watch for the squibs used in demolition

by ninja 75 Replies latest jw friends

  • Leolaia
    Basically, I don't think there is any need to do so, since I made it all up.

    Of course you made it up.

  • Madame Quixote
  • Lloyd Braun
    Lloyd Braun
    Lloyd....I dont think you are who and what you claim

    Basically, I don't think there is any need to do so, since I made it all up.


    Rigorous attempts at constant bombardment of nothingness and disinformation

    Negates any wayward supplication of sanity for the

    End time saints, that they continue to provoke jealously and

    You only will know them when they make themselves known .

  • berten
    Why was it possible that heavily guarded airspace was not guarded at all that fateful day?

    >This is a red flag claim, as the only way you can make this claim is if you haven't studied anything other than conspiracist claims...

    You prefer to ignore this important fact,and you *dare* to talk about "Cognitive Dissonance"?

    Methinks you suffer from it the most...

  • Lloyd Braun
    Lloyd Braun

    I think what he was saying is that most of the mindless sheep that follow the leader and don't want to question authority and the answers given to us on a silver platter, don't want to know why the most precious place in the U.S. (the Capital) was not immediately protected in it's airspace upon hearing about the two planes in NYC.

    One would think, and naturally assume that there would be protection over DC right away.

    There wasn't.

    Of course, I do actually think that the GWB NWO is behind most of this anyway, so that explains it. Detonators? NO. But Bush behind it? Sure. Why not. Bush's have been behind everything ever since Kennedy was shot for trying to dissolve Bush and his CIA.

    Gerald Ford was dressed as a Dallas Motorcycle cop in dealy plaza picking up shell cases. WE all know that.

  • Madame Quixote
    Madame Quixote

    Aw, shucks, honey! GW isn't smart enough for all that. Nor are his followers.

  • Abaddon



    You prefer to ignore this important fact,and you *dare* to talk about "Cognitive Dissonance"?

    I don't ignore it, I find the fact you don't know it is untrue significant as it reveals the extent of your research;

    FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked — the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

    Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

    And, no, there was nothing unusual about the number of jets available.

    Now, my comment about cognitive dissonance was applied to those who believe the WTC was demolished despite the explosives they say demolished it being impossible to put in place without it being discovered beforehand. Unless someone can show it is possible to have planted explosives to demolish the WTC without anyone noticing, the comment is a fair one and holds to the definition of cognitive dissonance. You don't have to like it, but there you have it.

    Rather than getting sniffy you could prove it is possible to plant x amount of explosives in y different positions connected by z metres of wire with a number of men working b hours and the process being unnoticed by the occupants of the building because of Professor Zog's invisibility ray, or whatever, Your hypothesis, you prove it.

    If you want respect for your opinions have opinions that deserve respect.

    I see you make no comment about the URL I posted; does this mean you find the refutations are sound? Or are they easily dismissed?


    Until you actually answer my challenge and prove your hypothesis is physically possible, I'll not waste my time responding to all the questions you ask to evade giving answers you cannot provide. Isn't cut and paste a wonderful thing?

    So, you are awarded a fail in your attempt to prove demolition charges could be laid in WTC1, 2 or 7. You show that maybe there was a power outage in the South Tower from the 48th floor up for approximately 30 hours.

    1/2 of one out of three buildings... for thirty hours...

    Do you know how long it takes to prepare a building for demolition when it's EMPTY?

    And what about the other 2 1/2 buildings??

    Is the maths required to figure out the explosives, wiring and set-up time a little too much for the websites you patronise for this bunk ninja?

    Seems so.

    For the fun of it;

    that no steel framed building has collapsed due to fire before 9/11 ...^ FEMA. World Trade Center Building Performance Study, p. 4.

    And the rest of the report? It concludes;

    Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]

    You almost make it sound like that report finds the collapse suspicious using that quote as you do ninja.

    To prove my point about you being able to find refutation of conspiracist nonsense if you bother looking for it, here's the wiki with the footnotes replaced by URL's and added bold.

