Today's anniversary

[ocsdor]

We've read it; and we know what it is.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

We've read it; and we know what it is.

And the experience that allows you to dismiss the article is . . .?

 

[lucky4034]

Have you ever heard the term: "flashover"? Or: "backdraft"?

I'll add some to this. Nothing I have read in the NIST report sounds a false note to me. Although I am only mildly familiar with types of building collapse, we did look at the various types of collapse typical of earthquakes and explosions and had the principles explained to us fairly well in our Urban Search & Rescue Task Force training.

Also, through my association with fire departments over the years, I've picked up some information about structural fires and what makes them burn and what makes them dangerous. It's possible that the thousands of gallons of jet fuel ignited by the collision of the airliner with the building wouldn't have created enough heat long enough to melt the structural members of the floors above the crash site sufficiently to cause the structure to fail. However, there were other tons of flammables in the buildings' thirty or forty floors above the crash sites, and those flammables not only had the heat of the initials fires to ignite them, they had the enormous draft of wind coming through multiple openings to provide plenty of oxygen for the fires. If you look at videos of the Twin Towers, you can see smoke coming, not only from the crash sites, but from the floors above the sites for quite a ways. All those floors were burning. It appears the collapse started when the crash site floors were no longer able to support the weight of the floors above them, since, in the videos, the upper floors appeared intact for the first couple seconds of the collapse. Since there was no fire resistant coating on any of the structural members, any part which sustained high enough heat long enough could have started the collapse. As with all "pancake" collapses, once a structural member gives way, enough overstress is created on the other structural members to cause many or all of them to fail at once, bringing the structure straight down.

Not that I agree with all of your assessment, but lets just say that what you propose is correct. That the structure weakened by fire and the top floors began to pancake downwards....

One floor began to fall on top of another and stack all the way to the ground. Again.. you run into a multitude of coincidences that pose questions.

1. All 3 buildings fell completely symmetrical. The entire floor, not just part of it, collapsed all at once rather than the pieces nearest the fire breaking free first, to cause this symmetrical pancake effect we seen.

2. All 3 buildings fell directly downward in the path of maximum resistance... yet all 3 fell at near free fall speed. It wasn't a domino effect where 5 floors fell on one floor that broke free and fell on the next etc... Those buildings fell at nearly the same rate that they would have had you taken a brick and thrown it off the side. The floors fell in a manner and speed that suggests they encountered little to no resistance.. even though they fell in the path of most resistance.

3. How do you account for the 100's of witness that says they seen, felt, heard explosions on multiple occasions in different areas of the building a different times.

Some heard/felt large explosions in the basement area.
Some in mid level floors while coming down the stairwells.
Some before the first plane hit.
Many 45 min later right before the buildings collapsed
Some in tower 1
Some in tower 2
Some more than a football field away in Tower 7
etc...
etc...
etc...
-------------------------------- And this is only concerning the buildings, not to mention all the coincidences that happened prior, like NORAD during the entire 1+ hour charade not being anywhere in site, or NIST unfathomably admitting to not doing any testing for explosive residue. Or how molten steel/iron burned underneath the wreckage for nearly 100 days after the "collapse"... on and on until your head spins.

Again, who knows what happened, but in my mind there are plenty of questions that are justified in asking.

 

[kedie]

We've read it; and we know what it is.

Right.

A chief from the FDNY, who spent his entire career learning how buildings go together so we can understand what happens when they come apart, wrote an article that is complete BS.

On the other hand, a kook in his mom's basement makes a flashy Youtube video, complete with ominous music and you take it as gospel.

 

[lucky4034]

Right.

A chief from the FDNY, who spent his entire career learning how buildings go together so we can understand what happens when they come apart, wrote an article that is complete BS.

On the other hand, a kook in his mom's basement makes a flashy Youtube video, complete with ominous music and you take it as gospel.

I have no problem giving a Fireman his due credit as being a somewhat credible voice if you will acknowledge that a group of 1600 architects and engineers who actually spend their life building and designing buildings to also be credible voices?

This is a two way street is it not?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I have no problem giving a Fireman his due credit as being a somewhat credible voice if you will acknowledge that a group of 1600 architects and engineers who actually spend their life building and designing buildings to also be credible voices?

This is a two way street is it not?

