Iyidin_Kyeimo
Member
Ok, anyone who doesn't believe the truth movement's conspiracy theory (the government's version being a consiracy theory also), please attack the following points and explain how a pancake collapse can fit. Attack the evidence only, and remember Sherlock Holmes: "When we have eliminated the impossible, the improbably must be true":
0) The plane impacts caused very little damage. The buildings were specifically designed to withstand multiple jetliner impacts with redundancy to share the load of damaged columns. The buildings vibrated at their natural frequency indicating no structural damage and even the commission's report has the impacts only real contribution as knocking some fireproofing off some of the steel..
1) The buildings turn to dust at the start of the collapse. Not after a huge fall.
2) Pieces of steel are launched 100m+ from the top of the collapse.
3) The collapse happens in free fall. The pancake collapse requires the top floors to blast through all ~80+ undamaged steel reinforced concrete floors beneath the damaged ones as if it was merely thin air (even at the start without momentum).
5) The collapses are symetrical. This requires every single steel beam (the 47 central columns that the official report pretended did not exist! and the many perimeter columns) weakened at exactly the same moment and every resistance encountered below was equally perfectly symetrical all the way down.
6) Pancake collapses result in both remaining layered floors and the support columns intact standing tall (the official story has the floors only detaching from the columns). Neither was seen.
7) The steel beams were found cut up in neat ~30ft lengths. This is standard demolition practice for ease of removal.
8) No fire has previously caused any building to collapse.
e.g. The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss. 5
A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:
In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.
9) The WTC itself previously experienced a fire. It lasted for several hours and engulfed a number of floors. However, the steel beams didn't even need to be replaced.
10) Jet fuel and oxygen mixed perfectly can only burn at ~1000ºC, 500ºC lower than needed to melt steel. However, the black smoke showed that the fire was far from optimal.
11) Most of the fuel burnt off outside and the remainder in a few minutes. Therefore the report asks us to believe that a paper fire can significantly weaken steel in an hour.
12) The commission's report admitted that there was no evidence for any of the steel to have reached temperatures above 230ºC
13) Underwriter Laboratories certified the steel to keep its strength after being exposed to 1000ºC for 6 hours. Even significantly weakened, the buildings should stand, such is the redundancy.
14) An audiotape of firefighter communications revealed that firefighters had reached the 78th floor sky lobby of the South Tower and were enacting a plan to evacuate people and put out the "two pockets of fire" they found, just before the tower was destroyed. i.e. the fire was going out. Then it collapsed.... hmm..
15) Explosions are heard by eyewitnesses and recorded on seismographs at nearby universities moments before the planes hit.
16) The residue tested by Steve Jones showed evidence of Thermate, not Thermite. A varient specifically patented for demolition. Is includes sulphur and other trace elements. The report itself noticed "sulphurisation" of the steel but offered no explanation.
That's just WTC 1&2.
Now, WTC 7
17) Not hit by a plane, damaged very slightly on one side only yet collapsed completely and symmetrically.
18) Larry Silverstein on PBS: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
Won't get into the pentagon or the abundance of evidence for people profiting.. yet..
Sceptics, please answer every point. Notice that controlled demolition explains everything perfectly and the only improbable bit is planting the explosives. Yet there was ample oppportunity with power-cuts, removal of bomb sniffing dogs and systematic fire drills allowing workmen in and out.. oh, and Marvin Bush and one of Bush's cousins on the board of directors of the security firm for the WTC complex.
0) The plane impacts caused very little damage. The buildings were specifically designed to withstand multiple jetliner impacts with redundancy to share the load of damaged columns. The buildings vibrated at their natural frequency indicating no structural damage and even the commission's report has the impacts only real contribution as knocking some fireproofing off some of the steel..
1) The buildings turn to dust at the start of the collapse. Not after a huge fall.
2) Pieces of steel are launched 100m+ from the top of the collapse.
