This is a clip I'd not see before...interesting.
I guess the footage may not have been live? But the way they're speaking, it seems as if "It's going down RIGHT now" may suggest it is...?
Any ideas Jeremy?
Possibility of next false flag terror attack: Montréal.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=diuHrM7dq7o&feature=related
This is a clip I'd not see before...interesting.
I guess the footage may not have been live? But the way they're speaking, it seems as if "It's going down RIGHT now" may suggest it is...?
Any ideas Jeremy?
This is a clip I'd not see before...interesting.
I guess the footage may not have been live? But the way they're speaking, it seems as if "It's going down RIGHT now" may suggest it is...?
Any ideas Jeremy?
- Kevin R.
F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)
Know thy enemy.
F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)
Know thy enemy.
Ok I am going to respond to your entire post at some stage. I haven't had time yet and don't really now either. However I wanted to quickly address one point, and maybe give you some time to consider the rest of your points.qphox wrote: But then I turn back to the observable reality that is the twin towers destruction. Here's a few facts. If you really want me to back up every single one and cover them in much more detail Jeremy, I guess I'll do my best in a later post. We've already talked about a few of these, but for now this is just going to serve as a brief overview of the information at hand.
1. Sudden onset of destruction.
2. Destruction occurred at near freefall pace. (this one is probably the hardest for me to accept, when considering the blatantly obvious next point...)
3. Destruction followed path of greatest resistance.
4. 20 ton steel columns ejected laterally up to 500 ft..
5. Blast waves blew out windows in building 400 ft away.
6. 118 first responders report explosions at onset of destruction.
7. Numerous eyewitness reports of flowing molten metal in rubble.
8. Mid-air pulverization of concrete with outward-arching plumes.
9. Rapid expansion and pyroclastic flow of enormous dust clouds.
10. Squibs: explosive ejections 40 stories below the impact zone.
11. Total dismemberment of steel core column structures. (this one kinda makes me second guess the idea that purely air pressure forced the debris out laterally.)
12. 1200 ft diamameter symmetrical debris field.
13. Chemical evidence of thermate on steel and in dust samples.
14. FEMA steel analysis: sulfidation, oxidation & intergranular melting.
15. No precedent for steel frame highrise collapse caused by fire.
I couldn't make this stuff up.
You claim that these things listed are "observable reality," that they are "a few facts," and that you can back them up. You state that "I couldn'tmake this stuff up."
Well I agree with point number 1. The collapse was a "sudden onset of destruction."
Point number 2 is absolutely wrong. If you didn't make it up, somebody else did. It is not "observable reality" and it is not a "fact." It is a blatant lie.
Here is a video of one of the buildings collapsing;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCSXco-bPNo
I want you to time how long it takes to collapse. My estimate was 15 to 17 seconds.
Now if we're going to apply some high school physics. The building is 541 meters high. Gravity is obviously 9.8m per second sqaured. The formulae for the time taken for something to free fall (with the knowns we have) is time= square root of 2 times height divided by acceleration. So in this case our answer is 10.5 seconds. Now if we're generous and say that the collapse takes 15 seconds, that's still 50% longer than free fall.
Now you say that the point that desctuction occurred at near free fall pace is "probably the hardest for me to accept." Does it change things that it occurred much slower than free fall?
I'm assuming you didn't make that up yourself, but saw it or read it from one of these conspiracy sites and chose to believe it without taking 1 minute to check and see if it was actually true for yourself. Given that this claim is absolutely wrong, how many other claims made by these people do you think are wrong? What gives them any credibility to make them at all worth believing about anything? Shouldn't you find a non biased and credible source for these claims before believing them?
Now actually I don't think there is any deliberate dishonest here. I think there is, as you've talked about, a confirmation bias, and the statement about free fall was made by somebody who just looked at the footage and didn't work out the actual time it would take for free fall and the time difference. Then lots of other people, like you, believed them without actually testing the claim, because you already believed, or wanted to believe, that there was something dodgy about events.
Here's a much better video of one of the buildings collapsing, and I'd estimate it's much closer to 20 seconds for the building to collapse - twice as long as free fall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESaIEVxLnK4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESaIEVxLnK4
My mistake Jeremy, I agreed with that statement through my thinking of a video I'd seen awhile back...but the one I was thinking of is right here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=POUSJm--tgw
It talks about Building 7, not the twin towers. And it's pretty good.
haha, now I'm waiting to see what other lies you point out! I AM SO DECEITFUL.
http://youtube.com/user/RKOwens4
This page's goal is to prove that "exactly zero percent" of the theories out there are true. I've been browsing through them...and though I don't agree with the idea that it ABSOLUTELY DISPROVES EVERYTHING LOL, there are a number of valid statements, and it's worth a look?
Here's a simulation done by Purdue. It's pretty neat as well:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w
http://youtube.com/watch?v=POUSJm--tgw
It talks about Building 7, not the twin towers. And it's pretty good.
haha, now I'm waiting to see what other lies you point out! I AM SO DECEITFUL.
http://youtube.com/user/RKOwens4
This page's goal is to prove that "exactly zero percent" of the theories out there are true. I've been browsing through them...and though I don't agree with the idea that it ABSOLUTELY DISPROVES EVERYTHING LOL, there are a number of valid statements, and it's worth a look?
Here's a simulation done by Purdue. It's pretty neat as well:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w
- Kevin R.
F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)
Know thy enemy.
F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)
Know thy enemy.
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
I love this;
Of course it makes you ask the question. All those people who claim that the collapse of the world trace centres was the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire - why do they believe this? There are 3 possibilities.
1. They heard it from somebody else and believed them without evidence.
2. They assumed it to be the case because they'd never heard about it happening, but didn't do any research.
3. They made it up.
Given those 3 possibilities, do these people have any credibility?
----------------------------
Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure.
The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.
The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.
"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."
http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/
24ae78779d768010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____
[Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the
WTC collapse theory.]
"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"
http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/dis ... _fire.html
The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory.
http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine ... rhinig.htm
From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in [ ]
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf
On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.
The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.
pg 6/74
The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns... The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.
The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment, was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a height of eight feet.
The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural
steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
pg 15/74
The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireproofing was newer and more modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it imagine the impact of a 767]
pg 16/74
Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500° F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings
pg 17/74
Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal
discoloration and buckling steel.
pg. 21/74
The two hour fire resistance-rated assembly in the storage area beneath the stage was damaged during the stage floor renovation, leaving the structural members unprotected from the ensuing fire.
pg. 26/74
Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten minutes. Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are susceptible to damage from construction work.
The impact of fire and heat on structural steel members warrant extreme caution by firefighters.
pg. 36/74
Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose streams, the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength and contribute to building collapse.
pg. 37/74
Other Fires
In February 1991, a fire broke out in One Meridian Plaza - a 38 story office building in Philadelphia. The building was built during the same period as the WTC and had spray-on fire protection on its steel frame. Despite not suffering impact damage, authorities were worried it might collapse.
"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a
possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged
floors."
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/txt/ ... tr-049.txt
About 2 years later, the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed building that partially collapsed during after a gas explosion might collapse entirely due to the resulting fire.
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/ ... TR-068.pdf
Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania on, December 20, 1991, Killing 4 volunteer firemen
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/ ... TR-061.pdf
Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed about 20 minutes after fire broke out
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/ ... tr-135.pdf
Of course it makes you ask the question. All those people who claim that the collapse of the world trace centres was the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire - why do they believe this? There are 3 possibilities.
1. They heard it from somebody else and believed them without evidence.
2. They assumed it to be the case because they'd never heard about it happening, but didn't do any research.
3. They made it up.
Given those 3 possibilities, do these people have any credibility?
----------------------------
Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure.
The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.
The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.
"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."
http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/
24ae78779d768010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____
[Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the
WTC collapse theory.]
"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"
http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/dis ... _fire.html
The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory.
http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine ... rhinig.htm
From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in [ ]
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf
On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.
The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.
pg 6/74
The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns... The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.
The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment, was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a height of eight feet.
The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural
steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
pg 15/74
The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireproofing was newer and more modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it imagine the impact of a 767]
pg 16/74
Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500° F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings
pg 17/74
Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal
discoloration and buckling steel.
pg. 21/74
The two hour fire resistance-rated assembly in the storage area beneath the stage was damaged during the stage floor renovation, leaving the structural members unprotected from the ensuing fire.
pg. 26/74
Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten minutes. Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are susceptible to damage from construction work.
The impact of fire and heat on structural steel members warrant extreme caution by firefighters.
pg. 36/74
Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose streams, the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength and contribute to building collapse.
pg. 37/74
Other Fires
In February 1991, a fire broke out in One Meridian Plaza - a 38 story office building in Philadelphia. The building was built during the same period as the WTC and had spray-on fire protection on its steel frame. Despite not suffering impact damage, authorities were worried it might collapse.
"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a
possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged
floors."
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/txt/ ... tr-049.txt
About 2 years later, the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed building that partially collapsed during after a gas explosion might collapse entirely due to the resulting fire.
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/ ... TR-068.pdf
Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania on, December 20, 1991, Killing 4 volunteer firemen
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/ ... TR-061.pdf
Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed about 20 minutes after fire broke out
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/ ... tr-135.pdf
In a hilarious twist the a Dutch scientist has now published a paper claiming to have found "nano-thermite" materials in the dust from the collapsed towers.Jeremy wrote:At school we once did an experiment where you take iron oxide (rusty iron) and aluminium, turn them into powder and mix them together. Apply a flame (we used a burning magnesium strip, but you could use anything). The aluminium takes the oxygen atoms away from the iron. This releases enormous energy and the iron melts. This is a really dangerous experiment as it is very difficult to contain molten iron, and indeed it escaped our container and burnt through a table (so keep that in mind if you're going to try it at home).
Guess what the "nano-thermite" was made out of? Aluminium and iron oxide. I should start writing their press releases
.Of course given that the building was made out of substances that include aluminium and iron, which oxidises very easily, I would sum up the article like this.
"World Trade Centre dust contained materials used to build world trade centre."
These people aren't morons with no idea what they're talking about, and there is definitely actually some kind of conspiracy.
-
Blue_turnip
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1239
- Joined: 29 Nov 2004 03:55
- Location: Melbourne