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.


- - - - -

Question about 9/11


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
197 replies to this topic

#106    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 20 July 2013 - 10:39 PM

double post

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 July 2013 - 10:42 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#107    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 20 July 2013 - 11:01 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 20 July 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

your statement "facts and evidence support the official story" is not true because fire does not explain a freefall collapse.

On the contrary, they are right on the money and there are many others who have concurred.

Quote


The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations, and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals.

Following the publication of Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" Brigham Young University responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university.

The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones". On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.

Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory assumes).

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."


As I have mentioned many times that conspiracy theorist have failed to present evidence that demolition charges were used to bring down the WTC buildings and it is very true and the reason is, there was no demolition explosive evidence in the first place.

They've claimed that only explosives could have initiated such a collapse, but that is not true by any means because steel structures have collapsed simply due to the effects of fires, as was the case when 3 steel frame buildings of the Kader Toy factory complex collapsed due to fire and the steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain collapsed due to fire, and not to mention that WTC 5 suffered an internal structural collapse due to  fire which was similar to the internal structural collapse of WTC7.

Quote



World Trade Center 5 Failure Analysis

World Trade Center 5 (WTC 5) was a 9-story office and retail building at the World Trade Center complex in New York City, NY. On September 11, 2001, flaming debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers penetrated the roof of WTC 5, causing a fire that burned unchecked until the fuel from building contents was consumed (FEMA, 2002, p. 4-4). While impact damage over a portion of the building and an intense fire throughout are not surprising given the assault this building received, engineers inspecting the building after the event were not expecting to see an interior collapse, due entirely to the influence of the fire. The floors collapsed between the 8th and the 4th levels in the eastern section of the building, where there was no initial impact damage (Figure 1).


Posted Image



It is evident they didn't understand the sequence of events nor the mechanisms of the WTC building collapses. They  failed to understand the significance of the fact that the WTC buildings buckled prior to their collapse which was the prime indicator that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

The way a building collapsed is not evidence that explosives were used. Are you aware of the Verinage demolition method? If not, check it out.

Posted Image




Edited by skyeagle409, 20 July 2013 - 11:26 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#108    W Tell

W Tell

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 July 2013 - 03:24 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 July 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

On the contrary, the total collapse of WTC7 lasted much longer than just 9 seconds and once again, did not have anything to do with explosives because:

*   No demolition explosions seen as WTC7 collapsed

*   No demolition explosions heard as WTC7 collapsed

*   No demolition explosions detected as WTC7 collapsed.

*   No evidence of demolition explosives found within the rubble after WTC collapsed.


To sum it up, there is absolutely no evidence that demolition charges were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. The false story that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings was proven to be just that, false!



Facts are facts. Check it out.



I'm just curious. Haven't you noticed you've been left out to dry? No one's going to refute you anymore on the mountins of misinformation you produce to back your argument because it's all been refuted and you won't listen. You can't even get 911 believers behind your cause  because they know they're on the losing end.

Why do you think the argument has morphed into Bazant's theory? Hint.. it's because it's even more convoluted than your theory.....

You and I are dinosaurs in this discussion Sky.


#109    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 July 2013 - 05:19 AM

View PostW Tell, on 21 July 2013 - 03:24 AM, said:

I'm just curious. Haven't you noticed you've been left out to dry?
]

Left to dry?! No by any means.

Quote

No one's going to refute you anymore on the mountins of misinformation you produce to back your argument because it's all been refuted and you won't listen.

Mountains of misinformation? Let's take another look.

1. Was Mr. Silverstein arrested for illegally demolishing WTC7? Yes, or no.

2. Was anyone arrested for illegally demolishing WTC7? Yes, or no.

3. Was evidence found within the rubble of WTC7 that proved WTC7 was demolished by demolition charges? Yes, or no.

4. Were demolition explosions seen or heard as WTC7 collapsed? Yes, or no.

5. Were demolition explosions seen as WTC7 collapsed? Yes, or no.

6. Was demolition hardware found in the rubble of WTC7? Yes, or no.

Now, if you answered yes to any the above questions, you must present evidence, otherwise, you will be simply out of luck and  your comments will have been proven to be simply unfounded and baseless.

Quote

You can't even get 911 believers behind your cause  because they know they're on the losing end.

How amusing!! :lol: Where's your evidence that I am incorrect? Where's your evidence that can be presented to the media, which will result in the conviction of a government official/officials in the 911 attack. if you fail to produce such evidence, then you will be exposed.

I have challenged conspiracy theorist to present evidence that can stand up in a court of law and as of today, I am still waiting, and now, it's your turn to step forward to present evidence of a govenment 911 conspiracy and if you are unable to do so, then it will time for you to step back and admit you have no such evidence.

Facts and evidence speak louder than empty words and  unnecessary rhetoric.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 July 2013 - 05:51 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#110    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 21 July 2013 - 09:45 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 July 2013 - 11:01 PM, said:

On the contrary, they are right on the money and there are many others who have concurred.



As I have mentioned many times that conspiracy theorist have failed to present evidence that demolition charges were used to bring down the WTC buildings and it is very true and the reason is, there was no demolition explosive evidence in the first place.

They've claimed that only explosives could have initiated such a collapse, but that is not true by any means because steel structures have collapsed simply due to the effects of fires, as was the case when 3 steel frame buildings of the Kader Toy factory complex collapsed due to fire and the steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain collapsed due to fire, and not to mention that WTC 5 suffered an internal structural collapse due to  fire which was similar to the internal structural collapse of WTC7.




It is evident they didn't understand the sequence of events nor the mechanisms of the WTC building collapses. They  failed to understand the significance of the fact that the WTC buildings buckled prior to their collapse which was the prime indicator that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

The way a building collapsed is not evidence that explosives were used. Are you aware of the Verinage demolition method? If not, check it out.

Posted Image




none of that has anything to do with wtc7 falling at freefall for over 100 feet.
verinage demolitions do not fall at freefall for over 100 feet.
structural collapses from fire does not collapse a building at freefall for over 100 feet.
gravitational collapse will not collapse a structure at freefall for over 100 feet.

you are once more applying the reverse of the scientific method, "throwing out data which doesn't fit your conclusion" by ignoring the central observation that wtc7 fell at freefall for over 100 feet.


#111    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,846 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 21 July 2013 - 11:21 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 21 July 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

none of that has anything to do with wtc7 falling at freefall for over 100 feet.
verinage demolitions do not fall at freefall for over 100 feet.
structural collapses from fire does not collapse a building at freefall for over 100 feet.
gravitational collapse will not collapse a structure at freefall for over 100 feet.

you are once more applying the reverse of the scientific method, "throwing out data which doesn't fit your conclusion" by ignoring the central observation that wtc7 fell at freefall for over 100 feet.
You have a short memory, fishy.  We went into this in detail in this thread two years ago:
http://www.unexplain...pic=207160&st=0

The core of the argument rests on the way that slender steel structures collapse under compressive load.  They buckle, which means that the resistance is very small once the collapse starts, small enough for the difference from freefall to be within measurement error.  The NIST modelling of the collapse showed that this buckling happened over eight storeys, which is your 100 ft.

Edited by flyingswan, 21 July 2013 - 11:24 AM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#112    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 21 July 2013 - 01:11 PM

W Tell

Great post! :tu:


#113    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 July 2013 - 04:44 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 21 July 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

none of that has anything to do with wtc7 falling at freefall for over 100 feet.
verinage demolitions do not fall at freefall for over 100 feet.
structural collapses from fire does not collapse a building at freefall for over 100 feet.
gravitational collapse will not collapse a structure at freefall for over 100 feet.

you are once more applying the reverse of the scientific method, "throwing out data which doesn't fit your conclusion" by ignoring the central observation that wtc7 fell at freefall for over 100 feet.

it was all very simple if you saw the videos and read the reports. The southern side of WTC7 was scooped out and a huge hole spanned several stories.  As WTC7 collapsed, its internal structure was buckling and In another video, you can observe where WTC7 tilted toward the south before the collapse ceased.

Take a look at this video and tell us just how fast WTC6 fell after cables were used to facilitate its collapse?

https://www.youtube....h?v=_v2yud3aCGQ

Were demolition charges used? No! The video highlights that how fast a building falls is not evidence that explosives were used, which has been proven in many videos depicting the Verinage demolition method and the use of cables to 'PULL' down buildings, such as the remains of WTC6 in the above video.

