flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
 Home   FAQ   Search   Register 
 Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
flat assembler > Heap > 9/11 discussion

Goto page 1, 2  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
neville



Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 503
Location: New Zealand
9/11 discussion

sleepsleep wrote:
please start a 9/11 thread for more discussion specifically on this topic Embarassed


Good idea sleepsleep!

Call me a conspriacy theorist if you like, I don't mind, but please give me a plausible explanation for just one thing:


What caused the original WTC Building 7 to collapse when and how it did?


We can conjecture about what happened to the Twin Towers at great length, but for me, Building 7 is the most difficult and worrying "official" story to accept. So far I remain unconvinced. Honestly, I can't really see how anybody could believe the official story...

Recently there have been new reports which raise serious questions. But after 15 years, we still need many serious answers imo.

_________________
FAMOS - the first memory operating system
Post 25 Mar 2017, 22:21
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ford



Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 102
Well, how about debris falling from very great heights lands on the north side of the building and ruptures gas lines, starting fires, and destablizing the structure... it then collapses after the fires burned for most of the day.
Post 26 Mar 2017, 01:19
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
neville



Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 503
Location: New Zealand
ford, that of course is the essential part of the official story. Do you really believe it? If so, for starters I would encourage you to consider:
- the type of structure the old WTC7 building was (massive 47-storey steel frame)
- the speed at which it collapsed once it started (virtually free-fall acceleration)
- the size and scope of the internal fires (only on a few floors, and not massive)
- eyewitness reports, on-line videos of the collapse etc with almost no fires visible.
- the many delays in releasing the official report on the collapse which took over 7 years...
- the amazing haste of the construction of the new Building 7, which was started just a few months after 9/11, and completed years before the official report on the collapse of the old building was released
- new reports (see link above) released last year seriously questioning the official version

BTW, what "very great heights" are you referring to? The nearest (WTC1 north) twin tower was at least 100m away horizontally, and maybe only 150m taller but less than that considering the point of impact of Flight 11 at around the 90th floor...

_________________
FAMOS - the first memory operating system
Post 26 Mar 2017, 04:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2624
Location: dank orb
All the buildings were a controlled descent. The reason given was to preserve life - more people would die if buildings were allowed to fall of their own accord. The public is not suppose to be aware that such capabilities are in place. There are several layers of deception involved.
Post 26 Mar 2017, 05:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6917
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

neville wrote:
What caused the original WTC Building 7 to collapse when and how it did?


controlled demolition, and nothing but controlled demolition.
in fact, all the buildings that collapsed in this event were planned controlled demolished,

either those buildings must go, or planned new buildings must be built in that exact spot,
Post 26 Mar 2017, 07:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 815
I don't disagree with the controlled demolition theory, but the CGI one is really absurd. Confused
Post 26 Mar 2017, 12:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
guignol



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 267
There is nothing to conjecture; you can stuff the whole building with aircraft, it won't destruct.
Post 26 Mar 2017, 13:23
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ford



Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 102
So, wikipedia says:

"The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called "the most infamous paradigm" of progressive collapse,[57] also called "Pancaking".[58] Once the collapse initiated, the mass of failing floors overwhelmed the floors below, causing a progressive series of floor failures which accelerated as the sequence progressed. Soon, large portions of the perimeter columns and possibly the cores were left without any lateral support, causing them to fall laterally towards the outside, pushed by the increasing pile of rubble. The result was that the walls peeled off and separated away from the buildings by a large distance (about 500 feet in some cases), hitting other neighboring buildings. Some connections broke as the bolts snapped, leaving many panels randomly scattered.[59] Significant parts of the naked cores (about 60 stories for the North Tower and 40 for the South Tower) remained standing for a few seconds before they also collapsed."

I don't find any of the official narrative unbelievable or even unlikely. The weight of several floors of loaded building falling 8 to 10 feet onto another floor is going to cause considerable force. Enough to throw debris and cause further collapse. That doesn't seem weird to me at all.
Post 27 Mar 2017, 03:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
neville



Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 503
Location: New Zealand

ford wrote:
So, wikipedia says:

"The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called........ That doesn't seem weird to me at all.

It IS a bit weird that you've suddenly switched buildings! This post clearly relates ONLY to the Twin Towers, and NOT to WTC Building 7. So it is irrelevant to my request for a plausible explanation for the collapse of Building 7. But clearly you understood that I was asking about Building 7 in your first post when you said it collapsed "after the fires burned for most of the day". Since the South Tower took less than an hour to collapse after being hit, and the North Tower about 2 hours iirc. Building 7 on the other hand collapsed about 9 hours later, in line with your comment in your first post.

So, why the switch? A plausible explanation of that would be appreciated too Wink

_________________
FAMOS - the first memory operating system
Post 27 Mar 2017, 07:21
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ford



Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 102
Did you not read?

"walls peeled off and separated away from the buildings by a large distance (about 500 feet in some cases), hitting other neighboring buildings"

I didn't switch. My claim was that the collapse of the twin towers threw debris onto 7.
Post 28 Mar 2017, 02:19
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
neville



Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 503
Location: New Zealand
Of course I read, hoping to find a plausible explanation for the collapse of Building 7, but there was nothing there Wink

As confirmed in more recent reports (have you read?) the scenario you refer to was extremely unlikely. In short, it doesn't stack up: it collapses like a pack of cards Smile There are just too many problems, such as:
- temperatures would not be high enough to melt the steel
- the damage caused by falling deris was minimal, and very unsymmetrical
- simultaneous and symmetrical failures of all columns, many of which were carrying no extra load
- the fires were NOT widespread, and other buildings of similar construction have withstood much more extensive fires
- no other similar buildings have ever collapsed because of fire

I would really prefer not to think this, but IF this building was the victim of a deliberate controlled demolition, then it probably could not have been done more successfully, imo. Which remains a very worrying thought Sad

_________________
FAMOS - the first memory operating system
Post 28 Mar 2017, 11:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15153
Location: GW170817

neville wrote:
... IF this building was the victim of a deliberate controlled demolition ...

One wonders what could be the possible motives?

So let's assume for the moment that is was indeed pre-planned and deliberately demolished. What would we expect to find? We should see in the rubble many clues that show the reason. If it was explosively demolished then we would find the used detonators and explosive residues. Also we would find whatever cables and/or radio equipment was used to trigger the detonators. Struts and support columns would clearly show explosive shear points. We would also find small rubble pieces/particles embedded in distant objects that normally wouldn't be expected to have such damage.

In short, you can't hide such a massive amount of evidence. Whoever was digging though the rubble would easily see these things. So for it to be a cover-up then everyone involved in the clean-up would also have to be in on the conspiracy. That's a lot of people to have on the payroll and to keep their mouths shut till this day.
Post 28 Mar 2017, 13:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 815
Actually you can. Who's "we" who find the evidence? Certainly not the average Joe. It's called a cover up.
Post 28 Mar 2017, 14:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
neville



Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 503
Location: New Zealand
@revolution, all very reasonable questions which I too have asked myself many times. There are many references which attempt to answer these questions and admittedly some of them are found on "conspiracy theory" websites. However I've just found this one which I think is well worth reading. Some quotes from it:

Evidence of deliberate demolition:
"1. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
2. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses
3. Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples."

From the father of one of the WTC1 victims:
“More than ten years since the attacks that took my son’s life, we have not received an impartial, evidence-based accounting of the events of that day, even though they have been used to justify a war we are told will not end in our lifetimes. The collapse of Building 7 is one anomaly among many, but we focus on Building 7 because it is clear that when America becomes aware of it, common sense will prevail, public demand for the truth will grow and it will pave the way to a broader investigation of 9/11.”

And as for the question of motive, "follow the money"...

Note also the apparent fore-knowledge of the collapse and the premature media reports, along with 43% of Americans not even being aware of Building 7's demise 5 years after the event...

