Yamato Posted May 24, 2012 #1651 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Are you seriously claiming that missles hit the Twin Towers? Some people should follow their own advice. I'm seriously claiming that missiles hit the Twin Towers. Get a dictionary. I follow my own advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted May 24, 2012 #1652 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I'm seriously claiming that missiles hit the Twin Towers. Missiles that just happened to look exactly like Boeing 767's...? Cz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted May 24, 2012 #1653 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Missiles that just happened to look exactly like Boeing 767's...? Cz Oh so they're not the unmarked green military planes now? Who became a truther off of that myth, I wonder? What's that? Who cares? Pick whatever nonsense off the wall you want and join the club!? This kind of question is evidential of the way a truther has to think. They can't understand those airliners ARE missiles. They can't look at it like that because they're too interested in irrelevancy such as "campfires don't melt steel" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted May 24, 2012 #1654 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Oh so they're not the unmarked green military planes now? Who became a truther off of that myth, I wonder? What's that? Who cares? Pick whatever nonsense off the wall you want and join the club!? This kind of question is evidential of the way a truther has to think. They can't understand those airliners ARE missiles. They can't look at it like that because they're too interested in irrelevancy such as "campfires don't melt steel" Easy there, big fella... I was merely trying to clarify what your position is since i haven't seen any of your other posts on this topic aside from what you've posted here in the last day or so. There's no need for you to be a d-bag about it If you'd rather I ask in a long, drawn out fashion, then I can certainly accommodate that... Are you saying by your assertion that "missiles hit the towers" that you don't believe that the WTC Towers were actually struck by fights AA11 and UA175 which were Boeing 767 aircraft...? Cz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted May 24, 2012 #1655 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) Easy there, big fella... I was merely trying to clarify what your position is since i haven't seen any of your other posts on this topic aside from what you've posted here in the last day or so. There's no need for you to be a d-bag about it If you'd rather I ask in a long, drawn out fashion, then I can certainly accommodate that... Are you saying by your assertion that "missiles hit the towers" that you don't believe that the WTC Towers were actually struck by fights AA11 and UA175 which were Boeing 767 aircraft...? Cz Forgive me for applying yet another truther myth into my response, if that's what you mean. When dealing with such a self-confused heap of misinformation as this is, one never knows where and when the discussion will divert into yet another conspiratorial dead end. I like to nip the nonsense in the bud head of time, not be a d-bag. Are you saying by your assertion that "missiles hit the towers" that you don't believe that the WTC Towers were actually struck by fights AA11 and UA175 which were Boeing 767 aircraft...? No. If you confer that statement you've isolated out with the rest of my remarks made on this thread in the last 24 hours you wouldn't need to be asking me such a question. Edited May 24, 2012 by Yamato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted May 24, 2012 #1656 Share Posted May 24, 2012 There's a pattern I see in this thread. And it involves chopping what is said or written into pieces to deliberately distort the context and create word counts several orders of magnitude greater than they need-be. This is done with everything, the rhetoric of a bureaucrat, the writing in a report, the reply of a board member. There's a reason that not a single Engineering Professor currently employed at a single top-10 engineering university is defending truther nonsense. There's a reason why no PhD candidates attained their doctorates proving truther nonsense in their dissertations. Because it's a dungheap of politically charged nonsense that serves no purpose whatsoever but to distract people from the truth. If you dared bring this unschooled partisan nuttery to a professor at my school they would laugh you right out of their office, and rightfully so. Acting like you know something is earned at a technical school; it isn't brought in from the outside and then unlearned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted May 24, 2012 #1657 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Forgive me for applying yet another truther myth into my response, if that's what you mean. When dealing with such a self-confused heap of misinformation as this is, one never knows where and when the discussion will divert into yet another conspiratorial dead end. I like to nip the nonsense in the bud head of time, not be a d-bag. Are you saying by your assertion that "missiles hit the towers" that you don't believe that the WTC Towers were actually struck by fights AA11 and UA175 which were Boeing 767 aircraft...? No. If you confer that statement you've isolated out with the rest of my remarks made on this thread in the last 24 hours you wouldn't need to be asking me such a question. Just so we're clear, Yamato, I am not a "truther". I don't believe the "controlled demolition" claims, I know that the fires there didn't melt the structural steel nor do I believe in the "nano-thermite" non-starter. I'm not a "No Planer" and I don't for one second put any faith or credence behind the whole "Directed Energy Weapon" bs.... I'm guessing that you haven't read any of my posts on this (or maybe on any) topic and that you don't know that about me... And that's fair since as I already said, I hadn't read any of your posts before til you showed up here in this thread the other day. I asked you about the 767's and your "missiles" comments because they were confusing and I wanted you to state your position clearly. Some of the ways that you express your thoughts come across as if they were from an opinion that included one or more of the above CT claims, and if I misinterpreted your posts then I apologize. Cz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted May 24, 2012 #1658 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Just so we're clear, Yamato, I am not a "truther". I don't believe the "controlled demolition" claims, I