Top Secret video of WTC explosive controlled demolition on 9/11
POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Monday, March 14, 2011 03:46
VIEWED: 11704
PAGE 6 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:I only throw back at them what they threw at me first, HK. Why do you always call me on my insults, but you ignore theirs (which again, they threw at me first)? That's curious, isn't it? It might appear like you like to pick on me, HK. Why is your standard for my behavior so much higher than that for others, HK?
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
CTS, you have a terrible habit of acting like you're the only reasonable person in the room.Quote:Ask them. From everything they said, they ARE arguing for the official story. Let's just establish that for the record. Go ahead, ask them.
No one here is arguing "for the official story."
Raise of hands of everyone who thinks NIST is right on the money in explaining how the towers fell.
Let's see your hands, Pizmo, Hardware, Kirkules, etc. If you think NIST was wrong, please explain where you disagree. Thank you.
As for the other point, the complicated scenario of the who, how, and why of a demolition job, I have already stated I have no explanation. I am not trying to explain it. I only want to start at step 1, establish that there was a demolition job. From there, we can start forming conjectures of who, how, and why.
But we can't ignore the physical evidence of what happened, simply because we can't imagine who, how, and why.
Imagine coming onto a death scene, and ruling it suicide, not based on the physical evidence, but simply because you can't imagine who would want to kill the victim, how they could have done it without anyone seeing, and why they would have done it. All truthers are saying is, please just analyze the crime scene objectively based on physical evidence. Worry about the suspect, specific method, and motive later. See?
Surely y'all have seen enough detective shows to understand this?
Just got done skimming the NIST's report on the collapse of WTC1 and 2. Very informative, but I'm going to quote from their report.
Quote:
9.3.3 Events Following Collapse Initiation
Failure in the south wall of WTC1 and the east wall of WTC2 caused the portion of the building above to tilt in the direction of the failed wall. The tilting was accompanied by a downward movement. The story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points.
The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure to absorb that through energy of deformation...
(pp 319 http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6.pdf )
So, while NIST does in fact not use the term "pancake" the end result is the same. The building mass above the failure had too much mass and later, inertia, for the floors below to support it.
Read the report. It's fascinating in an abstract, mechanical sense.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And also from the NIST report:
Quote:
...NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11th, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and video from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
Now since you used NIST as an appeal to authority to support your position, and they've clearly weighed in to the contrary, you're going to be reasonable and admit that the towers did indeed fall due to fire, right?
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You misunderstand me. I am saying YOU support NIST. So the arguments you make *should* be consistent with NIST findings.
Originally posted by Hardware:
Now since you used NIST as an appeal to authority to support your position, and they've clearly weighed in to the contrary, you're going to be reasonable and admit that the towers did indeed fall due to fire, right?
I disagree with the NIST. That is the whole point behind the "truther" movement--they think the NIST report is bullshit. I.E. I think it is bullshit. Get it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It isn't that they don't use the term "pancake." They specifically REJECT the "pancake theory."
Originally posted by Hardware:
So, while NIST does in fact not use the term "pancake" the end result is the same.
"Pancake" refers to a very specific description of truss failure causing the collapse. This was the first explanation offered by mass media, which is why the term "pancake" sticks in everyone's mind. NIST subsequently rejected this explanation, but everyone keeps using "pancake" as a counter-explanation to the demolition hypothesis.
"Pancake" has a specific meaning (see excerpt below). It does NOT mean the mass of the top structures could not be supported by the bottom structures.
All I am saying is, if you want to accept the official story, then at least get the official story straight. Don't talk about truss failure and don't talk about pancakes. (Unless you truly believe it was truss failure and NIST was wrong. If so, then make the case for it.)
I posted this section before, but maybe you guys didn't read it. So I'll post it again.
Quote:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Regarding Partin's report, it's not just that he knows something about what he speaks, he's also referencing an earlier report which I can't for the moment find laying around in PDF or other format.
After it happened, because of the debate over causes, a study was commissioned, now known as the Eglin Blast Effects Study, which conclusively proved that the truckbomb, as constructed, could not have done that kind of damage, and that it had to have come from a device inside the building.
Problem is, I can't seem to find a copy of the damn thing, although I hear one newspaper (new american?) will share their copy if one is willing to pay a copy/mailing fee.
So what they did was keep upping the amount of ANFO in their assessments, from 1200lbs and kept going till some snarky bastard like me pointed out the amount they were talking about at the time WOULD NOT HAVE FIT IN THE GODDAMN TRUCK... and then it was backed down, I think the number the "official story" wound up stating was somewhere around 4800lbs, which is kind of dubious cause wiring an ANFO drum-bomb of THAT size requires a complexity and skill an order of magnitude beyond McVeighs alleged competence, which is something else I have my doubts about, as well.
And of course if you follow that mess back to Elohim City and all that wacky business, once again you find a field of FBI plants so obvious they oughta have potting soil on their pants cuffs - many of our domestic morons, the wackjob militias and whitey-righties, the ONLY thing which has been keeping them operational at all is the influx of money and support FROM the very people supposed to be protecting us from them... cause otherwise that "threat" would fall by the wayside and more or less evaporate, and so too would the funding to combat it.
You have to remember, I tend to come at things from a similar standpoint to a criminal investigation, and here we have an american intel/law enforcement agency which had directly and intentionally supported a previous attack on the WTC, had some involvement in what appears to be a failed set-up bombing which WOULD have been blamed on that pathetic truck bomb if the devices hadn't malfunctioned...
And what APPEARS, on the face of it, to be another set-up bombing attributed to something unlikely to have caused enough damage to down the building, the SAME building they previously supported an attack on that was intended to bring it down.
And folks, that makes me all manner of suspicious - even if all they did was look the other way, given what their responsibility is, to abrogate it in such a fashion is inexcusable, and if they helped it along, well...
For me, it's not just the twin towers, but the chilling notion that by supporting these assholes in order to justify their existence, not only might they have contributed to 3000+ deaths, but also that by not putting a stop to that bullshit, sooner or later they're going to assist some pack of goons to maybe do WORSE.
-Frem
PS. You wanna talk about some real fun with unsecured communications, during the WTO fiasco in Seattle, they actually had freakin Delta infiltrate the protestors and do real-time surveillence and a bit of provocation....
And the damn fools didn't encrypt the video, which was intercepted and used to exonerate many of the protesters, but was then taken into evidence and sealed by the court.
I was making cracks about how "special" the special forces were for WEEKS... friggin incompetent idiots.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here, next best thing, and Michael wouldn't have any objection to me swiping it for this use...
Quote:
OKC Bombing: Forensic Evidence
_________________________________________________________________
Multiple Blasts: More Evidence
by William F. Jasper
A new study analyzing explosive tests conducted by the U.S. Air Force
against a reinforced concrete structure may provide an important key
to understanding the April 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah
Building in Oklahoma City, which took 168 lives. The report, based on
testing data and photographs supplied by the Armament Directorate,
Wright Laboratory at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, lends powerful
support to the arguments of those experts who have challenged the
official government position that a single, large ammonium
nitrate/fuel oil (ANFO) truck bomb parked outside the Murrah Building
was solely responsible for the massive death and destruction.
Led by Brigadier General Benton K. Partin (USAF, ret.), former
director of the Air Force Armament Technology Laboratory and one of
the world’s premier explosives and ordnance authorities, critics
have argued compellingly that the blast wave from the ANFO truck bomb
was totally inadequate to cause the collapse of the massive,
steel-reinforced concrete columns of the federal building in Oklahoma
City. This fact, together with much other forensic evidence from the
crime scene, they contend, points inescapably to the conclusion that
additional demolition charges had to have been placed on columns
inside the building. Which means that this terror bombing was a much
more sophisticated operation than the federal authorities admit,
requiring more hands, brains, and brawn than any lone bomber could
supply. If that is true, the other bombers are being let off the hook
by the government’s insistence that Timothy McVeigh was the sole
efficient cause and the truck bomb was the instrumental cause of
“the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil.”