3) The collapse happens in free fall. The pancake collapse requires the top floors to blast through all ~80+ undamaged steel reinforced concrete floors beneath the damaged ones as if it was merely thin air (even at the start without momentum).
5) The collapses are symetrical. This requires every single steel beam (the 47 central columns that the official report pretended did not exist! and the many perimeter columns) weakened at exactly the same moment and every resistance encountered below was equally perfectly symetrical all the way down.
6) Pancake collapses result in both remaining layered floors and the support columns intact standing tall (the official story has the floors only detaching from the columns). Neither was seen.
7) The steel beams were found cut up in neat ~30ft lengths. This is standard demolition practice for ease of removal.
8) No fire has previously caused any building to collapse.
e.g. The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss. 5
A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:
In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.
9) The WTC itself previously experienced a fire. It lasted for several hours and engulfed a number of floors. However, the steel beams didn't even need to be replaced.
10) Jet fuel and oxygen mixed perfectly can only burn at ~1000ºC, 500ºC lower than needed to melt steel. However, the black smoke showed that the fire was far from optimal.
11) Most of the fuel burnt off outside and the remainder in a few minutes. Therefore the report asks us to believe that a paper fire can significantly weaken steel in an hour.
12) The commission's report admitted that there was no evidence for any of the steel to have reached temperatures above 230ºC
13) Underwriter Laboratories certified the steel to keep its strength after being exposed to 1000ºC for 6 hours. Even significantly weakened, the buildings should stand, such is the redundancy.
14) An audiotape of firefighter communications revealed that firefighters had reached the 78th floor sky lobby of the South Tower and were enacting a plan to evacuate people and put out the "two pockets of fire" they found, just before the tower was destroyed. i.e. the fire was going out. Then it collapsed.... hmm..
15) Explosions are heard by eyewitnesses and recorded on seismographs at nearby universities moments before the planes hit.
16) The residue tested by Steve Jones showed evidence of Thermate, not Thermite. A varient specifically patented for demolition. Is includes sulphur and other trace elements. The report itself noticed "sulphurisation" of the steel but offered no explanation.
That's just WTC 1&2.
Now, WTC 7
17) Not hit by a plane, damaged very slightly on one side only yet collapsed completely and symmetrically.
18) Larry Silverstein on PBS: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
Won't get into the pentagon or the abundance of evidence for people profiting.. yet..
Sceptics, please answer every point. Notice that controlled demolition explains everything perfectly and the only improbable bit is planting the explosives. Yet there was ample oppportunity with power-cuts, removal of bomb sniffing dogs and systematic fire drills allowing workmen in and out.. oh, and Marvin Bush and one of Bush's cousins on the board of directors of the security firm for the WTC complex.
Last edited:
dadsm3
Well-known
Jenni, are you trolling, or is the self description under your avatar actually correct?
N
Nick R.
Guest
I'll only address #11. Way before 9/11, I was involved in destructive testing. One thing we tested was office furniture and furnishings, including rugs and glues, ceiling tile and glues, desks and chairs and other things typically found in an office building. We tested them buy burning them in a controlled environment. The heat generated by some of these things was inferno hot, absolutely scary. So yeah, a fire in a building can warp steel. (of course, it doesn't have to melt it to cause a collapse, only warp it until it pulls from its support). My experience not heresay.
BTW, One time we tested "fireproof" bus windows. We put them in a chamber with a controlled flame source for 10 minutes. After nine minutes and thirty seconds we were already starting to write them up as passed fireproof when they caught fire. It was one of the hottest fires we ever had in that chamber. It was actually damaged from the intense heat. Nothing to do with 9/11 but I thought it was interesting as to how close these windows came to being put into public buses.
BTW, One time we tested "fireproof" bus windows. We put them in a chamber with a controlled flame source for 10 minutes. After nine minutes and thirty seconds we were already starting to write them up as passed fireproof when they caught fire. It was one of the hottest fires we ever had in that chamber. It was actually damaged from the intense heat. Nothing to do with 9/11 but I thought it was interesting as to how close these windows came to being put into public buses.
Iyidin_Kyeimo
Member
"The heat generated by some of these things was inferno hot, absolutely scary" Inferno hot... maybe in your case, but in the WTC, people were stood in the entry holes and walked down the stairs past the floors on fire. It was no inferno. One person standing in the hole even managed to phone someone else, during which theey say that it's not so bad. The fires were nearly out in both buildings, as evidenced by the black smoke, then they collapsed... before the fires went out completely and the task of justifying fire-induced collapse becomes even harder?
You mention windows, which is interesting because that example I gave had the windows blowing because of the heat. The windows of the WTC didn't blow. None that I've seen of 1 and 2 and certainly none of 7, where the fire could only be seen in a few windows of one side....
You mention windows, which is interesting because that example I gave had the windows blowing because of the heat. The windows of the WTC didn't blow. None that I've seen of 1 and 2 and certainly none of 7, where the fire could only be seen in a few windows of one side....
dadsm3
Well-known
I apologize, but this drivel irritates me to no end. You actually agree with the Islamic nutbars that say we killed thousands of our own people to create a pretext for war? Who brought down the plane over Pennsylvania? Who blew up your subway and buses? Who's strapping explosives to themselves all over the world? Americans?
There seems to be a dichotomy here; most of the younger members seem to be more susceptible to this kind of historical revisionism. Most of the older members have been there, done that. (Remember 'Chariots of the Gods'?) What's shocking is that so many young people fall for it.....
There seems to be a dichotomy here; most of the younger members seem to be more susceptible to this kind of historical revisionism. Most of the older members have been there, done that. (Remember 'Chariots of the Gods'?) What's shocking is that so many young people fall for it.....
back alley
IMAGES
ok, so when this thread burns out i'm gonna start one about religion and then sex.
after that i'm thinking i might start talking about your mama and sister too!
after that...well who knows?
joe
after that i'm thinking i might start talking about your mama and sister too!
after that...well who knows?
joe
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
A best yo'mamma put-down contest?
Can we get one of the sponsors to fund such a contest?
Seriously, as much as I love the 1st amendment, I am starting to agree with Pherdi that this thread probably should be closed. It is resembling a near religious debate, and there is no resolution to that sort of thread but a lot of unneccesary acrimony.
Can we get one of the sponsors to fund such a contest?
Seriously, as much as I love the 1st amendment, I am starting to agree with Pherdi that this thread probably should be closed. It is resembling a near religious debate, and there is no resolution to that sort of thread but a lot of unneccesary acrimony.
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
Godwin's law coming into effect soon?
clarence
ダメ
I don't demand that anyone watch the videos, or try to refute any theories. I think it's great that we can share our experiences and arguments here without feeling any pressure to react. For those who do feel compelled to react in a hostile manner, it's understandable to an extent, because this is such a sensitive topic, and the questioning of the past can often be seen as revisionism.
If we are able to discuss this here without vitriol, and without anger being expressed in reaction to the mere presentation of alternative theories, then it would be a victory for free speech, in spite of all the forces that are polarising this issue.
Having said that, I can understand if the moderators decide to act. This is, first and foremost, a rather peaceful camera forum, and it seems difficult for some to consider these issues in a cool, rational light, completely isolated from politics or religion.
Clarence
If we are able to discuss this here without vitriol, and without anger being expressed in reaction to the mere presentation of alternative theories, then it would be a victory for free speech, in spite of all the forces that are polarising this issue.
Having said that, I can understand if the moderators decide to act. This is, first and foremost, a rather peaceful camera forum, and it seems difficult for some to consider these issues in a cool, rational light, completely isolated from politics or religion.
Clarence
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Did you see the video yet, Clarence? Are you now completely convinced?
There cannot be any other logical explanation. It is as clear as a Summilux Aspherical.
All these old, conservative, flawed and emotional arguments exploding around here no longer impact your new knowledge, am I correct?
At least we now have something important to take care of besides finding the perfect rangefinder-lens combo.
I am so looking forward to it.
There cannot be any other logical explanation. It is as clear as a Summilux Aspherical.
All these old, conservative, flawed and emotional arguments exploding around here no longer impact your new knowledge, am I correct?
At least we now have something important to take care of besides finding the perfect rangefinder-lens combo.
I am so looking forward to it.
Iyidin_Kyeimo
Member
Well, been out for a few hours... but I don't see anyone making a stand for the official version... Just attacks against those who are considering evidence! Not a crime last time I checked...
Am I suprised?? No... There has been a national debate arranged 911 for some time now: truth movement against anyone willing to defend the official line. Not a single scientist who authored the report nor other person informed about these events dares to do it. Why?? Surely these crazy conspiracy NUTS can be blown away! If they're wrong. And therein lies the problem. It may be a horrible truth, but it's still the truth. Proved not by conjecture, coincidence or dubious witnesses... but by THE LAWS OF NATURE! That simple...
Ok, just to continue, for the people who still believe 19 guys armed with boxcutters can hijack 4 planes, hit 75% of their targets and suspend the laws of nature, here's some more points:
regarding the highjackers...
19) 7 of the 19 are alive and well, were not in America on 9/11. Says who? The BBC and THe Gaurdian newspapers who interviewed them...
20) No arab names were on the passenger manifests. Very difficult things to forge either way. To pretend you aren't there when you were (why bother) or to pretend you were when you weren't(oops...)
21) 3 of the highjackers have their addresses listed as US army bases, many had houses paid for by the CIA and lived with CIA handlers.
22) The guy that suposedly flew one of the planes tried to hire a cessna in the months prior, he was refused because he wasn't deemed capable.
(cribbed from here)
Those who profitted:
Donald Rumsfeld announced that $2.3 TRILLION of defence spending couldn't be accounted for..... on September 10th. Someone did well out of that... and Rumsfeld didn't get the sack...
Larry Silverstein took out a lease on the WTC complex six weeks prior to 9/11. His insurance included a clause for terrorism. He managed to claim twice and netted $4.6 BILLION
The neo-cons got the "New Pearl Harbour" they were after
Invasion of Afganistan restarted construction on the new oil pipeline there.
Invasion of Iraq has ensured the supply of oil from that region
The defence budget has spiralled to almost half a trillion a year, despite the fact that the country is bankrupt.
So, big oil, big weapons and the neo-cons benefit at the expense of the 3000 lives of 9/11 and the subsequent deaths due to war. Small price to pay? In someone's twisted mind. Many more might perish without a fuel supply. It's not hard to justify in a twisted mind....
Am I suprised?? No... There has been a national debate arranged 911 for some time now: truth movement against anyone willing to defend the official line. Not a single scientist who authored the report nor other person informed about these events dares to do it. Why?? Surely these crazy conspiracy NUTS can be blown away! If they're wrong. And therein lies the problem. It may be a horrible truth, but it's still the truth. Proved not by conjecture, coincidence or dubious witnesses... but by THE LAWS OF NATURE! That simple...
Ok, just to continue, for the people who still believe 19 guys armed with boxcutters can hijack 4 planes, hit 75% of their targets and suspend the laws of nature, here's some more points:
regarding the highjackers...
19) 7 of the 19 are alive and well, were not in America on 9/11. Says who? The BBC and THe Gaurdian newspapers who interviewed them...
20) No arab names were on the passenger manifests. Very difficult things to forge either way. To pretend you aren't there when you were (why bother) or to pretend you were when you weren't(oops...)
21) 3 of the highjackers have their addresses listed as US army bases, many had houses paid for by the CIA and lived with CIA handlers.
22) The guy that suposedly flew one of the planes tried to hire a cessna in the months prior, he was refused because he wasn't deemed capable.
(cribbed from here)
Those who profitted:
Donald Rumsfeld announced that $2.3 TRILLION of defence spending couldn't be accounted for..... on September 10th. Someone did well out of that... and Rumsfeld didn't get the sack...
Larry Silverstein took out a lease on the WTC complex six weeks prior to 9/11. His insurance included a clause for terrorism. He managed to claim twice and netted $4.6 BILLION
The neo-cons got the "New Pearl Harbour" they were after
Invasion of Afganistan restarted construction on the new oil pipeline there.
Invasion of Iraq has ensured the supply of oil from that region
The defence budget has spiralled to almost half a trillion a year, despite the fact that the country is bankrupt.
So, big oil, big weapons and the neo-cons benefit at the expense of the 3000 lives of 9/11 and the subsequent deaths due to war. Small price to pay? In someone's twisted mind. Many more might perish without a fuel supply. It's not hard to justify in a twisted mind....
jan normandale
Film is the other way
back alley said:
Joe, you forgot about who killed JFK. I'm going over to a 9/11 conspiracy site and discuss rangefinder cameras.
back alley
IMAGES
i wonder what this thread accomplishes?
no one is going to change their minds because of it.
no one is going to change their minds because of it.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
give them time to grwo up and get smart...
give them time to grwo up and get smart...
That's because the young don't have enough experience to recocoginize when someone is blowing smoke you-know-where...
hey, when I was 20, I believed JFK was offed by Castro and the mob...
give them time to grwo up and get smart...
dadsm3 said:
That's because the young don't have enough experience to recocoginize when someone is blowing smoke you-know-where...
hey, when I was 20, I believed JFK was offed by Castro and the mob...
peterc
Heretic
I did think of something, but then the mind control rays from the chemtrails sprayed by the reverse-vampire Illuminati saucer people wiped it from my brain.back alley said:
Peter
aad
Not so new now.
I think the RFF hats should have a tinfoil lining.
colyn
ישו משיח
clarence said:
Anti-American propaganda.
It's crap like this that perverts the memory of those we lost in 3 cowardly acts.
N
Nick R.
Guest
back alley said:
This weekend at the campgrounds I was watching a bunch of ants moving across the road. There were thousands of them and they were diligently moving their nest from on side of the road to the other. They were all carrying eggs and spent the better part of the day doing this. My wife pointed this out to my neighbor and I knew it was a mistake. For when they were all done, he got out a bunch of poison and sprinkled it all over their new nest. A poison that the foragers would bring back to the nest and infect the rest so that all would die eventually. These ants were no threat to him. They weren't red biting ants nor wood chewing carpenter ants. They were peaceful, mind-your-business kind of ants. He's an old man and in his mind he was doing the right thing, a good thing. Is that what god is like? A benign being who sprinkles poison into the hearts of man, so that we may kill ourselves in our homes with hate and violence.
We've built a skin with our gadgets and distractions which keeps out the world we live in, but sometimes the skin is worn thin and the world seeps in. Looking at my cameras and pretty pictures fails to extinguish the images in my mind of Lebanon and Iraq and the WTC and Rhawanda and all that's gone before. Sorry to have helped soil the pretty place that is RFF. I just can't get those ants out of my head.
back alley
IMAGES
it's not like i ignore the world, in fact it's very much the opposite. but i choose to keep that part of my life out of here.
as for looking at the world in here (rff) i just think we have a very narrow reason for being and discussing politics is not even remotely part of it.
rff is, for me, a sanctuary, but not with all this chatter going on.
as for looking at the world in here (rff) i just think we have a very narrow reason for being and discussing politics is not even remotely part of it.
rff is, for me, a sanctuary, but not with all this chatter going on.
John Camp
Well-known
Nick R. said:
But there was a conspiracy, wasn't there? Didn't a bunch of radical Islamicists secretly conspire to seize airplanes and fly them into buildings?And then do it?
It always amazes me that people could see a video of an airplane flying into a building and conclude that wasn't the *real* cause because aluminum doesn't melt at x degrees...
Some day when I'm feeling crabby, I will expound on my theory of silly intelligence. Some of you will be deeply interested; others deeply offended.
JC
- Status
- Not open for further replies.