know that the fires there didn't melt the structural steel nor do I believe in the "nano-thermite" non-starter. I'm not a "No Planer" and I don't for one second put any faith or credence behind the whole "Directed Energy Weapon" bs.... I'm guessing that you haven't read any of my posts on this (or maybe on any) topic and that you don't know that about me... And that's fair since as I already said, I hadn't read any of your posts before til you showed up here in this thread the other day. I asked you about the 767's and your "missiles" comments because they were confusing and I wanted you to state your position clearly. Some of the ways that you express your thoughts come across as if they were from an opinion that included one or more of the above CT claims, and if I misinterpreted your posts then I apologize. Cz I understood you're not a truther. Rhetoric about "missiles" in this topic are no doubt reminiscent of truther-speak, in reference to the Pentagon at least. I understand that the reason for so much word count isn't limited to just truthers. Truthers are generally good-hearted people wishing to believe what is true, and in the course of their conspiracy, they blame their government for crimes it didn't commit and the sad result they achieve upon doing all of this is that the real crimes and the real crooks escape justice. I also understand the reason for your question which was answered by my previous commentary, and I also understand our agreement on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted May 24, 2012 Author #1659 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) That's because I'm not the type of person to be deceived by Israel propaganda as you well know, and that propaganda has nothing to do with truther nonsense. On the contrary, truther nonsense gives Israel propaganda the biggest favor, by taking our peoples' attention away from the truth and focusing instead on utter nonsense so that truth doesn't get out. There is evidence that Mossad knew about the attacks before they happened and didn't warn us about it. And that's tantamount to treason but of course our government and media swept that evidence under the rug and wouldn't investigate it further. I know exactly why we were attacked on 9/11 and I can start a brand new discussion once again about that very subject if need be. But, we are talking about the collapse here and what caused it, a very specific event caused by a very specific thing. And that's where you're getting lost in the weeds. Let's understand the collapse correctly or your errant ideas will snowball into all manner of insults of the truth. When you bastardize the truth into so much laughable nonsense and divert the peoples' attention away from critical facts about our history they should be paying unfettered attention to, you provide the greatest service to Zionist agendas, and you don't even know it. And again you turn a blind eye to the substance in my post regarding Israeli links to the WTC demolitions and 9/11. You known the history of Israel and their intelligence services. So why would you do that? Why do you completely ignore those facts in your response? I've read a lot of your posts on the United States and Middle East boards and agree with them all entirely regarding unjust Israeli policies and those who would support them. We have spoken before about that and other subjects. I think I understand your views well, and likewise when it comes to 9/11, Yamato... For you I believe 9/11 was a deserved consequence of decades of unjust Western and Israeli policy toward the Muslim countries. It is your crux to point out that those powers should get out of the Middle East and their imperialistic wars. It galls you terribly to read a suggestion, not only that takes a level of responsibility for this bloody nose away from Muslims, making them not so important in events, but also indicates the Israelis once again outsmarted the Muslim countries through deception of their intelligence services. That is the only way one could so vigorously criticise Israel on the one hand yet willfully turn a blind eye to their 9/11 connection on the other. It's an unusual position because on this subject it is more often with Israel or against them - you either accept the demonstrated extremeties they will go to or you don't. The only others I have seen with this almost contradictory view (that Israel are the worst murderers in one breath but would never directly assist the 9/11 attack in the next)... I won't say it but... they come from a community that takes responsibility for 9/11 with some measure of defiance. Can I ask Yamato, are you Muslim? Do you believe the U.S. 'asked for' 9/11? Well honestly, I already know the answer to the second question. I would only say to you that the 9/11 false flag, perpetrated by elements within the United States, Israel and other sources, does not detract from your own message but works alongside it. The understandable resentment of the Muslim countries toward the U.S and Israel had to exist in the first place for the false flag attack to be viable. And indeed Muslim fighters, or 'Al Qaeda' if you want to call them that, were involved in the setup of 9/11, that is beyond doubt to me. Though the fact remains that agents of the Western powers were all over 'Al Qaeda', drove the hijackers and not only facilitated but directly assisted the attack. A simple question: cui bono? To whose benefit was 9/11? And there are your lead suspects. Now we have a strong case for demolition of the WTC buildings here on this thread... are you going to tell me, those Israeli agents, arrested the morning of 9/11 specifically for celebrating the tower collapes, with sniffer dogs reacting as though detecting explosives in their van, what was their purpose in the country? Or will you continue to blank out such facts for the above reasons I have given? Edited May 24, 2012 by Q24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted May 24, 2012 #1660 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) And again you turn a blind eye to the substance in my post regarding Israeli links to the WTC demolitions and 9/11. You known the history of Israel and their intelligence services. So why would you do that? Why do you completely ignore those facts in your response? I've read a lot of your posts on the United States and Middle East boards and agree with them all entirely regarding unjust Israeli policies and those who would support them. We have spoken before about that and other subjects. I think I understand your views well, and likewise when it comes to 9/11, Yamato... For you I believe 9/11 was a deserved consequence of decades of unjust