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.


- - - - -

The Impossible Fast Collapse of The Towers


  • Please log in to reply
848 replies to this topic

#841    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 September 2011 - 01:45 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 29 September 2011 - 01:37 AM, said:

It seems that skeptics are unaware of terrorist plans to blow up American airliners over the Pacific, target the U.S. congress, blow up the White House, and the Pentagon, and skyscrapers using aircraft several years before 911.
Maybe you should tell Condi Rice who claimed they could never envision it. And maybe you should tell the Bush admin for their failure of imagination.

View PostJerry Only, on 29 September 2011 - 01:25 AM, said:

Plans were also uncovered in the Philippines where terrorist were to fly airplanes into the CIA headquarters.
Makes you wonder why Bush ignored his 6th Aug 2001 PDB entitled Bin Laden Determined to Strike US and went on another vacation.  

Maybe he should have listened to Richard Clarke, who said that the Bush administration took no serious action in response to multiple warnings of an impending, massive attack within the US.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#842    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,667 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 29 September 2011 - 02:10 AM

View PostStundie, on 29 September 2011 - 01:45 AM, said:

Maybe you should tell Condi Rice who claimed they could never envision it. And maybe you should tell the Bush admin for their failure of imagination.

Apparently, you were unaware that plots were uncovered in the Philippines years before 911 where terrorist were training in the USA as pilots, and where a plot was uncovered to slam aircraft into buildings years before 911.


Quote

Makes you wonder why Bush ignored his 6th Aug 2001 PDB entitled Bin Laden Determined to Strike US and went on another vacation.

It was later deterimined that our government dropped the ball despite the warnings from the Philippines, but they were still alarmed at what the Philippine government had uncovered. A month before 911, I was returning to the USA from the Philippines and wondered at that time, why our airport security did not measure up to security measures in the Philippines.

I spend my time in Negros, Occidental for 3 weeks in August 2001 before returning to the United States. A month later, it was evident why our security measures should have been up-to-par with security measures in the Philippines.

Edited by skyeagle409, 29 September 2011 - 02:11 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#843    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 September 2011 - 02:18 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 29 September 2011 - 02:10 AM, said:

Apparently, you were unaware that plots were uncovered in the Philippines years before 911 where terrorist were training in the USA as pilots, and where a plot was uncovered to slam aircraft into buildings years before 911.




It was later deterimined that our government dropped the ball despite the warnings from the Philippines, but they were still alarmed at what the Philippine government had uncovered. A month before 911, I was returning to the USA from the Philippines and wondered at that time, why our airport security did not measure up to security measures in the Philippines.

I spend my time in Negros, Occidental for 3 weeks in August 2001 before returning to the United States. A month later, it was evident why our security measures should have been up-to-par with security measures in the Philippines.
http://en.wikipedia..../Bojinka_plot  :rolleyes:

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#844    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,667 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 29 September 2011 - 02:21 AM

View PostStundie, on 29 September 2011 - 02:18 AM, said:


Good! Now, the question is:

Why the argument that terrorist could not have been responsible for flying aircraft into buildings when it was clear that they were training as pilots in the United States to do just that?Additionally, with the White House and the CIA headquarters as targets.

Edited by skyeagle409, 29 September 2011 - 02:24 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#845    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 September 2011 - 02:30 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 29 September 2011 - 02:21 AM, said:

Good! Now, the question is:

Why the argument that terrorist could not have been responsible for flying aircraft into buildings when it was clear that they were training as pilots in the United States to do just that?Additionally, with the White House and the CIA headquarters as targets.
Who are you arguing with?? lol

I don't ever recall arguing that terrorist could not have been responsible for flying aircraft into buildings. So it's not me and you are off topic again.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#846    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,667 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 29 September 2011 - 02:33 AM

View PostStundie, on 29 September 2011 - 02:30 AM, said:

Who are you arguing with?? lol

Aren't you advocating that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#847    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 29 September 2011 - 04:14 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 29 September 2011 - 01:34 AM, said:

Show me exactly where and in full context.
Full context?

Here you go: -

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

Enjoy   :D

Seriously, it is not so simple as quoting a single paragraph or even a single report.  You need to understand how NIST conducted their study and the results obtained.  You can only get that in full context by reading the reports.  They don’t tend to ‘cut to the chase’ in the way I do.

Basically, here is what to look out for…

NIST conducted three impact cases for each tower.

The first was based on the best estimates of aircraft weight, speed, trajectory, tower strength, etc, etc, etc, obtained from video footage and specifications.  NIST called this the “base case” or “realistic case” or “best estimate case”.

The other two cases were a lower and upper bound of the variable estimates above.  NIST called these the “less severe case” and “severe case”.  The “base case” was equidistant to these two cases.

NIST scrapped the “less severe case” early in the study as it had no chance of producing collapse in their model.  The “base case” was considered further but it was found that it did not produce the required truss sagging and pull-in forces that were vital to the NIST collapse theory.  NIST used only the “severe case” (with a tweak here and there) in their final analysis, as this produced the collapse initiation sought.

There is a further significant note to make at this point.  NIST stated the most important observable factor in evaluating accuracy of each case was with comparison to the photographic record of impact damage.  This comparison revealed that the “base case” was indeed better match to actual damage in the photographic record than that of the “severe case”.  That is, they confirmed their non-collapse case was best match to the actual impact damage observable.

Altogether this is why I say, “NIST found the larger part of the range tested showed no collapse.”  From the “less severe case” to a point between the “base case” and “severe case” produced no collapse.  Only a shorter range toward the upper bound “severe case” produced collapse.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 29 September 2011 - 01:34 AM, said:

Why should I change my opinion regarding what actually happened based on unlikely and implausible scenarios presented by a truth movement which is clearly manipulative and dishonest?
Forget the truth movement - I wouldn’t take anything said at face value either.

You accepted of your own accord there is an impact and fire scenario which does not cause collapse (I hope the above explanation enforced that further) and that demolition of the WTC buildings was not entirely impossible.

So listen to yourself… you must reserve a doubt in your mind… just what if… ?

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.

#848    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 September 2011 - 05:17 AM

View PostQ24, on 29 September 2011 - 04:14 AM, said:

Full context?

Here you go: -

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

Enjoy   :D

Seriously, it is not so simple as quoting a single paragraph or even a single report.  You need to understand how NIST conducted their study and the results obtained.  You can only get that in full context by reading the reports.  They don’t tend to ‘cut to the chase’ in the way I do.

--
Thanks for the link, I've actually been looking for that.

The fact that you can't quote NIST in any way stating what you claim is very telling.  Or perhaps you can and choose not to?  I won't make a determination either way.

But until I see it in a NIST report, I'm not going to just take your word that it is there.  And I'm certainly not accepting your interpretation of the reports after you've blatantly stated that you believe it is impossible for the planes and resulting fires to have caused the collapse.  I mean really.  Who can take you seriously after that?



View PostQ24, on 29 September 2011 - 04:14 AM, said:

So listen to yourself… you must reserve a doubt in your mind… just what if… ?
With all of the truth movement nonsense going on, anyone would ask the question just what if...  But on the same token, I remember being quite enamored with this when I was a kid:

Posted Image


I wish I still had the issue, but I sold off all my comics over 20 years ago.  Well, I didn't...  but...  I no longer have them and someone made some money off the deal.  I'll stop now so that I don't start cursing.


At any rate, idle speculation about nonsensical ideas, as normal as it is for any human being, doesn't equate to validity for those ideas.  Hell, I've idly speculated about a huge number of things that are far fetched, if not completely implausible.  That doesn't make them real.  And it certainly doesn't validate anything you're trying to convince me of.


#849    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 29 September 2011 - 05:39 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 29 September 2011 - 05:17 AM, said:

Thanks for the link, I've actually been looking for that.

The fact that you can't quote NIST in any way stating what you claim is very telling.  Or perhaps you can and choose not to?  I won't make a determination either way.
I can and choose not to because 1) it would take a huge amount of time to read through and find all of the relevant sections and 2) I could never hope to give you the full context as requested without reproducing half the report.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 29 September 2011 - 05:17 AM, said:

But until I see it in a NIST report, I'm not going to just take your word that it is there.
Have it your way - happy reading  :)

Here is a paper discussing some of what I’ve said (skip down to 3.1 Aircraft Impact for the relevant discussion): -

http://journalof911s...vestigation.pdf

It might help you get a gist of the situation.

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.

#850    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 19,839 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein

Posted 01 October 2011 - 03:59 PM

Thread cleaned

Keep it civil and on topic please folks.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users