| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:50 pm Post subject: ??"Mystery" WTC computer refit company?? |
 |
|
| ...the ones who needed all the security cameras off to do their work the weekend before 9/11, have they ever been identified and eliminnated from the conspiracy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:23 pm Post subject: Re: ??"Mystery" WTC computer refit company?? |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | ...the ones who needed all the security cameras off to do their work the weekend before 9/11, have they ever been identified and eliminnated from the conspiracy? |
You are no doubt talking about the comments made by Scott Forbes, an employees of Fiduciary Trust, who said:
"On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded ... Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower."
As far as I know, this has not been corroborated by anyone else, and when later questioned again, we heard something else:
"How do you know that there was no electricity from floor 50 up, if Fiduciary Trust was on much higher floors -- starting at the 90th floor?
Scott Forbes: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ..."
And in the same interview:
"Scott Forbes: All systems were shutdown on Saturday morning and the power down condition was in effect from approximately 12 noon on Saturday September 8, 2001.
When did it end?
SF: Approximately 2PM on Sunday 9/9"
So we are left with only 26 hours, and only for certain on the 90th floor up. Since the "Top of the World" facility was operating that weekend, clearly that had power, and if the public were in the building it is hardly likely that it would acceptable to have all the security systems turned off.
This never seemed anything like an adequate opportunity to plant explosives all over three occupied buildings so carefully they would not be noticed, and now even less so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No what I want is the reciept, presumably held by the NY Port Authority, revealing exactly who this computer refit company were who needed the power off at the WTC to do whatever they were doing the weekend prior to Tuesday September 11 2001. A second hand account questioning the reliability of Scott Forbes as a witness does not supply this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | No what I want is the reciept, presumably held by the NY Port Authority, revealing exactly who this computer refit company were who needed the power off at the WTC to do whatever they were doing the weekend prior to Tuesday September 11 2001. A second hand account questioning the reliability of Scott Forbes as a witness does not supply this. |
Ah, you have some other source of the account of the power being off at the WTC do you? Do please reveal it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Has the name of this WTC pre 9/11 computer refit company been deemed a threat to US national security and made classified information? Am I being dense in not seeing the US governments' motives for taking this action if the company were innocent bystanders?? or was their very existence fabricated by Scott Forbes, a dillusional 'Walter Mitty' character? There are more questions than answers! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Has the name of this WTC pre 9/11 computer refit company been deemed a threat to US national security and made classified information? Am I being dense in not seeing the US governments' motives for taking this action if the company were innocent bystanders?? or was their very existence fabricated by Scott Forbes, a dillusional 'Walter Mitty' character? There are more questions than answers! |
So you are depending only on Scott Forbes?
The most likely answer to your questions is perhaps that Scott Forbes cannot really say any more than that some re-cabling work was being done at his company for a few hours one weekend, and no one has bothered to ask Fiduciary Trust who did it, why should they? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So show us the worksheets and reciepts showing what was done by these contractors the weekend pre 9/11, presuming they are accurate they will show whether or not they needed the power down also. As I understand it, Fiduciary trust were Scott Forbes employers, the refit done by another company. The employees of this company must have needed seecurity passes.
The neocon crazies just fuel conspiracy theories by yet again displaying such secretive and guilty demeanour , relying on their full time army of apologists on the web to try and rationalise mostly through obfuscation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | So show us the worksheets and reciepts showing what was done by these contractors the weekend pre 9/11, presuming they are accurate they will show whether or not they needed the power down also. As I understand it, Fiduciary trust were Scott Forbes employers, the refit done by another company. The employees of this company must have needed seecurity passes.
The neocon crazies just fuel conspiracy theories by yet again displaying such secretive and guilty demeanour , relying on their full time army of apologists on the web to try and rationalise mostly through obfuscation. |
Try not to be quite so silly, failing to refute every absurd conspiracy theory is hardly displaying a secretive and guilty demeanour. If anyone produced the worksheets and receipts you ask for you would of course immediately denounce them as forgeries, so it would be quite pointless. Explosives could not possibly be planted in that time slot anyway, far less so well concealed that no one noticed, and no explosives would have survived the plane impacts and fires, but there is no arguing against an irrational belief. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I understand there WERE pre collapse explosions repoted by independent witness's suggesting that explosives WERE detonated by fires and or impacts . I am not an explosives expert, I presume this is your speciality field.
The reciepts and worksheets of the mystery pre 911 refit company could be forensically examined for forgery by several independent agencies and clearly this would be imperitive in this case, their emploees would have to coroborate this under oath and under cross examination.