Western and Israeli policy toward the Muslim countries. It is your crux to point out that those powers should get out of the Middle East and their imperialistic wars. It galls you terribly to read a suggestion, not only that takes a level of responsibility for this bloody nose away from Muslims, making them not so important in events, but also indicates the Israelis once again outsmarted the Muslim countries through deception of their intelligence services. That is the only way one could so vigorously criticise Israel on the one hand yet willfully turn a blind eye to their 9/11 connection on the other. It's an unusual position because on this subject it is more often with Israel or against them - you either accept the demonstrated extremeties they will go to or you don't. The only others I have seen with this almost contradictory view (that Israel are the worst murderers in one breath but would never directly assist the 9/11 attack in the next)... I won't say it but... they come from a community that takes responsibility for 9/11 with some measure of defiance. Can I ask Yamato, are you Muslim? Do you believe the U.S. 'asked for' 9/11? Well honestly, I already know the answer to the second question. I would only say to you that the 9/11 false flag, perpetrated by elements within the United States, Israel and other sources, does not detract from your own message but works alongside it. The understandable resentment of the Muslim countries toward the U.S and Israel had to exist in the first place for the false flag attack to be viable. And indeed Muslim fighters, or 'Al Qaeda' if you want to call them that, were involved in the setup of 9/11, that is beyond doubt to me. Though the fact remains that agents of the Western powers were all over 'Al Qaeda', drove the hijackers and not only facilitated but directly assisted the attack. A simple question: cui bono? To whose benefit was 9/11? And there are your lead suspects. Now we have a strong case for demolition of the WTC buildings here on this thread... are you going to tell me, those Israeli agents, arrested the morning of 9/11 specifically for celebrating the tower collapes, with sniffer dogs reacting as though detecting explosives in their van, what was their purpose in the country? Or will you continue to blank out such facts for the above reasons I have given? Understanding that airliners collapsed the towers isn't mutually exclusive to Israeli agents playing a role in the 9/11 attacks. It only restricts precisely what kind of role they may have played. For example, they didn't attend the flight schools and they didn't hijack the planes. So while I can talk about what brought the towers down and what roles Israelis did not play easily enough, I'm not denying that anyone had a hand involved due to nothing more than the lack of evidence. There are plenty of tedious facts about 9/11 that we don't have, and if those facts are uncovered in time, I hope we can all revise our opinions accordingly. But because I find Israeli policy despicable doesn't mean that an alleged motive is evidence that a crime was committed. I'm sure the 9/11 attacks made some Zionists very happy because now the US could relate to the brand of modern terrorism the Zionists invented. I don't take that possibility and glue it together with a lot of other unrelated and unsubstantiated possibilities and think they stack up on one another until conspiratorial heights are reached. And if I needed a conspiracy theory to despise Zionist rule or the Israeli lobby, I wouldn't have been paying attention to what it's doing right in front of our noses. I wouldn't deny that 9/11 was made into a false flag attack due to how it was (and wasn't) responded to. We get conspiracy theory and a war in Iraq. I couldn't ask for a more unwanted pair of babies for an event that important. Those who declared war on the US and were chomping at the bit to retaliate against us benefited from the attack. No, I'm not a Muslim. No, I absolutely do NOT think the US asked for it; I think US foreign policy did. Again, it's the policy that matters; it's policy that counts. It's unbelievable the stretch that so many people make to turn a foreign policy (or ANY policy) into a country, a race, an ethnicity, a religion, or a geographical region. I will not join in such exercises (hello michaelw) because I don't respect foreign policy enough to honor it with such grand inclusion. If we change a policy, a lot of good people don't wind up dying on behalf of some very bad people not worth jabbing our fingers at anymore. And certainly not subsidizing them with foreign aid, government contracts, weapons proliferation, leverage in the oil markets, rampant violations of the constitution, assassinations, the penetration of American politics by foreign interests, UN hypocrisy, preemptive war, chronic violations of civil liberties, and I could go on and on. This can be a complex subject and strong crosswinds are blowing everywhere. I haven't explicitly disagreed with any post on this thread you've written. I'm saying very little in the grand scheme of things, that the airliners brought the buildings down. There's a lot of damnable evidence we can waste time reminding ourselves about, but none of it confers to this. There are many guilty hands in creating the dangerous, and in a few cases barbaric world we live in today. Israel is responsible for its hand in maintaining a western mindset driving militancy and an unholy way of treating people that causes hatred and resentment against us, for creating a climate in the world where terrorist attacks like 9/11 are not only possible, but sadly I believe very likely to happen again given our insolence and inability to stop doing what we're doing. The world is run by fear and blood and I'd like to see less of that, and more brains and benevolence instead. I'm sure you agree with that, sir. Edited May 24, 2012 by Yamato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted May 24, 2012 #1661 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Thank you for that. I'm having trouble finding time to even post at the moment but will try to get a handle on GIMP/Jahshaka when I get chance. No problem. The problem with this theory is that it does not explain why the visible antena piece should come to be in an apparent fixed pivot (rotational) motion at the midpoint of collapse (rather than spinning end on end or simply flung) nor why it should be at a perfect distance from its starting location to fit rotation of the upper block. Due to this I'm certain that the upper block rotated well outside of the tower footprint - that is why we see loss of momentum halfway through collapse and the