_________________
FAMOS - the first memory operating system
Post 28 Mar 2017, 23:53
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
I found one YouTube video showing that a widespread news footage is fake:

Proof No Planes Hit Twin Towers. 9/11 Videos Are Fake!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5Dl5jIdtdk

So, the entire 9/11 attack must be a hoax!

Wink
Post 29 Mar 2017, 01:56
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15153
Location: GW170817
The thing about all these types of conspiracy theories is the assumption that it must be correct as the default cause until absolutely completely proven otherwise.
  • Analysts: There are some discrepancies in the data and we can't be 100% sure of the cause, only 99.99% sure.
  • Theorist: So you're saying something else happened!
  • Analysts: Just saying that we can never be 100% certain.
  • Theorist: So it must be a conspiracy and it is all a huge cover-up!!
  • Analysts: What? No. That's not what we are saying.
  • Theorist: Bollocks. You are all liars. Tell us the real story ... Yeah, I thought not.
  • Analysts: [Sigh!]
Post 29 Mar 2017, 03:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
neville



Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 503
Location: New Zealand
@YONG, I haven't watched the video because I have limited data available atm, but I would probably find that almost as hard to believe as the official story about Building 7. So that's still VERY hard to believe Wink At this point in time I still believe it is most likely that a jet airliner did crash in to each of the WTC twin towers. However I'm not so sure about the Pentagon, as I believe it is possible it was a missile.

@revolution, good to see you've made it to the new WTC Building 7. Luckily for you, and unlike its predecessor, the owner hasn't mentioned any intention of "pulling" it, afaik. Still, why would he when he rebuilt it for a cost of about NEGATIVE USD161 million plus tax breaks. Yes, it put money in his pocket. Then again it worked out for him last time, so maybe the explosives are already in place... I just hope that Javascript in his "Big_Red_Button" smartphone app is relatively secure and reliable Laughing

_________________
FAMOS - the first memory operating system
Post 29 Mar 2017, 04:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
neville



Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 503
Location: New Zealand
@revolution, I was going to suggest that maybe you've also travelled back in time, and that you are actually in the old WTC Building 7, perhaps at about 5.19pm local time on 11Sep2001, in which case you should be very worried! But of course that would just be too silly Smile

On a more serious note, do you consider that you have a plausible explanation for the collapse of Building 7? Or are there still questions in your mind too?

_________________
FAMOS - the first memory operating system
Post 29 Mar 2017, 23:14
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15153
Location: GW170817
I find it extremely unreasonable to think that any of the WTC buildings were brought down by anything other than the consequences of the two planes. All the talk about pre-planned explosive demolition is just nonsense IMO. The amount of planning and the number of people required to keep their mouths shut would be far beyond what is possible for humans to achieve.

If someone finds gaps in the data that doesn't automatically mean that aliens from the fifth dimension came down and caused it all. It just means they don't have all the data, nothing else.
Post 30 Mar 2017, 00:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
neville



Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 503
Location: New Zealand
@revolution I thought that would be your position, and thanks for the explicit confirmation. It was also mine, for perhaps a year after 9/11. But then I started looking in to the collapse of Building 7 after seeing an on-line video which just didn't look right. After witnessing delay after delay for the release of the official report on Building 7 for seemingly flimsy reasons, I began to have serious doubts. At times prominent people like Donald Rumsfeld seemed to be trying to ignore the whole Building 7 issue, as if they just wanted it to go away. When the report finally came out in 2008 I just felt it was an insult to my intelligence: clearly a whitewash job, and technically not credible.

I suspect the Building 7 story isn't finished yet: there is more that will come out, and it will not be possible to pass it off as conspiracy stuff. It won't necessarily be the whole truth either, though, but it will be closer to it that what we have so far.

The most troubling thing of all of course, is that if (or when) the official Building 7 story falls apart, it will cast serious doubt on the rest of the 9/11 story... Something which will be powerfully resisted by all those with anything to hide.

_________________
FAMOS - the first memory operating system
Post 30 Mar 2017, 07:23
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >

Forum Rules:
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
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001-2005 phpBB Group.

Main index   Download   Documentation   Examples   Message board
Copyright © 2004-2016, Tomasz Grysztar.