Talking of reliable witnesses, did Bushwacker put total faith in the initial US government claim that their were NO photos or films of whatever impacting the Pentagon 9/11 or believe the consequent several contradictary revisions of this testimony? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | I understand there WERE pre collapse explosions repoted by independent witness's suggesting that explosives WERE detonated by fires and or impacts . I am not an explosives expert, I presume this is your speciality field.
The reciepts and worksheets of the mystery pre 911 refit company could be forensically examined for forgery by several independent agencies and clearly this would be imperitive in this case, their emploees would have to coroborate this under oath and under cross examination.
Talking of reliable witnesses, did Bushwacker put total faith in the initial US government claim that their were NO photos or films of whatever impacting the Pentagon 9/11 or believe the consequent several contradictary revisions of this testimony? |
There were reports of pre-collapse explosions, but since explosions are expected in fires, this is no indication of the presence of explosives. If planted explosives had been detonated in the fire, some evidence of structural damage would be expected, but there was none.
By all means investigate the company carrying out the work for Fiduciary Trust, Scott Forbes should be able to provide the name, and truthseekers could carry on from there. instead of always wanting someone else to carry out an enquiry, why not carry out the independent enquiry you seek?
If there are any photos of anything hitting the Pentagon other than those security camera stills that could be anything, then that is news to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jonnolad
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | By all means investigate the company carrying out the work for Fiduciary Trust, Scott Forbes should be able to provide the name, and truthseekers could carry on from there. instead of always wanting someone else to carry out an enquiry, why not carry out the independent enquiry you seek? |
This, for me, is amongst the most striking anomalies of the “truth” movement. Why do they not interview or investigate people who could hold the key to any conspiracy?
It would be a fairly simple process to get in contact with Scott Forbes, get the names of the “many others” from Fiduciary Trust who were working with Scott that night who could verify his claim (as it’s obviously a bit strange that only Scott remembers this occurance), then find out from them who the company were who allegedly undertook this work.
Why aren’t the truth movement doing this?
Surely it's up to the truth movement to prove a conspiracy, rather than the establishment having to prove it's non-existence (proving a negative and all that). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jonnolad
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | relying on their full time army of apologists on the web to try and rationalise mostly through obfuscation. |
People have got to earn a living somehow  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jonnolad wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | By all means investigate the company carrying out the work for Fiduciary Trust, Scott Forbes should be able to provide the name, and truthseekers could carry on from there. instead of always wanting someone else to carry out an enquiry, why not carry out the independent enquiry you seek? |
This, for me, is amongst the most striking anomalies of the “truth” movement. Why do they not interview or investigate people who could hold the key to any conspiracy?
It would be a fairly simple process to get in contact with Scott Forbes, get the names of the “many others” from Fiduciary Trust who were working with Scott that night who could verify his claim (as it’s obviously a bit strange that only Scott remembers this occurance), then find out from them who the company were who allegedly undertook this work.
Why aren’t the truth movement doing this?
Surely it's up to the truth movement to prove a conspiracy, rather than the establishment having to prove it's non-existence (proving a negative and all that). |
I don't know why the truth movement don't pursue this avenue of enquiry if it has currency, I can't see how Scott Forbes would know the name of the refit company who worked so furtively on the eve of this world changing event at the WTC, he attempted to tell the 440 days late Zelikow 'truth' commission and the Port Authority what he knew but for reasons better known to themselves they chose to ignore him.
The people trying to sell us the official '19 terrorists with stanley knives/guy on a kidney machine/coincidental total breakdown of civil defence/intelligence/criminal investigation at multiple levels/buildings collapsing to dust at or near freefall speed commensurate with the laws of physics leaving molten metal in the basements months post 911/salvaged plane component serial numbers evidence made classified information etc. 'story would surely welcome the chance to debunk this 'strawman' with proof of whover performed the refit, don't you agree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | ...commensurate with the laws of physics... |
I invite you to prove that the laws of physics were violated by the twin towers' collapse on the following thread...
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=12115 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Where did I EVER say the laws of physics were violated on 9/11? I'll just go and google 'gravity building collapses reducing concrete floors human victims and building contents to 3 micron dust particles leaving molten metal in the basements months after PRE AND POST 9/11' don't go awway, this shouldn't take long |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps you could answer my latest qusetions on this thread concerning the demolition wave. So far pepik and sam have got themselves into a muddle over it and Bushwacker has given a lame excuse and then run away. Maybe you could shed some light onto this very important issue?
