BadComrade wrote:

clocker bob wrote:Please cite your source for the 'half and half' load bearing distribution.

How about the photo of the tower under construction you posted?

What, you think those are not the towers? There must be a 100 photos that show the cores- here's another:


Here's the site minus the tags: http://www.souptree.net/blog/images/wtc ... uction.jpg

clocker bob wrote:You wrote that the towers had a "totally open floor plan", which is understandable, because the PBS special America Rebuilds showed animation that omitted the core columns.

Yeah, floor plan, as in where there are floors. The floors are between the core and the outer wall.

That's not what is implied by your earlier quote. An example of a totally open floor plan would be the United Center or some other basketball arena.

Obviously I (or the PBS doc) weren't implying that there was nothing but wall to wall floor, if that was the case, there wouldn't have been elevators / stairs. Duh.

Not duh. Do you have the DVD? The animation where they show the truss failure does not show the core columns. Here's a segment. It looks like the floors were stretched nets, like a boxing ring. They lied. You are still basing your theories of the collapse sequence on these lies.


Animation of a floor truss in the World Trade Center giving way. If they animated it, it must be true! Note that cross trusses, which ran perpenducular to the trusses shown, are omitted.

Here's the 9/11 Commission on the cores:
“The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped” (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, 541 note 1).

Does that sound accurate?

clocker bob wrote:how do the failing trusses 'pull' the core columns down with them, or segment them so neatly? Why didn't the core remain like a spindle?

Because the trusses helped tie the outer wall to the core (almost in the same way that the wires between the wings of a bi-plane work), making the structure rigid. Take that tie away, and the outer support (which was damaged) is free standing. The inner core had damage as well. Left damaged, and to stand on their own, they were weak.

Your trusses are behaving very differently according to your needs, aren't they? On the exterior side, you have them failing, so the outer columns pull away. On the core side, you have them so strong that they maintain their grip on the columns, snapping them like chopsticks and pulling down the segments of columns as rapidly as the outside edge of these 'donuts' fall toward the ground. The inner columns were massive, much stronger than the buckles that were attached to them.

Sorry, there were charges.

clocker bob wrote:So,are you saying that there were massive fires on the floors below the plane impacts, and that these fires weakened the lower floors so dramatically that when the 'cap' above the impact zone dropped what, two floors, because of the supposed symmetrical truss failure, that this drop of two floors created such an impact on the floors below that this moving weight ( the same weight that the lower floors supported for 30 years ), this new dropping weight was now sufficient to drive through all the lower floors at free fall speed?

Yes. The outer walls and inner core weren't damaged when they were "supporting the "cap" for 30 years". Also, the "cap" didn't have any momentum to it for 30 years, and it was part of the structure for 30 years. Once that kinetic energy built up in the short "2 floor" fall, it was able to smash floor after floor under it.

That's Galanter's theory. We've both posted reams on the conservation of momentum and the fall rate. Remember, that initial drop didn't just have to break the resistance of the first floor under it- the initial shock would have been absorbed by ALL the floors under it, like a car's spring. It's not like a series of horizontal dominos that go snap, snap, snap, snap- it's a single immovable object , 80 plus floors, when confronted by the supposedly irresistible force. Galanter's calculations claim that after the first floor struck by the cap fails, the rest offer no more resistance than air. I don't buy it, not unless they were also weakened underneath, and if the fires weren't there, what weakened them?

Simple physics, really... I can stand on top of a an empty coke can, and it won't crush. If I bend at the knee quickly, that force of me falling will be enough to crush the walls of the can...

Heh... an empty can, with no core. Here's something- try it with a full can of pop. Just the presence of liquid will make it a whole different animal.

clocker bob wrote:The videos don't show these fires, but the testimonies of many who were in the vicinity and the radio transmissions of the firefighters do report explosions on the lower floors and in the basements. Why do you believe in magic fires that you can't see and not believe in those who lived through it?

