In your figure of '7 seconds' you are conveniently ignoring the 8.2 seconds from the start of the collapse of the penthouse, before the beginning of the 'global collapse' ( http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf table L-1). The full time for the collapse was somewhat closer to 15 seconds, from the first signs of movement.Originally Posted by bryan
But, then again, if you are prepared to state that there weren't even any planes, and the whole thing was 'a simple conjuring trick', it's probably not worth bothering with these kinds of trivial details, eh?
You conveniently forgot to answer the above points.
The crash was on 26 Aug 1944 and I examined the scene 37 years later, accompanied by several eyewitnesses to the crash and its aftermath. The principal purpose of the outing was to interview the eyewitnesses and I chose to do so at the scene of the incident so we could all more readily relate to the described events.
A 200 ton tube travelling at 500 mph would punch through quarter-inch steel and thin concrete floors whatever the tube was made of. Scale everything down so that the aircraft becomes bullet-size - that's about a 1:2000 scale. How thick would the walls and floors of the WTC be then - at that scale the walls would be about 1/8000 of an inch thick and the floors about 1/300 of an inch. So we effectively had a soft-nosed bullet passing through a tenuous membrane backed by seven or eight paper-thin floors. And you think it wouldn't have passed through?
In the face of patently insane rantings, it's difficult to hold back.
Last edited by brianp; 18th October 2009 at 11:48 AM.
It hardly seems necessary to point this out, Bryan, but...
An aircraft's fuselage is not simply a flimsy tube. Whilst the outer skin is made of lightweight aluminium, the internal airframe is comprised of heavier stringers and formers, which support the structure. The underside of the fusleage is particularly strongly built ( and strong in compression ) to support the landing gear. Airliners do not tend to crumple-up, upon landing!
The idea that an airliner's fuselage is some kind of soft construction, like a toothpase tube, is ludicrous. Here, for example, is a photograph showing some of the fuselage construction of a Boeing 747.
I don't have to time to discuss every aspect of 9/11 simultaneously. I've dealt with the issue of the lack of evidence that the hijackers boarded the planes, but you don't want to talk about it. I've presented a small part of my evidence that no planes hit the twin towers, but you don't want to talk about that either. You have repeatedly suggested in this thread that you think the idea that planes didn't hit the towers is completely ridiculous, so the subject should be a happy hunting ground for you.
According to the official database, two of the planes were still registered four months after the attack. The other two were still registered over a year after the attack. By law, if an aircraft is written off it must be taken off the register within a month.
The timing is from when the corners at the top of the building start to move down together, which would indicate that all 81 columns have failed. From that moment, the top floor takes around 7 seconds to reach the ground. That's hardly longer than would be expected if there was only fresh air separating the top floor from the foundations below.
I thought that even the CTists had given up on that one.
So the roof, and the penthouse, falling into the building for eight seconds, didn't indicate that the internal structure had already catastrophically failed? I mean, considering that 10 storeys of one side had been qouged out by falling debris, and the building had been on fire for several hours...The timing is from when the corners at the top of the building start to move down together, which would indicate that all 81 columns have failed. From that moment, the top floor takes around 7 seconds to reach the ground. That's hardly longer than would be expected if there was only fresh air separating the top floor from the foundations below.
If you think that the collapse should have taken longer, please demonstrate your reasoning. With structural modelling and maths, if possible.
Speaking of which, a couple of questions; If you assume that WTC-7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, and was pre-rigged with explosives, were 'they' hoping that it would sustain enough damage to give a rationale for the collapse? Is it just 'happy coincidence' that it was so badly damaged by debris and fire? Or, do you believe that it was all part of the plan, somehow?
Also, why did 'they' leave the building to stand for so long, so everyone could get a good look at it, and assess the damage? Why didn't they just bring it down to coincide with the collapse of one of the towers? The whole thing would've been obscured by dust, nobody would be any the wiser.
Like all conspiracy theories, yours depends on 'them' being ruthlessly efficient and having near-godlike powers, in order to pull-off such an incredidly audacious feat. Yet, 'they' also have to be so mind-numbingly inept that they can't even fake a few boarding-passes, they sloppily leave aircraft on the FAA register and they can't co-ordinate the collapse of the buildings well enough to cover their tracks.
It's ludicrous.
Last edited by SimonC; 18th October 2009 at 01:19 PM.
What happened to the planes if they didn't hit the buildings may be an intriguing question (as well as a useful red herring) for some people, but it's not part of the evidence for the proposition that no planes hit the buildings. They might have flown them into the Atlantic by remote control or they might have given them a respray. Personally, I wouldn't expect them to destroy four perfectly good planes if it wasn't necessary.
