I think Phil Wardle makes a GENIUS point - if it was CD that brought the place down, why cover it up? Why not say it was done in the interests of public safety? MASSIVE presidential boost for being able to make the tough calls....
nah yer allright. Its my experiece that wading in mob handed to well established, unrelated forums does nothing but damage all aspects of the movement.
I think Phil Wardle makes a GENIUS point - if it was CD that brought the place down, why cover it up? Why not say it was done in the interests of public safety? MASSIVE presidential boost for being able to make the tough calls....
Can you elaborate on this point?
How exactly could you wire two buildings the size of the WTC for demolition in a couple of hours, not to mention the restrictions placed upon the charge layers by stairwells blocked with people and debris? This would take weeks of concentrated work following surveys, not ten minutes. Am I missing something intergral to your argument?
tele, I was working from the assumption that if the building was wired without any of the thousands of employees ever noticing it (a la loose change) then the same CD crew could I have used their pixie dust to wire it in 2 hours.
That site has got to be the worst I have ever visited for registering. I gave up in the end. I wanted to mention WTC7 since everyone, as usual, is ignoring it. Lots of talk about "airplane impact damage" and "huge kerosene-fed fires" but this cannot be used when WTC7 is debated. Someone even mentions the loss of money the owners must have suffered as a result of the collapses. Boy do they need to look into events.
The question of the fully fuelled aircraft is often raised when discussing the temperature of the WTC fires and how the enormous quantity of fuel 'fed' the flames.
The lion's share of the fuel from the second impact burnt off quickly outside the building as witnessed by the fireball, it didn't hang around for ages continually burning. Secondly, where would the reservoir of fuel be located to maintain the flames inside the building? The wings would have either exploded or been torn to tiny pieces upon entry. I see the fuel as a factor for aiding an 'ongoing' fire to be a very weak argument - it being spent very quickly.
However, this has been debated a zillion times and the time has come for me to leave these type of subjects to the newbies.
That site has got to be the worst I have ever visited for registering. I gave up in the end. I wanted to mention WTC7 since everyone, as usual, is ignoring it. Lots of talk about "airplane impact damage" and "huge kerosene-fed fires" but this cannot be used when WTC7 is debated. Someone even mentions the loss of money the owners must have suffered as a result of the collapses. Boy do they need to look into events.
Blackcat-its easy to get into. When you send a post you have to submit it first and then post it-stumped me at first.
Come on try again-imagine if we can wake up these Structural dudes!
"The question of the fully fuelled aircraft is often raised when discussing the temperature of the WTC fires and how the enormous quantity of fuel 'fed' the flames.
The lion's share of the fuel from the second impact burnt off quickly outside the building as witnessed by the fireball, it didn't hang around for ages continually burning. Secondly, where would the reservoir of fuel be located to maintain the flames inside the building? The wings would have either exploded or been torn to tiny pieces upon entry. I see the fuel as a factor for aiding an 'ongoing' fire to be a very weak argument - it being spent very quickly."
I posted this quote on the Engineers web site,Tele. I hope you dont mind.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 4:02 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Mr Brian Glancy
25/05/2007
RE: 911 conspiracy - burning or bombing?
Gentlemen - Let us deal ONLY with the facts of the matter.
Fact - NIST did not give an explanation for the collapses. They made what amounts to a guess at what happened up to the point of "initiation of collapse" then said global collapse ensued.
So what is being defended here does not actually exist.
NIST have been asked by scholars to debate their report in public, they have refused. Not only have they refused they have said they will never debate it.
Fact - never before in history has such structures collapsed at the speed and in the manner the WTC did absent controlled demolition.
Mr Robinsons initial opinion of what could explain the collapse was a description of controlled demolition.
Mr Robinson, you will find that explosive controlled demolition by removing all supports does in fact allow the building to essentially freefall.
Fact - NIST did not address the reality of the collapses.
It has been shown here numerous times now that the collapses of the Twin Towers were explosive collapses. Sections of steel collumns greater in weight than double decked buses were thrown hundreds of feet in ALL directions. NIST nor gravity can account for this. It seems the engineeers here are unwilling to even acknowledge this let alone account for it.
Fact- the central core was made up of 47 collumns measuring at the base 5ft x 3ft x 4inches. These enormously strong collumns tapered gradually as load decreased.
As has already been shown the explosive nature of the collapse means that there was no hammer effect from the upper structure so what could have removed the resistance these super strong collumns had provided for so long?
Please refrain from attacking the messenger, lets address the message itself.
I vote this truther post of the thread so far _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:35 pm Post subject:
Well unfortunatley that thread has been locked
Don't expect to convince any of these gentlemen to the degree that they are going to admit it on a public forum in front of their peers: peer pressure is a strong force in policing the group consensus: nonetheless, people cannot un-read what they read and if truth is spoken, it has a way of working through. A key skill for this kind of campaigning is empathy for the difficulty others face in adjusting their paradigms _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
A key skill for this kind of campaigning is empathy for the difficulty others face in adjusting their paradigms
Smartest thing I've seen you write...
Of course shills need different treatment. You must bait them into losing the higher ground of LOGIC. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
oops!