Yeah, and I've been hearing "explosions" in Chicago, as I stated in another thread. As much as I believe they're explosions, I can't be sure that is what they are. Most of those people in those buildings were in super panic mode, and weren't really in a mindset that allowed them to judge "oh, that's an explosion!" Did you hear the sound of the bodies crashing in to the ground, etc on the doc footage that was shot inside the lobby before the first tower collapsed? Sounded like huge explosions.

It's not just people reporting this- do you know how many videos of the towers shuddering there are? Camera tripods shaking? The film from Hoboken that records the underground blasts? The giant puffs of smoke seen leaving the bases of the towers? It's all that and the eyewitnesses.

Hell, people were saying that there was someone "across the street" firing rockets in to the side of the twin towers... people say ALL KINDS OF CRAZY SHIT in situations like that.

Sure, there will be all kinds of crazy shit, but it will not be *all* all kinds of crazy shit. You can't dismiss it all.

BadComrade wrote:

clocker bob wrote:What, you think those are not the towers?

Uh, what?

You idiot. I asked for the source of your claim that the weight of the tower was borne 50% by the exterior columns and 50% by the core columns. Rather than source your claim, you asked this:

"How about the photo of the tower under construction you posted?"

Period. What is that, but a suggestion that I should show you the source of a pic I posted? Which I did. You are running and hiding from what you need to do, which is answer the original question I asked about the load bearing distribution. Instead, let me answer it- turns out you are right:

The original WTC design, the work of architect Minoru Yamasaki, was one of the first architectural plans to call for open space within a steel-frame building. This meant doing away with the forest of columns so typical of the steel high-rise buildings of former years. Chief engineer Skilling achieved the objective with a double support system: a dense array of 236 columns around the perimeter, and a network of 47 massive piers at the core. The creation of large expanses of unobstructed floor space within the WTC was a novel idea in the 1960s, but is commonplace today.[32]

Yeah, such a dangerous shitty design, they're still using it.

The weight of each building was distributed about equally between the two sets of columns. The outer wall shielded the building from high winds, and was reinforced with broad steel plates known as "spandrels," which girdled the building, like ribs, at every floor. The core contained the elevators, stairwells, and utility shafts. Both sets of columns were joined together by an innovative system of lightweight steel trusses. Each story was supported by a truss assembly covered with a corrugated steel deck­­­the bed for a poured slab of lightweight concrete. Probably Skilling's greatest innovation was to extend the truss diagonals up into the concrete floor, which added stiffness and strength. Each truss assembly/concrete floor behaved as a single unit.

clocker bob wrote:An example of a totally open floor plan would be the United Center or some other basketball arena.

Again: Uh, what? Are you retarded? I think anyone who uses the term "open floor plan" in regards to the twin towers assumes that everyone knows that there were ELEVATORS AND STAIRS in the building.

No, retard. A building with an open floor plan means a building where the floors have open sight lines from side to side. Since there were elevators and stairs in the center of the towers, then it is never ever correct to call the towers buildings with open floor plans, which is what you did. I was not claiming that you thought that there were not elevators in the center, I am disagreeing with your terminology to describe the floor plans.

I might be wrong, but I really, really doubt that the PBS doc failed to show them in the cross section of the building at some point.

They did not show them in the animations that I referred to. Here are the distortions of NOVA's "How The Towers Fell":

NOVA/Eagar Use Deceptive Techniques

Images and movies misrepresent the towers as flimsy structures just waiting to pancake:

* Animation:
o Omits cross-trusses, which would spoil zipper effect.
o Implies floors merely rested on trusses. In fact, trusses were bolted to steel floor pans every few inches.

* Structural schematic:
o Core depicted as horizontal slabs instead of vertical columns.

See that, Chris?
Slides:


o Spandrel plates linking perimeter columns are omitted.

* Plane approaching:
o Plane is size of 747, over twice size of 767
o Horizontal ribs replace vertical columns.

Not to mention, everyone knows about "the core", since it's talked about so much.