It would be a different matter if one of the planes was discovered and it could be authenticated, but as it stands, the question is irrelevant.
William of Ockham and myself would point out that a more likely explanation for the penthouse falling in eight seconds before the initiation of global collapse is that explosives were used to blow out the internal structure first so that the sides would fold in towards the middle, as indeed happened. The internal structure may have failed, but the corners didn't budge till eight seconds later. That's the hallmark of a two-stage controlled demolition, not a gradual collapse.
The reason for starting to time the collapse at the moment when the corners begin to drop is to compare the timing with freefall speed. During the eight seconds that follow the falling of the penthouse, the corners are being held in place by the outer structure and gravity has no role to play. Once the corners start to drop, it appears that gravity is the only force that is acting on the structure. If you timed the collapse at 15 seconds, you'd expect that after 8 seconds the rooftop would have fallen half way to the ground, but most of it hasn't budged at all.
Here's the maths: 81 x 47 = a lot of steel
You've finally got it! I think they did plan to bring WTC7 down while it was hidden by the dust from the demolition of the North Tower, but the explosives failed to detonate and they had to work all afternoon to fix it. There's a youtube clip where a TV reporter informs the studio (still before the dust has cleared) that he's been told that "another 50 storeys" came down at 10.45. Again, this stuff is interesting but not central to the argument.
Yawn...
It gets better and better...
Yet again, ( to make your theory work ) you have nefarious conspirators who use their super-secret technology to simulate aircraft, then also use their amazing, hitherto unknown powers of TV mass-hypnosis to fool the watching world.
They can make the real planes 'disappear' without trace, intercept and manipulate radar and pretty-much anything they choose to do. All perpetrated with terrifying, Machiavellian efficiency.
But... they can't get the bombs in WTC-7 to go off on-time, and then have to jury-rig the detonation.
Btw - you do realise, I hope, that in all of your rantings, you have yet to offer one shred of evidence to support your claim? I'm just saying...
Why the hell anyone would think they didn't hit the buildings is an even more intriguing one!
Sorry, me again.
They destroyed WTC7 (according to you). In what way was that necessary?
Here's another theory that could result from the same fallacious logic you've just implied:
1. If NASA had the technical know-how to launch rockets, put men on the moon and build spacestations, they'd have the ability to stop pieces of foam from falling off the shuttle's fuel tank and damaging the tiles on the undercarriage.
2. It has been claimed that a piece of foam fell off the shuttle's fuel tank and damaged a tile on the undercarriage.
3. Therefore, NASA has never launched a rocket, put men on the moon or built a spacestation.
If your skin is thick enough for you to deny this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5akpn...elated&search=
then let me know what kind of evidence would convince you. Bear in mind that between 30% and 50% probability is considered to be 'cause for arrest'.
You might want to compare what you see in the video to NIST's latest theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC_Building_7The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, including on floor 13, where a critical interior column buckled. With the buckling of that column, adjacent columns also failed along with the floor structure above. This triggered a vertical progression of floor failures to the roof. The collapse then progressed east-to-west across the structure, and ultimately the entire structure collapsed. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.
Here's the choice:
1. Controlled demolition.
2. A single interior column buckled, causing the penthouse to fall. For the next 8 seconds the inside of the building was progressively collapsing, although there was no sign of this from the outside. Suddenly, the outer columns gave way and the whole building collapsed uniformly at the speed of gravity.
Among the many anomalies with this tale, one in particular stands out. Eight seconds into the collapse, the perimeter columns are still standing, right up to the roof. Then suddenly the roof drops at the speed of gravity down to the floor. What mechanism could remove all the outer columns instantaneously to allow the top floor to fall with no resistance? After the edges of the roof begin to fall, the top floor is not delayed for even 1 second on its way to the ground.
No need to apologize. This is a forum!
There are several possible answers: As well as being an excuse to wage war, 9/11 was an insurance scam. The building was probably worth more as a write-off and dismantling it would have been a nightmare (the WTC buildings that weren't demolished were a lot smaller). Evidence from fraud investigations into high-level financial institutions was stored in the building and I suppose the cases against them had to be dropped after the attacks. I think it's likely that the emergency bunker would have contained evidence of the plot itself as well.
It's known as 'eliminating the impossible'.Why the hell anyone would think they didn't hit the buildings is an even more intriguing one!
Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character.
He is?
That's no reason to reject the improbable and accept the impossible.
That's what they want you to believe
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks