Author Topic: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II  (Read 924 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Invicta_Toon

9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« on: Thursday 12 April 2007, 06:57:10 PM »
just watched 'The fall of The World Trade Centre' on UKDocumentary

I have a new level of incredulity at the people who believe there was anything dodgy about the collapse:


Structural integrity of the builing relied on the connection of the inner and outer steel columns through lightweight steel floor trusses which were  not encased in concrete

The fire protection spray on the floor trusses was not impact resistant, and hence was stripped off on impact of a plane at 400mph

The fire protection of the inner and outer columns consisted of sprayed drywall only, which again was not impact resistant, and hence was stripped off on impact of a plane at 400mph

Un-protected structural steel reaches half its strength at 500C

The fire weakened the steel in the outer columns which failed (south tower) and the inner columns which failed (north tower), due to the different impact trajectories and resultant fire location (can be seen from the video evidence)

Thousands of tonnes of the structural steel was recovered to a scrap metal yard across the river, and was inspected by civil engineers (this is shown in two huge piles at great length on the documentary)


In short, the towers were designed to survive a jetliner impact, and a large fire, but not both. Hence the collapse.

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #1 on: Thursday 12 April 2007, 07:07:45 PM »
Two words. Building 7.

And when they did they put the explosives in there? Between 9.50am and 4pm on 9/11?

Invicta_Toon

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #2 on: Thursday 12 April 2007, 07:10:29 PM »
Two words. Building 7.

and? what's your point?

JamesD

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #3 on: Thursday 12 April 2007, 07:11:02 PM »
just watched 'The fall of The World Trade Centre' on UKDocumentary

I have a new level of incredulity at the people who believe there was anything dodgy about the collapse:


Structural integrity of the builing relied on the connection of the inner and outer steel columns through lightweight steel floor trusses which were  not encased in concrete

The fire protection spray on the floor trusses was not impact resistant, and hence was stripped off on impact of a plane at 400mph

The fire protection of the inner and outer columns consisted of sprayed drywall only, which again was not impact resistant, and hence was stripped off on impact of a plane at 400mph

Un-protected structural steel reaches half its strength at 500C

The fire weakened the steel in the outer columns which failed (south tower) and the inner columns which failed (north tower), due to the different impact trajectories and resultant fire location (can be seen from the video evidence)

Thousands of tonnes of the structural steel was recovered to a scrap metal yard across the river, and was inspected by civil engineers (this is shown in two huge piles at great length on the documentary)


In short, the towers were designed to survive a jetliner impact, and a large fire, but not both. Hence the collapse.
i remember my friend in high school used to go on about 9/11 conspiracies and it p*ssed everyone off so much. So one day I brought in diagrams and loads of visuals pretty much proving him to be completly full of s***.  Shut him up for a while.

Howaythelads

  • Clueless
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #4 on: Thursday 12 April 2007, 07:11:25 PM »
just watched 'The fall of The World Trade Centre' on UKDocumentary

I have a new level of incredulity at the people who believe there was anything dodgy about the collapse:



Structural integrity of the builing relied on the connection of the inner and outer steel columns through lightweight steel floor trusses which were  not encased in concrete

The fire protection spray on the floor trusses was not impact resistant, and hence was stripped off on impact of a plane at 400mph

The fire protection of the inner and outer columns consisted of sprayed drywall only, which again was not impact resistant, and hence was stripped off on impact of a plane at 400mph

Un-protected structural steel reaches half its strength at 500C

The fire weakened the steel in the outer columns which failed (south tower) and the inner columns which failed (north tower), due to the different impact trajectories and resultant fire location (can be seen from the video evidence)

Thousands of tonnes of the structural steel was recovered to a scrap metal yard across the river, and was inspected by civil engineers (this is shown in two huge piles at great length on the documentary)


In short, the towers were designed to survive a jetliner impact, and a large fire, but not both. Hence the collapse.


blueyes.gif


Dave

  • Administrator
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #5 on: Thursday 12 April 2007, 07:24:19 PM »
Something is wrong. I agree with HTL AND Vic in the same thread.

:cheesy:

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #6 on: Thursday 12 April 2007, 07:29:36 PM »
Two words. Building 7.

and? what's your point?

Only a retard would have to ask that question. How does your post explain the collapse of building 7 late on in the afternoon of Sept 11th?

Invicta_Toon

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #7 on: Thursday 12 April 2007, 07:37:12 PM »
Two words. Building 7.

and? what's your point?

Only a retard would have to ask that question. How does your post explain the collapse of building 7 late on in the afternoon of Sept 11th?

how does your post prove the main tower collapse was suspicious?

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #8 on: Thursday 12 April 2007, 07:39:53 PM »
Two words. Building 7.

and? what's your point?

Only a retard would have to ask that question. How does your post explain the collapse of building 7 late on in the afternoon of Sept 11th?

how does your post prove the main tower collapse was suspicious?

So its ok for building 7 to have been blown up as long as there is a TV documentary explaining the intricate nature of the collapse of the main towers?

Invicta_Toon

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #9 on: Thursday 12 April 2007, 07:41:57 PM »
Two words. Building 7.

and? what's your point?

Only a retard would have to ask that question. How does your post explain the collapse of building 7 late on in the afternoon of Sept 11th?

how does your post prove the main tower collapse was suspicious?

So its ok for building 7 to have been blown up as long as there is a TV documentary explaining the intricate nature of the collapse of the main towers?

well answered

toonarmy1810

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #10 on: Thursday 12 April 2007, 07:49:37 PM »
If there's an ounce of truth in this whole load of s**** then im a monkeys uncle!........bubbles come here son.

Nah theories are just that, theories. Whole crock of s*** and are usually started by spotty americans who cant get access to decent porn,

BlueStar

  • 2006/07 Newcastle-Online Cup Winner
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #11 on: Thursday 12 April 2007, 07:52:53 PM »
Was thinking of the part one thread the other day when I read this:

Quote
Renowned metallurgist Rosie O'Donnell proclaimed on TV that Sept. 11, 2001, was a more significant date than most of us realized. It was, in her words, "the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel."

This, of course, came as news to steelworkers, blacksmiths, firefighters, manufacturers of samurai swords and other fools who hadn't realized that steel is forged in magic furnaces using dragon breath and pixie dust.

O'Donnell made this and other profoundly stupid comments on the daytime talk show "The View," ABC's update of the ancient practice of women chattering around the village well.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg3apr03,1,5017886.column
(╮°-°)╮┳━┳ ( ╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻

Dave

  • Administrator
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #12 on: Thursday 12 April 2007, 07:55:57 PM »
:lol:

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #13 on: Thursday 12 April 2007, 08:05:42 PM »
Even the LA times journalist is thick as f***.

Quote
Anyway, in last week's rant, O'Donnell focused on World Trade Center Building 7, which has become the grassy knoll for 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Asked if the government was responsible for its collapse, she coyly replied that she didn't know. All she knows is that it's "impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved" and that, for the "first time in history, steel was melted by fire." Wink, wink. For the record, fire can melt steel, and buildings also collapse when heat weakens steel. But that misses the point. The point is we shouldn't have to argue with crazy people.

How any of that relates to the facts known about Building 7 is beyond me. Facts like 'the decision to pull it was made' being spoken by Silverstein on TV.

Why wouldnt building 7 be rigged to collapse neatly in the highly likely event of a terrorist attack? Seems like an excellent security measure in the face of the threat.

How is questioning an official story a conspiracy theory too? You think the Iranians are thinking that the British soldiers being in Iraqi waters is a 'conspiracy theory'?

Invicta_Toon

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #14 on: Thursday 12 April 2007, 08:12:28 PM »
Even the LA times journalist is thick as f***.

Quote
Anyway, in last week's rant, O'Donnell focused on World Trade Center Building 7, which has become the grassy knoll for 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Asked if the government was responsible for its collapse, she coyly replied that she didn't know. All she knows is that it's "impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved" and that, for the "first time in history, steel was melted by fire." Wink, wink. For the record, fire can melt steel, and buildings also collapse when heat weakens steel. But that misses the point. The point is we shouldn't have to argue with crazy people.

How any of that relates to the facts known about Building 7 is beyond me. Facts like 'the decision to pull it was made' being spoken by Silverstein on TV.

Why wouldnt building 7 be rigged to collapse neatly in the highly likely event of a terrorist attack? Seems like an excellent security measure in the face of the threat.

How is questioning an official story a conspiracy theory too? You think the Iranians are thinking that the British soldiers being in Iraqi waters is a 'conspiracy theory'?


I have no problem with 'decided to pull it' meanining deciding to end the firefighting rescue  operation trying to save the building. It is extremely tenuous to suggest 'pull it' ONLY means to demolish something

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #15 on: Thursday 12 April 2007, 08:19:07 PM »
Which therefore brings us to the question of how the building collapsed. Presumably we'd need another aeroplane to strip the fire protection spray on impact to weaken the structure so that the resultant fire led to the collapse of the building.

Only problem here of course was that there was no 3rd aeroplane. A bit like the grassy knoll in a way.

Hibbits left foot

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #16 on: Thursday 12 April 2007, 08:43:08 PM »
Watch Steve Jones ( google the bugger ) then stfu

Invicta_Toon

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #17 on: Thursday 12 April 2007, 09:01:54 PM »
Which therefore brings us to the question of how the building collapsed. Presumably we'd need another aeroplane to strip the fire protection spray on impact to weaken the structure so that the resultant fire led to the collapse of the building.

Only problem here of course was that there was no 3rd aeroplane. A bit like the grassy knoll in a way.

are you presuming it is constructed the same way then?

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #18 on: Thursday 12 April 2007, 09:07:12 PM »
WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.


from popularmechanics magazine
Bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.

Invicta_Toon

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #19 on: Thursday 12 April 2007, 09:14:28 PM »
and it all goes quiet over there

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #20 on: Friday 13 April 2007, 12:51:17 AM »
WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.


from popularmechanics magazine

Believe what you want, doesnt arse me in the slightest. I know Al Qaeda carried out the attacks. I know that a load of facts are covered over for security reasons. I'd love to know what they are. Not going to approach an answer to these questions if you continue to regurgitate the New York Post's editorial stance.

9/11 wasnt about a conspiracy, it was about security negligence and opportunism. Building 7 still remains a mystery.

Did the building in Newcastle collapse in its footprint the other night?

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #21 on: Friday 13 April 2007, 07:39:01 AM »
lets face it - no facts are going to change the "minds" of those who beleive in a conspiracy theory

Most people with the IQ above that of a snail seem happy with the idea that if you fly two large tubes full of Jet A into a building at  350 mph it's going to collapse

Personally I'm happy that the other beleive in these theories - it keeps them off the streets and stops them from focuing on something else that might lead to harm
The rapturous, wild & ineffable pleasure of drinking at someone else's expense

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #22 on: Friday 13 April 2007, 08:51:15 AM »
WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.


from popularmechanics magazine

Believe what you want, doesnt arse me in the slightest. I know Al Qaeda carried out the attacks. I know that a load of facts are covered over for security reasons. I'd love to know what they are. Not going to approach an answer to these questions if you continue to regurgitate the New York Post's editorial stance.

9/11 wasnt about a conspiracy, it was about security negligence and opportunism. Building 7 still remains a mystery.



They've all seen it on telly dontcha know. mackems.gif

"I'm a competitor and I want to play every game, every minute. The manager knows what I'm thinking. He knows I want to play. He makes his choices and I have to respect them."But it's true we don't share quite the same philosophy. For him, it's more crosses, a bit of a more direct style, whereas I'm more the kind of player who likes to play short passes.
"I like to pass and move.. .."That is the kind of football I like. That's the philosophy I learned at the French academy at Clairefontaine." HBA

alex

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #23 on: Friday 13 April 2007, 09:05:46 AM »
Not this s**** again :razz:

Alan Shearer 9

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition. Part II
« Reply #24 on: Friday 13 April 2007, 09:07:10 AM »
I was going to say myself :lol: