Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 13-12-2007, 10:05 PM   #21
cyince
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 299
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopsnuffleopagus View Post
Cordial Felicitations:


The Verticle Columns were connected together with 100s of Horizontal Beams. The Core had enormous Structural Integrity.


As a Labourer I have cut Hundreds of Beams & Columns with Liquid Oxygen & Propane Torches, much more powerful than Oxy-Acetylene.

The Steel acts as a HeatSink.

All of the Flames(fires) Energy is drawn into the Mass of Steel.

So if 500c is applied to an area, the surrounding Steel is 'wicking' off the Temperature.
This fact alone though ignores the fact that there was localized heat, on specific beams for and extened period of time. So even though the steels inherent characteristic to act as a heat sink, that alone would not negate the factor of duration of exposure to high heat.
Quote:

For the Pancake theory to be true: Most of the Core would have to remain standing, like a spindle on a Turntable.


But who has read Karl Kochs III Book? 'Men of Steel' by the people who erected the Steel.


Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus
In some videos, (specifically the one I linked), you can see the core still standing after the collapse had already initiated.
cyince is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2007, 10:09 PM   #22
cyince
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 299
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dark86 View Post
the builders of the twin towz designed it to withstand a plane attack.
The buildings were designed to withstand a plane impact, not attack. More over the velocity of the plane was assumed to be below full speed. The idea being a plane lost in fog, similar to the B-52 which his the empire state building. Also and this is still debatable, but apparently in the calculations there was no measure of the jet fuel or the subsequent fires. And remember at the time of design modern sprinkler systems, nor spray on fire proofing existed.
cyince is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2007, 12:13 PM   #23
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyince View Post
I am one of the sheep. I believe the so called 'official story'
But could the steel structures really have collapsed like that? As I understand it, in a controlled demolition they use shape charges to cut off steel columns at an angle at strategic positions in order for the building to collapse. The steel columns must be chopped off at many locations and each 'chopping off' must slightly displace the horizontal position of the columns so that they no longer hold any vertical support. I can't see how fire at some top floors could have produced the same effect.
anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2007, 12:41 PM   #24
cyince
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 299
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
But could the steel structures really have collapsed like that? As I understand it, in a controlled demolition they use shape charges to cut off steel columns at an angle at strategic positions in order for the building to collapse. The steel columns must be chopped off at many locations and each 'chopping off' must slightly displace the horizontal position of the columns so that they no longer hold any vertical support. I can't see how fire at some top floors could have produced the same effect.
Well the NIST report details the pre-collapse state of the towers, as well as the collapse initiation. It does not say 100% that this is exactly how the towers collapse, it does however say that this is the most likely way it happened. (THe fact that they don't say with 100% absolute certainty that this is how the towers collapsed has become fodder for people who believe it was a demolition)

The reason i believe that the towers collapsed because of the impact and resulting fires, is because in 6 years following the the tragedy there has been NO EVIDENCE that explosives were used. Simply none of the clean up crew, first responders, investigators, witnesses or anyone else has said there were bombs, saw bombs, installed bombs etc. In addition the logistics of such a plan (controlled demolition) simply make the idea preposterous.

Basically I as a layman have no idea how the tower should have collapsed. I have to rely on people who have been trained is such things to relay them to me. From what i have seen/researched the towers fell the only way they could.
cyince is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2007, 08:47 PM   #25
veritas2007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kent
Posts: 255
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyince View Post
The buildings were designed to withstand a plane impact, not attack. More over the velocity of the plane was assumed to be below full speed. The idea being a plane lost in fog, similar to the B-52 which his the empire state building. Also and this is still debatable, but apparently in the calculations there was no measure of the jet fuel or the subsequent fires. And remember at the time of design modern sprinkler systems, nor spray on fire proofing existed.
Can you identify where you get this information from please?

I have researched the analysis carried out by structural engineers in the '60s and quote a white paper released February 3, 1964:

Quote:
“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”
__________________
"In complete darkness, we are all the same,
It is only our knowledge and wisdom that separates us,
Don't let you eyes decieve you"
veritas2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2007, 10:21 PM   #26
cyince
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 299
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Here are a few

Quote:
1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Quote:
The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark.
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf...ks/CGOZ-58NLCB
That from Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer of the WTC
From the same link
Quote:
To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.
A good discussion was had at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100489
cyince is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2007, 11:59 PM   #27
john white
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,244
Likes: 166 (116 Posts)
Default

JREF = any straw will do!
__________________
Free your Self and Free the World

https://www.facebook.com/john.white.50596013
john white is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2007, 01:50 AM   #28
armoured_amazon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 21,303
Likes: 312 (143 Posts)
Default

The towers were brought down by hijacked planes. In an hour. Bullsh*t.

Last edited by armoured_amazon; 15-12-2007 at 01:52 AM.
armoured_amazon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2007, 02:36 AM   #29
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyince View Post
in 6 years following the the tragedy there has been NO EVIDENCE that explosives were used.
I have heard descriptions of molten steel found at ground zero. I don't know how accurate that information is though. Molten steel sounds very much like a result of explosives. The fire could not even have softened the steel, much less have melted the steel, the fire could only have weakened the steel, and only weakened the steel at the floors where the fire was going on.

I have heard mainstream experts talking about the fire weakening the steel by 50%. My guess is that the steel was dimensioned to hold at least 10 times the strength needed to support the buildings because the WTC buildings must have been dimensioned to withstand many years of aging and to take the enormous extra pressure caused by severe hurricanes. A weakening of 50% - as the experts claim - means half the strength would have remained, which means 5 times the needed strength of the steel would still have remained if my guess is correct. So how then could the steel have collapsed if it was only weakened by 50%?

Last edited by anders lindman; 15-12-2007 at 02:45 AM.
anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2007, 05:33 AM   #30
cyince
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 299
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I have heard descriptions of molten steel found at ground zero. I don't know how accurate that information is though. Molten steel sounds very much like a result of explosives. The fire could not even have softened the steel, much less have melted the steel, the fire could only have weakened the steel, and only weakened the steel at the floors where the fire was going on.
Here is a fairly comprehensive description
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
Quote:
I have heard mainstream experts talking about the fire weakening the steel by 50%. My guess is that the steel was dimensioned to hold at least 10 times the strength needed to support the buildings because the WTC buildings must have been dimensioned to withstand many years of aging and to take the enormous extra pressure caused by severe hurricanes. A weakening of 50% - as the experts claim - means half the strength would have remained, which means 5 times the needed strength of the steel would still have remained if my guess is correct. So how then could the steel have collapsed if it was only weakened by 50%?
The supporting steel of a few floors was weakened by up to 50%, add that to the fact that several of the supporting columns were damaged, or destroyed as a result of the impact. So the load that those columns would have bared was transfered to the remaining columns. So the weakened steel had to bear additional loads, so even with a remaining safety factor, it was simply too much.
cyince is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2007, 07:03 AM   #31
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyince View Post
The supporting steel of a few floors was weakened by up to 50%, add that to the fact that several of the supporting columns were damaged, or destroyed as a result of the impact. So the load that those columns would have bared was transfered to the remaining columns. So the weakened steel had to bear additional loads, so even with a remaining safety factor, it was simply too much.
I find it strange that both collapses were so symmetrical. The planes could only have hit the columns from one direction, hence the damage caused by the impacts must have been highly unsymmetrical.

But ok, let's say that the steel construction was such that the collapse would have been symmetrical even if the damage was unsymmetrical, and let's say that the damage from the impact together with the fire caused the floors where the fire was going on to collapse, I still can't see how the entire steel structure further down, which was intact, not hit by a plane nor damaged by fire, could pancake so catastrophically.
anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2007, 07:14 AM   #32
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default

This is a crude analogy, but imagine starting a fire in a tree near the top of the tree. After a while the fire has weakened the trunk near the top of the tree so that part of the trunk collapses. Are we supposed to believe that the rest of the tree would pancake because of that?

The steel core structure, with 47 steel columns were indeed very much like an enormous tree trunk, and surely much have been able to take a titanic vertical load. I can't see how anything could have pancaked that except a controlled demolition or something like a whole mountain falling from the sky and hitting the WTC buildings from above!

In fact, the steel columns must have been much stronger than a tree trunk, and 47 columns together in an interlocked(?) steel structure is even stronger. So the question is: How can one pancake a tree without using a chainsaw or explosives?

Last edited by anders lindman; 15-12-2007 at 07:40 AM.
anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2007, 07:51 AM   #33
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default

A monumental construction flaw in the WTC buildings could explain the collapses without controlled demolition. But such systemic and catastrophic flaw should have been revealed by now if that was the case. The construction flaw would have been such that a collapse at some floors would propagate down through the entire building resulting in a catastrophic pancaking of the entire structure.

