| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:12 am Post subject: The Leaning Tower of Manhattan |
 |
|
Tranferred from General
| Koheleth wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
what i was trying to say is it should of fell of with a tilt like that, but it didnt it corrected the tilt and went down, |
The tilt observed is not like the tilt of a box of cornflakes part way through falling off a table. You do realise this, don't you?
It's the tilt caused by one side of the structure caving in earlier than the rest. The top is falling into the building at an angle, not off it. |
But the question is- how did this lead into what we saw a few seconds later- a symetrical collapse?
If this building top was indeed weighing it's pressure into two faces of the building more than the other two, or even one more than the other three- you would expect it to continue to produce asymetrical damage, right?
But this didn't happen.
We can see on this video- that the top suddenly stops titling and begins to fall directly down in free fall.
This means it has decided to alter it's path from that of least resistence into that of the most resistence- the best part of a quarter mile of steel and concrete. What on earth could have caused this?
Not only this we see that it actually moves FASTER through the entire tower, than it was tilting through just one side.
Watch it again.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3173519241898945782&q=south +tower+911
As it starts to drop it accelerates, as though whatever was below it was removed- rather than as though it were suddenly taking on the destruction of much more of the building than it was to start with.
It drops.
So I have three questions, krazy one:
1) What causes it's change of destruction pattern?
2) Why does it begin to move faster as it's burden of destruction gets greater?
3) How does this tilting collapse, destroying one side more than the others, transform into a perfectly symetrical collapse, destroying all four sides with perfect symetry in the space of a second or two, when with this tilt- an area of the tower will not be affected at all by a gravitational collapse?
A bit more back up on that last question:
Watch this footage from the opposite side of the tower-
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4826764420417612701&q=south+ tower+911
We see that at this point all four sides of the tower collapse at the same time.
Now let's go back to the image, and start from the point where the tower stops tilting and starts magically dropping, we'll assume you have provided a good reason for this and ignore the impossibility of it.
Now this is roughly what you are proposing, on the left- I measured the top and bottom on my guide lines and recognise that I am a milimeter too wide on the bottom- OK take this in to account but it doesn't make any different for what I am about to propose.
The image on the right shows what happens next- the top of the building stops titling and goes directly downwards into the path of most resistence- the tower. Note that the top of the building on the left is way out of line with the tower- this does not cause any destruction, therefore, obscured by smoke- the far right hand side of the tower also suffers no damage- the far right hand side of the tower top, through the tilt is now hovering over an area further into the building.
The area between the furthest right red line and the furthest right green line is unaffected.
So we have a part of the tower, which we all saw exploding (sorry- collapsing) in usion with the rest of the tower, yet had no downward force on it.
That's problem one.
Problem two is that the diagonal red lines represent how the waves of destruction should have appeared from the magically dropping tilted top- like the top itself they should be angled- not perfectly straight as though mesured by a slide rule, which is what we in fact saw.
So how do you explain any of this.
Time for you to defect Ignatz- there's plenty of room over here on the rational side for you. |
The fundamental problem is that you are continuing to regard the top stories as a solid unit, which they clearly are not, they are less stable than the stump of the tower they are falling on, because what joins the perimeter to the centre core are only the floor trusses. As the top section crushed down on the stump it was being destroyed just as fast or faster than the stump. In your diagram, the red area of destruction is only on the stump, the top eventually sliding off, and had it been an integral unit that might well have happened. However, you should be showing a red triangle of destruction also growing up from the bottom of the top section.
In the lines you have drawn on the photograph, you have shown the top displaced to the left, but there is no reason for that to happen, and it would actually be more like your first diagram, with the top pivoting down into the stump on the side where the collapse started. That side of the top would therefore also be disintegrating before the other, making the top lighter on that side, as well as momentarily still attached on the right hand side, creating forces to slow the angular movement. The majority of the bulk of the top section was still over the stump and falling on to it, causing its collapse, while no doubt some pieces from the left hand side of the top section would fall well away from the building. You will remember that large chunks were buried in the vertical walls of the surrounding buildings. To my mind the roof continues to rotate to some extent until it finally disappears in the destruction.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:40 am Post subject: Re: The Leaning Tower of Manhattan |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | The fundamental problem is that you are continuing to regard the top stories as a solid unit, which they clearly are not, they are less stable than the stump of the tower they are falling on, because what joins the perimeter to the centre core are only the floor trusses. As the top section crushed down on the stump it was being destroyed just as fast or faster than the stump. In your diagram, the red area of destruction is only on the stump, the top eventually sliding off, and had it been an integral unit that might well have happened. However, you should be showing a red triangle of destruction also growing up from the bottom of the top section.
In the lines you have drawn on the photograph, you have shown the top displaced to the left, but there is no reason for that to happen, and it would actually be more like your first diagram, with the top pivoting down into the stump on the side where the collapse started. That side of the top would therefore also be disintegrating before the other, making the top lighter on that side, as well as momentarily still attached on the right hand side, creating forces to slow the angular movement. The majority of the bulk of the top section was still over the stump and falling on to it, causing its collapse, while no doubt some pieces from the left hand side of the top section would fall well away from the building. You will remember that large chunks were buried in the vertical walls of the surrounding buildings. To my mind the roof continues to rotate to some extent until it finally disappears in the destruction. |
So my fundamental problem is I am attributing the features of the official version of events to what you lot believe- the the top of the building was causing the damage to what was below it- all the way down.
If the top had disintegrated and much of it had fallen away from the building Bazant and Verdure's calculations get thrown out of the window immediatley.
Not that they weren't already, as those pieces sticking out of "nearby buildings" were in fact sticking out of the world financial centre- across a wide new york street and away from the complex taking more energy to propell them there than Bazant and Verdue included in their calculations.
You say my lines are representing something wrong- but the lines follow the lines in the photo- particuarly on the left hand side which you mentioned where the tower is both visable and clearly displaced some distance to the left- as you would expect from it's tilt.