And SHERITON HOTEL is absolutely right and I've even said it myself; the laws of physics weren't violated at all. The buildings fell due to gravity, what more is there to be said about that? No, the issue really concerns how the each building violated the principles of collapse when compared with other building failures. When you look at the subject from this point of view then the destruction fits closer to CD than to what could be classified as 'normal' structural collapse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: |
Perhaps you could answer my latest qusetions on this thread concerning the demolition wave. So far pepik and sam have got themselves into a muddle over it and Bushwacker has given a lame excuse and then run away. |
The point that you are mistaken over what you think you are seeing is a lame excuse is it?
It is rather strange you asking other people to answer questions when you continue to evade or ignore any questions addressed to you that you do not like. anyone would think you were not quite as sure of your ground as you pretend................. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: |
Perhaps you could answer my latest qusetions on this thread concerning the demolition wave. So far pepik and sam have got themselves into a muddle over it and Bushwacker has given a lame excuse and then run away. |
The point that you are mistaken over what you think you are seeing is a lame excuse is it?
It is rather strange you asking other people to answer questions when you continue to evade or ignore any questions addressed to you that you do not like. anyone would think you were not quite as sure of your ground as you pretend................. |
Please show me which questions I have not answered!
Sounds like you're too scared to answer my simple questions. Is it because the answers will blow your whole viewpoint out of the water. Go on Bushwacker, you can't claim to be witholding these answers for the reason above when you know damn well that I have addressed all the questions you have raised. I've even posted copies of my answers but sadly for you, even if you may not like what I've said, you can't in any way say they are technically flawed unlike your 'south tower rotation was stopped by a 14" thick lattice wall' theory - now that breaks the laws of physics.
You're whole argument is geting weaker by the day. If you think otherwise, then my questions shouldn't be a problem to you. Go on, address them why don't you.
Bushwacker is sulking me thinks!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: |
Perhaps you could answer my latest qusetions on this thread concerning the demolition wave. So far pepik and sam have got themselves into a muddle over it and Bushwacker has given a lame excuse and then run away. |
The point that you are mistaken over what you think you are seeing is a lame excuse is it?
It is rather strange you asking other people to answer questions when you continue to evade or ignore any questions addressed to you that you do not like. anyone would think you were not quite as sure of your ground as you pretend................. |
Please show me which questions I have not answered!
Sounds like you're too scared to answer my simple questions. Is it because the answers will blow your whole viewpoint out of the water. Go on Bushwacker, you can't claim to be witholding these answers for the reason above when you know damn well that I have addressed all the questions you have raised. I've even posted copies of my answers but sadly for you, even if you may not like what I've said, you can't in any way say they are technically flawed unlike your 'south tower rotation was stopped by a 14" thick lattice wall' theory - now that breaks the laws of physics.
You're whole argument is geting weaker by the day. If you think otherwise, then my questions shouldn't be a problem to you. Go on, address them why don't you. |
James, you know perfectly well you have failed to answer questions for page after page, you either simply ignore them or pretend that you have already answered them when you have not. It took pages to get you to realise that what you were first saying was rubbish, and you then confessed you could not explain. Now you ignore that and go into your alternative reality that you put forward a valid theory that dealt with the observed behaviour of the South Tower. It won't wash James, it really won't.
Rather than corrupt another thread with your evasions, I refer back to this one |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: |
Perhaps you could answer my latest qusetions on this thread concerning the demolition wave. So far pepik and sam have got themselves into a muddle over it and Bushwacker has given a lame excuse and then run away. |
The point that you are mistaken over what you think you are seeing is a lame excuse is it?
It is rather strange you asking other people to answer questions when you continue to evade or ignore any questions addressed to you that you do not like. anyone would think you were not quite as sure of your ground as you pretend................. |
Please show me which questions I have not answered!
Sounds like you're too scared to answer my simple questions. Is it because the answers will blow your whole viewpoint out of the water. Go on Bushwacker, you can't claim to be witholding these answers for the reason above when you know damn well that I have addressed all the questions you have raised. I've even posted copies of my answers but sadly for you, even if you may not like what I've said, you can't in any way say they are technically flawed unlike your 'south tower rotation was stopped by a 14" thick lattice wall' theory - now that breaks the laws of physics.
You're whole argument is geting weaker by the day. If you think otherwise, then my questions shouldn't be a problem to you. Go on, address them why don't you. |
James, you know perfectly well you have failed to answer questions for page after page, you either simply ignore them or pretend that you have already answered them when you have not. It took pages to get you to realise that what you were first saying was rubbish, and you then confessed you could not explain. Now you ignore that and go into your alternative reality that you put forward a valid theory that dealt with the observed behaviour of the South Tower. It won't wash James, it really won't.
Rather than corrupt another thread with your evasions, I refer back to this one |
Nice to show you have posted the answers I gave to your questions. See, I knew you'd have to admit I've answered all your huff and puff and if I might add, did so using logic which can easily stand up to scrutiny. It doesn't matter how I arrived at my answers, the fact is they exist, although I know you're deperate to discuss, time and time again, the holes that were apparent in my theory while I attempted to arrive at my conclusions. But that doesn't matter now. As I've said before to many others, I'm glad of our discussions because they help me establish a good working theory for what I feel happened on 9/11. I appreciate your help.
Now, what answers are you going to give to help us understand what caused that wave of dust on the facades of the towers. Don't worry if they're not perfect, I'll soon find holes in them which of course I'm there to do, just as you are with me, but at least we can attempt to arrive at some acceptable answers between us. So far, you haven't given a convincing argument, one that will stand up to scrutiny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: |
Perhaps you could answer my latest qusetions on this thread concerning the demolition wave. So far pepik and sam have got themselves into a muddle over it and Bushwacker has given a lame excuse and then run away. |
The point that you are mistaken over what you think you are seeing is a lame excuse is it?
It is rather strange you asking other people to answer questions when you continue to evade or ignore any questions addressed to you that you do not like. anyone would think you were not quite as sure of your ground as you pretend................. |
Please show me which questions I have not answered!
Sounds like you're too scared to answer my simple questions. Is it because the answers will blow your whole viewpoint out of the water. Go on Bushwacker, you can't claim to be witholding these answers for the reason above when you know damn well that I have addressed all the questions you have raised. I've even posted copies of my answers but sadly for you, even if you may not like what I've said, you can't in any way say they are technically flawed unlike your 'south tower rotation was stopped by a 14" thick lattice wall' theory - now that breaks the laws of physics.
You're whole argument is geting weaker by the day. If you think otherwise, then my questions shouldn't be a problem to you. Go on, address them why don't you. |
James, you know perfectly well you have failed to answer questions for page after page, you either simply ignore them or pretend that you have already answered them when you have not. It took pages to get you to realise that what you were first saying was rubbish, and you then confessed you could not explain. Now you ignore that and go into your alternative reality that you put forward a valid theory that dealt with the observed behaviour of the South Tower. It won't wash James, it really won't.
Rather than corrupt another thread with your evasions, I refer back to this one |
Nice to show you have posted the answers I gave to your questions. See, I knew you'd have to admit I've answered all your huff and puff and if I might add, did so using logic which can easily stand up to scrutiny. It doesn't matter how I arrived at my answers, the fact is they exist, although I know you're deperate to discuss, time and time again, the holes that were apparent in my theory while I attempted to arrive at my conclusions. But that doesn't matter now. As I've said before to many others, I'm glad of our discussions because they help me establish a good working theory for what I feel happened on 9/11. I appreciate your help.
Now, what answers are you going to give to help us understand what caused that wave of dust on the facades of the towers. Don't worry if they're not perfect, I'll soon find holes in them which of course I'm there to do, just as you are with me, but at least we can attempt to arrive at some acceptable answers between us. So far, you haven't given a convincing argument, one that will stand up to scrutiny. |
All right, if you insist on using this thread............
You feel that you have established a good working theory, do you? That's excellent, perhaps you will now stop evading the questions and answer them instead, if it is a good working theory I am sure you will be able to state it, and not refer back to your interminable previous waffle in which you have not stated it. To remind you of what the questions are you have failed to answer, although I am sure you remember:
1) Why did the upper section of the South Tower, which had started to rotate at the onset of collapse, cease to do so and remained at the angle it had reached until it was obscured by the dust cloud?
2) Your answer to the question of why the initial collapse of the South Tower was asymmetrical produces further questions:
You say, ".....explosives going off below (and some above) the point of impact would have caused a loss of support to the structure of the upper section, which, due to the fire and plane damage broke away and moved relatively more freely than the symmetrical demolition below it. But without the explosives, the upper section would possibly have remained standing, albeit in a dangerous condition or would have rotated off the building to leave the rest of the tower intact."
Ignoring your explosives going off above the point of impact, which no one else has ever seen, you seem to be saying that explosives went off below the impact floor (presumably symmetrically?) which did not lead to a collapse of the floor they were on, but caused a loss of support to the floors above, which then collapsed because of the fire and plane damage. Is that really what you are saying? If so, why do you say the floor on which the explosives were actually placed did not collapse itself, and if it did not collapse, in what way did the explosions cause the floors above to collapse?
Please simply answer these questions, if you can, without pretending that you already have, and without attempting to change the subject either to what I think, your pet videos, the North Tower or anything else. This is a challenge, James, can you meet it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: |
Perhaps you could answer my latest qusetions on this thread concerning the demolition wave. So far pepik and sam have got themselves into a muddle over it and Bushwacker has given a lame excuse and then run away. |
The point that you are mistaken over what you think you are seeing is a lame excuse is it?
It is rather strange you asking other people to answer questions when you continue to evade or ignore any questions addressed to you that you do not like. anyone would think you were not quite as sure of your ground as you pretend................. |
Please show me which questions I have not answered!
Sounds like you're too scared to answer my simple questions. Is it because the answers will blow your whole viewpoint out of the water. Go on Bushwacker, you can't claim to be witholding these answers for the reason above when you know damn well that I have addressed all the questions you have raised. I've even posted copies of my answers but sadly for you, even if you may not like what I've said, you can't in any way say they are technically flawed unlike your 'south tower rotation was stopped by a 14" thick lattice wall' theory - now that breaks the laws of physics.
You're whole argument is geting weaker by the day. If you think otherwise, then my questions shouldn't be a problem to you. Go on, address them why don't you. |
James, you know perfectly well you have failed to answer questions for page after page, you either simply ignore them or pretend that you have already answered them when you have not. It took pages to get you to realise that what you were first saying was rubbish, and you then confessed you could not explain. Now you ignore that and go into your alternative reality that you put forward a valid theory that dealt with the observed behaviour of the South Tower. It won't wash James, it really won't.
Rather than corrupt another thread with your evasions, I refer back to this one |
Nice to show you have posted the answers I gave to your questions. See, I knew you'd have to admit I've answered all your huff and puff and if I might add, did so using logic which can easily stand up to scrutiny. It doesn't matter how I arrived at my answers, the fact is they exist, although I know you're deperate to discuss, time and time again, the holes that were apparent in my theory while I attempted to arrive at my conclusions. But that doesn't matter now. As I've said before to many others, I'm glad of our discussions because they help me establish a good working theory for what I feel happened on 9/11. I appreciate your help.
Now, what answers are you going to give to help us understand what caused that wave of dust on the facades of the towers. Don't worry if they're not perfect, I'll soon find holes in them which of course I'm there to do, just as you are with me, but at least we can attempt to arrive at some acceptable answers between us. So far, you haven't given a convincing argument, one that will stand up to scrutiny. |
All right, if you insist on using this thread............
You feel that you have established a good working theory, do you? That's excellent, perhaps you will now stop evading the questions and answer them instead, if it is a good working theory I am sure you will be able to state it, and not refer back to your interminable previous waffle in which you have not stated it. To remind you of what the questions are you have failed to answer, although I am sure you remember:
1) Why did the upper section of the South Tower, which had started to rotate at the onset of collapse, cease to do so and remained at the angle it had reached until it was obscured by the dust cloud?
2) Your answer to the question of why the initial collapse of the South Tower was asymmetrical produces further questions:
You say, ".....explosives going off below (and some above) the point of impact would have caused a loss of support to the structure of the upper section, which, due to the fire and plane damage broke away and moved relatively more freely than the symmetrical demolition below it. But without the explosives, the upper section would possibly have remained standing, albeit in a dangerous condition or would have rotated off the building to leave the rest of the tower intact."
Ignoring your explosives going off above the point of impact, which no one else has ever seen, you seem to be saying that explosives went off below the impact floor (presumably symmetrically?) which did not lead to a collapse of the floor they were on, but caused a loss of support to the floors above, which then collapsed because of the fire and plane damage. Is that really what you are saying? If so, why do you say the floor on which the explosives were actually placed did not collapse itself, and if it did not collapse, in what way did the explosions cause the floors above to collapse?
Please simply answer these questions, if you can, without pretending that you already have, and without attempting to change the subject either to what I think, your pet videos, the North Tower or anything else. This is a challenge, James, can you meet it? |
To answer your second point, as I see you are confused, the explosives only went off on the long axis sides of the core, an issue I have raised in my questions about the demolition wave and which so far you haven't bothered to answer. Since the rotation in the south tower occured towards the long axis side then that is in keeping with my theory. Rotation occured because the damage due to the planes and fire aided the speed at which this side moved relative to the other side, either that or there was a slight delay between the explosives going off on each side. The floor immediately below the impact collapsed first due to the explosives and the top of the tower fell into it but due to the rotation the collapse initially looked to be assymetrical. But once fully moving, the collapse became symmetrical, something I say would have been impossible without the aid of explosives to destroy the core on both sides.