Not in the NOVA special it wasn't. We're not talking about how much I talk about it, or you.

clocker bob wrote:The animation where they show the truss failure does not show the core columns. Here's a segment. It looks like the floors were stretched nets, like a boxing ring. They lied. You are still basing your theories of the collapse sequence on these lies.

No, I'm "basing" my "theory" of the collapse on the basic knowledge I attained when I took 3 years of drafting and architecture classes. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the way loads are carried would come to the same conclusion as I have, and as the "officials" have.

Your choice of officials.

The animation doesn't show the "core". Yeah? IT DOESN'T SHOW THE OTHER 3 WALLS OF THE BUILDING, EITHER!!! DOES THAT MEAN THEY'RE IMPLYING THAT THOSE WALLS DIDN'T EXIST? I can almost guarantee you that at SOME POINT in the PBS doc, they showed / talked about the "core". Once the view is aware of that, it doesn't have to be shown in every frame of every animation...

Get the fucking DVD. I question your memory of it. Read the dissections of it. We're not done here, but I'm going to enjoy the other game, so I will be back to your remaining points at work tomorrow.

clocker bob wrote:Note that cross trusses, which ran perpenducular to the trusses shown, are omitted.

Did they need to be shown in the animation (which is more of a DEMONSTRATION of the failure of a truss system in a fire than an accurate representation of the actual building), or do you think that maybe they just omitted them (and the "core") to, oh, I don't know, make the animation demonstration clear?

Oh, what, making an accurate demonstration wouldn't be MORE CLEAR?

What an excuse maker you are.

It sure would be hard to understand the point they were trying to convey if the core, "cross trusses", office furniture, carpet, electrical conduit, pipes, people, etc were all in the animation as well.

We're not talking about every nut and bolt- we're talking about critical load bearing elements of the building's frame OMITTED! How can you defend that??

This will be resumed tomorrow. You will have much more to hide from, you raging egomaniac. "Debate over?" You wish.

I remember reading about the construction of the WTC in the Weekly Reader when I was just a tadpill. It was 1970. Such a shame that it fell down after such a relatively short time of usage.

I just read pages on this on another music-related forum funnily enough...

The danger with looking at evidence in cases like these is to assume that every minor discrepancy is linked together and thats certainly what has happened with the WTC collapse. Then, when the evidence is presented as it is in Loose Change and other films and articles, it takes on a hysterical quality because of the endless reeling out of tiny facts. It essentially accentuates the stereotype of the conspiracy crackpot.

I don't consider myself a crackpot in anyway but there's a few things in the WTC case that really don't add up. People can get in deep about pods on the bottom of planes and laser sights and all that, but there are much simpler parts of evidence that point to a different set of events than the official one.

Sorry if these have been mentioned before, I would just be keen to read a debunking article that comprehensively explains them. And also, a lot of this is from memory of articles I have read.

1. 'Explosions' - nearly all the footage (from news crews, onlookers etc) mentions explosions within the second tower. One video shot with the camera on a tripod clearly shows a noticeable shake in the camera prior to collapse. It's also very audible on other footage too.
I have also read a report that it registered on earthquake-detection equipment far from NYC (anyone know where that evidence came from or if it's substantiated?). It seems from what evidence there is that the collapse of the 2nd tower was preceded by an explosion of seismic proportions.
Firemen all mentioned explosions and the janitor from the building is on record saying he saw people coming up into the lobby from the basement who has suffered injuries from an explosion.
There was also lots of talk of 'bombs' on the news at the time.
There is also an interesting analysis somewhere about damage to the dam wall of the Hudson River, way down below the level of the basement of the WTC.

2. The remaining central columns - if you look at photos, the remaining steel columns from the centre of the WTC towers have very neat and clean 45 degree cuts through them in places which, as a lot of documentaries have shown, is a technique of controlled demolition in that it controls the direction of the buildings collapse so that it 'packs itself into its own basement' as I think someone said. When so much of the rest of the building was so comprehensively wiped out, it's strange that the breaks in the steel are so neat in these cases.

