TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- September 11th Attacks - Do You Think It Was a Conspiracy?
Pages (19): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh come on. have you even read any of the firemen interviews? i can post some here if you like. that building was gutted by fire, and everyone knew it was coming down, which is why they stopped fighting it.

But it wasn't gutted and they didn't stop fighting it, that's why many of them died a tragic death.

However, they did stop fighting WTC 7 after Larry Silverstein said to "pull it."



"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and 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."

- Larry Silverstein

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X But it wasn't gutted and they didn't stop fighting it, that's why many of them died a tragic death.

absolute nonsense. i guess the following firefighters are lying then?

quote:

"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7? Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn�t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site. Firehouse: How many companies? Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we�re heading east on Vesey, we couldn�t see much past Broadway. We couldn�t see Church Street. We couldn�t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty." "A little north of Vesey I said, we�ll go down, let�s see what�s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what�s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn�t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn�t look good. But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we�re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn�t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn�t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I�m standing next to said, that building doesn�t look straight. So I�m standing there. I�m looking at the building. It didn�t look right, but, well, we�ll go in, we�ll see. So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody�s going into 7, there�s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned. Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side? Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it . And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we�ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/...e/gz/boyle.html <http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/...e/gz/boyle.html> Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that�s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn�t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7� did you have to get all of those people out? Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn�t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn�t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn�t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o�clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that�s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that�s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn�t seem so bad. But that�s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn�t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody� My feeling early on was we weren�t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn�t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn�t go further north on West Street. And I couldn�t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X However, they did stop fighting WTC 7 after Larry Silverstein said to "pull it." "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and 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." - Larry Silverstein

and seriously- give me one example in the history of the world where responsibility in an emergency situation gets delegated to a member of the public. seriously, this fallacy is just ludicrous. explain to me why after silverstein "let slip the big secret government mission" he made different qualifying statements afterwards?

quote:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

for you to equate silverstein's comments with a demolition, it would mean that the government co-opted even more random people into the greatest scheme in history. again, illogical in the extreme.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN absolute nonsense. i guess the following firefighters are lying then?

All of the firefighters who told it like it was, for example the ones who reported bright flashes, secondary explosions, etc., were excluded from both the NIST's and the official report. They basically pulled a Dick Cheney and cherry-picked the information that suited the official conspiracy - err, I mean story.

So how come they don't say anything about bombs or explosions going off anywhere on that corporately owned Firehouse.com site?

You can try to rewrite history but you simply can't hide the truth!!!







John Gross of NIST confronted over 9/11 WTC demolitions:






















demolition squibs:




firefighters don't like Giuliani

quote:

and seriously- give me one example in the history of the world where responsibility in an emergency situation gets delegated to a member of the public. seriously, this fallacy is just ludicrous. explain to me why after silverstein "let slip the big secret government mission" he made different qualifying statements afterwards? for you to equate silverstein's comments with a demolition, it would mean that the government co-opted even more random people into the greatest scheme in history. again, illogical in the extreme.

I wouldn't exactly call Larry Silverstein just another member of the public. He bought the failing WTC complex from the NY Port Authority and exerts a lot of power in NY.

And yes, it all comes back to the Big Lie technique. It definitely worked on you.

This one is HIGHLY informative !!

MIT Engineer Jeff King Discussing WTC Implosion

9/11 Truth: Firemen Describe Pre-Collapse WTC Explosions




PS - thanks for getting me interested in this again, pkcRAISTLIN!!

I hadn't gotten into it lately and just found that there are a whole lot of videos online that I hadn't seen before.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X And I really don't have to answer you, either. I'm just doing this for my country in order to get the message out to those who can see through the veil of lies and deception that has been put into place. Some people will hold on to the lies with all of their might. Perhaps their grip on reality is too tenuous and the truth too much for them so they just deny all of the inconsistencies and the whitewash and make it a point to ridicule anyone who tries to get to the truth.

glad you can still manage to bend over far enough to blow your own horn there mate....


no amount of google video or internet sleuthing will ever combat common sense...... im not going to get into this argument again... i already stomped all over it once in the other tin foil hat thread. out of all the explanations for liquefied metal pools found at ground zero, thermite/thermate is the worst. first of all in order to cut columns using heat, you have to first melt the metal, then blast the molten metal out of the cut so that it wont fuse back together again. lets put it this way, the most economical way to cut thick lifts of steel is oxygen lance. Its not widely used, but they did use it for the 911 cleanup, and it does liquefy steel, and it can cut through a block of steel that is 4 feet thick.