As for your first question, I really have answered that now and don't feel I need to do so again.
Now, can you please answer my questions. I'm not changing the subject. I'll start another thread if you'd prefer me to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Question 1
You have failed my challenge, James, you have done what I challenged you not to do, pretended you have already answered. What is the point of that? Do you really think you are going to get away with it, that after pressing you for an answer for so long I am just going to let you off the hook?
That you have had such a very long time to think about it, and have not been able to come up with any sort of reason, even something as half-baked as we expect from you, that is consistent with the use of explosives, shows very clearly that your theories about the collapse of the tower do not fit its observed behaviour. Your theories therefore cannot be correct.
Question 2
Your answer really does show how desperate you are to protect the idea that explosives were used, in the face of all evidence and logic!
You claimed before that explosives went off above and below the impact floor and caused it to collapse. You now say that explosives went off immediately below the impact floor, only along one side of the core, causing the floor they were on to collapse and the top of the tower to fall into the gap. So by some strange coincidence, the way the explosives went off just happened to be in a way that made it look as though the impact floor had collapsed - how very bizarre! Then the upper section rotated, until it stopped for a reason you cannot explain, hinging on the undamaged side of the core, something we agree upon, but you appear to believe that the columns on that one side of the core, bent at an angle, could have supported on their own the entire weight of the upper section, formerly supported by all four sides of the core and by all four sides of the perimeter columns, since you say their collapse would be impossible without explosives. Do you really find it impossible that such a damaged structure could fail to support a massive overload?
Conclusion
What you are inadvertantly doing, James, is showing that the observed behaviour of the upper section of the South Tower, its rotation and then cessation of rotation, indicates that explosives were not used to demolish it. Perhaps you should now be classified as a critic! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | Question 2
Your answer really does show how desperate you are to protect the idea that explosives were used, in the face of all evidence and logic!
You claimed before that explosives went off above and below the impact floor and caused it to collapse. You now say that explosives went off immediately below the impact floor, only along one side of the core, causing the floor they were on to collapse and the top of the tower to fall into the gap. So by some strange coincidence, the way the explosives went off just happened to be in a way that made it look as though the impact floor had collapsed - how very bizarre! Then the upper section rotated, until it stopped for a reason you cannot explain, hinging on the undamaged side of the core, something we agree upon, but you appear to believe that the columns on that one side of the core, bent at an angle, could have supported on their own the entire weight of the upper section, formerly supported by all four sides of the core and by all four sides of the perimeter columns, since you say their collapse would be impossible without explosives. Do you really find it impossible that such a damaged structure could fail to support a massive overload? |
I have claimed all along that the explosives went off above and below the point of rotation. If you recall, I have questioned what the flashes were above the point in question on several occasions. My conclusion is that they were part of the demolition sequence. Can you explain them?
I have never claimed that the explosives only went off on one side. Why don't you read my post again instead of making more false statements. This is what I said this morning.
"the explosives only went off on the long axis sides of the core"
Notice the plural of sides. It doesn't say side does it and if you look at the demolition waves on the north tower you'll see that I am correct.
I also said a few lines later,
"either that or there was a slight delay between the explosives going off on each side"
So less of your distortions please. I know you prefer this type of attack.
So once the main explosions had started below the fire floors, the upper section fell onto the floor below which is what was observed. Such an achievement would not have been impossible, they do this stuff on film sets in Hollywood quite regularly - split second timing and all of that. Just because demolition companies don't do it as a matter of routine is neither here nor there since they don't need to achieve any kind of effect other than to pull the building down. I happen to believe that the planes were set to impact the towers at specific targets. Again, nothing technically difficult in that.
Finally, there is little evidence, if any at all, to suggest the fire and plane damage would have caused catastrophic failure as we don't know how many core columns were actually affected. But lets assume the damage was severe and the upper section was now resting on far less columns, why would rotation have started at all? I mean, why didn't the entire section drop vertically from the start (as observed in the north tower) if the intact columns could no longer support the load. Why did the intact columns remain so structural supportive during the initial stages of rotation then suddenly succumb to the load at the last moment? If the upper section were already hinging about this point then it is more than likely that the intact columns would have been pulled over rather than being squashed as the steel core, acting as one large column, would have started to bend over at this point. The rotation would therefore have continued to cause the core to flex and distort but not break into hundreds of pieces and the upper section would ultimately have toppled right off as there was nothing structural left to stop this motion, (which is why you can't explain this part of the motion any better than I can).
Now, are you going to answer my questions about the demolition wave or will there be more diversionary tactics to follow? Why do I get the impression you don't want to discuss this issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: |
Now, are you going to answer my questions about the demolition wave or will there be more diversionary tactics to follow? Why do I get the impression you don't want to discuss this issue. |
How you can type that after ignoring Question One for so long frankly beggars belief!
As you well know I have answered your question about your video again and again, but in case you are not wearing your glasses, as seems to be the case when you look at these videos, here it is again:
The wave you refer to is not running ahead of your imaginary demolition wave, it is the collapse wave itself. There are also isolated instances of dust and smoke coming out ahead of the wave, most likely owing to the pressure generated by the falling floors venting through some windows and vents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | .............The rotation would therefore have continued to cause the core to flex and distort but not break into hundreds of pieces and the upper section would ultimately have toppled right off as there was nothing structural left to stop this motion, (which is why you can't explain this part of the motion any better than I can).
|
Finally, finally, an admission that you cannot put forward even the most implausible suggestion as to why the rotation stopped. Since you do not understand this part of the collapse, you do not understand at all what was happening to the structure. Your opinion that explosives were used is without foundation and valueless.
I can explain that part of the motion very well, and have done more than once. The upper section simply met the lower section, not only on the perimeter columns, but also on the core columns since neither were destroyed by explosives. It is your insistance on introducing the entirely unnecessary idea that explosives were used that gives you your difficulty in explanation. As I said, you are effectively disproving the idea that explosives were used.
This is also apparent in your extremely convoluted explanation of the initial collapse, which I see now involves the planes hitting precisly on specific floors, explosives going off above for no apparent purpose and with no apparent effect, and Holywood style special effects with the planted explosives in the South Tower (but not the North Tower) going off with precision timing to mimic the effects of a collapse through damage and fire. Can't you see how divorced from reality you are having to become, simply in order to protect your core belief that explosives were used? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bushwacker,
How can that wave be the collapse itself? The top of the structure is several floors behind. Looking at the north tower clip, the facade facing has no corresponding wave which is restricted to the left and right facades only. How can that be if it is the collapsing structure which is the cause of this - the wave would be on all four sides wouldn't it? This is even more evident on the south tower clip where the left facade blows out well in advance of the collapsing building above and yet the right facade shows little signs of blowing out other than in the nearside corner.
Regardless of your silly statements about the speed of travel of this wave, it is far quicker than the speed at which the top of the tower is falling. Even a child wouldn't dispute that so why do you? Only the free-falling debris with nothing but the resistance of air to contend with is accelerating slightly faster but only just.
As for the explosives, could you expand on what you mean when you say the North Tower didn't have explosives going off with precission timing. It looks to me that the demolition wave is exactly the same as seen in the south tower which is amazing considering the plane and fire damage were at different points and at different heights in each tower. Such symmetry in collapse from such asymmetrical damage.
I'd also like you to expand upon how there could have been extra blowouts if the demolition wave was already relieving any pressure build ups within the tower.
And can we stop using such silly provocative language please and there's no need to resort to using bold text. I get the impression that my arguments are too heavy for you so you resort to other tactics in your defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | Bushwacker,
How can that wave be the collapse itself? The top of the structure is several floors behind. Looking at the north tower clip, the facade facing has no corresponding wave which is restricted to the left and right facades only. How can that be if it is the collapsing structure which is the cause of this - the wave would be on all four sides wouldn't it? This is even more evident on the south tower clip where the left facade blows out well in advance of the collapsing building above and yet the right facade shows little signs of blowing out other than in the nearside corner.
Regardless of your silly statements about the speed of travel of this wave, it is far quicker than the speed at which the top of the tower is falling. Even a child wouldn't dispute that so why do you? Only the free-falling debris with nothing but the resistance of air to contend with is accelerating slightly faster but only just.
As for the explosives, could you expand on what you mean when you say the North Tower didn't have explosives going off with precission timing. It looks to me that the demolition wave is exactly the same as seen in the south tower which is amazing considering the plane and fire damage were at different points and at different heights in each tower. Such symmetry in collapse from such asymmetrical damage.
I'd also like you to expand upon how there could have been extra blowouts if the demolition wave was already relieving any pressure build ups within the tower.