3. Debris - I find it incredulous that so much of the buildings were pulverised completely. There's a famous quote from a fireman saying about not finding a phone or a computer or anything - surely there would be larger pieces of debris than there were - even just a few.

4. Activity in the days leading up to 9/11 - there is a good interview with a British IT worker who had offices in the 90-something floor. he discussed the weeks leading up to 9/11 and the weekend before he mentioned that they shut the systems down within the building at short notice and turned the security systems off for a weekend and lots of workers came in to re-wire the internet cabling in the whole WTC. I think this may be in Loose Change but I've not seen it for a while. Anyway, he talked about activity in empty floor above their office and also about unusual dust build up in the office. He took the day of 9/11 off as he'd been in doing overtime over the weekend to get his own systems up and running following the shut-off.

5. WTC7 - this has to be the strangest occurrence of them all. It did just collapse. Also, it contained the Mayor's fortified bunker but yet he chose not to use it. I understand why that could be - how much use is a fortified bunker when people are flying planes into buildings next door? - but it also contained FBI files according to the reports - I don't know again whether those were verified and like Greg said, you've got to look at evidence impartially from both sides of the argument.
However, just as an onlooker, the collapse of the building is bizarre.

6. The heat argument - fire fighters' radio messages state that they had found the fire in the 2nd tower and believed it could be contained. You can also see the horrible pictures of people just one floor or two away from the main impact, waving for help.

7. Rogue trading - is there any proof of claims of suspicious activity in the stock of American Airlines on Sept 10?


and so on...
I don't think that everything that is strange about the case is connected and points to the same conclusion but there are really very peculiar anomalies - even to a layman onlooker. I remember watching this all happen on the news and expecting those buildings to fall, except I assumed they'd topple not collapse.

Has anyone ever floated a theory that perhaps the government did have prior knowledge but they had no way of stopping it? Maybe the buildings were wired way in advance for such a disaster so they could be collapsed before they fell over in order to minimise loss of life? It would certainly explain why WTC7 could have gone down the way it did.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting read I just had. Like I said, I'm not sure what I think about any of this but I'm not a crackpot and I'm not a fan of the Loose Change documentary much either.

honeyisfunny wrote:Like I said, I'm not sure what I think about any of this but I'm not a crackpot and I'm not a fan of the Loose Change documentary much either.

The crackpots in this thread are Bad Comrade and his ilk. We who question have *never* claimed that every question we ask points to government complicity. We just see and acknowledge the inconsistencies between the evidence and official explanation. I suspect that Bad Comrade sees them too, but his pathological hatred for conspiracy theorists demands that he repeat the mantra over and over: "Nothing to see here. Keep it moving. It was ONLY the Muslims and NOBODY else. It was ONLY the Muslims and NOBODY else..."

Bad Comrade must claim that a story that he knows isn't airtight is airtight, all because he's petrified of the company he'll have to keep if he concedes that there is any reason to be suspicious of the official history. This forces him to ignore ironclad evidence of prior awareness, like the war games or the options trades, and focus on issues that neither of us can conclusively prove because the evidence has been illegally destroyed ( what went on in the towers before collapse ).

thanks for your great contribution, hf.

BadComrade wrote:

clocker bob wrote:

BadComrade wrote:

clocker bob wrote:What, you think those are not the towers?

Uh, what?

You idiot. I asked for the source of your claim that the weight of the tower was borne 50% by the exterior columns and 50% by the core columns. Rather than source your claim, you asked this:

"How about the photo of the tower under construction you posted?"

Period. What is that, but a suggestion that I should show you the source of a pic I posted? Which I did. You are running and hiding from what you need to do, which is answer the original question I asked about the load bearing distribution. Instead, let me answer it- turns out you are right:

Yeah, I'm the idiot here...

You could have phrased it better. And if you had written, "The posted photo shows that the load was shared 50/50 by the core and the exterior", I still would have challenged that, because a photo does not prove the ratio. I found the relative document about the design, and you're welcome.

As obvious as looking at a human and coming to the conclusion that each leg shares a 50% load when they're standing.

Completely baseless assumption about the load distribution. Your anology is also useless. We are not discussing something obvious like two human legs. The photo is a photo, it can not stand in for the evidence I located. The load distribution could have been 70/30, and the design would look the same in the photo.

Oh, and to make things easier on you, I'll do you a favor and revise my terminology about the open floor plan for you, and use the "correct" terminology (pulled from your proof of my being correct) and say "open space within".

Not to make things easier on me- to make yourself speak more accurately. That should be your aim.

Sorta like when you kept mis-quoting me earlier in the thread.

Point out where I misquoted you.

BadComrade wrote: Explosives don't "cut". What cuts? Not thermite (which is what the conspiracy claims made those perfect 45 degree cuts). OH, I know what makes a cut like that! Cutting torches! Plasma cutters!

Wrong again. Thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive, and it does cut. It is wrapped around railroad ties to make precise cuts. Thermite is not a concussive agent, it is a chemical agent that burns through steel.

Oh, I see... The illuminati (or CIA, or FBI, etc.) ran out of money funding this huge operation to take down the towers, to the point where they couldn't afford paper shredders, or like, some gasoline and a match, so they used some leftover explosives to bring the building down (which wouldn't destroy the papers.... do you remember seeing intact papers floating around EVERYWHERE on that day???). Give me a break. If the government wants "files" gone, they're gonna get rid of them.

Oh, come on. These were papers that were critical to active prosecutions. These papers were known to attorneys from all sides. If the gov't shredded them or spirited them away, don't you think people would ask? An exploding building makes that explanation unnecessary.

honeyisfunny wrote:Has anyone ever floated a theory that perhaps the government did have prior knowledge but they had no way of stopping it?

bc wrote:Tons of people have. Realistically, that's the worst case scenario. I'm sure over the years to come, urban legends will pop up about someone who "knew, but didn't report it", just like the urban legend that states 2 radar operators knew about pearl harbor and did "nothing to stop it", etc etc etc. I know a girl that worked for an FBI think tank when 9/11 happened. She was in a government owned plane, in the air, before the first plane hit the tower. According to her, her pilots were told to land their plane BEFORE the first plane hit the tower. She also claimed that taunts were faxed to fax numbers somewhere within the FBI, numbers that 99% of the people who work for the FBI didn't even know existed. I tend to believe her, since she isn't the type of person to lie about anything. She's one of the most intelligent people I've ever met, she got a full scholarship to college, etc etc.

Do you think she's the only person with a story like that? When does the funny business reported by all these eminently credible intelligent people add up to some real suspicion in your mind. Shit, with a firsthand story like you got to hear, you ought to be telling me about 9/11=Inside Job.

Oh, and if you haven't seen the "laser target" videos, you should search them out and watch them because they're pretty interesting. They're still hosted on a lot of news channel web servers (so you can be sure they haven't been tampered with by conspiracy nuts),

HAH! Yeah, there's like, no other doctored videos but the the ones "tampered with by conspiracy nuts"- you are so prejudiced against seeing what's right in front of you, it's silly.

and they do show what looks to be a target being "painted" on the 2nd tower in the exact spot the plane hits moments later. Video cameras pick up infrared light and display it as visible light, so no one would have seen the "target" painted on the side of the building with the naked eye. I think that's the strongest case people like clocker bob have, and I hardly ever see anyone mention it.

Why is that the strongest case? I've been all over the 'no plane' 'hologram plane' 'missile in front of the plane' websites. The impact of the planes was not the deciding factor in the collapses. The gov't alleges that the fires were. The conspiracy side says that the fires weren't hot enough or widespread enough, so we pursue the planted charges theory. Recently, a new hot conspiracy theory has made the scene: advanced particle beam weapons, directed from satellites; star wars technology.

clocker bob wrote:An example of a totally open floor plan would be the United Center or some other basketball arena.