if your not a technical person, dont argue technical points you dont understand. and im sorry, 4 weeks of internet research doesnt equate to a propper engineering education and work experience.... you want to prove your theories, find a liscenced certified structural engineer with at least 15 years experience, who supports these theories by submitting a detailed technical paper for peer review. the CT's have yet to do this, and its not from lack of effort..... they have posted an impressive list of "professionals" on their tin foil hat roster..... and with 15 minutes of my own internet sleuthing, i had debunked 98% of that list.

this is probably one of my favorites

quote:

Originally posted

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp glad you can still manage to bend over far enough to blow your own horn there mate.... no amount of google video or internet sleuthing will ever combat common sense...... im not going to get into this argument again... i already stomped all over it once in the other tin foil hat thread. out of all the explanations for liquefied metal pools found at ground zero, thermite/thermate is the worst. first of all in order to cut columns using heat, you have to first melt the metal, then blast the molten metal out of the cut so that it wont fuse back together again. lets put it this way, the most economical way to cut thick lifts of steel is oxygen lance. Its not widely used, but they did use it for the 911 cleanup, and it does liquefy steel, and it can cut through a block of steel that is 4 feet thick. if your not a technical person, dont argue technical points you dont understand. and im sorry, 4 weeks of internet research doesnt equate to a propper engineering education and work experience.... you want to prove your theories, find a liscenced certified structural engineer with at least 15 years experience, who supports these theories by submitting a detailed technical paper for peer review. the CT's have yet to do this, and its not from lack of effort..... they have posted an impressive list of "professionals" on their tin foil hat roster..... and with 15 minutes of my own internet sleuthing, i had debunked 98% of that list.

Actually, I'm a very technical person. I started working on semi-complex electronics (taking stereo receivers apart and putting them back together - with precision) before I was even ten years old. I've been a tech-head for much of my life. Your baseless assumptions make you look like an ass, btw

And why would you need to blast the metal out of the cut when the whole point is to walk the building off of them after cutting them all at a 45 degree angle? The company that dismantled the remnants of the towers (www.controlled-demolition.com) is right up the road from me. A good friend of mine is friend's with the owner's son and I'm probably going to be talking to them sometime in the near future in order to get a better idea of how these things could have been done.

You have to love due diligence. I freaking live for it.

Trancer-X great posts, you know your stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Actually, I'm a very technical person. I started working on semi-complex electronics (taking stereo receivers apart and putting them back together - with precision) before I was even ten years old. I've been a tech-head for much of my life. Your baseless assumptions make you look like an ass, btw And why would you need to blast the metal out of the cut when the whole point is to walk the building off of them after cutting them all at a 45 degree angle? The company that dismantled the remnants of the towers (www.controlled-demolition.com) is right up the road from me. A good friend of mine is friend's with the owner's son and I'm probably going to be talking to them sometime in the near future in order to get a better idea of how these things could have been done. You have to love due diligence. I freaking live for it.

no offense but since when does an electronics technician know fuckall about structural engineering?

to answer your question briefly, the reason why you have to blow the molten metal out of the cut is that it will fuse together since it is molten, Especially when you are looking at the WTC columns' gauge. RDX cut charges dont melt the steel they simply fire a jet of copper through the metal, so the cut will just walk itself apart. thermite on the other hand would melt the steel so you would need to clear the cut in order to achieve separation.

the thermite theory is retarded based on lack of evidence and lack of feasibility. we are talking thousands and thousands of TONNES of thermite. Controlled demolition requires too much preptime, and not to mention enough det cord to wrap around the world 12341234132 times. Pancake theory is theoretically sound, feasible and is the most probably cause of failure.

but what do i know im only a civil engineer.......

quote:

the thermite theory is retarded based on lack of evidence and lack of feasibility. we are talking thousands and thousands of TONNES of thermite. Controlled demolition requires too much preptime, and not to mention enough det cord to wrap around the world 12341234132 times. Pancake theory is theoretically sound, feasible and is the most probably cause of failure.

And you are positive that there is no other much more powerful thermite or thermate?

quote:

but what do i know im only a civil engineer.......

