Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
SEPTEMBER 11 – The History of 9/11
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 62, 63, 64
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
AnalisOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Total posts: 929
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 15-09-2008 15:56    Post subject: Reply with quote

hokum6 wrote:

Never mind that it's a totally different building, so not really comparable, but that extra factor was possibly the 20-story chunk missing from its side. Caracas did not have a massive part of its structure missing, it didn't appear to have a generator fuel line feeding the blaze and there were firefighters dousing the flames. They didn't fight the fire at all on WTC 7, and they heard creaking coming from it that indicated a possible collapse.

But maybe all that was just coincidence and served as a handy cover for the stealth demolition of a huge building. Bigger than any demolition before, in fact.

Oh, and here's a little snippet about the Caracas building:

Quote:
Earlier in the day, officials expressed fears that the building might collapse.

"There is a problem because the building is made of steel. Because of the high temperatures, the structure could collapse," Interior minister Jesse Chacon told President Hugo Chavez during his weekly radio and television show.


Ha, those fools! Of course it wouldn't collapse, how stupid they are. They should have asked your advice.



Well, each bulding is unique. But all, WTC 7, Los Angeles (May 1988), Caracas or Philadelphia (Feb. 1991) were based on the same principles (Madrid in 2005 was steel-concrete). Still, you're saying that WTC 7 was ravaged by fires similar those buildings. There is no tangible evidence of them. All tangible evidence we do have points towards their non existence. And the only evidence you have of this big, 20 storey missing chunk is a testimony from a firefighter, whose claims about ravaging arsons is contradicted by this same evidence. Very dubious. And yes, still the same question : why, if firefighters fought much stronger arsons at Caracas or Philadelphia (some say more than 18 hours), didn't they fight much weaker ones on WTC 7 ?


Quote:
Quote:

But if so, it would retain enough of its initial strenght, and this would result in no collapse.


Structural engineers all over the world disagree with you. But if you have some stunning new evidence you should write a book and get rich.



????? confused No, not all structural engineers. If buildings with a steel frame are endangered at 500°C, then the whole science of structural engineering must be revised immediately. Like the science of building demolition.
And yes, Pietro_Mercurios has a point : after 9/11, many people (including I) were afraid that more buildings would be put down by arsons. It never happened.


Quote:
Quote:

It depends, some said "sounded like an explosion", others said "heard an explosion". In any case, what caused them ?


They probably did hear explosions. Generators exploding, computers going bang maybe, perhaps lots of other combustible items going up in smoke. But explosion does not equal bomb. And who knows whether those sounds were even audible over the noise of a building falling to bits. Debris falling was making loud bangs that could and almost certainly were mistaken for an explosion.


Explanations evolved. First it was gas conducts. Then generators exploding; maybe it could explain some of them, but so many ? Then burning kerosen flowing from upper storeys; but would it explode, and it seems that there were no important fires at lower levels. Then the cracking of beams - much below the damaged storeys ? Now, the falling of debris - audible inside the building ?

Quote:
And again: a demolition would have been noticeable, completely unmistakeable. There would have been no way to hide a demolition of that size. Perhaps the New World Order has invented silent explosive.


Well, there is a new technology of electronic detonators. An example of a patent, the product was released in 1999:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=FR2002003892&wo=2003044450&DISPLAY=STATUS
Contrary to electric detonators, those electronic detonators do not produce any seismographic pike. So their sounds are less easy to discriminate from the crumbling.
An example here (in french):
http://www.oricaminingservices.com/files/products/575/UNITronics500-TDS-FR-042007.pdf

The collapse of the twin towers was not a classic controlled demolition. They usually begin from the lower floors, there the goal was to suggest that the building collapsed from the damaged storeys. When the building structure was weakened by a series of isolated explosions, difficult to notice, the collapse was initiated by a short sequence of explosions (heard by some). The sound of the collapse covered the sound of explosions as they destroy level after level. And indeed, it was a bigger demolition than before.
As for WTC7, it was an ordinary controlled demolition, from the basement.

Quote:
It doesn't confirm anything. The quote above is from the scientists at the observatory that published the readings, and they don't agree. No other seismologists seem to have a problem with it either. Yet again you appear to have some amazing in depth knowledge of this event that nobody else has been able to see.


Nobody else ? That's only your opinion.
Well, I studied seismology, but that's not the point. No need to be a Nobel Prize to understand that official assertions do not add up. The Pentagon deflagration shook buildings. It was just above ground level. But it didn't generate a noticeable earth tremor. To be compared with the WTC: there we have two crashes at more than two hundred meters above ground level ; a good example of a decoupling with the ground. But, they supposedly caused a noticeable tremor. So a crash 1 m above ground level, no tremor ; two crashes much above ground level ; two tremors. This does not hold water.
And official seismologists sometimes lie. For example, on 6 october 1999, a 4.6 Richter eartquake occured off Fécamp (Normandy). The official explanation, validated by Anne-Marie SOURIAUX from the OMP at Toulouse, was that it was caused by... the explosion of four 300 kg (200 pd) bombs from 2nd World War ! I don't know what caused this tremor, and why French authorities tried to cover it up. But the assertion that it was 1.2 t of explosives does not make sense.
http://www.azf-10h18.com/NEW_FABIUS.html#IV-4
Back to top
View user's profile 
hokum6Offline
I am one can short of a six-pack!
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Total posts: 842
Location: Location Location
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 15-09-2008 23:43    Post subject: Reply with quote

