NIST admits freefall speed

[dowie]

Another group of people that received warnings in advance of the attack were employees of Odigo
Two employees received e-mail messages two hours before the first World Trade Center assault, predicting the attack

OK canceled meetings is one thing - in a building that size many meetings will be canceled, re arranged etc..

Conversely I'm sure if you tried hard enough you could find some unfortunate souls who were due to have a meeting on 10th of sept but had it postponed to the 11th.

But that allegation - that two people received an e-mail warning predicting an attack - come off it - you can't put that out there unless you have some actual evidence?

 

[Rroff]

read the nist report. The building fell from the top down. not the oter way round. which is how demolition works. it did not fall at free fall and there is no seismic events for explosives. On top of that the idea thermite can be used it absolutely retarded.

Yeah it would have fallen at freefall if it had been demolished using conventional explosives in the convensional sense, I don't see that ruling out the use of non conventional techniques and theres more way to demolish a building than one, tho obviously the conventional way is the most efficent way to make a large building collapse into its own footprint in the most controlled fashion reducing colleteral damage.

I wouldn't say seismic records could be used as a firm basis to say either way, just an indication, we can't prove they haven't been tampered with or are even accurate.

I'm curious why you rule thermite out, I didn't take in everything that was said on it earlier as I didn't really consider it would have been used, but its an ideal way to melt through supports.

 

[Glaucus]

Y
I wouldn't say seismic records could be used as a firm basis to say either way, just an indication, we can't prove they haven't been tampered with or are even accurate.

I'm curious why you rule thermite out, I didn't take in everything that was said on it earlier as I didn't really consider it would have been used, but its an ideal way to melt through supports.

sismic reading are taken from thousands of sources around the world. You really saying every single one was tampered with

Thermite can not cut though thick girders horizontally, it just doesn't work that way. It would also take many tons, far many more times the amount found.

 

[dowie]

I'm curious why you rule thermite out, I didn't take in everything that was said on it earlier as I didn't really consider it would have been used, but its an ideal way to melt through supports.

Because it is very simple to rule it out - try figuring out how much would be required for a start.

 

[Rroff]

sismic reading are taken from thousands of sources around the world. You really saying every single one was tampered with

Thermite can not cut though thick girders horizontally, it just doesn't work that way. It would also take many tons, far many more times the amount found.

I doubt explosives a significant distance up a tall building would have registered on monitors around the world unless they were extremely powerful.

Cutting through girders horizontal would have been a trivial problem with thermite in a building like WTC2.

Because it is very simple to rule it out - try figuring out how much would be required for a start.

This and the logistics of rigging the building initially without anyone noticing it would be far more valid reasons for ruling it out.

 

[Glaucus]

I doubt explosives a significant distance up a tall building would have registered on monitors around the world unless they were extremely powerful.

Cutting through girders horizontal would have been a trivial problem with thermite in a building like WTC2.
.

trivial problem, go have a read up on thermite.

seismic sensors are extremely sensitive and the are so many doted around the place.
or the fact none of the video recordings have explosive sounds on them.

 

[Le_Petit_Lapin]

why is everyone talking about plane impacts when WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane?

 

[Glaucus]

why is everyone talking about plane impacts when WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane?

moved on.

 

[deuse]

trivial problem, go have a read up on thermite.

seismic sensors are extremely sensitive and the are so many doted around the place.
or the fact none of the video recordings have explosive sounds on them.

what you think of this one Acid?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2pJC9OuFaU&feature=related

There is a vid where you can see smoke coming from the bottom
of the towers before they fall but I cant find it at the mow

Here it is http://www.metacafe.com/watch/743086/9_11_wtc_earth_quake_rumble_smoke/

 

[Glaucus]

what you think of this one Acid?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2pJC9OuFaU&feature=related

There is a vid where you can see smoke coming from the bottom
of the towers before they fall but I cant find it at the mow

as the nist report says puff of smoke is caused by compression of the air. first as internal sections collapse, then latter on casued be the actual building collapsing.

what a load of rubbish. he's just spouting rubbish and not backing it up. if the structure has been weakened more, it stands to reason it will fall faster.

also in demo you do not exploded several tons of tnt at the same time.
yet again more rubbish with no scientfic back up for what he is saying.

 

[semi-pro waster]

My questions on the 9/11 attacks have always been the same but I don’t share too often because I don’t give much for the conspiracy theories. However the following summarises my feelings on the matter as it relates to this thread

1) A fair amount of effort went into plotting the attacks by Al-Qaida with probably a limited success margin / high risk.