Last edited by anders lindman; 15-12-2007 at 07:53 AM.
anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2007, 08:14 AM   #34
helloperator
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The creamy middle
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 163 (105 Posts)
Default

The tree analogy doesn't seem so bad. This whole pancaking theory requires some astronomical chance and fluke...for it to travel, domino like all the way to the ground. In my mind, logic suggests that maybe, only maybe a couple of pancakes could be made...but then, the random and catasrophic and chaotic collapse would have sheered one way, to one direction, to have sheered off....but the core did nothing. It gave in like a retracting Inspector Gadget arm...all the damn way to the ground. Bullshit.
helloperator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2007, 08:45 AM   #35
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by helloperator View Post
The tree analogy doesn't seem so bad. This whole pancaking theory requires some astronomical chance and fluke...for it to travel, domino like all the way to the ground. In my mind, logic suggests that maybe, only maybe a couple of pancakes could be made...but then, the random and catasrophic and chaotic collapse would have sheered one way, to one direction, to have sheered off....but the core did nothing. It gave in like a retracting Inspector Gadget arm...all the damn way to the ground. Bullshit.
Another possibility, perhaps far-fetched, is that the WTC buildings were constructed to pancake like that because of safety reason so that they would come straight down exactly into their own footprints in order not to fall to the sides. But that doesn't seem reasonable because what would have happened if the planes had hit floors much further down the buildings? Then the top of each building would surely have toppled over and fallen down to the side like... TIMBER!!!
anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2007, 09:12 AM   #36
helloperator
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The creamy middle
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 163 (105 Posts)
Default

That's a great theory. I'm surprised this hasn't been made law by the official story.
helloperator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2007, 12:19 PM   #37
armoured_amazon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 21,303
Likes: 312 (143 Posts)
Default

I only have to remember how security were pulled out in the weeks before, and pulled out completely the day before...how the squibs in floors below went off...how the collapse defied physics...and that's before looking at the Pentagon and the vanishing plane debris in PA....how when I watched WTC collapse live on TV I knew this was more than an 'act of terrorism'...I just knew it in my gut.

Sickos. They'll stop at nothing.
armoured_amazon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2007, 02:18 PM   #38
helloperator
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The creamy middle
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 163 (105 Posts)
Default

Not to mention wtc7 and the whole passport story...plus choice audio such as 'Hi this is Mark bingham your son' and footage such as...'mainly due to massive structural failure because the heat was too intense'

etc
helloperator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2007, 03:07 PM   #39
cyince
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 299
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

The biggest factor the both of you are overlooking is that the first phase of the collapse isn't symmetrical. The tops of both buildings do sort of topple. As well in one of the towers collapses you can see the core still standing briefly as collapse has already commenced.

I'm not an engineer/physicist so I feel that any inferences I'm making are invalidated by my ignorance. Like I've said before, tens of thousands of people were involved in the investigation, and none of them think anything is amiss. I trust their reasoned opinions, over my mine.

I guess people think the towers should have fallen over above the impact point. Remember gravity is downward, not lateral.

EDIT: Upon re reading Anders tree analogy i would say this. That over simplifies things too much. Its more like a tree with branches. The branches are supporting say 50% of their theoretical maximum, and there are several layers (say platforms for a tress house). If for some reason some of the branches on one level are damaged and the platforms above it were to fall onto a lower platform, would you then expect the tree fall over, or the platforms to progressivley fall on to one and other at their weight,momentum and energy potential increase?

Last edited by cyince; 15-12-2007 at 03:13 PM. Reason: Re read posts
cyince is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2007, 03:19 PM   #40
cyince
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 299
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by armoured_amazon View Post
I only have to remember how security were pulled out in the weeks before, and pulled out completely the day before...how the squibs in floors below went off...how the collapse defied physics...and that's before looking at the Pentagon and the vanishing plane debris in PA....how when I watched WTC collapse live on TV I knew this was more than an 'act of terrorism'...I just knew it in my gut.

Sickos. They'll stop at nothing.
Security wasn't pulled weeks before. There was heightened security in the weeks before, because since the 93 bombing whenever there was anything suspicious there was increased level of security. In the weeks before the security was being reduced to normal levels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by helloperator View Post
Not to mention wtc7 and the whole passport story...plus choice audio such as 'Hi this is Mark bingham your son' and footage such as...'mainly due to massive structural failure because the heat was too intense'

etc
A well spoken witness is suspect? A man making the last call of his life in a situation none of us can imagine? 1 of 2 pieces of evidence out of millions? These are details that make you question the official story.
cyince is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:09 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.