BadComrade wrote:Again: Uh, what? Are you retarded? I think anyone who uses the term "open floor plan" in regards to the twin towers assumes that everyone knows that there were ELEVATORS AND STAIRS in the building.

My use of the United Center as an example was perfect. Can you walk from the Madison side of the building to the Monroe side without meeting an obstruction? Can you walk from the Wood side to the Damen side of the building without meeting an obstruction? Yes and Yes. Could you walk North to South or East to West inside one of the Towers without meeting an obstruction? No and No. You called the floor plan of the Towers "totally open". You were wrong. Totally.

I can almost guarantee you that at SOME POINT in the PBS doc, they showed / talked about the "core". Once the view is aware of that, it doesn't have to be shown in every frame of every animation

You're a total apologist for the deceptive PBS animation. What a surprise that you won't classify an animation of the core that looks like this image below as deceptive:



An animation that leaves out the core columns, and you call it good enough. Unfuckingbelievable.

clocker bob wrote:Note that cross trusses, which ran perpendicular to the trusses shown, are omitted.

BC wrote:Did they need to be shown in the animation (which is more of a DEMONSTRATION of the failure of a truss system in a fire than an accurate representation of the actual building), or do you think that maybe they just omitted them (and the "core") to, oh, I don't know, make the animation demonstration clear?

And you think that the omission of the cross trusses from the animation was for the viewers' benefit, too. Is there anything you turn a skeptical eye to?

clocker bob wrote:how do the failing trusses 'pull' the core columns down with them, or segment them so neatly? Why didn't the core remain like a spindle?

BC wrote:]Typical conspiracy theorist tactic there, Bob. I never said that's what happened. I said the trusses tied the two structures (inner and outer) together to give rigidity to the building, and that once they failed, both structures became weak when left to stand on their own (and, you know... DAMAGED BY A HUGE fucking heavy PLANE THAT WAS GOING 500 MILES AN HOUR ON IMPACT).

Keep your eyes on the road there, sparky. Through all the meandering and conjecture in your response, I still don't see how you intend to explain the fracturing of the core columns UNLESS you do intend to blame the torque placed on the columns by the trusses.

Make yourself clear and I'll try and stop guessing what you're saying.

clocker bob wrote:Your trusses are behaving very differently according to your needs, aren't they ... you have them so strong that they maintain their grip on the columns, snapping them like chopsticks and pulling down the segments...

Hey, look at that! Something else I NEVER SAID! Man, it must be really easy for you to debate things like this when you put words in to peoples mouths.

Fill in the blanks then; here's your quote again:

I said the trusses tied the two structures (inner and outer) together to give rigidity to the building, and that once they failed, both structures became weak when left to stand on their own.

Both structures became weak?? Are you claiming that the core couldn't stay upright without the surrounding trusses? That makes NO SENSE! If the core was relieved of its task of supporting the floor plates ( remember, it's you saying the interior and exterior trusses all failed ), then the core should have an EASIER time of staying upright when the surrounding 'donuts' of floors dropped. If the columns weren't pulled apart, then what snapped them into those neat segments? Why didn't the spindle remain?

When you complete your explanations, I won't need to fill in the holes of your theories for you.

clocker bob wrote:

Badcomrade wrote:Yes. The outer walls and inner core weren't damaged when they were "supporting the "cap" for 30 years". Also, the "cap" didn't have any momentum to it for 30 years, and it was part of the structure for 30 years. Once that kinetic energy built up in the short "2 floor" fall, it was able to smash floor after floor under it.

That's Galanter's theory... the initial shock would have been absorbed by ALL the floors under it, like a car's spring.

BC wrote:No, it wouldn't have. The building wasn't designed to do that. Do you understand how much more force was applied to the "good floor" under the "cap" when it started to fall? Way, way more than the weight put on it when there wasn't any kinetic energy pent up in the "cap".