When you've got relatively little to lose and believe you are fighting in a cause that you think is justified then the likelihood of success factors less.

2) Given the ongoing debate of whether the aircraft could in fact cause the collapse of the building……..who / which part of Al-Qaida sat down as part of the planning and decided that given all the variables and risks, the attacks could most likely destroy the buildings?

3) Did they have anyone capable of calculating this and factoring in the variables to ensure the planes struck in exactly the right spot etc?

As far as I'm aware there was no suggestion of an intention to destroy the twin towers, that was an unexpected bonus from the point of view of the attackers. Flying a couple of passenger aeroplanes into the buildings would have been enough of a horrifying incident as it was and caused enough devastation.

4) If they were not trying to destroy the buildings and just kill a couple of thousand people and it was for visual show, again it seems a lot of effort / risk given the potential outcome being ongoing war against their people & home lands and an upping of security in the country to level which would make future movements very difficult not only in the US but across the world. Al-Qaida not being stupid and being well connected must have realised this.

Given the stated aims of Al-Qaida I rather suspect they would still have gone ahead with the attacks even if they could have predicted the severity of the response from the US. You're assuming that they thought about this entirely rationally when rationality isn't something that is necessarily present in the mind of your average fanatic.

 

[Glaucus]

Here it is http://www.metacafe.com/watch/743086/9_11_wtc_earth_quake_rumble_smoke/

rumble not an explosion. internal structures are falling and the building is giving way. yOU WOULD EXPECT SUCH SOUNDS.

 

[deuse]

as the nist report says puff of smoke is caused by compression of the air. first as internal sections collapse, then latter on casued be the actual building collapsing.

what a load of rubbish. he's just spouting rubbish and not backing it up. if the structure has been weakened more, it stands to reason it will fall faster.

also in demo you do not exploded several tons of tnt at the same time.
yet again more rubbish with no scientfic back up for what he is saying.

Hold on there..did you not hear the rumble before they fall?
(I did not as I am hard of hearing but my friend did)

and the first vid that shows you the towers falling and the rumble
I give up no matter what I say or prove you say its wrong

Even if I got a guy with phd you would say he was wrong

EDIT= All you got is Nist who changed there minds every year
and after spending $20,000,000 the new version will be out this year
then we will see..

 

[Rroff]

That rumble isn't even in many of the other videos including ones taken from ground level near the towers, I suspect it was added later.

i.e. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYHPGdIzueA

There is in many of them a compressed tearing/roaring sound shortly before the collapse starts to happen which you notice people reacting to. Which is open to interpretation, mix it with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBYnUyx4kw8&NR=1 and it suggests the supports went but not due to any explosion... something getting super heated and destabalishing them in a moment seems much more likely tho the logistics of that are a whole different story.

 

[Glaucus]

Hold on there..did you not hear the rumble before they fall?
(I did not as I am hard of hearing but my friend did)

.

yes I heard a rumble before they fell that is to be expected.
also as I have said before. if that was caused by explosives the building would have fell from the bottom, not the top. which is why you are wrong.
or planting explosives at the base some how leave the bottom flloors intacked untill teh top of the tower piles into them?

 

[Fire Wizard]

There is a vid where you can see smoke coming from the bottom
of the towers before they fall but I cant find it at the mow

Here it is http://www.metacafe.com/watch/743086/9_11_wtc_earth_quake_rumble_smoke/

I can't seem to get the video to load but what significance is this?

 

[Glaucus]

I can't seem to get the video to load but what significance is this?

there's a cloud of dust coming from the base of the tower, which they reckon must mean demolition. but how can you take the supports out from the bottom. without it collapsing..

 

[Fire Wizard]

Thanks AcidHell2. It's strange the video isn't loading for me but nevermind.

Once again, to those that believe some of these conspiracy theories, have you taken the time out to read the articles that have taking these theories apart piece by piece?

If you have, what are your thoughts?

 

[deuse]

Thanks AcidHell2. It's strange the video isn't loading for me but nevermind.

Once again, to those that believe some of these conspiracy theories, have you taken the time out to read the articles that have taking these theories apart piece by piece?

quote]


Hmmm which theories do you mean link please...
and on a side not my mind is open never shut but to you those who do not
agree with what you say are silly/stupid/irrational
and maybe they think the same about you.

Who knows maybe someone some were will prove 100% what happend
but there again would you belive it!

 

[Glaucus]

Who knows maybe someone some were will prove 100% what happend
but there again would you belive it!

if it was proved yes I would. And yes I do think some people are stupid for believing in theories which just can't be true. Unless you completely ignore physics some of the theorys and arguments just aren't physically possible.