Conspiracy theorist have the wrong idea that collapse speed of a buildings automatically depicts the use of explosives, which is an incorrect assumption. Now, take a look at this video and notice how fast the building falls yet no explosives are used.

http://www.liveleak....=28a_1339571876

In addition, demolition experts at ground zero found no evidence of explosives either.

Quote

August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader  

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

http://www.historyco...ent_blanchard_1

Considering that demolition experts on the WTC scene did not see, nor hear demolition explosions, as evident on video as well,  the picture is very clear that no explosive of any type was ever responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings, especially in light of the fact that no demolition hardware was ever found within the WTC rubble.

To recap. How fast a building falls is not evidence that explosives were used. You seem to think the collapse of WTC7 was caused by explosives, and you made the false assumption based on the fact that you failed to study and understand the significance of the raging fires and structural buckling of WTC7 during its collapse.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#114    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,971 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 22 July 2013 - 08:58 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 21 July 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

none of that has anything to do with wtc7 falling at freefall for over 100 feet.
verinage demolitions do not fall at freefall for over 100 feet.
structural collapses from fire does not collapse a building at freefall for over 100 feet.
gravitational collapse will not collapse a structure at freefall for over 100 feet.

you are once more applying the reverse of the scientific method, "throwing out data which doesn't fit your conclusion" by ignoring the central observation that wtc7 fell at freefall for over 100 feet.

I love this kind of argument simply because even CD experts understand that controlled demolition rarely happens at free fall to begin with.

Care to explain exactly why free fall is simply impossible in a natural collapse LF?

I am sure most of here would like an explanation of how you simply jumped to that conclusion.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#115    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 23 July 2013 - 12:03 PM

RB

Could you offer any examples of "natural collapse" that might be considered?

Or is "natural collapse" but a hypothetical?


#116    Yes_Man

Yes_Man

    hi

  • Member
  • 8,177 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portsmouth

Posted 23 July 2013 - 04:48 PM

Please remember that WTC7 was on fire for a while...


#117    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,971 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 23 July 2013 - 08:02 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 23 July 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

RB

Could you offer any examples of "natural collapse" that might be considered?

Or is "natural collapse" but a hypothetical?

Hypothetically, when I say "natural collapse" it stands for collapses that happen without the aid of intentional controlled demolition.

What I am trying to address here is the truther assertion that momentary free fall acceleration in any given collapse scenario is ONLY possible in controlled demolition cases.

In the case of WTC 7, the observed buckling of the perimeter and the collapse of the east penthouse simply shows multiple failures in the perimeter and core columns prior to global collapse, which could explain the observed 2.25 seconds of FFA.

Edited by RaptorBites, 23 July 2013 - 08:08 PM.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#118    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 24 July 2013 - 11:53 AM

View PostRaptorBites, on 23 July 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

Hypothetically, when I say "natural collapse" it stands for collapses that happen without the aid of intentional controlled demolition.

What I am trying to address here is the truther assertion that momentary free fall acceleration in any given collapse scenario is ONLY possible in controlled demolition cases.
if something is falling at freefall acceleration there is no resistance to movement.
a heavy object dropped in air will be converting all its available energy to its movement. there will be no energy left to buckle or destroy columns.

"In the case of WTC 7, the observed buckling of the perimeter and the collapse of the east penthouse simply shows multiple failures in the perimeter and core columns prior to global collapse"
there was no "observed" buckling. it was just a guess/hypothesis by nist, which is falsified by observations of FFA.

"which could explain the observed 2.25 seconds of FFA"
resistance from buckling columns never reaches zero, so buckling columns do not collapse a building at freefall acceleration for over 100 feet..

Edited by Little Fish, 24 July 2013 - 11:53 AM.


#119    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 24 July 2013 - 11:54 AM

View PostThe New Richard Nixon, on 23 July 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

Please remember that WTC7 was on fire for a while...
fire does not collapse a building at freefall for over 100 feet.


#120    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 24 July 2013 - 12:12 PM

View PostThe New Richard Nixon, on 23 July 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

Please remember that WTC7 was on fire for a while...
You should also remember that other high rise buildings have been on fire for much longer periods...

Posted Image
The One Meridian Plaza was on fire for 18 hours and didn't collapse.

Posted Image
Caracas' Parque Central was on fire for 17 hours and didn't collapse either.

I don't think anyone was arguing that they were not on fire for a while, making your point both obvious and yet invalid.

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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users