You are ignoring that the kinetic energy had a bigger job than breaking ONE floor. The kinetic energy of the first drop had to be sufficient to break the first struck floor, AND numerous floors under it, all on the first blow, to cause the collapse to accelerate as it did.

clocker bob wrote:

Badcomrade wrote:I can stand on top of a an empty coke can, and it won't crush. If I bend at the knee quickly, that force of me falling will be enough to crush the walls of the can...

Heh... an empty can, with no core. Here's something- try it with a full can of pop. Just the presence of liquid will make it a whole different animal.

BC wrote:Once again, you're wrong. A "full can of pop" has no empty space in it, the liquid would help support my weight. The twin towers had plenty of open space (you know, the open floor plan... that whole area around the core that had NO iron beams / support?).

The can is not a useful analogy if full or empty, because the towers were neither. And the whole area around the core was cross-braced redundantly, so I don't know what you mean by 'no support'. The only way your theory passes muster is if you believe the fires were both hot enough and widespread enough to weaken truss joints around the perimeter and the core simultaneously, and you know from the videos that there were pockets of fire and wide expanses of unheated columns.

And you know that the hydrocarbon fire was never hot enough, the 'fireproofing coating' is a non issue, and you ignore that steel conducts heat away from hot zones like a circulatory system, further limiting the fire's ability to work on sections of the frame like a blowtorch.

At least, I would hope you know all that.

clocker bob wrote:do you know how many videos of the towers shuddering there are? Camera tripods shaking?

Bob. Do me a favor. Borrow a tripod, a video camera, and go stand on the bike path along Lake Shore Drive. Zoom in on the Sears Tower. Guess what? The picture is gonna bounce all over the fucking place. When you zoom a camera, you don't just magnify the image, you magnify EVERYTHING. The tiniest tap on the camera is magnified. Hell, turn on a cable public access high school football game some time, and watch the picture bounce around because the camera is zooming in from the top of the bleachers, etc.

I'm not talking about some shitty hand held camcorder. I'm taking about heavy TV news cameras that ride on bushings and sit on vans. The bumps I'm talking about are bumps that shook the ground under the vehicles that the cameras were mounted on, not some finger tap or whatever the fuck your blaming the shaking pictures on. AND, the bumps are accompanied by debris falling from the building in the picture frame AND sounds AND smoke. Read honeyisfunny's response again.

BC wrote:You know what? I think I'm pretty much done with this thread

Of course you are, because if you stay, you will have to answer the criticism of that lying PBS documentary that you place so much misguided faith in.

NOVA/Eagar Use Deceptive Techniques

Images and movies misrepresent the towers as flimsy structures just waiting to pancake:

* Animation:

o Omits cross-trusses, which would spoil zipper effect.
o Implies floors merely rested on trusses. In fact, trusses were bolted to steel floor pans every few inches.

* Structural schematic:

o Core depicted as horizontal slabs instead of vertical columns.

o Spandrel plates linking perimeter columns are omitted.

* Plane approaching:

o Plane is size of 747, over twice size of 767
o Horizontal ribs replace vertical columns.

Can't. Answer. None. Of. That.

So I guess the debate is thankfully over for you.

bad comrade wrote:WTC #7 fell after all of the debris of the twin towers blasted through the side of it as they collapsed, no?

Hey, you're years ahead of the NIST. They're still working on WTC7. Here's what they have so far:

NIST's preliminary reports on WTC 7's collapse includes a slide presentation named: Project 6: WTC 7 Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis. A key tenet of its theory is that the building sustained severe structural damage from heavy pieces of debris cast out by the collapse of the North Tower, whose closest wall was about 350 feet from Building 7's south wall.

This slide, labeled Estimated Extent of Debris Damage indicates that a huge gouge hollowed out Building 7's south face.

The only evidence NIST adduces in support of its "estimated extend of debris damage" are the following two images, which apparently hadn't surfaced until NIST published its presentation:

The alleged minor damage to the parapet wall appears to be the only evidentiary basis for NIST's claim of a huge gash in the middle of the south facade, since no photographs show this damage.

The alleged southwest corner damage is interesting because there are no known photographs that show this corner of the building from the 18th story down. In fact, it is the only corner of the building whose 8- to 18th-floor span is not shown by other public photographs.

Damage Claims Versus Symmetric Collapse

Even if one accepts all of NIST's claims about extensive structural damage to WTC 7, and its claims about fires on several different floors, its collapse scenario is not remotely plausible. The alleged damage was asymmetric, confined to the tower's south side, and any weakening of the steelwork from fire exposure would also be asymmetric. Thus, even if the damage were sufficient to cause the whole building to collapse, it would have fallen over asymmetrically -- toward the south. But WTC 7 fell straight down, into its footprint.

bad comrade wrote:Debate over.

Yeah, sure looks like it.

BadComrade wrote:- You can't "wrap" thermite around anything, because it's a powder.

- It's not used to "cut" railroad ties, it's used to fuse railroad tracks together (like welding).

You're wrong. Thermite can be made into shaped charges, and you can tie them like a belt around steel. If it was only a powder, it would be hard to weld with it, wouldn't it? Don't you think you sound silly, claiming that thermite can melt steel for welding and then not admit that with a minor adaptation, a cut can be accomplished with thermite. Don't they seem like very similar jobs to you?

From an explosives web site:

A pyrotechnic cutter charge like Thermite used in the military can burn right through steel and if skillfully set off collapse a large skyscraper. Thermite doesn’t stop burning so it's not used legally in building demolitions, where controlled HE charges going off at set times and places can implode buildings.

I never said it was a "concussive agent". It's not a "chemical agent", it's a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder.

It most certainly is a chemical agent. The burn power of thermite is correctly classified as a chemical reaction.

clocker bob wrote: Why is that the strongest case? I've been all over the 'no plane' 'hologram plane' 'missile in front of the plane' websites. The impact of the planes was not the deciding factor in the collapses. The gov't alleges that the fires were. The conspiracy side says that the fires weren't hot enough or widespread enough, so we pursue the planted charges theory. Recently, a new hot conspiracy theory has made the scene: advanced particle beam weapons, directed from satellites; star wars technology.

bad comrade who inserts stupid insults in these spaces when he quotes wrote:Because if you can prove that what you're seeing in those videos is indeed a laser target being painted on the side of the building, that means that the jets that hit the WTC were in fact "drone" planes with "missile pods" mounted to them. That sets the stage for all the other "fake" things that happened, like the "fake" collapse of each tower, etc.

What if I don't care to prove that the planes weren't the hijacked passenger jets? Why do I need drone planes to make my case that the towers would have survived the impact and the fires?

Advanced particle beam weapons? Seriously? Dude, I think some of your pals have watched the Real Genius DVD one too many times.

You think they don't exist?

A particle beam weapon uses an ultra high energy beam of atoms or electrons (eg., a particle beam) to damage a material target by hitting it, and thus disrupting its atomic and molecular structure. A particle beam weapon is a type of directed-energy weapon which directs energy in a particular direction by a means of particle projectiles with mass. Some of these weapons are real or practicable; some are science fiction.

An electron particle beam weapon works by disrupting electric circuits and electronic devices in its targets. If any living animals or persons were caught by the electric discharge of an electron beam weapon, it is likely to electrocute them. An electron beam weapon can also damage or melt its target by the electrical resistance heating of the target.

Several modern experimental particle beam weapons were tested at scientific laboratories such as the Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico by both the United States and the USSR from the 1950s to the 1980s.

The U.S. Defense Strategic Defense Initiative Organization put into development the technology of a neutral particle beam for strategic defense applications. In mid 1989, it was to be part of the Beam Experiments Aboard a Rocket (BEAR) in New Mexico.

Oh, and what the fuck is a "hologram plane"? I gotta hear this one...

Google them. You're the one developing the weird interest in the true nature of the hijacked planes.