Sorry not structural, you don't count.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut And you are positive that there is no other much more powerful thermite or thermate?

yes, i've already posted evidence showing exactly that. how "powerful" it is is irrelevant. its the nature of the substance that is important. and thermite can't make nice clean cuts like any of you believe. the cuts trancer is referring to were made by rescue teams.

in any case, stop inventing explosives necessary for your crazy theories. this is not good science nor very logical

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X The company that dismantled the remnants of the towers (www.controlled-demolition.com) is right up the road from me. A good friend of mine is friend's with the owner's son and I'm probably going to be talking to them sometime in the near future in order to get a better idea of how these things could have been done.

this is an excellent idea. please do this. i look forward to you explaining how the demo experts tell you that it was impossible. im sure you'll just ignore them, but at least be honest with us about it

somehow, im guessing they'll say something similar to THIS

quote:

yes, i've already posted evidence showing exactly that. how "powerful" it is is irrelevant. its the nature of the substance that is important. and thermite can't make nice clean cuts like any of you believe. the cuts trancer is referring to were made by rescue teams. in any case, stop inventing explosives necessary for your crazy theories. this is not good science nor very logical

And you seem to know as well if there is no military weapons that cannot do such a thing?

Fuking ignorance is bliss.

a military weapon did it? so, now that thermite has been ruled out, you think that a nameless "military weapon" did it...

Yeah I can see that. Go ahead and accept the truth pkc

quote:

Originally posted by culorut And you are positive that there is no other much more powerful thermite or thermate? Sorry not structural, you don't count.

and what do you think a civil engineer does dumbass.........structural is a sub discipline of civil engineering. there is no "structural" engineering discipline.


Mark Routhier B.Eng Civil Engineering, Structural and Infrastructure. PEO Registered EIT



good enough for you ?

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail a military weapon did it? so, now that thermite has been ruled out, you think that a nameless "military weapon" did it... Yeah I can see that. Go ahead and accept the truth pkc

haha! exactly right. "ignorance is bliss" is pretty ironic, considering that arguing for a make-believe military weapon is arguing from ignorance.

ie

quote:

i need this technology to exist, therefore it does

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp Mark Routhier B.Eng Civil Engineering, Structural and Infrastructure. PEO Registered EIT

Does PEO Registered EIT mean you are a licensed professional engineer? If so that's pretty cool.

I'm currently studying civil engineering also specializing in structures as well and I have a question for you: Do you agree that the stuff we learn academically at the bachelor level doesn't get that involved compared to the experience you learn out there in the field, am i right?

The reason I'm asking is because I'm halfway into my major and the only stuff I learned about failure of steel structures so far are due to extreme weight loads on beams and not the effects of RDX or explosives. To be honest all that RDX stuff I learned on the net. Did you learn that type of stuff at the last year of your civil engineering program or also learn about RDX the way I did through personal research?

By the way, no joke, I just realized the track that was playing while I was typing this was:
Animotion - I Engineer

quote:

Originally posted by kamil of course it was a conspiracy. what astounds me is that HALF of the american people voted for that liar, and arent taking a stand. what the fuck is wrong with USA? 50% out of 300+ million voting FOR BUSH? sad.......truly fucking sad.

Naaaaaaaaaaaaah.

I said it the day of the election, and I'll say it again years later as evidence is emerging and more stringent measures are being taken to secure the scene and create papertrails.

The voting machines were insecure.

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808 Does PEO Registered EIT mean you are a licensed professional engineer? If so that's pretty cool. I'm currently studying civil engineering also specializing in structures as well and I have a question for you: Do you agree that the stuff we learn academically at the bachelor level doesn't get that involved compared to the experience you learn out there in the field, am i right? The reason I'm asking is because I'm halfway into my major and the only stuff I learned about failure of steel structures so far are due to extreme weight loads on beams and not the effects of RDX or explosives. To be honest all that RDX stuff I learned on the net. Did you learn that type of stuff at the last year of your civil engineering program or also learn about RDX the way I did through personal research? By the way, no joke, I just realized the track that was playing while I was typing this was: Animotion - I Engineer

EIT is a provisional liscence, in ontario (and canada) for that matter, once you get your degree and pass your liscensure requirements, you are granted an EIT permit, which allows you to practice under the supervision of a senior engineer, after 4 years of EIT you write your ethics exam, and you are granted P.Eng, your full engineering liscence. so in short EIT is a provisional liscence.

As for school..... lol you learn the theory and the basics..... ive learned alot more since i have been working. as for the cool stuff like explosives and vibration and seismic design, take some grad courses in your upper years, thats what i did. i took a course on seismic design and strucutral vibration analysis where you look at the design of joins and members to withstand high amplitude vibration and pressure shock.

you never stop learning in this profession lol.....

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp EIT is a provisional liscence, in ontario (and canada) for that matter, once you get your degree and pass your liscensure requirements, you are granted an EIT permit, which allows you to practice under the supervision of a senior engineer, after 4 years of EIT you write your ethics exam, and you are granted P.Eng, your full engineering liscence. so in short EIT is a provisional liscence.

Over here you can trim a year off the experience requirement if you go for your masters and if you go for your doctorate�s they�ll trim another year.

quote:

As for school..... lol you learn the theory and the basics..... ive learned alot more since i have been working. as for the cool stuff like explosives and vibration and seismic design, take some grad courses in your upper years, thats what i did. i took a course on seismic design and strucutral vibration analysis where you look at the design of joins and members to withstand high amplitude vibration and pressure shock. you never stop learning in this profession lol.....

Will do colonel. Thanks for the advice.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp no offense but since when does an electronics technician know fuckall about structural engineering? to answer your question briefly, the reason why you have to blow the molten metal out of the cut is that it will fuse together since it is molten, Especially when you are looking at the WTC columns' gauge. RDX cut charges dont melt the steel they simply fire a jet of copper through the metal, so the cut will just walk itself apart. thermite on the other hand would melt the steel so you would need to clear the cut in order to achieve separation. the thermite theory is retarded based on lack of evidence and lack of feasibility. we are talking thousands and thousands of TONNES of thermite. Controlled demolition requires too much preptime, and not to mention enough det cord to wrap around the world 12341234132 times. Pancake theory is theoretically sound, feasible and is the most probably cause of failure. but what do i know im only a civil engineer.......

I'm not an electronics technition, I was just blessed with both an exceptional mechanical inclination and aptitude. I was that kid who took everything apart and then put it back together just to see how it worked... when I was like twelve years old. lol. It didn't have to be electronic, either. I did it with practically everything.

Anyway, I'm just curious how you'd explain the pools of molten metal in the sub-basement six weeks after they came down? How come that didn't fuse together? Why did people in the cleanup crew say that it looked like they were in a foundry with molten metal running down steel channels? Wouldn't that have fused?

Also, in your professional opinion, what do you think about the questions that Dave Heller raises?

Here's his paper/essay:

quote:

Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center By Dave Heller While it may be difficult to awaken everyone from their state-induced fog of fear, we are at a critical point in history which requires us to try. We truly must take an objective look at the facts and evidence surrounding 9-11. While none of the many 9-11 researchers knows exactly what happened on that fateful day in September almost 3 years ago, any sensible person can easily spot dozens of inconsistencies in the official story that is being forced upon us. And these inconsistencies are huge. They range from the apparent stand-down of our immense military arsenal (for over an hour and a half) to the small hole and lack of debris at the Pentagon. There was Bush's bizarre, uninterrupted photo op in a Florida elementary school, and then there is the matter of the remains of Flight 93 being scattered over eight miles of Pennsylvania farmland, a fact which suggests the plane may have been shot down. The official story seems wrong on all of these points. But the focus of this article is on just one point: the odd collapse of the three buildings in the World Trade Center complex. full article

Senator Mark Dayton Confirms V.P. Dick Cheney Gave Shootdown Orders on 9/11

Blistering testimony of Senator Mark Dayton before the 9-11 Commission chairs Kean, Hamilton and NORAD. Senator Mark Dayton calls NORAD liars and the 9/11 Commission "not worth and Enron pension". "You lied to congress, you lied to the American people".

---

Posted by Trancer-X on Jun-29-2007 23:25:

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp and with 15 minutes of my own internet sleuthing, i had debunked 98% of that list.

Well, lay it out for us. I'm not going to just take your word for it. Anyone can type out a bunch of credentials. i don't know if they're real or not. Show us what you've debunked! Otherwise, I'm only able to consider what you're saying here as just another part of the Big lie.

---

Posted by Trancer-X on Jun-29-2007 23:32:

Re: This one is HIGHLY informative !!

quote:

Originally posted MIT Engineer Jeff King Discussing WTC Implosion

this engineer from MIT definitely didn't believe the official conspiracy theory

(edited to start at 1 min 13 sec)

---

Posted by Trancer-X on Jun-30-2007 00:08:

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp you never stop learning in this profession lol.....

That's the way that it should be anyway. You should never stop learning and that doesn't mean strictly focusing on a profession.

The whole world is meant to be understood, not escaped through a maze of fictional diversions like most of what we're fed on television and in the movies.

Pages (19): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »

---

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.