Well, I'd want to know that these supposed 1600 architects and engineers actually studied the situation unlike the various airline pilots and others who've used their real world experience to come to conclusions that might be valid if they'd studied the construction of the building, but don't hold up if they haven't. I look at their "statement" as about equivalent to the "settled science" of Global Warming, which was no such thing, in which proponents claimed that only crackpots disagreed with them. Suddenly climate scientists and other scientists were coming out of the woodwork saying "Hold on a minute, there. I never said any such thing." That's the way I feel about the claims of your referenced video. Someone will have to prove the validity of their agreement before I'll consider the validity of their disagreement with what seems self-evident to me.

 

[printcraft]

........

3. How do you account for the 100's of witness that says they seen, felt, heard explosions on multiple occasions in different areas of the building a different times.
.................
Some before the first plane hit.
.............

Ok, the greatest government / new world order coverup in history,
planned perfectly and somebody f'ed up and blew up the building
early before the planes even hit?????

I would hate to be that NWO dude at the office the next day.

"Good job Bob!! Way to go butterfingers!!"

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Anyone feel like reviving the thread where we discussed all this two years ago and everyone presented their documentation? I recall several good videos or articles explaining why Tower seven collapsed. At least part of the reason, IIRC was that falling debris from Towers 1 & 2 caused structural damage and fires in parts of the building. But I'll be honest, I really don't feel like doing the research again.

 

[rambone]

What was remarkable to me about that day was that the TV was already telling me who the guilty parties were while the dust was still settling. Later I discovered that apparently anonymous bystanders were finding unscathed hijacker passports on the sidewalk while they were amidst the debris and human tragedy. That's nothing short of amazing. Yet none of the indestructible flight recorders were recovered, despite witness contradictions.

And rather than studying this the wreckage of this history-making architectural paradox, the Government bragged that they were already sending barges of steel off to China after 2 days, for recycling. The Powers That Be already know all there is to know about catastrophic failures of skyscrapers due to fire. The hilarity of that evidence dump could only be surpassed by dumping the supposed mastermind's body in the ocean.

And to assure the country that we had all the facts, the government gave us the 9/11 Commission Report, which cost 1/5 the amount of investigating Roger Clemens' use of steroids while playing pro baseball. It also glaringly omitted all testimonies that didn't fit the narrative, including first responders and Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta.

 

[lucky4034]

Well, I'd want to know that these supposed 1600 architects and engineers actually studied the situation unlike the various airline pilots and others who've used their real world experience to come to conclusions that might be valid if they'd studied the construction of the building, but don't hold up if they haven't. I look at their "statement" as about equivalent to the "settled science" of Global Warming, which was no such thing, in which proponents claimed that only crackpots disagreed with them. Suddenly climate scientists and other scientists were coming out of the woodwork saying "Hold on a minute, there. I never said any such thing." That's the way I feel about the claims of your referenced video. Someone will have to prove the validity of their agreement before I'll consider the validity of their disagreement with what seems self-evident to me.

There is an entire organization of 1600 architects/engineers who studied the events extensively.... They didn't just sign a petition, they created an organization based on research and independent investigation and unanimously have come to the conclusion that the story given is not very credible as it stands.

Most agree that the likely scenario is a result of some sort of controlled demolition.

World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? | AE911Truth

These are not tin foil hat wearing conspiracists making youtube videos in their mom's basement. These are very successful and very respected business men.


I mean, finding this Fireman to back the GOV's story is great... and I'm sure there are more "experts" out there that are willing to also back them, but with the amount of conversation I'd expect to see a lot more.

 

[lucky4034]

Anyone feel like reviving the thread where we discussed all this two years ago and everyone presented their documentation? I recall several good videos or articles explaining why Tower seven collapsed. At least part of the reason, IIRC was that falling debris from Towers 1 & 2 caused structural damage and fires in parts of the building. But I'll be honest, I really don't feel like doing the research again.

I think that would be fantastic.... I'd love to read some alternative viewpoints. I wasn't here for that.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Considering the phrase "Novus Ordo Seclorum" was around in the days of the American Revolution and before, I really can't take seriously those who go about with New World Order on their lips and are referring to a contemporary conspiracy.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I think that would be fantastic.... I'd love to read some alternative viewpoints. I wasn't here for that.

There are a couple threads around here somewhere. I don't remember the titles anymore. They were big back in late 2010 or early 2011, IIRC. Ran to 4K+ responses, I think.

 

[lucky4034]

Thats a lot of reading

 

[printcraft]

Thats a lot of reading

Here is one....

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._at_9_11_with_actual_science.html#post1303055

 

[ssblair]

On this day in 1991, George H. W. Bush introduced America to the New World Order.

In Chuck Norris' America, Chuck Norris introduces the New World Order to America.. ka-pow!