Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

911: Professional experts says it was staged


  • Please log in to reply
509 replies to this topic

#16    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 10 September 2011 - 03:46 AM

View PostQ24, on 09 September 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

View Postrambaldi, on 09 September 2011 - 11:52 AM, said:

- why are truthers in sentences like "Fire has never caused any  steel-framed high-rise building to collapse in any manner" totally  ignoring the documented previous damage from the WTC1+2 debris?

Because NIST have confirmed the damage was superficial, i.e. had no bearing on the collapse which was induced entirely by plain old office fire… officially.

Why are you claiming the WTC1 debris damage, which affected other buildings too, had anything to do with it?

Perhaps he read it from wikipedia, as I just did:

Quote

As the North Tower [aka WTC 1] collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit  7 World Trade Center, causing damage to the south face of the building.[29]  Structural damage occurred to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and  17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible  structural damage includes a large vertical gash near the center of the  south face between Floors 24 and 41.[8]

Source: http://en.wikipedia....11_and_collapse

I added the WTC 1 comment.

If you look up the [29] link, you'll see that it's supposed to link to a NIST appendix. I imagine they've changed the address of that file, however, as it doesn't currently link to a pdf file. [8] doesn't currently link to the indicated NIST pdf file either.


#17    Mario Lemieux

Mario Lemieux

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 212 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh

Posted 10 September 2011 - 03:51 AM

View Postdarkbreed, on 08 September 2011 - 10:43 PM, said:

911Truth: Architects & Engineers agree it was staged controlled demolition

Experts Speak Out. Altogether more than 1,500 Architects & Engineers that have signed the calling for a new investigation of the destruction of the 3 buildings in WTC , 911.

Source:
http://conspiraciesf...?num=1315022038

VIDEO EMBED



I wish you would actually post a source instead of saying "source" and then linking us to a quack website and a youtube video.

Pittsburgh Steelers 2008-2009 Super Bowl Champions
Pittsburgh Penguins 2008-2009 Stanley Cup Champions

#18    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 10 September 2011 - 03:57 AM

View PostMario Lemieux, on 10 September 2011 - 03:48 AM, said:

Yeah, 1,500 out of MILLIONS said this.

1,500 Architects and Engineers want a new 9/11 investigation. How many Architects and Engineers are satisfied with the one that's been done? If you can give me 15 who'd go on a list saying that they're completely satisfied with the investigation, I'd be impressed, let alone 1,500. I think the reason that AE911 (the abbreviation of this organization's name) is so successful in persuading people is that these are recognized experts in their field. The best official story believers can do is scoff at the number, whilst ignoring the fact that there is no opposing group that's anywhere near that number. All you have is the mass media stating again and again that they're wrong. But recently, even characters in the mass media have begun to have doubts. The example that comes to mind the most is Geraldo; for years, he believed the official story, but I saw him not too long ago do a broadcast with a member of AE911 as well as a father who lost one of his children, in one of the towers I believe, and he's begun to wonder himself if perhaps the official story isn't the truth after all. I mention him because he was one of the first TV personalities who began to question the official story on JFK as well.


#19    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 10 September 2011 - 04:02 AM

View Postrambaldi, on 09 September 2011 - 11:52 AM, said:

why are truthers in sentences like "Fire has never caused any steel-framed high-rise building to collapse in any manner" totally ignoring the documented previous damage from the WTC1+2 debris?

Alright, I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Are you trying to say that the main reason for the collapse of WTC 7 was debris that allegedly hit it from WTC 1 and 2? Or are you saying something else? By the way, truthers say that no fire has ever caused a steel framed high rise building to collapse because it's true.


#20    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 10 September 2011 - 05:19 AM

The official story is a conspiracy theory; one that makes no sense when you look at the evidence in depth, but it still fits that bill. And as a matter of fact, there are many families who have lost people in 9/11 who are still fighting for the truth to come out. It seems all you wanted to do here was insult me, so I've reported your post.

Edited by Karlis, 10 September 2011 - 06:55 AM.


#21    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 10 September 2011 - 09:47 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 09 September 2011 - 03:31 PM, said:

hmmm...
this is a bit of an epiphany for me. I had never thought about this.

The official story and its beleivers tell us that "everyone was expecting the building to collapse", which contradicts the official explanation of collapse - that a beam fell off it's seat due to thermal expansion causing a rapid cascacde of failure - a series of events which occurred over a period of seconds.

The official technical explanation for collapse is inconsistent with the official foreknowledge explanations.
Yes, the official collapse theory is not a drawn-out process whereby the WTC7 condition deteriorated over time - the event alleged to have brought collapse initiation occurred, and failures progressed, rapidly.  This type of event could not have been predicted ahead of time.

After being struck by the tower debris, there is no evidence the WTC7 condition altered at all over the following seven hours.  The fact, in that timeframe, there were fires and ‘creaking’ heard from the building (probably expansion and/or sagging of trusses) are expected in any severe building fire - they do not reasonably indicate imminent collapse.

NIST have confirmed the WTC7 fires could have spread until the whole building was gutted and still had no effect on the primary structure:  “None of these columns was significantly weakened by elevated temperatures; temperatures did not exceed 300oC in the core or perimeter columns in WTC7.”

So why did an anonymous member of the OEM seek to convince the FDNY that the building was a “lost cause” as early as 11:30 a.m.?  How did an anonymous engineer around mid-day inform the FDNY they had “about five hours” until the building would come down?  This was before the firefighter decision to withdraw.

1.  Individuals on scene possessed foreknowledge that could not reasonably be determined by observation alone.
2.  They wanted the FDNY out of the building.

Regarding the second point, it is notable that the FDNY did try to engage the WTC7 fire on numerous occasions, the will was there, but they were turned back from the building each time.


View PostScott G, on 10 September 2011 - 03:24 AM, said:

My god, I think Q24 has actually persuaded you to doubt the official story on WTC 7, laugh :-)
:rofl:

It’s just useful to hear what you already know put in a different way sometimes.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#22    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 10 September 2011 - 12:42 PM

Very good points Q. However, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that wikipedia isn't apprised of the information that you are mentioning; they clearly seem to be out of date (even 2 of their links to NIST are out of date). Could you source the NIST report that says that the debris and ensuing fire did negligible damage to WTC 7? I do remember NIST's computer model of WTC 7s deterioration; it looked nothing like what the building looked like pre-collapse; instead of essentially looking like a building that wasn't going anywhere, in the computer model, the building was severely deformed. I was just seeing some live footage from the expert panel on September 11 in Toronto, Canada, the other day, and Kevin Ryan, who had worked for Underwriter Laboratories, the company that certified the steel assemblies of the Twin Tower buildings, explained how the computer models for the Twin Towers were also divorced from reality.

Edited by Scott G, 10 September 2011 - 12:42 PM.


#23    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 10 September 2011 - 12:45 PM

View PostQ24, on 10 September 2011 - 09:47 AM, said:

:rofl:

It's just useful to hear what you already know put in a different way sometimes.

And... snap. I got Little Fish confused with Aqua -.-

Little Fish and me go way back and we've both been on the truther side for a while; a familiar name not seen in a while and look what happens, laugh :-p.


#24    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 10 September 2011 - 01:17 PM

View PostScott G, on 10 September 2011 - 12:42 PM, said:

Very good points Q. However, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that wikipedia isn't apprised of the information that you are mentioning; they clearly seem to be out of date (even 2 of their links to NIST are out of date). Could you source the NIST report that says that the debris and ensuing fire did negligible damage to WTC 7?
NIST redesigned their website a few weeks back.  The Wikipedia links have likely not been updated.  A lot of the WTC reports and appendices disappeared for a while.  They all seem to be back up now: -

http://www.nist.gov/...terstudies/wtc/

See ‘Publications’ link on the left-hand side.

The information I provided is from NIST NCSTAR 1A:  Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#25    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 10 September 2011 - 03:39 PM

View PostQ24, on 10 September 2011 - 01:17 PM, said:

NIST redesigned their website a few weeks back.  The Wikipedia links have likely not been updated.  A lot of the WTC reports and appendices disappeared for a while.  They all seem to be back up now: -

http://www.nist.gov/...terstudies/wtc/

See ‘Publications’ link on the left-hand side.

The information I provided is from NIST NCSTAR 1A:  Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

I downloaded the PDF of that article from the link you provided. It's 130 pages long though; could you cite where it specifically states that the damage from the WTC debris was "confirmed [to be] superficial, i.e. had no bearing on the collapse which was induced entirely by plain old office fire… officially"?


#26    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 10 September 2011 - 03:42 PM

By the way, the computer model deformations on page 84 of the pdf version of NIST NCSTAR 1A:  Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 looks nothing like what WTC 7 atually looked like pre-collapse, or even during collapse for that matter.


#27    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 10 September 2011 - 05:49 PM

View PostQ24, on 10 September 2011 - 09:47 AM, said:

It’s just useful to hear what you already know put in a different way sometimes.
sure, one only needs to see the clip of wtc7 to know, but to see the fatal flaw in the official believers argument is to really know. just to clarify my epiphany is seeing the fatal flaw in the arguments of those that believe the official story.

it is absurd to accept the official technical NIST explanation AND accept the "official" explanations of foreknowledge.
these two things are completely contradictory.
one is something which could not have been predicted, the other is something which was predicted. to accept both as true is classic doublethink. doesn't this point boil the whole foreknowledge thing down and underscore the importance of the "bbc world" clip with wtc7 in the background? It is not congruent with NIST's technical explanation of collapse. A question to official story believers is what am I missing here?

scott said:

a familiar name not seen in a while and look what happens, laugh :-p.
nice to see you around again, hope you're well.


#28    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 10 September 2011 - 06:09 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 10 September 2011 - 05:49 PM, said:

sure, one only needs to see the clip of wtc7 to know, but to see the fatal flaw in the official believers argument is to really know. just to clarify my epiphany is seeing the fatal flaw in the arguments of those that believe the official story.

it is absurd to accept the official technical NIST explanation AND accept the "official" explanations of foreknowledge.
these two things are completely contradictory.
one is something which could not have been predicted, the other is something which was predicted. to accept both as true is classic doublethink. doesn't this point boil the whole foreknowledge thing down and underscore the importance of the "bbc world" clip with wtc7 in the background? It is not congruent with NIST's technical explanation of collapse. A question to official story believers is what am I missing here?

If the case can be shown to be ironclad, I think it would help. The information in wikipedia certainly doesn't include this. I want to find exactly where NIST states both that the North Tower (WTC 1) debris had a negligible effect on the subsequent collapse of WTC 7 as well as where they say that the actual collapse was impossible to predict.

View PostLittle Fish, on 10 September 2011 - 05:49 PM, said:

nice to see you around again, hope you're well.

Well, I've been worse off, laugh :-). I'm alright. Taking a small course on the law, we'll see how it goes.


#29    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,599 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 10 September 2011 - 06:59 PM

View Postdarkbreed, on 08 September 2011 - 10:43 PM, said:

911Truth: Architects & Engineers agree it was staged controlled demolition

Experts Speak Out. Altogether more than 1,500 Architects & Engineers that have signed the calling for a new investigation of the destruction of the 3 buildings in WTC , 911.

Source:
http://conspiraciesf...?num=1315022038

VIDEO EMBED


This same tired and pathetic crew has been pushing this crap for 10 years now.

1,500 architects and engineers?  Really?  What's that, like .05% of architects and engineers in the world?  I can find 1,500 people who believe that I can blow poodles out of my ass, but that proves nothing.

Look, I work at one of the most prominent architecture schools in the US and I've seen these guys peddling their books and videos at AIA conferences.  I've yet to see more than 1 or 2 people stop and talk with them over the course of an entire day.  Most simply ignore them or openly mock them as they walk by.

Not to mention, every single point they're trying to make has been debunked so many times it's pathetic.  Anomaly hunting and supposition is not proof of anything.


#30    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 10 September 2011 - 07:01 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 10 September 2011 - 05:49 PM, said:

it is absurd to accept the official technical NIST explanation AND accept the "official" explanations of foreknowledge.
these two things are completely contradictory.
one is something which could not have been predicted, the other is something which was predicted. to accept both as true is classic doublethink. doesn't this point boil the whole foreknowledge thing down and underscore the importance of the "bbc world" clip with wtc7 in the background? It is not congruent with NIST's technical explanation of collapse. A question to official story believers is what am I missing here?
They would say the precise mechanism of failure does not need to be known to determine the building was in danger of collapse.  I would say, without knowing this “extraordinary” potential mechanism existed within the building, there would be no reason to believe collapse could occur at all.

There was simply nothing to observe that would have given any great confidence WTC7 was to collapse… and yet, there was all that confidence apparent on scene, not only of collapse, but the fact it was going to be global along with the timing.

It‘s madness to defend.  It was a blatant demolition.  If I followed the official narrative I’d give up on WTC7, accept the demolition and attempt to incorporate it into the story - “they did it for safety reasons” or something.  Although that opens up a whole can of worms, so I guess they cannot.


View PostScott G, on 10 September 2011 - 03:39 PM, said:

I downloaded the PDF of that article from the link you provided. It's 130 pages long though; could you cite where it specifically states that the damage from the WTC debris was "confirmed [to be] superficial, i.e. had no bearing on the collapse which was induced entirely by plain old office fire… officially"?
Take your pick: -

  • “Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.”

  • “Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.”

  • “Compared to the airplane impact damage to the WTC towers, there was relatively little damage to the interior of WTC 7.”

  • “The third simulation was the same as the first, except that no debris impact damage was included.  The purpose of this analysis was to determine the contribution of debris impact to the WTC 7 global collapse sequence and whether WTC 7 would have collapsed solely due to the effects of the fire.

    The third LS-DYNA analysis demonstrated that the fire-induced damage led to the collapse of WTC 7, even without any structural damage from the debris impact.”

  • “WTC 7 was prone to classic progressive collapse in the absence of debris impact and fire-induced damage when a section of Column 79 between Floors 11 and 13 was removed.”

  • “Even without the initial structural damage caused by debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.”

  • “The initial westward progression and the overall speed of the collapse was not sensitive to the extent of the estimated structural damage to WTC 7 due to the debris from the collapse of WTC 1.”

The debris damage to WTC7 was neither here nor there to the collapse.


View PostScott G, on 10 September 2011 - 06:09 PM, said:

If the case can be shown to be ironclad, I think it would help. The information in wikipedia certainly doesn't include this. I want to find exactly where NIST states both that the North Tower (WTC 1) debris had a negligible effect on the subsequent collapse of WTC 7 as well as where they say that the actual collapse was impossible to predict.
Nothing is ironclad where human interpretation is involved.   :mellow:

Anyhow…

The fact NIST admit their own collapse theory would be “the first known instance” and “an extraordinary event”, taking them seven years to come up with and relying on the idea the building was, unlike all comparable examples, “not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse”… would all suggest the witnessed collapse was unpredictable.

http://www.nist.gov/...c_qa_082108.cfm

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users