-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Maynard Keenan
Well-Known Member
- Aug 21, 2004
- 8,470
- 789
- 39
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
There is no reason to believe it ever was wired for demolition. No one ever intended to wire it "in a few hours." One guy talking about demolishing it, after it was clearly heavily damaged, is the one tidbit of information you have and you thus conclude that there was a massive undertaking to secretly wire it for demolition in advance without anyone noticing, with the building just so conveniently having received massive structural damage from the other buildings falls giving cover for the demolition. That's lunacy. The building fell due to structural damage from the towers' debris coupled with extensive fires.
Upvote
0
M
ManFromUncle
Guest
Amazing how you tie yourself in knots to avoid the obvious. That is the real lunacy.
- Skyscrapers do not fall perfectly symmetrically at free-fall acceleration due to fires and "structural damage." If they did the demolitions industry woould be out of business. Why bother with million dollar fees to experts who bring lifetimes of experience to this specialized art, if all you need to do is start a few fires and drop a couple of wrecking balls on top? To believe this is possible you need to be an utter fruitcake.
- Demolitions expert Tom Sullivan, who worked for Controlled Demolitions Inc., the leader in the industry which got a clean up contract at Ground Zero, says he knew from the first day that the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 was a classic controlled implosion. He said: "I've seen buildings fall like that for years -- that was the end game for me."
- NIST report that given this absolutely unprecedented collapse, they didn't even look for explosives.
- Now Lucky Larry blurts out on camera "I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. " An admission of foreknowledge which you call "a tidbit of information." I have a "tidbit" of information for you. Your house is burning down.
- You conveniently gloss over a few other "tidbits of information," like that Silverstein, on this one day of all days, was not at his usual spot in the North Tower. More "tidbits": neither were his two kids.
Your Honor, that smoking gun with this man's fingerprints all over it is just a tidbit of information. You have to be a lunatic to think that means anything, your Honor.
You've got a be a nutcake bending over backwards to not see to not see the obvious here. Closing your eyes is not a good survival strategy.
Ed Asner on WTC 7
[youtube]0ODw70GFbHo[/youtube]
Upvote
0
Btodd
Well-Known Member
So, if I understand correctly:
*It would take weeks/months to wire the building for a demolition with crews of people.
*Nobody reported anything of the sort happening in the weeks/months prior to 9/11.
*No wiring was found anywhere, even though there would be so much wiring as to require crews of men and weeks/months to do it.
*No explosions went off, which makes one wonder what the building was supposedly 'wired' for.
*Silverstein said 'pull it', which isn't a term used for blowing up a building, while talking to the chief of the NY Fire Department about the terrible loss of life that had already occurred as the reason for the decision they made. The reference to the terrible loss of life is a nonsensical statement made by a psycho, not a reference to keeping the firefighters from harm over an empty burning building. The head of the NY fire department was apparently in charge of a controlled demolition, because the fire department was 'in on it'.
*The government threw Silverstein into the plot too, which is the most complex conspiracy ever carried out...and then Silverstein accidentally told everyone about it on television.
*A man that worked mostly as a photographer for a demolitions company said it 'looked like a demolition' in a video on YouTube. He also signed a petition.
*No explanation has been given for why it was necessary to blow up an empty building after the Twin Towers had fallen in order to carry out the conspiracy.
*Also, here's Ed Asner.
=CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
Btodd
*It would take weeks/months to wire the building for a demolition with crews of people.
*Nobody reported anything of the sort happening in the weeks/months prior to 9/11.
*No wiring was found anywhere, even though there would be so much wiring as to require crews of men and weeks/months to do it.
*No explosions went off, which makes one wonder what the building was supposedly 'wired' for.
*Silverstein said 'pull it', which isn't a term used for blowing up a building, while talking to the chief of the NY Fire Department about the terrible loss of life that had already occurred as the reason for the decision they made. The reference to the terrible loss of life is a nonsensical statement made by a psycho, not a reference to keeping the firefighters from harm over an empty burning building. The head of the NY fire department was apparently in charge of a controlled demolition, because the fire department was 'in on it'.
*The government threw Silverstein into the plot too, which is the most complex conspiracy ever carried out...and then Silverstein accidentally told everyone about it on television.
*A man that worked mostly as a photographer for a demolitions company said it 'looked like a demolition' in a video on YouTube. He also signed a petition.
*No explanation has been given for why it was necessary to blow up an empty building after the Twin Towers had fallen in order to carry out the conspiracy.
*Also, here's Ed Asner.
=CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
Btodd
Upvote
0
Speaking of knots....
Who flew the planes that hit the WTC?
What crashed into the Pentagon?
If there was an evil conspiracy to kill so many people on 9/11, why did they pull the firefighters out of WTC7, but not WTC1 and 2?
Upvote
0
Dave Ellis
Contributor
- Dec 27, 2011
- 8,933
- 821
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
So, if I understand correctly:
*It would take weeks/months to wire the building for a demolition with crews of people.
*Nobody reported anything of the sort happening in the weeks/months prior to 9/11.
*No wiring was found anywhere, even though there would be so much wiring as to require crews of men and weeks/months to do it.
*No explosions went off, which makes one wonder what the building was supposedly 'wired' for.
*Silverstein said 'pull it', which isn't a term used for blowing up a building, while talking to the chief of the NY Fire Department about the terrible loss of life that had already occurred as the reason for the decision they made. The reference to the terrible loss of life is a nonsensical statement made by a psycho, not a reference to keeping the firefighters from harm over an empty burning building. The head of the NY fire department was apparently in charge of a controlled demolition, because the fire department was 'in on it'.
*The government threw Silverstein into the plot too, which is the most complex conspiracy ever carried out...and then Silverstein accidentally told everyone about it on television.
*A man that worked mostly as a photographer for a demolitions company said it 'looked like a demolition' in a video on YouTube. He also signed a petition.
*No explanation has been given for why it was necessary to blow up an empty building after the Twin Towers had fallen in order to carry out the conspiracy.
*Also, here's Ed Asner.
=CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
Btodd
Never mind the fact that the twin towers were designed to fall straight down in case of catastrophic damage.
Because, you know engineers thought it was a good idea that in the case of a major fire or whatnot that the building wouldn't topple and land right across Lower Manhattan....
Upvote
0
trunks2k
Contributor
Well, tall buildings aren't really going to fall any other way other than "straight" down (not really - the collapse of the towers did heavily damage surrounding buildings - but close enough for common vernacular) when it fully collapses, especially if the collapse initiates high up. If there's no lateral force, its movement away from "straight" down is pretty limited. Buildings like that aren't going to fall over like trees. More like a house of cards.
Upvote
0
Quoting NIST: "The north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions."
Quoting NIST: "WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."
Quoting NIST: "Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions. There has not been any conclusive evidence presented to indicate that highly reactive pyrotechnic material was present in the debris of WTC 7. The studies that have been conducted to document trace metals, organic compounds, and other materials in the dust and air from the vicinity of the WTC disaster have all suggested common sources for these items. For example, in a published report from the USGS on an analysis of WTC dust, the authors state that '... the trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment.' ... In a second example, researchers at the EPA measured the concentrations of 60 organic compounds in air samples from Ground Zero using an organic gas and particle sampler. The presence of one of these compounds, 1,3-diphenylpropane, has been suggested as evidence of thermite. However, the authors of the EPA paper state in the opening paragraph that although ' this species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling it has been associated with polystyrene and other plastics, which are in abundance at the WTC site.'"
Upvote
0
WalksWithChrist
Seeking God's Will
Regarding the OP...I asked about the Daily Paul and didn't get a reply from you. Unless I missed it.
Is that a source you would consider legitimate?
I ask because I have followed conspiracies for a long time. Many of them are perpetuated on some pretty flaky sites and have no real sources to speak of. If we're going to talk about something as serious as 9/11, it better be on the up and up.
Upvote
0
And this is your professional opinion as a structural engineer or an architect?! 2000 architects & engineers have a problem with this inexplicable collapse. World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? | AE911Truth
Upvote
0
Where do people get the idea that demolishing buildings can happen on the strength of a phone call. even after a building is damaged by fire or other cause individuals can't just decide to "pull" a building. Doesn't matter if you're the owner or the mayor. There would need to be a structural inspection and report from a structural engineer making a recommendation for demolition. you would then need the approval of the city council. that's why damaged buildings don't get brought down until this all happens, which takes time. If I was a tenant in WTC7 and my business was destroyed in a deliberate Silverstein authored demolition I would like to see the report and approval documentation before I sue for unnecessarily destroying my business. No wonder he retracted his comments.
Upvote
0
Architects don't engineer structures.
Architects don't engineer structures.
Architects don't engineer structures.
I know one day I'm going to get some people on these threads to understand this if I repeat it enough. So I don't care how many architects are in AE911 - it's as irrelevant as their massive appeal to authority argument.
And the vast majority of the people at AE911 aren't structural engineers anyway, as I posed some time ago in the other truther thread.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
So architects don't study structural engineering as part of their course? That architects aren't ultimately responsible for engaging structural engineers as part of the design team? They might not be ultimately responsible for structural integrity of the building but they are building professionals who are expected by clients to endorse an opinion given by an engineer. In other words, we need to know enough "to keep the b#$tards honest". You wouldn't value the profession medical opinion of an experienced nurse just because he/she is not a doctor?
Upvote
0
Btodd
Well-Known Member
The greater point, aside from the fact that the term 'architect' or 'engineer' spans a HUGE variety of disciplines that have nothing to do with buildings (software engineer, landscape architect, etc., ad nauseum)...is that simply signing your name to a petition that disagrees with some other position does NOTHING. There are a variety of respected scientific journals that a paper could be submitted to, demonstrating that the collapse of either the Twin Towers, or Building 7, were the result of a controlled demolition. And then the scientific method could take its course. But no, in this case, the petition itself is supposed to count as the argument...even when it's mostly padded with 'architects' and 'engineers', both very general terms, who have nothing to do with the subject matter. It's designed to trick you, and make you believe that less than 1% of the world's architects and engineers (despite the fact that the number of each who have any expertise in collapsing buildings is WAY less) is a really significant thing, even though they can't show it in a proper paper in a real scientific journal.
Btodd
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No. Their study of structures is at a limited level. Architects are primarily concerned with form and function of spaces, not engineering.
Engaging someone != knowledge. And for large constructions jobs, the project manager would be doing the engagment anyway. Doesn't make the PM a structural engineer either.
100% NO.
Architects do not "endorse" engineering opinions on structures. They will have a very general idea as to what works and what doesn't, but that's it. That's why contruction projects have engineers.
Depnds in which area - there are things I would only trust a doctor's opinion on. I'm not asking my nurse to endorse a cardiologists views on open heart surgery.
Upvote
0
Dave Ellis
Contributor
- Dec 27, 2011
- 8,933
- 821
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Ok... So there's 2,000 engineers and architects that have a problem with an "inexplicable collapse"
And there's tens, if not hundreds of thousands that don't view it as all that strange.
Upvote
0
jayem
Naturalist
- Jun 24, 2003
- 15,427
- 7,165
- 74
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
For the record, Larry Silverstein doesn't own the WTC. He's the developer and property manager. He was hired by the owner. Which is the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The Port Authority had their headquarters in one of the towers, and lost over 80 employees in the attack, BTW.
If the article can't get a simple fact like this straight, its credibility is jack squat.
If the article can't get a simple fact like this straight, its credibility is jack squat.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