opposite (North) portion of the core columns initially survive. I disagree. You are basing this full rotation assumption on your initial analysis of the initial video, which is extremely difficult to identify details like the angle of the antenna chunk throughout collapse. There really aren't any great videos that fully capture the motion, but if you review all of them you can start to get a handle on the likely motion of the chunk we see emerge from the debris cloud. If you watch the antenna chunk emerge in this video, you'll note that the initial angle of the chunk is far too vertical to be consistent with your full rotation theory. Or at least, you should note this. It is also clear to me that the movement and continued rotation of the chunk here is completely fluid as it falls, meaning that it broke off from the rest of the antenna before emerging and not after. This matches precisely with the idea that the section above the guy wires broke apart shortly after descending into the cloud and that the chunk was propelled horizontally outside of the collapse zone by the whipping motions we saw in the videos I previously referenced. And again, this alone invalidates Bazant's assumption as it stands: "That must have started the downward motion of the top part of the South Tower, and afterwards its motion must have become predominantly vertical." The actual observations (rotation, loss of momentum, initial survival of core columns - all indications of severe resistance from the lower block) at the midpoint (rather than beginning) of collapse, are not at all what could be expected of a natural progressive collapse, but actually a process of demolition that was not perfectly timed throughout the destruction. Your assumption that the antenna chunk was still attached to the antenna is what has been shown to be false Q24, and that is the premise which your full rotation theory relies upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted May 24, 2012 #1662 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I would only say to you that the 9/11 false flag, perpetrated by elements within the United States, Israel and other sources, does not detract from your own message but works alongside it. The understandable resentment of the Muslim countries toward the U.S and Israel had to exist in the first place for the false flag attack to be viable. And indeed Muslim fighters, or 'Al Qaeda' if you want to call them that, were involved in the setup of 9/11, that is beyond doubt to me. Though the fact remains that agents of the Western powers were all over 'Al Qaeda', drove the hijackers and not only facilitated but directly assisted the attack. All of that just to raise the defense budget??? Why not just do it the old-fashion way: ask for a raise in the budget. Aircrews are having problems getting replacements for their flight suits because the Air Force lacks money, so does that mean that it is time to blow up buildings so we can go to war and get the budget raised in order to have enough money to replace their old flight suits? Now we have a strong case for demolition of the WTC buildings here on this thread... In reality, you have no case. Demolition experts who were on the scene have said there was no evidence of explosives, no blasting caps, not detonation cords, not even evidence on the recovered structural columns, which would have been expected if explosives were used and you wouldn't have to look for it because it would have been clearly evident in front of your eyes. ...are you going to tell me, those Israeli agents, arrested the morning of 9/11 specifically for celebrating the tower collapes, with sniffer dogs reacting as though detecting explosives in their van, what was their purpose in the country? Was their dancing routine considered a crime? I hope you realize they were eventually released and that their van did not contain explosives after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted May 24, 2012 #1663 Share Posted May 24, 2012 That exchange between Yamato The Missle and Cz really lightened things up alot! One of the funniest I've read here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted May 24, 2012 #1664 Share Posted May 24, 2012 And again you turn a blind eye to the substance in my post regarding Israeli links to the WTC demolitions and 9/11. What links?? There are no links involving the Israelis and the collapse of the WTC buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted May 25, 2012 Author #1665 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I'm sure the 9/11 attacks made some Zionists very happy because now the US could relate to the brand of modern terrorism the Zionists invented. You bet... "It’s very good [9/11]… well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel]." ~Benjamin Netanyahu, 2001 "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq." ~Benjamin Netanyahu, 2008 I don't take that possibility and glue it together with a lot of other unrelated and unsubstantiated possibilities and think they stack up on one another until conspiratorial heights are reached. If the building blocks of motive, intent, viability, participation, logic, etc, are all there (which I can prove they are), then why not? I'm saying very little in the grand scheme of things, that the airliners brought the buildings down. When all precedent, science and evidence (or lack of) go against impact and fire induced collapses, and the actual observations suggest demolition, remarkable ownership and insurance deals are put in place by Zionists weeks beforehand, the towers required refurbishment of the asbestos that would have cost more than rebuilding them, the steelwork refurbishment contractor with access to the structures was a Neocon associate, the WTC owner declares interest on the morning to demolish his building, and Israeli agents are detained for celebrating the collapses with the indication of having carried explosives in their van (which you have still turned a blind eye to), amongst so much more... What else is the objective person to think? I don't understand why anyone who has thoroughly studied the subject and is objective would think airliners and/or fires brought the buildings down. The WTC buildings were demolished, charges were placed in the core structure to bring them down and propel the event to the required/Neocon pre-stated severity, it's no big deal to accept. The world is run by fear and blood and I'd like to see less of that, and more brains and benevolence instead. I'm sure you agree with that, sir. Absolutely, that is why I believe we need to raise awareness so that the public are not led the fear and blood route through politicians' false flag deceptions as history shows has occurred time and again. And again this is not meant to detract from the fact the West need to stop interferring in the Middle East and supporting unjust Israeli policies - by doing so, this would ensure events like 9/11, whatever their true nature, are not viable in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted May 25, 2012 Author #1666 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I disagree. You are basing this full rotation assumption on your initial analysis of the initial video, which is extremely difficult to identify details like the angle of the antenna chunk throughout collapse. There really aren't any great videos that fully capture the motion, but if you review all of them you can start to get a handle on the likely motion of the chunk we see emerge from the debris cloud. If you watch the antenna chunk emerge in this video, you'll note that the initial angle of the chunk is far too vertical to be consistent with your full rotation theory. Or at least, you should note this. I have reviewed all of the videos linked on this thread. I'm not sure what you mean, "the initial angle of the chunk is far too vertical to be consistent with your full rotation". The antenna obviously starts off vertical at 0 degrees. When it becomes visible at the midpoint of collapse it is at approximately 45 degrees and rotates in an arc to approximately 90 degrees. This is consistent with a tilt/rotation. This matches precisely with the idea that the section above the guy wires broke apart shortly after descending into the cloud and that the chunk was propelled horizontally outside of the collapse zone by the whipping motions we saw in the videos I previously referenced. A break in the guy wires does not explain what force should cause the top section of the antenna to break into multiple pieces, I keep saying this but you provide no explanation. Neither the visible tilt or "whipping" appeared to cause the antenna any distress. And it would be quite the coincidence if the broken part happened to be flung just with the correct timing, distance, direction and angle to match the rotation I have described. It just seems that you are grasping at any conceivable idea to avoid the best fit answer - and the only reason you are doing that is because the best fit doesn't work for the official theory. It's difficult to convince anyone of why the official theory fails and the demolition theory succeeds when they choose to ignore the obvious and opt for anything... oh please just anything... else. Your assumption that the antenna chunk was still attached to the antenna is what has been shown to be false Q24, and that is the premise which your full rotation theory relies upon. It has not been proven incorrect during the period of rotation that I have referenced. And further, that even if the antenna piece were broken during the period of rotation, it does not change that it got there in the first place through the rotation. Yes the upper block tilted off the tower - one level of charges delayed fractionally and the upper block met resistance, the momentum slowed and the block tilted right off the tower. There was only debris left to drive the collapse, not the whole upper block as Bazant needs. On a slightly different note, I'm not sure you understand why the momentum loss I have demonstrated is so significant. In Bazant's theory the falling mass and momentum can only ever increase at each level - this is why he says that once the collapse begins there is no stopping it. However, the loss of momentum shows the complete opposite - the collapse was being arrested at the midpoint (not a perpetual increase, nothing like), but then something changed. That is anything but indication of a 'natural' progressive collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted May 25, 2012 #1667 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I have reviewed all of the videos linked on this thread. I'm not sure what you mean, "the initial angle of the chunk is far too vertical to be consistent with your full rotation". The antenna obviously starts off vertical at 0 degrees. When it becomes visible at the midpoint of collapse it is at approximately 45 degrees and rotates in an arc to approximately 90 degrees. This is consistent with a tilt/rotation. I'm a bit pressed for time this morning, but I'm talking about the specific video I linked in the post you are replying to. This one. Here as a tightly cropped GIF focused on the part where the chunk is emerging. What angle is the chunk when it emerges from the debris cloud? You consider that to be about 45 degrees when it first emerges? No, it isn't. The chunk clearly broke apart well before emerging and it wasn't attached to anything by the time we see it, including your mythical fully rotated upper block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted May 25, 2012 #1668 Share Posted May 25, 2012 A break in the guy wires does not explain what force should cause the top section of the antenna to break into multiple pieces, I keep saying this but you provide no explanation. Neither the visible tilt or "whipping" appeared to cause the antenna any distress. And it would be quite the coincidence if the broken part happened to be flung just with the correct timing, distance, direction and angle to match the rotation I have described. It just seems that you are grasping at any conceivable idea to avoid the best fit answer - and the only reason you are doing that is because the best fit doesn't work for the official theory. It's difficult to convince anyone of why the official theory fails and the demolition theory succeeds when they choose to ignore the obvious and opt for anything... oh please just anything... else. In my opinion the guy wires probably held until after the antenna section above them broke apart from the previously referenced whipping. The antenna experiences some pretty severe flexation in the first moments of falling. It has not been proven incorrect during the period of rotation that I have referenced. And further, that even if the antenna piece were broken during the period of rotation, it does not change that it got there in the first place through the rotation. Yes the upper block tilted off the tower - one level of charges delayed fractionally and the upper block met resistance, the momentum slowed and the block tilted right off the tower. There was only debris left to drive the collapse, not the whole upper block as Bazant needs. I love the way that you declare absolutely that the upper block rotated off. You have an extremely vivid imagination when it comes to certain things in your conspiracy theory, and yet you can't seem to even momentarily entertain the possibility that the antenna chunk broke apart well before emerging even though all of the video evidence provided points specifically to that fact. On a slightly different note, I'm not sure you understand why the momentum loss I have demonstrated is so significant. In Bazant's theory the falling mass and momentum can only ever increase at each level - this is why he says that once the collapse begins there is no stopping it. However, the loss of momentum shows the complete opposite - the collapse was being arrested at the midpoint (not a perpetual increase, nothing like), but then something changed. That is anything but indication of a 'natural' progressive collapse. The collapse through the damage zone would obviously meet less resistance because that zone was significantly DAMAGED. Of course there will be a slowing of momentum after crushing through that initial section when the descending mass runs into undamaged sections of the building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted May 25, 2012 Author #1669 Share Posted May 25, 2012 You consider that to be about 45 degrees when it first emerges? No, it isn't. It is easier to see in the gif - ok so approximately a 20 degree angle or maybe even less when it very first becomes visible on close inspection - it makes no difference. In fact, even if the visible piece were perfectly vertical that would be fine, with this as a possibility [10 second Paint job alert]: - The blue section is the tip which we know was missing and the red section would be the visible piece. These pieces would be broke through inertial forces during the rotation. You have still to provide an alternative answer for how the antenna either broke or reached that location. First there was 'it just did' which wasn't really an answer. Then there was your 'bounce' idea which you seem to have dropped. Third came the 'outer wall impact' which you have also stepped away from. Now you seem to be on this 'it whipped there' idea - that was one huge whip motion to move the antenna piece near 100m from its starting centre line (i.e. it is implausible as the other ideas before it). And in the meantime doing everything possible to deny the simple suggestion that the upper block rotated further on in the collapse. The chunk clearly broke apart well before emerging and it wasn't attached to anything by the time we see it, including your mythical fully rotated upper block. On what basis are you making those claims? You appear to be pulling statements out of thin air. It wasn't long ago you were telling me we cannot see inside the debris cloud but now all of a sudden it is 'clear' the antenna detached "well before emerging [from the debris cloud]". I don't understand how you are coming up with this. In my opinion the guy wires probably held until after the antenna section above them broke apart from the previously referenced whipping. The antenna experiences some pretty severe flexation in the first moments of falling. Cor look at all that whipping, pieces of antenna breaking and flying off everywhere there, you see it too don't you booNy!? Back to reality... The collapse through the damage zone would obviously meet less resistance because that zone was significantly DAMAGED. Of course there will be a slowing of momentum after crushing through that initial section when the descending mass runs into undamaged sections of the building. The momentum did not reduce after passing through the damage zone so the observation is not congruent with your suggestion. The momentum reduced at the midpoint of collapse so may be congruent with demolition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted May 25, 2012 #1670 Share Posted May 25, 2012 It is easier to see in the gif - ok so approximately a 20 degree angle or maybe even less when it very first becomes visible on close inspection - it makes no difference. In fact, even if the visible piece were perfectly vertical that would be fine, with this as a possibility [10 second Paint job alert]: - The blue section is the tip which we know was missing and the red section would be the visible piece. These pieces would be broke through inertial forces during the rotation. You have still to provide an alternative answer for how the antenna either broke or reached that location. First there was 'it just did' which wasn't really an answer. Then there was your 'bounce' idea which you seem to have dropped. Third came the 'outer wall impact' which you have also stepped away from. Now you seem to be on this 'it whipped there' idea - that was one huge whip motion to move the antenna piece near 100m from its starting centre line (i.e. it is implausible as the other ideas before it). And in the meantime doing everything possible to deny the simple suggestion that the upper block rotated further on in the collapse. The one thing I'm completely confident did NOT happen is your mythical full rotation of the upper block outside of the building footprint. That much is totally obvious due the simple fact that such a motion is impossible. On what basis are you making those claims? You appear to be pulling statements out of thin air. It wasn't long ago you were telling me we cannot see inside the debris cloud but now all of a sudden it is 'clear' the antenna detached "well before emerging [from the debris cloud]". I don't understand how you are coming up with this. It is clear that the antenna chunk isn't attached to anything at all by the time it emerges. That means that it broke apart before emerging. Is it really that difficult for you to realize this? Cor look at all that whipping, pieces of antenna breaking and flying off everywhere there, you see it too don't you booNy!? Back to reality... Are you denying that there is a clearly visible and severe flexation of the antenna above the guy wires as it descends? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted May 25, 2012 #1671 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) "It’s very good [9/11]… well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel]." ~Benjamin Netanyahu, 2001 "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq." ~Benjamin Netanyahu, 2008 Nothing there that links Israel to the collapse of the WTC buildings. When all precedent, science and evidence (or lack of) go against impact and fire induced collapses, and the actual observations suggest demolition, remarkable ownership and insurance deals are put in place by Zionists weeks beforehand, the towers required refurbishment of the asbestos that would have cost more than rebuilding them, the steelwork refurbishment contractor with access to the structures was a Neocon associate, the WTC owner declares interest on the morning to demolish his building, and Israeli agents are detained for celebrating the collapses with the indication of having carried explosives in their van (which you have still turned a blind eye to), amongst so much more... After more than 10 years, still no evidence that explosives were used. You seem to ignore the fact that demolition experts on the scene found no evidence of explosives either. I don't understand why anyone who has thoroughly studied the subject and is objective would think airliners and/or fires brought the buildings down. The WTC buildings were demolished, charges were placed in the core structure to bring them down and propel the event to the required/Neocon pre-stated severity, it's no big deal to accept. Considering that you have not posted any evidence, what more is there to say? This article slams the door on 9/11 CT claims that explosives were used. http://mp3tubetoolba...33e6b581&subid= In addition: Seismic Recordings Popular Mechanics gives a good account of why the seismic spikes do not support the CD theory: www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y. Brent Blanchard devotes section 4 of his paper to the issue of seismic recordings on 9/11. Blanchard is Senior Editor of ImplosionWorld, a website which posts details of explosive demolitions, and also Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. Protec works in the field of vibration monitoring and structure inspection, a key service to both the construction and demolition industries. Vibration monitoring performed by independent experts has long been considered crucial for companies carrying out explosive demolition, because owners of nearby buildings are keen to sue if any cracks or other structural damage appears. The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites. Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse. None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse. In his words: This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events. http://mp3tubetoolba...33e6b581&subid= In other words, there was never evidence that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings, and after more than 10 years after the 9/11 attacks, there is still no evidence that explosives were used. Edited May 25, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted May 25, 2012 #1672 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) You bet... "It’s very good [9/11]… well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel]." ~Benjamin Netanyahu, 2001 "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq." ~Benjamin Netanyahu, 2008 If the building blocks of motive, intent, viability, participation, logic, etc, are all there (which I can prove they are), then why not? When all precedent, science and evidence (or lack of) go against impact and fire induced collapses, and the actual observations suggest demolition, remarkable ownership and insurance deals are put in place by Zionists weeks beforehand, the towers required refurbishment of the asbestos that would have cost more than rebuilding them, the steelwork refurbishment contractor with access to the structures was a Neocon associate, the WTC owner declares interest on the morning to demolish his building, and Israeli agents are detained for celebrating the collapses with the indication of having carried explosives in their van (which you have still turned a blind eye to), amongst so much more... What else is the objective person to think? I don't understand why anyone who has thoroughly studied the subject and is objective would think airliners and/or fires brought the buildings down. The WTC buildings were demolished, charges were placed in the core structure to bring them down and propel the event to the required/Neocon pre-stated severity, it's no big deal to accept. Absolutely, that is why I believe we need to raise awareness so that the public are not led the fear and blood route through politicians' false flag deceptions as history shows has occurred time and again. And again this is not meant to detract from the fact the West need to stop interferring in the Middle East and supporting unjust Israeli policies - by doing so, this would ensure events like 9/11, whatever their true nature, are not viable in the first place. Airliners hit the towers (evidence). Unscientific explanations that try so hard to evade the glaringly obvious is nothing more than a fact-defying fiction and quite a rhetorical stunt. Everything about the collapse is as I would expect it to be and the NIST report is sound. The report should be studied by engineering students, especially those tasked with building skyscrapers in the future. Conversely, if any currently employed engineering professor wants to stand up and make a fool out of themselves by spewing truther "science", they'd be 10 years late. Edited May 25, 2012 by Yamato 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted May 25, 2012 #1673 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Airliners hit the towers (evidence). Unscientific explanations that try so hard to evade the glaringly obvious is nothing more than a fact-defying fiction and quite a rhetorical stunt. Everything about the collapse is as I would expect it to be and the NIST report is sound. The report should be studied by engineering students, especially those tasked with building skyscrapers in the future. Conversely, if any currently employed engineering professor wants to stand up and make a fool out of themselves by spewing truther "science", they'd be 10 years late. Good luck convincing Q24 of this second part. For such a well organized and intelligent chap, he's notably impervious to reasonable assessment of the work by NIST and has convinced himself that the NIST reports mean the opposite of what they say. And don't try to discuss Bazant with him either. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted May 26, 2012 #1674 Share Posted May 26, 2012 (edited) Changes to buildings that were the result of the 9/11 attacks conducted by foreign terrorist. A decade after 9/11, new innovations in skyscraper design Since the 9/11 attacks, architects who specialize in designing high-rises for major cities have worked to conquer design challenges that simply did not exist before 2001. Unprecedented security concerns and new safety regulations and codes — not to mention lingering terrorist fear in the minds of occupants — have required a new approach to tall structures in the post-9/11 age. LEARNING FROM DISASTER Many fundamental changes to skyscraper design were the direct result of regulation enacted in the wake of the destruction of 1 and 2 World Trade Center. These largely involve the use of redundant building systems to prevent the “progressive collapse” of a structure, where a series of local failures spread until the entire structure is at risk. Research conducted by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology on the collapse of the Twin Towers (published in 2005 and available here as a .pdf) and 7 World Trade Center (published in 2008 and available here as a .pdf) outlined in extensive technical detail how the structures failed and offered 30 recommendations to improve the design of high-rises. Among them: increased structural integrity through alternate load-bearing paths, fire resistance by design (”burnout without collapse”), better building evacuation routes and redundant systems for sprinklers, hoses, fire alarms and smoke management. Many of the NIST’s recommendations have been adopted, with others planned soon. In 2009, the International Code Council added 23 code changes to the International Building Code and the International Fire Code based on the NIST’s report on the World Trade Center’s destruction. Some of the changes included a requirement to increase the width of all stairways by 50 percent in new high-rises and strengthened criteria for placement and inspection of sprayed-on fire-resistant materials. State and local governments use these codes as a base for their own building and fire regulations. Last year, the ICC approved 17 additional code changes based on the NIST’s investigation, including the improvement of emergency radio communications for first responders and elevator safety. The changes will be included in the 2012 International Building Code and International Fire Code. DESIGN, DECODED One way that architects at SOM and other firms are meeting new building codes that surfaced after the destruction of the original World Trade Center towers is through a borrowed-innovation approach, in which multi-national firms take their most inventive responses to strict safety and security regulations and import them into nations where regulations are less demanding, including the U.S. The approach can reduce the time needed for original research and development. OPTIMISTIC SYMBOLS Whether terrorist target or industrial icon, the skyscraper continues to serve as the vehicle for cutting-edge technology, daring design, and inventive engineering. A decade after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that destroyed two prominent high-rises and thousands of lives, it’s clear that architects and engineers are working fastidiously and creatively to ensure that the newest generation of supertall structures can reach higher than ever without sacrificing safety and efficiency. http://www.smartplan...aper-design/584 Edited May 26, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted May 26, 2012 #1675 Share Posted May 26, 2012 (edited) Changes that were the result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks upon the United States by foreign hijackers. Airport security repercussions due to the September 11 attacks After the events of September 11, 2001, questions were raised regarding the effectiveness of security at the time, as all 19 hijackers managed to pass existing checkpoints and board the aircraft. Since the attack, security at many airports worldwide has been escalated, ostensibly to lower the probability of similar events occurring again. Changes in airport security Before September 11, 2001, airport screening was provided by private companies which were contracted with the airline or airport. In November 2001, the Transportation Security Administration was introduced to handle screening at all U.S. airports. They installed bulletproof and locked cockpit doors. Argenbright Security, a company that provided security for Newark and Washington Dulles, had problems before in May 2000, because they hired 1,300 untrained security guards, including several dozen with criminal records, for Philadelphia International Airport.[1] The company, which was on probation at the time of the attack, had its probation extended to October 2005. Improved security on aircraft Cockpit doors on many aircraft are now strengthened and bulletproof to prevent unauthorized access. Unlike in previous years, passengers are generally prohibited from entering the cockpit during flight. Some aircraft are equipped with CCTV cameras, so the pilots can monitor the cabin activity. Pilots also have an option to carry a gun, but must be trained to use and operate it. In the U.S., more air marshals have been placed onto flights to improve security. Improved security screening The airport checkpoint screening has been significantly tightened since 2001. Many passengers are patted-down and thoroughly checked with a hand-held metal detector. The security personnel are also better trained to perform searches. On September 11, hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi all set off the metal detector alarm. Despite being checked with a hand-held detector, the screener failed to find the items that caused the alarm. They then all boarded the aircraft. Identification checks On September 11, some hijackers lacked proper ID, yet they were able to board. All passengers 18 years or older generally must now have valid identification, issued by the government in order to fly, although the ID is only visually checked for validity and the name and details are not validated. Airports may check the ID of any passenger at any time to ensure that the details on the ID match those on the printed boarding pass. Under exceptional circumstances, an individual may fly without a valid ID. If approved for flying without an ID, the individual will be subject to extra screening of their person and their carry-on items. TSA does not have the capability to conduct background checks on passengers at checkpoints. Sensitive areas in airports, including airport ramps and operational spaces, are restricted from the general public. Called a SIDA (Security Identification Display Area) in the U.S., these spaces require special qualifications to enter. http://en.wikipedia....mber_11_attacks The Effects of 9/11 on the Airline Industry The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 shook the United States in a profound way, deeply upsetting the national perception of safety within U.S. borders. No industry or sector of the economy felt the impacts of these events more than the airline industry. Both the immediate reaction to the attacks and the long-term repercussions have negatively affected the industry. http://traveltips.us...stry-63890.html Edited May 26, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now