The new Eglin blast study convincingly proves the fundamental points
set forth by General Partin: That air blast is an inefficient
mechanism against hardened, reinforced concrete structures, and that
“the pattern of damage [to the Murrah Building] would have been
technically impossible without supplementing demolition charges.”
Entitled Case Study Relating Blast Effects to the Events of April 19,
1995 Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
(hereafter referred to as the Eglin Blast Effects Study, or EBES), the
56-page report includes photographs and data from the Eglin blast
tests, as well as extensive technical analysis of those tests,
conducted by construction and demolition expert John Culbertson. The
study relates the Eglin parametric data to the Murrah Building and
presents a serious challenge to the federal prosecutors’ official
bombing scenario. The report also contains letters from engineers and
technical experts who have reviewed the study for The New American.
The blast effects tests conducted by the Wright Laboratory at Eglin
Air Force Base involved a three-story reinforced concrete structure 80
feet in length, 40 feet in width, and a total height of 30 feet. The
Eglin Test Structure (ETS), according to the EBES, “while not as
large as the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, has many
similarities and therefore provides an excellent source for
data.” The study continues:
The ETS is similar to Murrah in its basic layout with three rows of
columns in the long axis and a series of narrow bays in the short
axis. The ETS was constructed of six-inch-thick concrete panels
similar to the six-inch-thick floorNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I do agree that the CIA/NSA/whomever probably had more foreknowledge about this than they let on because they didn't want to admit that they _could have done something about it but chose not to, I suspect that what they knew must have been not convincing enough to follow, or someone got lazy. But I don't think the American government caused 9/11 or that they encouraged it to happen. As for the buildings and how they fell, maybe they were built crappily and weren't built to code or something, someone cutting corners on construction etc. it wouldn't be the first time.
I know this sounds morbid but if it was going to happen and there was no way of stopping it, then its probably best that the buildings fell into themselves instead of falling over and hitting other buildings. Obviously I wish the whole thing had never happened. Obviously everyone has the right to believe what they choose, and I'm not trying to say that no one has that right, I was just shocked that so many people are going for this.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:It isn't that they don't use the term "pancake." They specifically REJECT the "pancake theory."
Originally posted by Hardware:
So, while NIST does in fact not use the term "pancake" the end result is the same.
"Pancake" refers to a very specific description of truss failure causing the collapse. This was the first explanation offered by mass media, which is why the term "pancake" sticks in everyone's mind. NIST subsequently rejected this explanation, but everyone keeps using "pancake" as a counter-explanation to the demolition hypothesis.
"Pancake" has a specific meaning (see excerpt below). It does NOT mean the mass of the top structures could not be supported by the bottom structures.
All I am saying is, if you want to accept the official story, then at least get the official story straight. Don't talk about truss failure and don't talk about pancakes. (Unless you truly believe it was truss failure and NIST was wrong. If so, then make the case for it.)
I posted this section before, but maybe you guys didn't read it. So I'll post it again.
Pancake is where a jacked floor loses its connection with the columns and collapses on the floor beneath. So NIST is correct, WTC was not a pancake. But the upper floors did fall on the lower floors, the mechanism was different, but the end result is nearly the same. In a pancake the sequence is fall, pause, fall, pause, at increasing tempo until you hit freefall. In the WTC towers the load above was so great that it was in free fall the entire way down.
NIST says that if there had only been 6 stories aboves dropping on lower floors, or if 11 stories had gradually loaded the lower floors the structure would have held. Can you imagine how bad that would have been? 11 stories separate and stacked on top of an 80 story tower? From an engineering standpoint it is horrifying. Unfortunately the loads were 12 and 20 stories each, too much for the structure to sustain.
Interestingly, the NIST report on WTC7 explains away those puffs of dust that controlled demolition advocates like to point to.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:I only throw back at them what they threw at me first, HK. Why do you always call me on my insults, but you ignore theirs (which again, they threw at me first)? That's curious, isn't it? It might appear like you like to pick on me, HK. Why is your standard for my behavior so much higher than that for others, HK?
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
CTS, you have a terrible habit of acting like you're the only reasonable person in the room.Quote:Ask them. From everything they said, they ARE arguing for the official story. Let's just establish that for the record. Go ahead, ask them.
No one here is arguing "for the official story."
Raise of hands of everyone who thinks NIST is right on the money in explaining how the towers fell.
Let's see your hands, Pizmo, Hardware, Kirkules, etc. If you think NIST was wrong, please explain where you disagree. Thank you.
As for the other point, the complicated scenario of the who, how, and why of a demolition job, I have already stated I have no explanation. I am not trying to explain it. I only want to start at step 1, establish that there was a demolition job. From there, we can start forming conjectures of who, how, and why.
But we can't ignore the physical evidence of what happened, simply because we can't imagine who, how, and why.
Imagine coming onto a death scene, and ruling it suicide, not based on the physical evidence, but simply because you can't imagine who would want to kill the victim, how they could have done it without anyone seeing, and why they would have done it. All truthers are saying is, please just analyze the crime scene objectively based on physical evidence. Worry about the suspect, specific method, and motive later. See?
Surely y'all have seen enough detective shows to understand this?
the thing with coming onto a death scene, well there was a story 5-6 years ago in the paper that said that a danish at the time 14 year old girl had comitted suicide by hanging, the strange thing is the police had taken photograph of the window into her room, and the grounds around it, before they ruled it a suicide, but then did not do anymore, like make the pics taken, and a friend of the supposed suicide girl said that the internet side she and the death girl had set up had mysteriously vanished the day after, atleast the parts the dead girl had made, cannot remember if there was suicide note, but if there was i actually think it was machine written, and the police did not want to deliver what they had gathered to the parents so they could maybe get a PI on it, or something, well now here 1-2 weeks ago i heard in the tv they would reopen the case because of somethings that apparently had not been found at the beginning, which to me should have been easy(some messages on the girls cellphone) and it was also said that the ones doing the autopsy could not understand how the police could have ruled it a suicide - it did not mention what exactly that had been found one the body, but a guess could be the thing that has sometime been brought up in movies and series about the marks on the throat/or neck did not answer to how they should sit if she had hanged herself
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:I only throw back at them what they threw at me first, HK. Why do you always call me on my insults, but you ignore theirs (which again, they threw at me first)? That's curious, isn't it? It might appear like you like to pick on me, HK. Why is your standard for my behavior so much higher than that for others, HK?
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
CTS, you have a terrible habit of acting like you're the only reasonable person in the room.Quote:Ask them. From everything they said, they ARE arguing for the official story. Let's just establish that for the record. Go ahead, ask them.
No one here is arguing "for the official story."
Raise of hands of everyone who thinks NIST is right on the money in explaining how the towers fell.
Let's see your hands, Pizmo, Hardware, Kirkules, etc. If you think NIST was wrong, please explain where you disagree. Thank you.
As for the other point, the complicated scenario of the who, how, and why of a demolition job, I have already stated I have no explanation. I am not trying to explain it. I only want to start at step 1, establish that there was a demolition job. From there, we can start forming conjectures of who, how, and why.
But we can't ignore the physical evidence of what happened, simply because we can't imagine who, how, and why.
Imagine coming onto a death scene, and ruling it suicide, not based on the physical evidence, but simply because you can't imagine who would want to kill the victim, how they could have done it without anyone seeing, and why they would have done it. All truthers are saying is, please just analyze the crime scene objectively based on physical evidence. Worry about the suspect, specific method, and motive later. See?
Surely y'all have seen enough detective shows to understand this?
sorry a double post, so i edited it to apology
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME