FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
WTC - The Tower Collapses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 14, 15, 16  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
Only thing is.... this is SOME core. It was literally the backbone of the building.

Which brings up an interesting question.

WTF did it GO?? Where's the frikkin' core?


Ah HA!

The core! THE CORE!!

Of course!

THE 'FEMA' CORE:



THE ACTUAL CORE:





Quote:


This and more are due to the fact that WTC construction plans and other records of the city of New York were removed and placed, illegally in the private warehouse of Rudolph Giuliani


SUPPORTING THE FEMA CORE, STEEL CORE COLUMNS, SUPPORTS THE IMPOSSIBLE BY OBSCURING THE POSSIBLE, EVEN IF DEMOLITION IS ASSERTED.

In other words, supporting an impossibility that ultimately undermines any real 9-11 truth effort by attempting to show demolition which only recognizes a structure that cannot be demolished within the event witnessed.

Cutting the supposed 47 steel core columns with cutting charges (unless they were impossibly well installed) would completely change the visual qualities of the event. Instead of a gently heaving mushrooming effect with waves of debris and muffled booms there would be severe horizontal explosions throwing small steel pieces out for 1000 feet horizontally with very sharp "bangs", up to about 1400 of them. Only 1/4 or so would be near the floors so the amount of concrete involved would be far less meaning more visibility of the cutting charges going off. As it is the cutting charges built into the floor are totally disguised by the wave of concrete debris falling past them.

From: Demolition, the truth of 9-11 and the WTC
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1148354


Damn. That sounds like what I saw.

Quote:
How The WTC Was Secretly Demolished On 9-11-01.

The only way to reconcile an analysis inclusive of the 4 Glaring Inconsistencies is that the thick coatings of the rebar of the cast concrete support core and foundation were actually made of plastic explosive C4. This would put enough explosive force in direct contact with the most concrete at high enough pressures and enable the instantaneous structural collapse of each floor consecutively to the ground that we saw, as well as the resulting particulate. Attempting to apply explosives to the exterior of the concrete would have created too much external explosion and made the demo obvious without achieving a fraction of what we saw or see in the sand and gravel of the photos linked above.

The Notion of no concrete core and of cutting the supposed steel core columns with anything other than shape charges, not developed as they are today, would have changed the character of the event witnessed. Below is a diagram

This was technology invented in the cold war to make self destruct missile silos and submarine bases, perfect for preplanned demolition. The C4 protected the steel from corrosion before the sea water was evacuated by the incoming concrete into the forms. The C4 was encapsulated in the concrete and its 10 year average shelf life extended by many times.


C4 shelf life of 10 years from an explosives manufacturer.

From: Demolition, the truth of 9-11 and the WTC
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1148354


Holy crap. Check this out.

Demolition, the truth of 9-11 and the WTC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:46 am    Post subject: Re: Core Issues Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
...
Building a Better Mirage
NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, Dec 8, 2005
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

NIST's Evasion
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/nistevasion.html

Skeptics
http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/impact.htm


Good links! It seems that debate is raging over the NIST reports. Though I'm skeptical of Jim Fetzer, the page you link to on his site to basically comprises helpful excerpts of and links to three other papers/articles, one of which is Jim Hoffman's.

As I understand it, very roughly speaking, NIST argues that the core of each tower failed because it was damaged by the plane crash, much of the fireproofing was knocked off the steel columns, and they were weakened by the fires, and the failure of the core columns (together with the sagging of the floor trusses and the bowing of the perimeter columns) precipitated the first 'pancaking', which set in motion an unstoppable domino effect. Jim Hoffman and others point out that NIST doesn't bother to study what happened after the initiation of "global collapse". They simply assume that once the core failed, the towers were doomed to come down just as we saw them on video.

I may have this a bit wrong -- it's only a rough summary based on what I've read and understood so far. So check out the links for yourself.

Also, here's another link that may be relevant. I believe this was mentioned by Kevin Ryan during his Guns 'n' Butter interview which someone here posted:

http://www.nistreview.org/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

macauleym wrote:
Also, here's another link that may be relevant. I believe this was mentioned by Kevin Ryan during his Guns 'n' Butter interview which someone here posted:

http://www.nistreview.org/

And here's a quote from that very Guns and Butter interview with Mr. Ryan:

Ryan: "NIST still... in 2004, early 2005 were still talking about 'pancaking of floors.' And the floor model tests at UL showed that the floors would not fail, they would not collapse. In fact, they showed absolutely minimal sagging of floors. So, those test results (from UL) contradicted the story that NIST was coming out with."

G&B: "So, then the report written by NIST contradicted not only the test that your laboratory was running - their report contradicted their own tests."

Ryan: "Yes, that's right."
.......................................................
Excerpts from GNN:
http://reprehensor.gnn.tv/blogs/16493/Kevin_Ryan_Tearing_Down_a_Myth

Shankar Nair, whose statement quoted above is quite telling, was one of those experts on whom the government depended to support what turned out to be an ever-changing, but always flimsy, story. Many of the scientists involved in the investigation were asked to examine ancillary issues, like escape routes and other emergency response factors. But those few who attempted to explain what really needed explaining, the unique events of fire-induced collapse, appear to have engaged in what can only be called anti-science. That is, they started with their conclusions and worked backward to some leading hypotheses.

Not surprisingly, many of the contractors who contributed to the NIST investigation, like the company for which Nair works, just happen to depend on good relationships with the government in order to earn their living. What may be a surprise is just how lucrative these relationships can be. For example, Nairs company, Teng & Associates, boasts of Indefinite Quantity Contracts, long-term relationships with federal government agencies, and federal projects worth in excess of $40 million.
Others who worked so hard to maintain the official story included Gene Corley, a concrete construction expert listed by the National Directory of Expert Witnesses as a source for litigation testimony. Corley was more than just a witness, however. He had led the Oklahoma City bombing investigation and then was asked to lead the initial ASCE investigation into the WTC disaster. Perhaps someone else, with less experience in bombings and more experience in fires, would have been a better choice. But without authority to save samples or even obtain blueprints, the ASCE investigation was ineffective anyway. Corley himself ended up being a very versatile resource, however, providing testimony supporting the pre-determined conclusions many times, and even posing as a reporter during an NIST media session.

There was really no need for phony media coverage. As with The 9/11 Commission Report and the lead-up to the Iraq War, the major media simply parroted any explanations, or non-explanations, given in support of the official story. One example is from a television program called The Anatomy of September 11th, which aired on the History Channel. Corley took the lead on this one as well, but James Glanz, a New York Times reporter, was also interviewed and helped to spread what is probably the worst excuse for collapse given. He told us that the fires heated the steel columns so much (the video suggested 2500 F) that they were turned into licorice. Other self-proclaimed experts have been heard promoting similar theories. They will probably come to regret it

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3861

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan

you make a distinction between:

Arrow the 'classic' controlled demolition theory, as espoused by the Fakes ad nauseum and

Arrow the controlled demoltion theory.

Question what is/are the 'classic/old school' [Fake] controlled demoltion theory/theories?

Question what is/are the 'contemporary/new school' controlled demoltion theory/theories?

Please clarify: it has become a woods and trees issue again -- the last thing we need. I know a summary will be provided in due course, however, I think this simple point needs nailing down right now.

BTW Jerry Fletcher's post early on in this thread [explosives were designed into the Twin Towers at inception] is the most plausable explanation I have heard to date.

atm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ozregeneration



Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 484
Location: Big Island Down Under

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry Fletcher wrote:
What if the building's demolition was somehow built into its infrastfructure?

What if it was built 'wired'?

Perhaps, being the tallest buildings in the world at the time, this additional feature was justified to the curious as an insurance 'fail safe' to protect the surrounding buildings in the event of fire or whatever. Better to be able to 'take em down' than destroy all of lower manhattan.

Jerry,

Are you thinking aloud here or have you read about this, because this is in fact something I remember reading/hearing myself at some stage. I don't know if I actually have anything but I'll look through my jungle of links, articles and audios to see what I can find.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
just0



Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 601

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry Fletcher wrote:

What if the building's demolition was somehow built into its infrastfructure?

What if it was built 'wired'?


Good one, these guys do put a lot of effort into setting the
scene just right and have preperations made years in advance,
but this scenario doesn't seem plausable, at least to me. first
of all having explosives built into a buildings structure
would be faily dangerous....I would think, a small fire in
the wrong place and the building could be destroyed. Not to
mention the problems that would result from having to rely on
38yr old explosives to work flawlessly on the day.

But, I think the even bigger questions remain. Like, could explosives
even do all of the things we've been talking about here? We've
got the "mammoth cloud of thick dust" from the pulverised debris,
the disappearing Core Issues and the top to bottom destruction
of the towers at "freefall" speed. So the the classic controlled
demolition theory doesn't add up but I don't think explosives
fits the bill either.

Fintan wrote:

Yeah, this was something special.


Maybe its time to think outside the box some more...

_________________
~"True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems."~
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm reposting this from another forum where I originally posted it. I believe this is as out of the box as you can get. I admit, not many have accepted this as a potential scenario (read: 0), which of course, makes me believe in it's possibility even moreso: Laughing
............................................................
[quote name='Rumpl4skn' date='May 21 2006, 09:56 AM']
Obviously, since the twin towers are no more (and there was never any serious examination of the rubble), we are left to speculation about what - if anything - was used to bring them down, if it was indeed CD.

One main criticism of the CD scenario is: how could bombs have been planted in the twin towers, and detonator cord run run all through the buildings? How could the bomb installation be kept hidden from the workers, maintenance crews, etc.?

I was over at my buddy's office building a few weeks ago, a big record company in Nashville. They had just gotten a bunch of server units installed. Tall, sleek black cabinets, whirring quietly away over in small room next to the elevators. With their doors closed, all you saw were tall black metal boxes, with 4 led lights - 2 green, 1 yellow, 1 red. Voltage readouts, I assumed. Out the back, a bundled of snaked cable fed into the wall, disappearing into who knows where.

I walked over to one to open the door, and he yelled for me to "not touch it. The IT guys are freaks about that, please."

So, I started thinking...why would bombs have to look like bombs? - Since we know there were power-downs in the towers for "cable upgrades" and "security improvements"..... you wouldn't have to be all that covert or clandestine if your bombs looked like, or maybe even were real server racks. The hardest part of the plan would be finding areas near enough to the core columns to do their jobs correctly. And if not server racks, then anything official-looking - wall-mounted circuit breaker boxes, networking exchanges, routers... anything that normally has a metal box around it, has cables coming out of it, and that no one is used to seeing the inside of.

How hard would it be to hang black metal boxes on the walls inside the core areas, with cables running from them, without rousing suspicions? Not hard at all.



This takes care of 2 nagging problems with the demolition rigging theories - (a) you don't have to hide your ordnance if it looks like ordinary office or networkin gear that everyone is used to seeing around the place, and (b) even more importantly, you don't need detonator cable if your bombs are connected to an outside source via networking cables, either real networking or simply signal cable running to a detonator. And everyone on the floor would be told not to go poking around in those boxes, so "the IT guys don't freak."

Granted, this is just an theory, and we may never know how it was actually done. But this approach would work.

.............................Follow-up post:
[quote name='Rumpl4skn' date='May 21 2006, 10:00 AM']
You may read the above post and say, "Hmmm.... but how close could you get those boxes to the WTC core columns?"

Not surprisingly, detailed blueprints of both the trade towers and building 7 are still "unavailable" to the public, 5 years after 9/11. I believe the theory is that no one has even been convicted on 'suspicion of hiding evidence.' That is easier to deal with than the revelations the hidden evidence may afford.

Anyway, here is FEMA's core floor plan for one of the towers:



(the staircase highlights are from the original FEMA diagram, they hold no significance to my essay here)

Firstly, in typically dishonest FEMA style, notice that the cross-sections of the 47 core columns have been grossly downsized. By my estimates, these red dots are less than 1/4 the size of the actual core columns, although they do vary in size from those at the bottom to those at the top. But these dots are roughly half the size of even the smallest, top floor columns. I believe is you take the box surrounding the 4 corner columns dots, that is more the cross-section of an actual core column. Which probably accounts for the size of the box in the first place - it's the core column area. And if you make those columns their actual size, I believe you can add 4 more to the list of "human accessible" support elements. (And then there were three.)

Here's a photo, clearly showing the comparitive thickness of the core columns. The one on the outer right edge is very profoundly indicative of the size difference between reality and FEMAreality (2001, BushCo).



I am shocked that an agency such as FEMA would lie about such critical information. Razz

Secondly, without the actual structural blueprint, we can't see the diameters of the spaces between the core columns and the access areas, but it appears from this vague graphic that there could be very close proximity. I count 7 out of 47 columns that seem to be somewhat secluded, in inaccessible areas, and that's including the 4 outermost corner columns, which look to be a foot or more behind sheetrock or whatever walling material was used. So, there are 3 internal columns that don't seem to be within direct access - either room facades, walking areas or elevator shafts.

Granted, without blueprints this is an estimation, but IMHO - if you wanted to design a building that would be easy to take down, you couldn't do much better than this. Massive primary support columns in a group, with plenty of access to 94% of them.
..................................................
Question, comments, medication donations? Cool

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

just0 said:

Quote:
first of all having explosives built into a buildings structure
would be faily dangerous....I would think, a small fire in
the wrong place and the building could be destroyed. Not to
mention the problems that would result from having to rely on
38yr old explosives to work flawlessly on the day.


I thought years ago, "What if the 'fireproofing' material were explosives of some sort?" or that maybe they had built the building's demise into it at concpetion/at least earlier.

A fire would't bother you - these explosives can only be detonated by something at 22,000fps. And if they were encased in concrete/protected - the shelf life would be extended *way* beyond the 10years that's standard for C4.

This guy makes a *lot* of sense, if you ask me...

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1154643

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just0 wrote:
But, I think the even bigger questions remain. Like, could explosives
even do all of the things we've been talking about here? We've
got the "mammoth cloud of thick dust" from the pulverised debris,
the disappearing Core Issues and the top to bottom destruction
of the towers at "freefall" speed. So the the classic controlled
demolition theory doesn't add up but I don't think explosives
fits the bill either.


Hello folks...
I don't post these links for myself. I've already read em.
If I actually type in BBS code for a link, it's because I think the link is really important to the conversation.

Not NIST, not Fetzer, not Bowman. I've really no interest in the fake gum flapping fountains of bullshit.

So, let me try this again....

"Hey Guys! Check out this link! It's a hoot!"

Demolition, the truth of 9-11 and the WTC

I guess I'll quote Christopher's entire website if I have to, but it answers all of the above questions. FEMA misrepresented the building as having a steel core.

THE WTC TOWERS HAD A CONCRETE CORE. THE EXPLOSIVES WERE BUILT INTO THE REBAR, THEN SEALED IN AIRTIGHT CONCRETE FOR 30 YEARS. THIS WAS A TECHNOLOGY USED BY THE MILITARY IN THE 60'S FOR SELF DESTRUCT MISSLE SILOS.

Anyway, check out that link.

Sorry for yelling. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry Fletcher wrote:
FEMA misrepresented the building as having a steel core.

THE WTC TOWERS HAD A CONCRETE CORE. THE EXPLOSIVES WERE BUILT INTO THE REBAR, THEN SEALED IN AIRTIGHT CONCRETE FOR 30 YEARS. THIS WAS A TECHNOLOGY USED BY THE MILITARY IN THE 60'S FOR SELF DESTRUCT MISSLE SILOS.

I'm not following this train of thought. The supposition is that there was a concrete wall in addition to the core columns. Assuming that's true, how does this construction parameter - aside from the "C4 coated rebar" scenario (which I'm not sure I buy) - detract from the core's strength?

There is also reference to the concrete being built up and the steel columns following "a few floors below". Do you see that here:


...or have these photos been faked? Honestly, I'm just asking.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
just0



Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 601

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm no munitions expert but thankfully Wikipedia has this to say about C4.

Quote:

C-4 is also well known for its durability and reliability. It will not explode
even if hit by a bullet, punched, cut, or thrown into a fire. The only reliable
method for detonation is via a detonator or blasting cap. However, applying
pressure in combination with heat can often cause detonation.


Quote:
Because C-4 burns slowly if a started explosion is not feeding it,
during the Vietnam War era, many soldiers would use small amounts of
C-4 as means of heating rations while on long patrols. While many soldiers
were able to use C-4 in this manner safely, there are several anecdotes
about soldiers attempting to put out the fire by stomping on it and causing
it to detonate.


Building explosives into the structure still seems like a risk not worth
taking, especially since the plan is to slam 767's into the towers, theres
a chance that things could deviate from the script..... and thats not their style.

_________________
~"True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems."~
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

just0 wrote:
Building explosives into the structure still seems like a risk not worth taking, especially since the plan is to slam 767's into the towers, theres a chance that things could deviate from the script..... and thats not their style.

That's roughly my take, although I'm trying to consider every scenario here, really.

I also don't put much credence into the Perps counting on 30 year old explosives going off without a hitch. Without a test run, without any way to determine that this would even initiate, let alone succeed all the way down. And if it fails, then what the hell do you do? Talk about having to put a major concern out of your mind "for a while."

I just see this as less feasible than hoping 4 simultaneous hijackings to occur on the same day, and the amateur piltos hit their targets. Same realm of possibility, to me.

And, just for the record, I also don't trust Wikipedia any farther than I can throw a boxcar. Confused

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 2 of 16

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.