    As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center "with the force of a volcanic eruption. []

    The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged from debris, including: damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floor, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.[] The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure. The sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system. The sprinkler floor level controls had just a single connection to the sprinkler water riser, and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Loss of power to the fire pump or other damage to the structure would have meant no functioning sprinklers. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[][ ]

    After the north tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[] A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[][]

    During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[]

    At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors which was a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[]

    During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[]

    Around 5:01 pm, given that 7 World Trade Center was unstable and would possibly collapse, FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[][] At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties associated with the collapse.

    In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse based on a preliminary investigation conducted jointly with the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers under leadership of Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E. FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was not primarily caused by actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC but by fires on multiple stories ignited by debris from the other two towers that continued unabated due to lack of water for sprinklers or manual firefighting. Structural elements were exposed to high temperatures for a sufficient period of time to reduce their strength to the point of collapse.[]

    In response to FEMA's concerns, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was authorized to lead a three-year, $16 million investigation into the structural failure and collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers and 7 World Trade Center.[] The investigation, led by Dr S. Shyam Sunder, drew not only upon in-house technical expertise, but also the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).[]

    NIST has released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage.

    The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[][] A unique aspect of the design of 7 World Trade Center was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity.[ ] Consistent with this theory, news footage shows cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[]

    In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds.[][]

    A progress report was released in June 2004, outlining NIST's working hypothesis.[ ][] The hypothesis, which was reiterated in a June 2007 status update, is that an initial failure in a critical column occurred below the 13th floor, caused by damage from fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column, from the collapse of the two main towers. The collapse progressed vertically up to the east mechanical penthouse. The interior structure was unable to handle the redistributed load, resulting in horizontal progression of the failure across lower floors, particularly the 5th to 7th floors. This resulted in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure."[]

    NIST anticipates the release of a draft report of 7 World Trade Center by the end of 2007.[] The NIST is utilizing ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to initiating events.[] The investigation of 7 World Trade Center has been delayed for a number of reasons, including that NIST staff who had been working on 7 World Trade Center were assigned full-time from June 2004 to September 2005, to work on the investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.[] Regarding the investigation of 7 World Trade Center, Dr S. Shyam Sunder stated in a New York magazine interview in March 2006, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors”; he then added, "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."[] In June 2007, he explained, "We are proceeding as quickly as possible while rigorously testing and evaluating a wide range of scenarios to reach the most definitive conclusion possible. The WTC 7 investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers."[]

    Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, some conspiracy theorists believe the building seven collapse was the result of a controlled demolition.When asked about controlled demolition theories, Dr. Sunder said, "We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts."[] In answer to the question of whether "a controlled[-]demolition hypothesis is being considered to explain the collapse," NIST said: "[w]hile NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."[]

    Funny, they're doing the maths to find out how big a bang would be needed to demolish it. Maybe they can then demolish silly conspiracy theories by showing setting up such an explosion would be impossible to conceal.

    But isn't it remarkable in addition to being invisible, massless, and planted by invisible fairies the explosives used to demolish WTC7 are so special they start wall bulging at 2pm, 3 hours 20 minutes before they go off in a slow asymmetrical explosion? Clever fairies!!

    Oh boy, there's no profit in being a prophet!

    I predict lovers of conspiracy hypotheses will post tired old hackneyed conspiracy claims they could have found comprehensive refutations if they had bothered. When they are directed to the refutation of such old hackneyed conspiracy claims they will ignore them and carry on believing what they believed in beforehand.
  • ninja

    hey abby...could you point me to the place where NIST has released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse?....cheers .....btw.....nice cut and paste job

  • ninja
  • berten

    >I don't ignore it, I find the fact you don't know it is untrue significant as it reveals the extent of your research;

    Four planes got through,*no* amount of debunking (Especially that "Popular Mechanics" tripe) can explain it away.

    Four planes were *allowed* through...

Share this