TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut Now that is the most fucking dumb thing you must have ever typed. What did they think was fueling the planes then? chocolate pudding? Of course the fuel was taken into consideration. STFU already you moron. |
The towers where built for multiple hits from aircraft including the fuel.
Props to my fellow Canadian journalists for having some balls.
The curious tale of the 'other' WTC tower
Kevin Brooker, Calgary Herald
Published: Monday, March 26, 2007
Now that Rosie O'Donnell is trying to table it on The View, I guess we can talk about it here.
First, a news quiz: If, some time after the collapse of World Trade Center towers 1 and 2, a 47-story office building in a major American city also came crashing to the ground, do you think you'd know about it?
Of course, you would.
But if I were to tell you that such an event actually did happen, could you name that building?
If you are like most North Americans, I'm guessing probably not.
In fact, the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building, which was also known as WTC 7 and stood but two blocks away from ground zero, occurred late in the day on Sept. 11, 2001.
It remains one of the central anomalies in a day filled with anomalies, yet it was treated then, and remains today, at least in official annals, as an insignificant footnote.
Struck by no aircraft, and little debris, WTC 7 nevertheless had small fires mysteriously burning in several of its middle floors. Judging from photographs, one would assume those fires should have been easily contained.
Yet at 5:20 p.m., in a space of 6.5 seconds, or practically at a free-fall rate, WTC 7 collapsed perfectly into its footprint. It should have been big news, if only because it would have been the first steel-frame building in history to collapse due exclusively to fire. But for some reason, reporters gave it a wide berth.
Shortly after 9/11, when Associated Press published a timeline of events called A Stunning 48 Hours of News, WTC 7 was not mentioned at all. Neither was it in the government's official 9/11 report. And to this day, authorities have only issued an inconclusive draft report as to why the building fell.
Not everyone is so incurious, however. A host of researchers have busily gathered everything they could learn about that day, and WTC 7 in particular.
Though you're unlikely to have seen it, video of the collapse does exist (and can be found on the Internet). The footage exhibits the hallmarks of controlled demolition, including bursts of dust from what appear to be many tiny explosions and the curtain-like plummeting of the entire structure.
During the brief aftermath before WTC 7 disappeared into the memory hole, CBS anchor Dan Rather showed the video and said, "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite."
Many have concluded it was just that. Moreover, they discovered that WTC 7 had unusual tenants, including several floors devoted to each of the FBI, the CIA and mayor Rudy Giuliani's emergency headquarters. It was also home to a legal branch of the Security and Exchange Commission, which allegedly harboured evidence relating to a number of ongoing investigations of market malfeasance.
A PBS television documentary later showed the WTC's owner, Larry Silverstein, describing how he reacted that day: " 'We've had such terrible loss of life,' " he recalled saying, " 'maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
You can read into that what you may, just as you can with the fact that Silverstein's group had only acquired WTC six months earlier, for $3.2 billion, and bought insurance that for the first time specifically indemnified acts of terrorism. As of last report, Silverstein had collected $4.6 billion.
Finally, from the department of curiouser and curiouser, came another bombshell this year. Researchers unearthed a BBC television report from 9/11 in which the reporter announced the collapse of WTC 7. Strangely, though, the building is still plainly visible over her right shoulder, and would not fall for another 20 minutes.
Well, if the rest of the world won't get to the bottom of this, maybe Rosie will.
Kevin Brooker feeds his curiosity in Calgary.