It follows that on the right- the top of building is also displaced and is not bringing any pressure down on the far right face.
Yet this face of the building suffered the same rapid disintegration as the other four sides- simulteaneously
However passionate you are about deneying the facts about 9/11- and I am not a "Shill-Caller" and accept the majority of you guys believe you are right and are not employed in deception- it is perhaps time to open your eyes, accept that there are some serious problems with how this image fits into your version of events, and perhaps start some research, with an open mind, into alternate theories.
If the top disintegrated and dispersed- it's weight was not involved in the collapse. Since the entire version of events you follow is based around the weight of this section and gravity creating the energy to cause the utter destruction we saw- where does this leave you.
It seems like you want to have your cake and eat it:
Bushwhacker, my friend, this is an irrefutable discrepancy in your official story.
How can it hurt now to maybe click on a few of the links people here provide and at least examine multiple hypothesis' with equal attention to detail, rather than fervantly defending one even when it's faults are naked, and dismissing all others without consideraion?
P.S.
I note again that neither of you have given a decent reason for why the motion of the top should suddenly change from the path of least resistence (to tilt and topple) to the path of most resistence (to plummet at near free fall speed through nearly a quarter of a mile of steel and concrete utterly destroying it all). We saw this happen: One second it's tilting- the next second it is falling stright down, frozen in the phaze of tilt it was in before.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:27 am Post subject: Re: The Leaning Tower of Manhattan |
|
|
| Koheleth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | The fundamental problem is that you are continuing to regard the top stories as a solid unit, which they clearly are not, they are less stable than the stump of the tower they are falling on, because what joins the perimeter to the centre core are only the floor trusses. As the top section crushed down on the stump it was being destroyed just as fast or faster than the stump. In your diagram, the red area of destruction is only on the stump, the top eventually sliding off, and had it been an integral unit that might well have happened. However, you should be showing a red triangle of destruction also growing up from the bottom of the top section.
In the lines you have drawn on the photograph, you have shown the top displaced to the left, but there is no reason for that to happen, and it would actually be more like your first diagram, with the top pivoting down into the stump on the side where the collapse started. That side of the top would therefore also be disintegrating before the other, making the top lighter on that side, as well as momentarily still attached on the right hand side, creating forces to slow the angular movement. The majority of the bulk of the top section was still over the stump and falling on to it, causing its collapse, while no doubt some pieces from the left hand side of the top section would fall well away from the building. You will remember that large chunks were buried in the vertical walls of the surrounding buildings. To my mind the roof continues to rotate to some extent until it finally disappears in the destruction. |
So my fundamental problem is I am attributing the features of the official version of events to what you lot believe- the the top of the building was causing the damage to what was below it- all the way down.
If the top had disintegrated and much of it had fallen away from the building Bazant and Verdure's calculations get thrown out of the window immediatley.
Not that they weren't already, as those pieces sticking out of "nearby buildings" were in fact sticking out of the world financial centre- across a wide new york street and away from the complex taking more energy to propell them there than Bazant and Verdue included in their calculations.
You say my lines are representing something wrong- but the lines follow the lines in the photo- particuarly on the left hand side which you mentioned where the tower is both visable and clearly displaced some distance to the left- as you would expect from it's tilt.
It follows that on the right- the top of building is also displaced and is not bringing any pressure down on the far right face.
Yet this face of the building suffered the same rapid disintegration as the other four sides- simulteaneously
However passionate you are about deneying the facts about 9/11- and I am not a "Shill-Caller" and accept the majority of you guys believe you are right and are not employed in deception- it is perhaps time to open your eyes, accept that there are some serious problems with how this image fits into your version of events, and perhaps start some research, with an open mind, into alternate theories.
If the top disintegrated and dispersed- it's weight was not involved in the collapse. Since the entire version of events you follow is based around the weight of this section and gravity creating the energy to cause the utter destruction we saw- where does this leave you.
It seems like you want to have your cake and eat it:
Bushwhacker, my friend, this is an irrefutable discrepancy in your official story.
How can it hurt now to maybe click on a few of the links people here provide and at least examine multiple hypothesis' with equal attention to detail, rather than fervantly defending one even when it's faults are naked, and dismissing all others without consideraion?
P.S.
I note again that neither of you have given a decent reason for why the motion of the top should suddenly change from the path of least resistence (to tilt and topple) to the path of most resistence (to plummet at near free fall speed through nearly a quarter of a mile of steel and concrete utterly destroying it all). We saw this happen: One second it's tilting- the next second it is falling stright down, frozen in the phaze of tilt it was in before. |
Of course the top of the building was causing the destruction of the building below as it fell on it, but that does not mean that it stayed intact! The rubble that used to be the top stories, and the rubble that was the destroyed lower stories were falling on the remaining intact lower floors. There is no reason to assume that rubble all fell away from the building, some did of course but much did not.
Your line on the photo on the right hand of the lower part side is displaced to the right, in my opinion, and on the top part is clearly displaced to the left, you can discern the edge of the building there. In fact you have the top part narrower than the bottom. Correcting this would give you a line on the right that was kinked at the collapse floor, not displaced, as you have it.
I regret that I do not share your view that you have found an irrefutable discrepancy in the official theory, you have found a discrepancy in your own version of the theory, in which the top portion of the tower stays intact, and moves as you describe. That indeed would be impossible.
I do not know why you should assume that I have not looked at other theories, but it is a wrong assumption. I have, and found them utterly implausible. There is simply no way the towers could be set up for demolition whilst they were occupied. There is absolutely no question about it, quite apart from the large teams of people that would have to be employed. Beam weapons from space are a fantasy that does not even fit the pattern of destruction.
I suggest you look at these theories as critically as you look at the official theory. Then remember that not a structural engineer in the world has come forward with a doubt that the towers could collapse through aircraft damage and fire, and not a demolition expert in the world claims that they were demolished. You are simply blowing in the wind to maintain that they were.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koheleth wrote: |
First off, the series of images you presented were from an angle where perspecive makes it impossible to discern whether or not the bulk of the building top was weighted over the relevant side of the building. |
See below for why I posted those clips, though I've explained it already.
| Koheleth wrote: |
Secondly, why you would try to make that point when the image already displayed, from a side on angle with perfect perspective to judge that, has clearly shown it was not.
You have basicly tried to "trump" a clear cut image from a good view point with a poor image from an impossible one. That doesn't fly I'm afraid. |
I'm not trying to "trump" anything. Look back. You posted a link to a film claiming it showed all 4 sides collapsing simultaneously. It didn't. Even if they were - at the time of the film - it was well after global collapse initiation. Your film was worthless in the contect of this debate. I showed clips from a film which show the collapse beginning in the region of the original impact and fireball. They show the tilt in a prograssively collapsing building. Yours didn't. Which doesn't test anyone's imagination, does it?
| Koheleth wrote: |
The image below shows that from point a to point b- the weight of that side of the building is not going to come down on anything, when the magical change from tilt to vertical drop begins.
It has been noted that you failed utterly in explaining what caused this to happen by the way. |
Open your eyes a little -
| Ignatz wrote: | | It's the tilt caused by one side of the structure caving in earlier than the rest. The top is falling into the building at an angle, not off it. |
| Koheleth wrote: |
What follows is that, on the other side of the building, there was no pressure at all on that building face. |
The absurdity of that statement is overwhelming. It doesn't "follow" at all. Look up "hat truss" for starters (just for starters). Consider that the tilting side is attached to the opposite side. By the exterior walls, and via floor joists to a now tilted central core.... if you're capable of such an astonishingly ignorant remark this might well be a waste of time.
| Koheleth wrote: |
Yet we have all seen, over and over again, that that side of the building was destroyed simulteaneously with the other three. |
Once global collapse was under way. The initial tilt alone gives the lie to your "destroyed simultaneously" claim, however.
| Koheleth wrote: |
What caused that destruction?
Unless you are going to claim the image leading this thread is a fake, then you have to accept it clearly demonstrates this.
I take it you do? |
No.
| Koheleth wrote: |
So my original questions remain:
1) What causes it's change of destruction pattern? It started tilting, then stops and falls straight down- faster than it was tilting. In your version of events it falls straight through the building below, but why didn't it continue to cause the asymetrical damage it begun with, and eventually come free and fall into Manhattan below?. |
It impacts the structure below, transferring some of its momentum to that.
Some of the crumbling top continues outwards, some gets deflected inwards no doubt. Have you seen the extent of the debris field from WTC2?
Your entire question revolves around the idea that it was falling off the remaining stump. Wrong.
| Koheleth wrote: |
2) Why does it begin to move faster as it's burden of destruction gets greater? The destruction it causes as it tilts is actually quites slow, yet when it decides to break the laws of physics and plummet down- INCREASING the amount of destruction it is causing- it speeds up. |
That's called gravity. It isn't breaking any laws of physics, it's obeying them. Would you expect that falling mass to bounce or slide off the stump below?
| Koheleth wrote: |
3) How does this tilting collapse, destroying one side more than the others, transform into a perfectly symetrical collapse, destroying all four sides with perfect symetry in the space of a second or two, when with this tilt- an area of the tower will not be affected at all by a gravitational collapse? All four sides of the building are destroyed at the same rate once the top starts it's magical fall- what is causing the destruction of the side of the building which there is no downward force being applied to? |
Answered already. Even when tilted a very high %age of the top is still within the boundaries of the stump. And rotating inwards.
| Koheleth wrote: |
Either
a) Demonstrate how the image which leads this thread is fake.
-or-
b) Answer the questions please.
|
I have never doubted the image is real. If you think otherwise, kindly show me where I suggest it's faked
Questions answered, some of them yet again.
A few final points -
Do you realise that if the rest of the building were being CD'd along the way (reducing or even removing the resitance to the falling top section) then we might expect to see the top continuing to rotate? What you take to be evidence of CD is exactly the opposite.
You never did point out any explosions happening in the top section, in those clips I posted. Do you have any other film or photos from that phase that show evidence of explosions?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:26 pm Post subject: Re: The Leaning Tower of Manhattan |
|
|
| Quote: | | Your line on the photo on the right hand of the lower part side is displaced to the right, in my opinion, and on the top part is clearly displaced to the left, you can discern the edge of the building there. In fact you have the top part narrower than the bottom. Correcting this would give you a line on the right that was kinked at the collapse floor, not displaced, as you have it. |
The bottom of the right hand side is a milimeter or two out- I've acknowledged this already, it doesn't make any difference to what I am saying.
I really do not understand how you are claiming I have misrepresented the left hand lines- when thye follow the lines on the photograph- we see the left hand side has a large section which is not bringing any weight over the building. It follows that there is an area- as indicated on the right hand side- that is also facing no destruction.
You have also not explained yet why it stopped it's progression of destroying one side of the tower (the side the weight was on) more than the other and eventually came away (as shown in my blue diagram above)- what we saw was completley unnatural- it started its slow titling destruction- then stopped tilting and accelerated straight down wards. You can watch a video and see this, over and over again- it goes from taking the path of least resistence, to taking the path of most resistence- and SPEEDS UP at the same time!
| Quote: | | I regret that I do not share your view that you have found an irrefutable discrepancy in the official theory, you have found a discrepancy in your own version of the theory, in which the top portion of the tower stays intact, and moves as you describe. That indeed would be impossible. |
What I was describing Bazant and Verdure's theory, which does not state that the whole top has to stay in one piece, but that all of it's weight and momentum remains- no big parts falling away. You have still not really made it clear how the falling apart of the top in your version means that any weight did come down on the building face I am referring to.
Do me a favour- make your own diagram based on the above photo- show me how the left side of the building has been misrepresented by me- show me how there was any weight present to crash down on the face of the building which I claim it will not. Because I am simply not following you.
| Quote: | | I do not know why you should assume that I have not looked at other theories, but it is a wrong assumption. I have, and found them utterly implausible. There is simply no way the towers could be set up for demolition whilst they were occupied. There is absolutely no question about it, quite apart from the large teams of people that would have to be employed. Beam weapons from space are a fantasy that does not even fit the pattern of destruction. |
Beam weapons from space are certainly a stupid theory. But it does appear you have closed your eyes to the fact that there was not energy present in a gravitational collapse to cause the destruction we saw and rejected the simplest most obvious replacement for that energy- explosives- based around some weak claim it could not be done.
Let me offer you a hypothetical scenario:
We know from Scott Forbes that there was a major rewiring job going on in the WTC in the weeks coming up to 9/11.
Here is your large team of people with access to all the areas they need- the core- the basements- the window units- all had wiring in- therefore they had access cards to get to it. No suspucious activities- just work men doing their work.
Secondly- how large? We know from footage that the waves of destruction were not "floor by floor" but appeared to be something between three and five floors at a time- meaning as few as 20 floors may have needed wiring- over 6 weeks thats just more than three floors a week- hardly a herculian task is it?
For the heavier stuff- the major explosives in the basement and elsewhere they had a powerdown the week end before 9/11 plenty of time with no CCTV to get everything neccesary in place.
So this is your unbeleivable scenario?That with the correct access cards and cover as wiring maintenance men, people could not wire the towers for demolition. Because I'm sorry mate but that is nonsense- it would be a logistical cakewalk to pull off- most of the work could be done during the day while people worked without drawing any attention- these were dilapidated buildings it must have been a pretty common sight to see men in unform working at the pipes or the electrics or the air conditioning, and no one would have blinked.
On the other hand you have the theory that 19 hijackers all get through security with sharp objects at their airports, all successfully hijack planes- fly for 1 hour 45 minutes without any intercept of bother (this must have surprised them the most- surley knowing the proceedure the best they were expecting was to crash with all on board) then without any guidnace from ATC they reach their cities and hit their targets perfectly.
That would be an absurd and unbelievable story- but look what happens next: In direct contradiction with the buildings design, which is made specifically to withstand a greater kinetic impact from a major airliner and a full tank of fuel- both towers crumble into little bits of steel and dust after office fires had been on a few floors for under two hours. Next the NY headquarters of the CIA, FBI and SS crumbles to the ground after being hit by a little rubble.
Now none of that last paragraph was planned by the terrorists- in your version of events- they can't have known all that was going to happen. They can't have even imagined they were going to reach their targets. If this was a masterminded plan they would have known that they would be intercepted within 15 minutes of going off course whether a hijacking was suspected or not- it's a mystery why they even had targets planed.
The story you believe is the Fable of the luckiest terrorists on Earth in fact if you believe this- really believe it- why don't you go an join al-Qaeda- you clearly believe God was on the terrorists side that day.
I find it hilarious that people can say that the government could not get men into a public building under the guise of maintenance contractors "Oh no that's simply IMPOSSIBLE"- yet believe one of the most ridiculous stories ever sold the public at the same time.
| Quote: | | I suggest you look at these theories as critically as you look at the official theory. Then remember that not a structural engineer in the world has come forward with a doubt that the towers could collapse through aircraft damage and fire, and not a demolition expert in the world claims that they were demolished. You are simply blowing in the wind to maintain that they were. |
This is the second last refuge of the obedience fanatic- the old "why hasn't every single person who has suspicions come out" line- well if I told you that Gordon Ross was a structural engineer and has written several papers on the impossibility of those events you would say "exactly- just one". SILENCE on an issue does not equal AGREEMENT with the official story- it is simply an indicator that it takes a rare sort of charecter to risk what Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones have been put through for no personal gain simply to speak the truth. Very rare. But as the years go on, expect more and more to speak out as well.
But you are wrong when you say I don't look into the official story, and it's supporters. Pretty much everytime I have a debate with people over this it becomes pretty clear after a while that I know a lot more about the official reports than them. And I always read debunking sites as well- there is nothing more re-affriming of my beliefs than those debunking sites which offer 12 million-in-one scenarios and outright denials to "refute" each little part of evidence which suggests and inside job.
If you were to put all of the debunking sites material into a single monolouge you would sound like a mental patient- the extreme gullibility required to accept all the improbable explanations they offer for why this think that walks like a duck, smells like a duck and quacks like a duck is in fact a goat, and to do this twelve times a page for 20 pages "explaining away" all the clear cut evidence for the simple truth-
9/11 was an inside job.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koheleth - don't make the mistake of thinking he believes what he is saying. He is here to cause confusion to any curious "passer-by", and his agenda is to muddy the waters to try to prevent the spread of the truth. He knows he is spewing junk just as much as you do, so while it is important that his rubbish is countered it is not worth the effort of appealing to any reason. We just have to let any visitors know that he is lying. Fortunately Critic's Corner is not viewable to the casual visitor which is why his lies are moved here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:09 pm Post subject: Re: The Leaning Tower of Manhattan |
|
|
| Koheleth wrote: |
So this is your unbeleivable scenario?That with the correct access cards and cover as wiring maintenance men, people could not wire the towers for demolition. Because I'm sorry mate but that is nonsense- it would be a logistical cakewalk to pull off- most of the work could be done during the day while people worked without drawing any attention- these were dilapidated buildings it must have been a pretty common sight to see men in unform working at the pipes or the electrics or the air conditioning, and no one would have blinked.
9/11 was an inside job. |
My bolding.
Conventional CD with shaped charges requires pre-cutting of the steel with oxy torches, partly to weaken them, partly to allow parallel lines of charge on each side of the steel member. This is not a job to do in a confined space, let alone anywhere remotely public.
Meanwhile, thermite/ate has never been shown capable of cutting massive vertical steel members. Not one Truther here (or elsewhere that I've seen) has suggested a plausible mechanism for applying it to the steel, nor considered the quantities involved.
Add in the huge issue of gaining access through many public areas of drywalling and other fittings (electrics,plumbing,ventilation shafts etc), via lift shafts, via roof voids (?), removing the fireproofing, repairing the lot afterwards, with radio-controlled detonation devices in place ...
You consider this a "cake-walk" ?
You live in a paranoid dream world. You assign unimaginable power and superhuman capabilities to "them". In fact "they" would have to deal with reality to pull off something like a CD of the Towers. In this case, an impossibility.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject: Re: The Leaning Tower of Manhattan |
|
|
| Quote: | | Conventional CD with shaped charges requires pre-cutting of the steel with oxy torches, partly to weaken them, partly to allow parallel lines of charge on each side of the steel member. This is not a job to do in a confined space, let alone anywhere remotely public. |
But none of the core collumns would have been in a public space- these were in the sealed off core.
| Quote: | | Add in the huge issue of gaining access through many public areas of drywalling and other fittings (electrics,plumbing,ventilation shafts etc), via lift shafts, via roof voids (?), removing the fireproofing, repairing the lot afterwards, with radio-controlled detonation devices in place ... |
This isn't a huge issue- what you don't seem to realise is that all they would have needed was the correct access cards to go whereever they needed to go. I swear you lot still imagine people in a black and white striped jumpers and black eye masks tip toeing past security guards with wheel barrows of orange tubes with ACME Dy-NO-mite! written down the sides. There was wiring in the core. There was wiring in the window units. There was wiring in the basements. There was a major re-wiring operation happening in the weeks running up to 9/11. Where is the problem?
| Quote: | | You consider this a "cake-walk" ? |
Absolutley- do you consider the above describe Fable of the Luckiest Terrorists in History to be more believable????
| Quote: | | You live in a paranoid dream world. You assign unimaginable power and superhuman capabilities to "them". In fact "they" would have to deal with reality to pull off something like a CD of the Towers. In this case, an impossibility. |
I don't consider getting their hands on access cards for the building to be an impossibility.
If you do, you need to do some real re-thinking of your own notions of reality- where 19 arabs with box cutters could pull off this attack, where building physics are magically changed- yet the US government could NEVER EVER manage to get their people access to a public building under the guise of wiring maintenance men!
Wake up my friend, reality calls you.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:57 pm Post subject: Re: The Leaning Tower of Manhattan |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: |
If you do, you need to do some real re-thinking of your own notions of reality- where 19 arabs with box cutters could pull off this attack, where building physics are magically changed- yet the US government could NEVER EVER manage to get their people access to a public building under the guise of wiring maintenance men!
Wake up my friend, reality calls you. |
1. Why aren't boxcutters dangerous?
2. Where is the evidence for this re-wiring?
3. Wouldn't the company contracted to do re-wiring notice that they suddenly had a whole load of new people turning up for work? And that they weren't actually doing any work, but were instead disappearing with large amounts of equipment?
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:27 pm Post subject: Re: The Leaning Tower of Manhattan |
|
|
Johnny Pixels asked;
| Quote: | | Why aren't boxcutters dangerous? |
This is a very good question and is actually the catalyst for my believing 9/11 was a hoax. I have given this a great deal of thought since.
It isn't the case that boxcutters aren't dangerous, it is the level of danger they represent given the scenario we are actively scrutizing.
Four aircraft of varying amounts of people and the people wishing to take them over are armed with stanley knives (I am not American, so I will go with UK terminology).
Stanley knives are not 'weapons' with which you can successfully expect to hold at bay a number of determined individuals. The items themselves have no 'range' as such like a gun, you are limited to the length of your arm.
If the hijackers successfully entered the flightdeck and incapacitated each member of the flight crew, then I could accept that unless there were passengers on board capable of landing the aircraft, you might simply place your trust in the hijackers to safely land the plane. What choices do you have, take out the only pilot on the plane and have a go yourself?
However, is it reasonable to assume that access was possible to the flightdeck? My understanding is that flight deck access is strictly controlled or did a hijacker request to sit on the pilot's knee?
How, if at all, did the hijackers know that there would not be trained airline security on the aircraft carrying firearms?
There is then the question of military trained personnel on the aircraft. Would they just sit back and watch events unfold when the only obstacle was 'just' a knife with a 1" blade?
I accept the questioning of the danger of such implements, but given what was at stake and the numbers taken 'hostage', personally I do not accept that it is in any way likely to take over all four aircraft as planned.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:49 pm Post subject: Re: The Leaning Tower of Manhattan |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: |
But none of the core collumns would have been in a public space- these were in the sealed off core. |
Do you have a vision of peeling off some plasterboard and gaining access to a huge void with 49 steel columns dotted around?
| Stefan wrote: |
This isn't a huge issue- what you don't seem to realise is that all they would have needed was the correct access cards to go whereever they needed to go. |
Access cards plus oxyacetylene canisters and torch, together with a sack of linear shaped charges plus remote-controlled detonators. Or a 30kb rucksack of "thermate" plus ceramic fire cement, plus detonators.
Oh, and headlamps and climbing gear of some kind.
Security : Your pass is on order, electrician guy
MiB : Great
Security : But, tell me...why the oxy torch gear?
MiB : Well, some of those wires can be really thick. Also Jeb Bush used to be on the board of your security firm, you know.
Security : Ah, well, carry on then. Have a nice day!
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:55 pm Post subject: Re: The Leaning Tower of Manhattan |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | Johnny Pixels asked;
| Quote: | | Why aren't boxcutters dangerous? |
This is a very good question and is actually the catalyst for my believing 9/11 was a hoax. I have given this a great deal of thought since.
It isn't the case that boxcutters aren't dangerous, it is the level of danger they represent given the scenario we are actively scrutizing. ..... |
True enough, but what would be the effect of a Stanley knife at the throat of a female flight attendant?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:27 pm Post subject: Re: The Leaning Tower of Manhattan |
|
|
| Quote: | | Do you have a vision of peeling off some plasterboard and gaining access to a huge void with 49 steel columns dotted around? |
No I envision that there would be areas within the core which would need maintenance, therefore there was a way to get into the core without having to destroy any of the building to do so. Common sense.
| Quote: | Access cards plus oxyacetylene canisters and torch, together with a sack of linear shaped charges plus remote-controlled detonators. Or a 30kb rucksack of "thermate" plus ceramic fire cement, plus detonators.
Oh, and headlamps and climbing gear of some kind. |
Yes. In a trolley of gear much like any maintenance men would carry.
Johhny Pixels said:
1. Why aren't boxcutters dangerous?
They are- where did it come into the discussion that they were not. If someone pushed me against a wall in an alley and held a stanley knife to my throat they would certainly get my wallet pretty quick. Yet all 19 of the hijackers had no problem bringing them through metal detectors.
2. Where is the evidence for this re-wiring?
Read Scott Forbes testimony.
3. Wouldn't the company contracted to do re-wiring notice that they suddenly had a whole load of new people turning up for work? And that they weren't actually doing any work, but were instead disappearing with large amounts of equipment?
No, I am suggesting the "company contracted to do re-wiring" WERE the operatives through and through. And that the wiring work was in fact wiring the building with explosives.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | . Why aren't boxcutters dangerous?
They are- where did it come into the discussion that they were not. If someone pushed me against a wall in an alley and held a stanley knife to my throat they would certainly get my wallet pretty quick. Yet all 19 of the hijackers had no problem bringing them through metal detectors.
|
It's also that all four hijackings had 100% success rate in pulling it off in-flight. Though flight 93 was specifically warned of possible hijacking. And cabin doors were presumably locked.
That's not 'proof' or anything, but these guys were either very lucky or badass in a (insert current Hollywood action hero) kind of way.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:18 pm Post subject: Re: The Leaning Tower of Manhattan |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | | Quote: | | Your line on the photo on the right hand of the lower part side is displaced to the right, in my opinion, and on the top part is clearly displaced to the left, you can discern the edge of the building there. In fact you have the top part narrower than the bottom. Correcting this would give you a line on the right that was kinked at the collapse floor, not displaced, as you have it. |
The bottom of the right hand side is a milimeter or two out- I've acknowledged this already, it doesn't make any difference to what I am saying.
I really do not understand how you are claiming I have misrepresented the left hand lines- when thye follow the lines on the photograph- we see the left hand side has a large section which is not bringing any weight over the building. It follows that there is an area- as indicated on the right hand side- that is also facing no destruction.
You have also not explained yet why it stopped it's progression of destroying one side of the tower (the side the weight was on) more than the other and eventually came away (as shown in my blue diagram above)- what we saw was completley unnatural- it started its slow titling destruction- then stopped tilting and accelerated straight down wards. You can watch a video and see this, over and over again- it goes from taking the path of least resistence, to taking the path of most resistence- and SPEEDS UP at the same time!
| Quote: | | I regret that I do not share your view that you have found an irrefutable discrepancy in the official theory, you have found a discrepancy in your own version of the theory, in which the top portion of the tower stays intact, and moves as you describe. That indeed would be impossible. |
What I was describing Bazant and Verdure's theory, which does not state that the whole top has to stay in one piece, but that all of it's weight and momentum remains- no big parts falling away. You have still not really made it clear how the falling apart of the top in your version means that any weight did come down on the building face I am referring to.
Do me a favour- make your own diagram based on the above photo- show me how the left side of the building has been misrepresented by me- show me how there was any weight present to crash down on the face of the building which I claim it will not. Because I am simply not following you.
| Quote: | | I do not know why you should assume that I have not looked at other theories, but it is a wrong assumption. I have, and found them utterly implausible. There is simply no way the towers could be set up for demolition whilst they were occupied. There is absolutely no question about it, quite apart from the large teams of people that would have to be employed. Beam weapons from space are a fantasy that does not even fit the pattern of destruction. |
Beam weapons from space are certainly a stupid theory. But it does appear you have closed your eyes to the fact that there was not energy present in a gravitational collapse to cause the destruction we saw and rejected the simplest most obvious replacement for that energy- explosives- based around some weak claim it could not be done.
Let me offer you a hypothetical scenario:
We know from Scott Forbes that there was a major rewiring job going on in the WTC in the weeks coming up to 9/11.
Here is your large team of people with access to all the areas they need- the core- the basements- the window units- all had wiring in- therefore they had access cards to get to it. No suspucious activities- just work men doing their work.
Secondly- how large? We know from footage that the waves of destruction were not "floor by floor" but appeared to be something between three and five floors at a time- meaning as few as 20 floors may have needed wiring- over 6 weeks thats just more than three floors a week- hardly a herculian task is it?
For the heavier stuff- the major explosives in the basement and elsewhere they had a powerdown the week end before 9/11 plenty of time with no CCTV to get everything neccesary in place.
So this is your unbeleivable scenario?That with the correct access cards and cover as wiring maintenance men, people could not wire the towers for demolition. Because I'm sorry mate but that is nonsense- it would be a logistical cakewalk to pull off- most of the work could be done during the day while people worked without drawing any attention- these were dilapidated buildings it must have been a pretty common sight to see men in unform working at the pipes or the electrics or the air conditioning, and no one would have blinked.
On the other hand you have the theory that 19 hijackers all get through security with sharp objects at their airports, all successfully hijack planes- fly for 1 hour 45 minutes without any intercept of bother (this must have surprised them the most- surley knowing the proceedure the best they were expecting was to crash with all on board) then without any guidnace from ATC they reach their cities and hit their targets perfectly.
That would be an absurd and unbelievable story- but look what happens next: In direct contradiction with the buildings design, which is made specifically to withstand a greater kinetic impact from a major airliner and a full tank of fuel- both towers crumble into little bits of steel and dust after office fires had been on a few floors for under two hours. Next the NY headquarters of the CIA, FBI and SS crumbles to the ground after being hit by a little rubble.
Now none of that last paragraph was planned by the terrorists- in your version of events- they can't have known all that was going to happen. They can't have even imagined they were going to reach their targets. If this was a masterminded plan they would have known that they would be intercepted within 15 minutes of going off course whether a hijacking was suspected or not- it's a mystery why they even had targets planed.
The story you believe is the Fable of the luckiest terrorists on Earth in fact if you believe this- really believe it- why don't you go an join al-Qaeda- you clearly believe God was on the terrorists side that day.
I find it hilarious that people can say that the government could not get men into a public building under the guise of maintenance contractors "Oh no that's simply IMPOSSIBLE"- yet believe one of the most ridiculous stories ever sold the public at the same time.
| Quote: | | I suggest you look at these theories as critically as you look at the official theory. Then remember that not a structural engineer in the world has come forward with a doubt that the towers could collapse through aircraft damage and fire, and not a demolition expert in the world claims that they were demolished. You are simply blowing in the wind to maintain that they were. |
This is the second last refuge of the obedience fanatic- the old "why hasn't every single person who has suspicions come out" line- well if I told you that Gordon Ross was a structural engineer and has written several papers on the impossibility of those events you would say "exactly- just one". SILENCE on an issue does not equal AGREEMENT with the official story- it is simply an indicator that it takes a rare sort of charecter to risk what Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones have been put through for no personal gain simply to speak the truth. Very rare. But as the years go on, expect more and more to speak out as well.
But you are wrong when you say I don't look into the official story, and it's supporters. Pretty much everytime I have a debate with people over this it becomes pretty clear after a while that I know a lot more about the official reports than them. And I always read debunking sites as well- there is nothing more re-affriming of my beliefs than those debunking sites which offer 12 million-in-one scenarios and outright denials to "refute" each little part of evidence which suggests and inside job.
If you were to put all of the debunking sites material into a single monolouge you would sound like a mental patient- the extreme gullibility required to accept all the improbable explanations they offer for why this think that walks like a duck, smells like a duck and quacks like a duck is in fact a goat, and to do this twelve times a page for 20 pages "explaining away" all the clear cut evidence for the simple truth-
9/11 was an inside job. |
I did not claim you misplaced the left hand lines, please re-read my post. What I said was that you had effectively moved the right hand lines apart, by shifting the bottom line to the right and the top line to the left. As the top started to rotate, it was hinging on the right hand side, and crushing down on the left, destroying the lower portion of the building and itself in the process. It did not stop tilting - see the stills posted by telecasterisation in the other thread - but it was disintegrating as it did so. The major part of the top portion never went beyond the outside of the building, so all that weight was crashing down on the lower stump. To claim that nothing was left but little bits of steel and dust is simply a lie, as you well know.
The maths are certainly beyond me, but to the extent that they include the energy required to turn all the concrete to dust are clearly wrongly based. The dust was almost certainly gypsum, some of the conrete remained in large pieces, one survivor described being trapped under a section of floor.
Scott Forbes described an unusual power-down in half of one of the towers over one weekend, to claim that was a sufficient opportunity to rig three buildings for demolition is simply absurd. Demolition companies take many weeks with clear access to do that, and do not have to conceal their work. There is simply no way it could have happened at the WTC. Gullible hardly begins to describe the state of mind necessary to accept that.
The terrorists deliberately hijacked four planes at the same time to overwhelm the air defences, and perhaps they were aware that the only time NORAD had attempted to intercept a plane over the US mainland it took an hour and twenty minutes with planes already in the air. As it was they were only 75% successful, not perhaps as lucky as you say.
You are welcome to your beliefs, but they are not based on reason, I am afraid.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | True enough, but what would be the effect of a Stanley knife at the throat of a female flight attendant? |
I'd radio in and say "They're holding a knife to an attendant's throat. We have to let them in the cockpit or she will be killed".
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kc
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 359
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My two pennorth
| Quote: | | However, is it reasonable to assume that access was possible to the flightdeck? |
Yup. 2 curtains and a door that couldnt keep my dog out is all that used to separate em.
| Quote: | | How, if at all, did the hijackers know that there would not be trained airline security on the aircraft carrying firearms? |
Because at the time El Al was the only airline in the world to have such personell. NO American flight had ANY armed personell on board (unles Harry Connick Junior or Snoop Dogg were on the flight as they've both been caught on planes with guns and knives both before and after 9/11).
| Quote: | | There is then the question of military trained personnel on the aircraft. Would they just sit back and watch events unfold when the only obstacle was 'just' a knife with a 1" blade? |
TWA Flight 847 in 1985. Several American Military personell on board. All watched Robert Dean Stethem, a U.S. Navy diver, beaten to a pulp before being executed and dumped on the tarmac. OK, those guys had 2 guns, but a weapons a weapon. I've seen an entire bar filled with people held at bay by one guy with a bottle of newcastle brown.
You have to remeber, prior to 9/11 the sensible thing to do in a hijack situation was keep quiet, keep your head down and wait for the plane to land in Italy.
Sorry if this looks like a dig at you personally tele, but I spotted your points and they were the easiest for me to adress without spending an hour on google - it is Friday night after all ;) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:49 pm Post subject: Re: The Leaning Tower of Manhattan |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | | Quote: | | Do you have a vision of peeling off some plasterboard and gaining access to a huge void with 49 steel columns dotted around? |
No I envision that there would be areas within the core which would need maintenance, therefore there was a way to get into the core without having to destroy any of the building to do so. Common sense.
|
The dangers of "common sense", part (cxxiv)
Electricians and plumbers typically push around heavy trollies with oxy cutting gear on board? I didn't know that.
CD technicians take weeks or months to strip away walls, fittings, cladding etc. In broad daylight, as it were. You expect the MiB to do it covertly? Hiding the flash and noise and stink of of oxyacetylene cutting through steel and surrounding junk? You're living in a dream world. Or been watching to much Mission Impossible.
18"x12", 4" thick steel box columns don't get 'maintenance'. They are fireproofed, boxed in and forgotten about. Many of them are immediately adjacent to office space, and/or stairways, corridors, loos, storage areas, lift shafts :
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | a door that couldnt keep my dog out is all that used to separate em. |
Your dog must be fairly accomplished. Does it pick locks?
Heh, I'm not suggesting the doors approximated a portcullis, but they weren't exactly made of paper.
I tend to largely agree on the 'people standing by' mentality, but the whole story is so vague. As I recall, the Comission Report goes on about "knives" - the 'boxcutters' are mentioned, but weren't they only specifically talked about for 1 plane? (should probably look it up). At least one person was "stabbed"; you won't get far stabbing anyone with a stanley if you want to kill them, so there must have been some longer bladed weapons.
Regarding the old Stanleys, the LC people were, IMHO, a bit silly saying they aren't dangerous or threatening, but also IMHO they aren't actually that deadly - they make hideous cuts, but it's difficult to kill people with them. Unless they stay very still. Which is why morons use them in fights. However, AFAIK, this "knives" thing remains vague. What sort? How big? The bigger the knife, the weirder the 100%knives-on-plane-no-problem issue.
I just find myself surprised there's no recording saying -
"I say - ground control - seems there's been a bit of a ruck in business class. Hijackers don't you know - foreign types, Say they've got a bomb. Waving knives and all. Anyway - must dash - they're kicking down the door. The ruddy cheek!"
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kc
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 359
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wobb, its a doddle to kill someone with a stanley knife mate, you cut the femoral or corotid artery and you're talking minutes at most before you die, gushing like a geyser the whole time. You'd be surprised just how much blood pours out of one of those slashes mate.
Sides, given most poeple thought they would just be flown to Libya, I wouldnt risk a paper cut for the buggers...
And honest mate, those flight doors were more like the bog doors you get on inter cities these days, wouldnt have taken a solid shoulder to put em through.
And my dogs ninjha with a lock pick ;) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:18 pm Post subject: Re: The Leaning Tower of Manhattan |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: |
But none of the core collumns would have been in a public space- these were in the sealed off core.
|
Here's some "reality" for you, Stefan.
Actual building construction, rather than widescreen action-adventure.
And it's just a taste.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Wobb, its a doddle to kill someone with a stanley knife mate, you cut the femoral or corotid artery and you're talking minutes at most before you die, gushing like a geyser the whole time. You'd be surprised just how much blood pours out of one of those slashes mate.
|
"Excuse me sir, would you just hold still while I make a small incision...right...side of neck...where's that pulse...oh, hold still!...you're making me make such a mess...stop thrashing around and holding your hands in the way and screaming..it's a tiny blade and needs to hit the right spot..."
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | Here's some "reality" for you, Stefan.
Actual building construction, rather than widescreen action-adventure.
And it's just a taste |
And what is gypsum? Plasterboard. The fact that it has inbuilt metal frames is irrelevant, the metal just allows the plasterboard sheets to lock together without having to construct another frame.
Hit plasterboard with a hammer, even 2" plasterboard and a hole will be made quite easily. A reciprocating saw will cut through it and the mesh layer like butter. Believe me, I work in the construction industry and make holes in the stuff all the time. Plasterboard is also easy to replace and make good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Heh Heh - given the two separate discussions going on in this thread, can I just ask -
Which is tougher - gypsum or a cockpit door?
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | ... Plasterboard is also easy to replace and make good. |
yep - with a repaired hole big enough for a man to climb through (with oxy gear) and with a 6" 'thermite bulge' sticking out into the office afterwards.
Piece of cake. Not a soul would raise an eyebrow.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 1:16 am Post subject: Re: The Leaning Tower of Manhattan |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: |
They are- where did it come into the discussion that they were not. If someone pushed me against a wall in an alley and held a stanley knife to my throat they would certainly get my wallet pretty quick. Yet all 19 of the hijackers had no problem bringing them through metal detectors. |
US airport terminal security was appalling. Notice the huge holdups that occured when they started searching people properly after 9/11. Notice the increase in check in times before flights.
| Quote: |
Read Scott Forbes testimony. |
One man? We're having maintainance in our building so they have to shut the power off at nights. This only ever happens on a single floor at once to cause minimum disruption, and every single employee in the building gets emailed about it. All you can rustle up is one man from the thousands that worked in WTC 1 & 2? One man? And no hard evidence?
| Quote: |
No, I am suggesting the "company contracted to do re-wiring" WERE the operatives through and through. And that the wiring work was in fact wiring the building with explosives. |
So you're saying that no-one would notice that no rewiring was occuring? You'd have to rewire the building at the same time to keep the cover, otherwise people would start getting supsicious that the old wiring was exactly the same sa the new wiring.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | and with a 6" 'thermite bulge' sticking out |
he's just happy to see you!
_________________
Make love, not money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 1:57 am Post subject: Re: The Leaning Tower of Manhattan |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | So you're saying that no-one would notice that no rewiring was occuring? |
Whose saying no re-wiring was occurring? Whose saying the wires were the 'new network' and not fuse cabling? Means, Motive, Opportunity, they had them all.
_________________
Make love, not money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 1:21 pm Post subject: Re: The Leaning Tower of Manhattan |
|
|
| Thermate wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | So you're saying that no-one would notice that no rewiring was occuring? |
Whose saying no re-wiring was occurring? Whose saying the wires were the 'new network' and not fuse cabling? Means, Motive, Opportunity, they had them all. |
Because you'd notice that all your network cables were being ripped out and replaced with detcord, because none of your computers would work anymore...
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
