Quake3World

some ppl like to follow and believe in higher authority...makes them feel safe and secure

Nightshade wrote:I saw a documentary in which the critical link in the structure that failed was identified. I can't recall what it was atm, but it had something to do with a structural member that didn't have a large enough safety margin because no what thought of this particular failure scenario when the building was designed.
I don't have all the analyses handy, but it seems reasonable to me that once one of those 3,000 ton floor slabs lets go, there would be a domino effect.
To play devil's advocate, say there were explosives used. By your logic, it would be necessary to destroy the structural integrity of the perimeter steel in order for the whole thing to collapse. If this happened, there would be no way you could miss the explosions. All I see in the tower collapses is dust and smoke being pushed out by the falling structure. Pushed relatively gently, I might add.

in order for wtc7 to collapse like it did all support columns would have to be destroyed at the same time...those tanks weren't spread out like that...

R00k wrote: And the case was dismissed for not containing any valid legal argument.

True. Under section 3 & 4 it clearly states that the IRI's suit was dismissed because the agreements IRI signed gave the right for Silverstein and Salomon to install a diesel powered system in the building and this system met the design specs. BUT, there's nothing stating that the fires didn't cause the collapse as your conspiracy is trying to state. Nothing that I can find.

Do you have any legitimate sources for Silverstein stating he had the building demolished? Or any LEGITIMATE sources for your conspiracy? I hope you'll forgive me if I don't believe the slanted, biased, IMHO nutjob video link you posted :icon32:

RiffRaff wrote:

Dave wrote:Conspiracy theorists are great at arguing but poor at making arguments.

:icon14:

I am fairly certain that if there was a conspiracy regarding 9-11 it would be reported by some legitimate organization. There's no shortage of organizations out there who would like nothing better than to uncover a legitimate conspiracy, including the main stream press.

Like they have tried to report Cheney's energy task force? Like they have reported the conspiracy behind the Downing Street Memo, that they've had in their hands for over a month?

Yea, you keep listening to CNN and MSNBC. They'll tell you everything you need to know.

Freakaloin wrote: in order for wtc7 to collapse like it did all support columns would have to be destroyed at the same time...those tanks weren't spread out like that...

I suppose your're a structural engineer who has inspected the designs of WTC7 and the events leading to it's collapse?

Or did you get your facts from some idiot who likes to assume he knows what he's saying. Like sheep going to the shepard. :icon27:

RiffRaff wrote:

R00k wrote: And the case was dismissed for not containing any valid legal argument.

True. Under section 3 & 4 it clearly states that the IRI's suit was dismissed because the agreements IRI signed gave the right for Silverstein and Salomon to install a diesel powered system in the building and this system met the design specs. BUT, there's nothing stating that the fires didn't cause the collapse as your conspiracy is trying to state. Nothing that I can find.

Do you have any legitimate sources for Silverstein stating he had the building demolished? Or any LEGITIMATE sources for your conspiracy? I hope you'll forgive me if I don't believe the slanted, biased, IMHO nutjob video link you posted :icon32:

Yes, I've seen him say it on video myself. I've said that twice (not sure if you missed it or just don't believe me, but lots of people have seen it), but I'll try to hunt down the video clip again so you can see it for yourself.

edit: And of course I'll forgive you for not believing some stranger's assertions in a flash video. But that still doesn't discredit the live footage of the collapses themselves, which you can draw your own conclusions from.

Freakaloin wrote:some ppl like to follow and believe in higher authority...makes them feel safe and secure

And people like you enjoy being fucking idiots with no ability to explain anything from anywhere resembling a scientific standpoint.

And I never said a damn thing about WTC7, so fuck off.

Nightshade wrote:I saw a documentary in which the critical link in the structure that failed was identified. I can't recall what it was atm, but it had something to do with a structural member that didn't have a large enough safety margin because no what thought of this particular failure scenario when the building was designed.
I don't have all the analyses handy, but it seems reasonable to me that once one of those 3,000 ton floor slabs lets go, there would be a domino effect.
To play devil's advocate, say there were explosives used. By your logic, it would be necessary to destroy the structural integrity of the perimeter steel in order for the whole thing to collapse. If this happened, there would be no way you could miss the explosions. All I see in the tower collapses is dust and smoke being pushed out by the falling structure. Pushed relatively gently, I might add.

Well, without knowing what documentary you're talking about, and knowing exactly what critical link you mean, I can't really address that.

For your devils advocate question though -- my father used to work in demolition here in town several years ago and I've seen a few buildings dropped. To my eyes - like you said - you can't miss the explosions. When you see the ring of debris rolling its way down the tower, you're seeing successive supports being knocked out to clear the way for the fall.

The pancake theory (or progressive collapse, in engineering terms) has only ever been used to explain two collapses as far as I've been able to find -- the Twin Towers, and the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma. Murrah was brought down by large explosives near supports at the very base of the structure.

Officials have basically looked at the WTC collapses and tried to explain how in the world they could have happened, just as I am doing now. The only way they could explain it was by saying it collapsed the same way the Murrah building did. But since there were no explosives in this building, then a jet fuel fire must have nearly melted the 3' thick slabs of steel in the center in order for this to happen.

There is no more material proof of this than there is for any other explanation.
Also, it seems like (and has been said before that) positing the demolition theory is nothing more than stating reasons why the official story couldn't have happened, as opposed to providing any proof or evidence of it actually happening.
But seriously, the arguments for the official story are nothing more than that. The official story, as far as its arguments go, is nothing more than a denial that explosives could have been used -- and is simply much more believable and easy to accept for the majority of people, on a "common sense" level.

i didn't find that movie very convincing. When they blow up the sports dome you can see the blast charges going off. I see no blast charges in the wtc buildings as they fall.

The massive rolling cloud of debris is the blast charges going off. They were tightly timed and rolled down the building for it to collapse in on itself. The sports dome was rounded - all you have to do is blast the supports at once, and the building automatically falls on itself. For a 110-story building, you can't do that; you have to have consecutively-timed charges that lead the fall. If you blast a tall square building's supports all at once, the way they did the dome, it would spread out everywhere when it fell.

But as far as the footage of building 7, just seeing the top half of the building fall straight down while it is still whole is enough to confirm that it was demolished (not to mention the leaseholder admitting it on television).
A fire melting support beams can not cause a building to fall symmetrically like that (the building would fall pieces at a time, breaking the facade in many pieces while doing so) -- unless the fires are evenly spaced throughout the supports of the structure, and weaken them all equally in the same time frame.

R00k wrote:The massive rolling cloud of debris is the blast charges going off. They were tightly timed and rolled down the building for it to collapse in on itself.

uhhhh I'd have to say no. what do you base your claim on?

edit: the massive rolling cloud of debris is the building collapsing (as can also be observed in the stadium demolition. the charges go off then the building has a cloud rolling out as it falls.)

this photograph for example... do you see the charges in this photo? I can't.

Ok. I gave this place a bit of a break. I decided to come back and take a look around. More of the same bullshit.

Why can't people understand that the WTC7 is irrelevant? Whether or not it collapsed from debris or was a controlled demolition doesn't matter.

And I don't know whether to lol, cry or rolleyes at the idea of the towers being pre-rigger w/ explosives. Unbelievable.

i thgink for you and this type of complaintin g

i would say cry AND rolleyes

Fender wrote: And I don't know whether to lol, cry or rolleyes at the idea of the towers being pre-rigger w/ explosives. Unbelievable.

exactly.

hmm.... lets see.....

WTC sits in the heart of one of the most populated areas on Earth.
Bringing down the towers would be the biggest implosion in history, by a huge mother of a margin!
Tons and Tons of explosives.
Miles and Miles of cable
Hundreds of super invisible ninja like demolition experts.
Making them fall the way they did would require the most precise use of demolition technology available by the worlds greatest demo experts, with NO miscalculations.
Now lets fly a 737 into them first just to add a little unknown to the equation and see if we can still pull of the prefect implosion.
All that without the 150,000 people that work there or the million or so that live within spitting distance ever seeing anything fishy going on for the months it would take to set up.
yeah, right.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

R00k wrote:The massive rolling cloud of debris is the blast charges going off. They were tightly timed and rolled down the building for it to collapse in on itself.

uhhhh I'd have to say no. what do you base your claim on?

edit: the massive rolling cloud of debris is the building collapsing (as can also be observed in the stadium demolition. the charges go off then the building has a cloud rolling out as it falls.)

Because that's the way demolitions of that kind of building are done. It's imperative that the charges go off immediately before the pieces above collapse on them. If you detonate them too late, they're wasted. But if you detonate them too early, the building has time to collapse outward before it is crushed by the upper floors coming down on it. That is why demolition of large buildings is such a precise and well-planned undertaking to begin with.

edit: And the charges you see in the dome are not the only charges that explode. There are charges going off during almost the entire building collapse, as there are with every demolition.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:this photograph for example... do you see the charges in this photo? I can't.

There is debris flying outward at least 50 feet, or 5 floors, below where the upper floors are impacting.

There's also an obvious explosion in that picture.

Freakaloin

Fender wrote:Ok. I gave this place a bit of a break. I decided to come back and take a look around. More of the same bullshit.

Why can't people understand that the WTC7 is irrelevant? Whether or not it collapsed from debris or was a controlled demolition doesn't matter.

And I don't know whether to lol, cry or rolleyes at the idea of the towers being pre-rigger w/ explosives. Unbelievable.

Thanks for gracing my thread with the debut of your return.

Tell me again why it's irrelevant?

And why do you find this explanation so hard to believe, but have no reservations about a politician's statement that explains the collapse with a theory that has only destroyed one other building -- one that was rigged with explosives?

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/ ... llapse.mpg

looks pretty obvious to me what happened

Freakaloin wrote:http://www.prisonplanet.com/pullit.mp3

Yes, I have heard that before and it doesn't matter. It is irrelevant. Because one building was rigged to go has nothing to do with 2 others.

For what it's worth:

at the two-three second mark on that vid, you see a small flash on the side of the building.


could be pre-existing fire, could be anything - i'm no expert - haven't even read the thread, and am confused as to what the controversy's about anyway. tower 1, 2, 7 etc - all a jumble in my mind.

anyway - just thought i'd point out that small flash

R00k wrote:And why do you find this explanation so hard to believe, but have no reservations about a politician's statement that explains the collapse with a theory that has only destroyed one other building -- one that was rigged with explosives?

Who said that my conclusions have ANYTHING to do with some politician's statements? I doubt you'll find another person as untrusting and skeptical of the government as I am.

R00k wrote: Because that's the way demolitions of that kind of building are done.

That is why demolition of large buildings is such a precise and well-planned undertaking to begin with.

demo of that kind of building?
its never been done.
WTC was four times taller than the tallest building ever imploded.
and i wouldn't call flying an airliner into the side of it being precise.