� The Calgary Herald 2007
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald...80a4720e918&p=2
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut Now that is the most fucking dumb thing you must have ever typed. What did they think was fueling the planes then? chocolate pudding? Of course the fuel was taken into consideration. STFU already you moron. |
| quote: |
Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next�a key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member. The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building�paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut Props to my fellow Canadian journalists for having some balls. The curious tale of the 'other' WTC tower Kevin Brooker, Calgary Herald Published: Monday, March 26, 2007 Now that Rosie O'Donnell is trying to table it on The View, I guess we can talk about it here. First, a news quiz: If, some time after the collapse of World Trade Center towers 1 and 2, a 47-story office building in a major American city also came crashing to the ground, do you think you'd know about it? Of course, you would. But if I were to tell you that such an event actually did happen, could you name that building? If you are like most North Americans, I'm guessing probably not. In fact, the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building, which was also known as WTC 7 and stood but two blocks away from ground zero, occurred late in the day on Sept. 11, 2001. It remains one of the central anomalies in a day filled with anomalies, yet it was treated then, and remains today, at least in official annals, as an insignificant footnote. Struck by no aircraft, and little debris, WTC 7 nevertheless had small fires mysteriously burning in several of its middle floors. Judging from photographs, one would assume those fires should have been easily contained. Yet at 5:20 p.m., in a space of 6.5 seconds, or practically at a free-fall rate, WTC 7 collapsed perfectly into its footprint. It should have been big news, if only because it would have been the first steel-frame building in history to collapse due exclusively to fire. But for some reason, reporters gave it a wide berth. Shortly after 9/11, when Associated Press published a timeline of events called A Stunning 48 Hours of News, WTC 7 was not mentioned at all. Neither was it in the government's official 9/11 report. And to this day, authorities have only issued an inconclusive draft report as to why the building fell. Not everyone is so incurious, however. A host of researchers have busily gathered everything they could learn about that day, and WTC 7 in particular. Though you're unlikely to have seen it, video of the collapse does exist (and can be found on the Internet). The footage exhibits the hallmarks of controlled demolition, including bursts of dust from what appear to be many tiny explosions and the curtain-like plummeting of the entire structure. During the brief aftermath before WTC 7 disappeared into the memory hole, CBS anchor Dan Rather showed the video and said, "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite." Many have concluded it was just that. Moreover, they discovered that WTC 7 had unusual tenants, including several floors devoted to each of the FBI, the CIA and mayor Rudy Giuliani's emergency headquarters. It was also home to a legal branch of the Security and Exchange Commission, which allegedly harboured evidence relating to a number of ongoing investigations of market malfeasance. A PBS television documentary later showed the WTC's owner, Larry Silverstein, describing how he reacted that day: " 'We've had such terrible loss of life,' " he recalled saying, " 'maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." You can read into that what you may, just as you can with the fact that Silverstein's group had only acquired WTC six months earlier, for $3.2 billion, and bought insurance that for the first time specifically indemnified acts of terrorism. As of last report, Silverstein had collected $4.6 billion. Finally, from the department of curiouser and curiouser, came another bombshell this year. Researchers unearthed a BBC television report from 9/11 in which the reporter announced the collapse of WTC 7. Strangely, though, the building is still plainly visible over her right shoulder, and would not fall for another 20 minutes. Well, if the rest of the world won't get to the bottom of this, maybe Rosie will. Kevin Brooker feeds his curiosity in Calgary. � The Calgary Herald 2007 http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald...80a4720e918&p=2 |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut Props to my fellow Canadian journalists for having some balls. The curious tale of the 'other' WTC tower Kevin Brooker, Calgary Herald Published: Monday, March 26, 2007 Now that Rosie O'Donnell is trying to table it on The View, I guess we can talk about it here. First, a news quiz: If, some time after the collapse of World Trade Center towers 1 and 2, a 47-story office building in a major American city also came crashing to the ground, do you think you'd know about it? Of course, you would. But if I were to tell you that such an event actually did happen, could you name that building? If you are like most North Americans, I'm guessing probably not. In fact, the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building, which was also known as WTC 7 and stood but two blocks away from ground zero, occurred late in the day on Sept. 11, 2001. It remains one of the central anomalies in a day filled with anomalies, yet it was treated then, and remains today, at least in official annals, as an insignificant footnote. Struck by no aircraft, and little debris, WTC 7 nevertheless had small fires mysteriously burning in several of its middle floors. Judging from photographs, one would assume those fires should have been easily contained. Yet at 5:20 p.m., in a space of 6.5 seconds, or practically at a free-fall rate, WTC 7 collapsed perfectly into its footprint. It should have been big news, if only because it would have been the first steel-frame building in history to collapse due exclusively to fire. But for some reason, reporters gave it a wide berth. Shortly after 9/11, when Associated Press published a timeline of events called A Stunning 48 Hours of News, WTC 7 was not mentioned at all. Neither was it in the government's official 9/11 report. And to this day, authorities have only issued an inconclusive draft report as to why the building fell. Not everyone is so incurious, however. A host of researchers have busily gathered everything they could learn about that day, and WTC 7 in particular. Though you're unlikely to have seen it, video of the collapse does exist (and can be found on the Internet). The footage exhibits the hallmarks of controlled demolition, including bursts of dust from what appear to be many tiny explosions and the curtain-like plummeting of the entire structure. During the brief aftermath before WTC 7 disappeared into the memory hole, CBS anchor Dan Rather showed the video and said, "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite." Many have concluded it was just that. Moreover, they discovered that WTC 7 had unusual tenants, including several floors devoted to each of the FBI, the CIA and mayor Rudy Giuliani's emergency headquarters. It was also home to a legal branch of the Security and Exchange Commission, which allegedly harboured evidence relating to a number of ongoing investigations of market malfeasance. A PBS television documentary later showed the WTC's owner, Larry Silverstein, describing how he reacted that day: " 'We've had such terrible loss of life,' " he recalled saying, " 'maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." You can read into that what you may, just as you can with the fact that Silverstein's group had only acquired WTC six months earlier, for $3.2 billion, and bought insurance that for the first time specifically indemnified acts of terrorism. As of last report, Silverstein had collected $4.6 billion. Finally, from the department of curiouser and curiouser, came another bombshell this year. Researchers unearthed a BBC television report from 9/11 in which the reporter announced the collapse of WTC 7. Strangely, though, the building is still plainly visible over her right shoulder, and would not fall for another 20 minutes. Well, if the rest of the world won't get to the bottom of this, maybe Rosie will. Kevin Brooker feeds his curiosity in Calgary. � The Calgary Herald 2007 http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald...80a4720e918&p=2 |
How does one place another user on ignore around here? The shit that spills out PKC's mouth is just plain foul. I rather not see his pathetic attempts at making a point or refuting an argument anymore.
ahhh, the last safehouse for the stupid and willfully ignorant.
let's recap shall we PDD?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN also, the towers may have been built to withstand an aeroplane, however they did not take into consideration all the fuel big planes might be carrying. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut Now that is the most fucking dumb thing you must have ever typed. What did they think was fueling the planes then? chocolate pudding? Of course the fuel was taken into consideration. STFU already you moron. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next�a key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member. The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building�paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut The shit that spills out PKC's mouth is just plain foul. I rather not see his pathetic attempts at making a point or refuting an argument anymore. |
You might be aware of this or not, but on 4th March 2001, the Lone Gunmen series (spin-off from the X-Files) aired an episode about a plane smashing into the World Trade Center in NYC. Apparently Chris Carter (director) got this idea from the CIA.
The first scene depicts Byers talking to his dad, an ex-government employee.
Makes VERY interesting viewing:
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN also, the towers may have been built to withstand an aeroplane, however they did not take into consideration all the fuel big planes might be carrying. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut The engineers did take it into consideration, you are quoting yourself saying that they did not and you are absolutely wrong. WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, �Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.� But, he says, �The building structure would still be there.� [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993] |
| quote: |
The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: �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.� However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132; Lew, Bukowski, and Carino, 10/2005, pp. 70-71. The other structural engineer who designed the towers, Leslie Robertson, carried out a second study later in 1964, of how the towers would handle the impact of a 707...However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), following its three-year investigation into the WTC collapses, will in 2005 state that it has been �unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.� |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, �Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.� But, he says, �The building structure would still be there.� [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993] |
| quote: |
| Yet at 5:20 p.m., in a space of 6.5 seconds, or practically at a free-fall rate, WTC 7 collapsed perfectly into its footprint. It should have been big news, if only because it would have been the first steel-frame building in history to collapse due exclusively to fire. But for some reason, reporters gave it a wide berth. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Marc Summers The Titanic was UNSINKABLE! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by colonelcrisp let me have a couple days to scan in half of my steel design code book and youll have numerous examples of steel framed structure collapse due to fire.... thats why concrete and wood are far better for fire safety in buildings...... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z That's so incredibly relevant. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Marc Summers Yes, yes it is. Just because an engineer says it can withstand a hit from a 727 doesn't mean it's true. |
you do realize that the building was designed back in the 60's well before the advent of matrix analysis for structures let alone tools like SAP2000 which allows for more complex analysis of frames and how they react to non standard loadings.... engineering is a science based on practical experience, new frontiers are pushed every day and when someone designs something that is labled as "biggest" or " tallest" or "Fastest" no one actually knows how it will behave as it hasnt been done before. this was the case with WTC. the designing engineers can speculate how it would behave but they cant say with 100% certainty that it will behave in a certain way. It is statistically impossible to predict the precise reaction of a structure of that complexity and size to the impact of a jet. its just not possible.
Agreed, it is hard to tell what the outcome will be until it actually happens but the NIST have not proven anything with their analysis of the collapses either. Fuck they still have not included WTC7 which was not hit by any airplane and it was a 47 story building containing tons of valuable information. (CIA, Enron, etc.)
This is why an independent investigation needs to happen pronto. The total number of people supporting the official story is in the minority, if the official story is correct then why does it collapse so easily when put under scrutiny?
The worst attack on American soil in 60 years and the best they can come up with is the 9/11 commission report which actually omits most of the evidence.
Funny the amount of time placed against anyone trying to be honest telling the truth nowadays, usually liars and dishonesty are not even given the time of day.
I blew the building up damnit! There now go back to bed America your government figured it all out. Go back to bed! Here watch Desperate Housewives!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut This is why an independent investigation needs to happen pronto. The total number of people supporting the official story is in the minority, if the official story is correct then why does it collapse so easily when put under scrutiny? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i am interested in why you dont believe the investigation was independent? do you realise how many investigators (experts in their field), from all over the world investigated the collapses? who would you have investigate the collapses that werent included originally? which experts would you omit and which ones do you feel deserve to be included? most importantly, why are you so sure the investigation was inadequate, when the conspiracy theory side has not produced ONE peer-reviewed analysis of the tower collapses? there hasnt been a single, coherent & cogent analysis that has withstood anywhere near the scientific inquiry that the original investigation had to undergo. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i am interested in why you dont believe the investigation was independent? do you realise how many investigators (experts in their field), from all over the world investigated the collapses? who would you have investigate the collapses that werent included originally? which experts would you omit and which ones do you feel deserve to be included? most importantly, why are you so sure the investigation was inadequate, when the conspiracy theory side has not produced ONE peer-reviewed analysis of the tower collapses? there hasnt been a single, coherent & cogent analysis that has withstood anywhere near the scientific inquiry that the original investigation had to undergo. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium LOL ... How much are "THEY" paying you for this? Your posts on this thread represent like 90 percent of all posts you do on the whole PDD. You are too obsessed with this topic. Leave it alone, its not worth all that time and attention. You dont have enough evidence and silly arguments to prove your point. If it was so obvious, we would have not talked about this topic at all. Government has covered up, there are missing pieces of puzzle left and right, inconsistencies, question marks. If the government, according to you, is all innocent here, they would have long ago released all the neccessary and demanded pieces of evidence people have been asking. There has been coverup, whether you like to accept it or not. That's enough information to suggest that government is more involved in 9/11 than we might ever know. |
| quote: |
If it was so obvious, we would have not talked about this topic at all. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Zild I blew the building up damnit! There now go back to bed America your government figured it all out. Go back to bed! Here watch Desperate Housewives! |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.