Analis wrote:
Still, you're saying that WTC 7 was ravaged by fires similar those buildings. There is no tangible evidence of them. All tangible evidence we do have points towards their non existence. And the only evidence you have of this big, 20 storey missing chunk is a testimony from a firefighter, whose claims about ravaging arsons is contradicted by this same evidence. Very dubious.


So, let me get this straight. You don't think there was a big chunk of the building missing, and you don't believe there was a fire? Is that really what you're going with?

http://i35.tinypic.com/5yrg8w.jpg

Yup, nothing strange about that. WTC 7 always had scorch marks and the corner of the building missing.

And there is more than one statement from witnesses talking about the fires, the creaking, the buckling of the building and the big chunk missing from it. Where on earth did you get the idea that only one person was saying this??

What next, are you going to claim that there were no planes, that they were actually missiles fitted with holographic projectors?

Quote:

And yes, still the same question : why, if firefighters fought much stronger arsons at Caracas or Philadelphia (some say more than 18 hours), didn't they fight much weaker ones on WTC 7 ?


Because of the signs the building was in danger of collapsing, which they ascertained from the noises and the visible buckling in its structure.

Quote:
If buildings with a steel frame are endangered at 500°C, then the whole science of structural engineering must be revised immediately. Like the science of building demolition.


This isn't what anybody is saying at all. I can't tell if you are deliberately taking things out of context, or just don't understand. Other buildings with steel frames are endangered...if they are hit by planes or other skyscrapers.

Quote:

Explanations evolved. First it was gas conducts. Then generators exploding; maybe it could explain some of them, but so many ? Then burning kerosen flowing from upper storeys; but would it explode, and it seems that there were no important fires at lower levels. Then the cracking of beams - much below the damaged storeys ? Now, the falling of debris - audible inside the building ?


Yes, theories change. There is nothing unusual about this. That's how things work, as we gather new evidence or come up with new ideas you adapt and change a theory.

You know who you sound like? A creationist trying to disprove evolution. "But, but, you said this, and now you're saying this and so in that case everything you say must be completely wrong!!"

But then that is the truther's conspiracy theories in a nutshell. It's 'God of the gaps'. No evidence or logic, just poking holes and pointing out inconsistencies and mistakes as though that proves what you're saying.

Quote:

Well, there is a new technology of electronic detonators. An example of a patent, the product was released in 1999:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=FR2002003892&wo=2003044450&DISPLAY=STATUS
Contrary to electric detonators, those electronic detonators do not produce any seismographic pike. So their sounds are less easy to discriminate from the crumbling.
An example here (in french):
http://www.oricaminingservices.com/files/products/575/UNITronics500-TDS-FR-042007.pdf


Uh, that's a detonator. It is attached to explosives to set them off. It doesn't prevent an explosion from making a noise or perform any magic that would explain the total lack of evidence for a controlled demolition.

Quote:

The collapse of the twin towers was not a classic controlled demolition. They usually begin from the lower floors, there the goal was to suggest that the building collapsed from the damaged storeys. When the building structure was weakened by a series of isolated explosions, difficult to notice, the collapse was initiated by a short sequence of explosions (heard by some). The sound of the collapse covered the sound of explosions as they destroy level after level. And indeed, it was a bigger demolition than before.


Really. Well, never mind that nobody heard, saw or recorded any bombs (remember, explosion does not equal bomb), and that from videos it's clear that the tower buckled at the point where the planes hit...how would they have fitted these bombs without any body knowing? Who was responsible for putting them there? Why didn't they say anything when thousands of people died? There'd have be an awful lot of people involved, and not one of them spoke up?

Quote:

As for WTC7, it was an ordinary controlled demolition, from the basement.


An ordinary controlled demolition that made no sound whatsoever, and didn't require any additional explosives along the rest of the structure. Interesting. Must have been those magical electronic detonators.

Quote:
Nobody else ? That's only your opinion.


Except, it's not an opinion. By 'nobody else', I mean 'no other experienced, qualified scientists with expertise in this area'. It's ridiculous that I'd even have to make that distinction.

Quote:

Well, I studied seismology...blah blah


And yet no other seismologists, geologists or anybody have spoken up about these mysterious discrepancies? It's only been noticed by people on the internet? The arrogance is quite amazing though. The idea that you have spotted something which has been missed by people who do this as career. It'd be funny if it wasn't a bit sad.


You're getting sillier with every post.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 16-09-2008 00:26    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thread Locked.

P_M
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 62, 63, 64
Page 64 of 64

 
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