And can we stop using such silly provocative language please and there's no need to resort to using bold text. I get the impression that my arguments are too heavy for you so you resort to other tactics in your defence. |
As before you are managing to see things which no one else can see, but I am glad you now at least admit that the collapse is slower than free-fall. There is no reason that the collapse wave should appear at exactly the same moment on all four sides, we are dealing with fractions of a second here.
What I mean about the North Tower is that your Holywood style special effects were not used to make it collapse on the impact side first, as according to you they were on the South Tower. Why would that be?
The collapse wave was causing the pressure build up ahead of itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
Where did I EVER say the laws of physics were violated on 9/11? I'll just go and google 'gravity building collapses reducing concrete floors human victims and building contents to 3 micron dust particles leaving molten metal in the basements months after PRE AND POST 9/11' don't go awway, this shouldn't take long |
Sorry, I've almost gone BLIND 2 days Googling for this, maybe some of the cweetics could help? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | Bushwacker,
How can that wave be the collapse itself? The top of the structure is several floors behind. Looking at the north tower clip, the facade facing has no corresponding wave which is restricted to the left and right facades only. How can that be if it is the collapsing structure which is the cause of this - the wave would be on all four sides wouldn't it? This is even more evident on the south tower clip where the left facade blows out well in advance of the collapsing building above and yet the right facade shows little signs of blowing out other than in the nearside corner.
Regardless of your silly statements about the speed of travel of this wave, it is far quicker than the speed at which the top of the tower is falling. Even a child wouldn't dispute that so why do you? Only the free-falling debris with nothing but the resistance of air to contend with is accelerating slightly faster but only just.
As for the explosives, could you expand on what you mean when you say the North Tower didn't have explosives going off with precission timing. It looks to me that the demolition wave is exactly the same as seen in the south tower which is amazing considering the plane and fire damage were at different points and at different heights in each tower. Such symmetry in collapse from such asymmetrical damage.
I'd also like you to expand upon how there could have been extra blowouts if the demolition wave was already relieving any pressure build ups within the tower.
And can we stop using such silly provocative language please and there's no need to resort to using bold text. I get the impression that my arguments are too heavy for you so you resort to other tactics in your defence. |
As before you are managing to see things which no one else can see, but I am glad you now at least admit that the collapse is slower than free-fall. There is no reason that the collapse wave should appear at exactly the same moment on all four sides, we are dealing with fractions of a second here.
What I mean about the North Tower is that your Holywood style special effects were not used to make it collapse on the impact side first, as according to you they were on the South Tower. Why would that be?
The collapse wave was causing the pressure build up ahead of itself. |
It is exactly because you can't see very clearly that you have been fooled by the event. If the collapse was due to progressive failure then the falling structure could only have destroyed that which was immediately below it which raises the question of how a separate destruction wave moved downward at near free fall speed and the actual falling mass followed, in relative terms, miles behind at a slower speed. There shouldn't have been a separate wave at all, especially one which could have travelled so fast; there's no way that the towers would have collapsed due to gravity alone and fallen just slower than pieces falling with only air resistance to contend with.
And why do you keep on getting my definition wrong - can you not read? I didn't say the explosives on the south tower went off on the impact side first. What I did say is that explosives went off on opposite sides of each tower but if there had been a slight unintentional delay between the explosives going off on each side of the south tower then that could have caused the rotation. What is wrong with you Bushwacker? Why do you deliberately misinterpret my words other than to create a straw man argument?
As for the pressure build up, how could that be if the tops of the towers were falling to pieces essentially allowing the air to be released and equalising the pressure within the towers. Only one floor would have needed to blow out for any pressure build up to be lost (not that that would have happened since no floor was hermetically sealed being that each was connected via servicing ducts and stairs) and yet the blowouts were repeated and followed a distinct movement from top to bottom. This movement was also strange since the air density would have been the same on the 50th floor as on the 10th floor due to the stairs and servicing and even if the pressure were increased due to compression it wouldn't follow that any blow outs would have started at the top and worked downward since compressed, non-flowing, air doesn't know which way to travel. But I'd dispute that any such compression occured anyway due to the very fact that bits were falling off and away from the top of the structure proving that the facades were no longer intact to contain the breaking structure and therefore the top was open to the atmosphere. Only if the outer walls had remained standing and the top of each tower had fallen within (impossible of course) could the pressure have built up in anyway.
It is quite obvious that you haven't looked at this evidence or understand how the air would have been affected by the collapse. You have simply taken the core belief that air compression must have happened without asking how and what affect it would actually have had on the buildings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
