14 inches (36 cm) on a side, and were constructed of welded steel plate.[50] The thickness of the plates and grade of structural steel varied over the height of the tower, ranging from 36,000 to 100,000 pounds per square inch[51] (260 to 670 MPa). The strength of the steel and thickness of the steel plates decreased with height because they were required to support lesser amounts of building mass on higher floors.[50]"

WTC Construction

Seriously - you're talking about 9/11. it's best not to make baseless claims.

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: facedye

simply put, ~30 floors will never have enough kinetic energy to "pulverize" through ~80 floors of thicker reinforced steel.

Clearly you haven't looked at unique way they built WTC.
There wasn't "thicker reinforced steel" below.
Just cheap floor trusses supported at the two ends.
Any weight heavy enough to bust through one floor would continue through each floor below.
That's the flaw in the design and why no other sky scraper will be built like WTC.

I have looked at the unique way they built the WTC - this experience and research is precisely where I'm getting my point of view from.

see this is what I'm talking about - why automatically assume that I "haven't done my homework" instead of directly rebuttal my claim? tread carefully.

STRAIGHT from Wikipedia, with an applicable source from NIST for the claim:

"The perimeter structure was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces, which consisted of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates. The perimeter columns had a square cross section, 14 inches (36 cm) on a side, and were constructed of welded steel plate.[50] The thickness of the plates and grade of structural steel varied over the height of the tower, ranging from 36,000 to 100,000 pounds per square inch[51] (260 to 670 MPa). The strength of the steel and thickness of the steel plates decreased with height because they were required to support lesser amounts of building mass on higher floors.[50]"

WTC Construction

Seriously - you're talking about 9/11. it's best not to make baseless claims.

If the floors and their connections to the columns can hold 1000 tons, and the columns can hold 100,000 tons, and 1200 tons is placed onto the floor, does it matter how strong the columns are?

a reply to: facedye

see this is what I'm talking about - why automatically assume that I "haven't done my homework" instead of directly rebuttal my claim? tread carefully.

But your logic is flawed.
The perimeter steel couldn't support itself for more than a few floors without the bracing of the floor trusses.
Those floor trusses were nothing more than the flimsy roof trusses we all see at Walmart.
Bust through a few floors of floor trusses and the perimeter steel will buckle.
Especially since over half the supports on one side were cut through by the plane.

ok just reading down the page,
no way is it considered solved
how 7WTC fell due to fires.
NIST admits they don't know,
PBS NAT GEOalso stated the reason for
Seven World Trade Center's collapse
is unknown.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: facedye

see this is what I'm talking about - why automatically assume that I "haven't done my homework" instead of directly rebuttal my claim? tread carefully.

But your logic is flawed.
The perimeter steel couldn't support itself for more than a few floors without the bracing of the floor trusses.
Those floor trusses were nothing more than the flimsy roof trusses we all see at Walmart.
Bust through a few floors of floor trusses and the perimeter steel will buckle.
Especially since over half the supports on one side were cut through by the plane.

so which is it? am i wrong or is my logic flawed? looks like you were completely wrong in your assertion and don't want to own up to it.

by the logic you proposed, we should have 110 floors of steel column collected in the rubble. here's what we had instead.

Aerial Shot of WTC Aftermath

does that look like 220 floors of steel on the ground? here's WTC plaza before all of this, just for reference:

WTC Plaza

i mean.. really.. how are you reconciling these MASSIVE buildings with the amount that was left? there's a discrepancy here no doubt.

notice that all WTC prefixes were destroyed, and ONLY WTC prefixes. please notice the very minor damage to buildings and roadways... directly outside and across the street from the event.

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: facedye

simply put, ~30 floors will never have enough kinetic energy to "pulverize" through ~80 floors of thicker reinforced steel.

Clearly you haven't looked at unique way they built WTC.
There wasn't "thicker reinforced steel" below.
Just cheap floor trusses supported at the two ends.
Any weight heavy enough to bust through one floor would continue through each floor below.
That's the flaw in the design and why no other sky scraper will be built like WTC.

I have looked at the unique way they built the WTC - this experience and research is precisely where I'm getting my point of view from.

see this is what I'm talking about - why automatically assume that I "haven't done my homework" instead of directly rebuttal my claim? tread carefully.

STRAIGHT from Wikipedia, with an applicable source from NIST for the claim:

"The perimeter structure was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces, which consisted of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates. The perimeter columns had a square cross section, 14 inches (36 cm) on a side, and were constructed of welded steel plate.[50] The thickness of the plates and grade of structural steel varied over the height of the tower, ranging from 36,000 to 100,000 pounds per square inch[51] (260 to 670 MPa). The strength of the steel and thickness of the steel plates decreased with height because they were required to support lesser amounts of building mass on higher floors.[50]"

WTC Construction

Seriously - you're talking about 9/11. it's best not to make baseless claims.

If the floors and their connections to the columns can hold 1000 tons, and the columns can hold 100,000 tons, and 1200 tons is placed onto the floor, does it matter how strong the columns are?

it absolutely does. the 1200 tons would meet the potential energy of the ~80 floors of steel columns holding them up.

even if they all collapsed down to their very core, you'd still have 220 floors of steel to collect in some fashion. please see my previous post for reference.

a reply to: samkent

and please don't be predictable by going to the "what date was this picture taken?" point of view.

September 11th, 2001

about 90% of the building is absolutely gone.

a reply to: samkent

Not that this would change your mind or anything, but i figured you should know that my mother was on the block of WTC plaza when WTC2 came down on her.

She came home that night covered in nothing but dust.

Had there been an actual collapse of two of the largest skyscrapers in the world, that situation would have turned out differently.

PNAC says it all... Too many huge coincidences. If you believe the official story, than the minimum truth is all signatories to the PNAC (such as all the major talking heads on FOX News at the time and members of the Bush Admin) all collectively must have thought "Whoa... how weird is it that we just signed off on this one year ago, and now, here we are, in power, and it actually happens... and the news even called it a New Pearl Harbor!-- just like WE called it!" They must have been busting at the seams to tell everyone they knew that in some freaky way, they predicted it exactly a year before.

Yeah, that's a little too much coincidence.

Neocons should just own it. I bet they could get the Trump supporters. Just boldly say democrats were too weak to pull off 9/11. Do you think Gore had the balls to commit to 9/11? No chance. It took neocons unafraid of the consequences. Tough guys with the balls to commit treason and the commitment to go on TV and lie every day about it. Real heroes and patriots who made the ultimate treasonous sacrifice to save this country.

As a long time lurker and new member I figure I should throw my 1.5 cents in the mix. Officially I think the official story has holes big enough to a mac truck through. I also think anyone who "knows" what happened is doing themselves and their cause a disservice. To say there is a ton of evidence to point to or there is no evidence is one thing but to say you know or there is no doubt ect. helps no one.