conspiracy theories

[Soul Doctor]

---

Fine. I was just pointing out the correction. I don't want people to get mislead.

mislead or misled--- is an understatement.

building 7 was not attacked.
It was not hit by a jet liner.
But, people were made to believe the whole building collapsed on its foot due to a fire that came from the other buildings.
the whole building was reduced to dust.

Now,
who is trying to do the misleading here?

Try doing the correction there if you can.

[pinoy_09]

mislead or misled--- is an understatement.

people were made to believe the whole building collapsed on its foot due to a fire that came from the other buildings.
the whole building was reduced to dust.

Now,
who is trying to do the misleading here?

Try doing the correction there if you can.

The whole implosion stuff has been debunked by experts on explosive demolition. Who are we supposed to believe---you or the experts?

I highly recommend reading this PDF document on the supposedly controlled demolition you keep babbling about. This report was created by Protec, one of the most knowledgeable authorities on explosive demolition.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Articl...09-8-06%20.pdf

Even THEY do not agree with the conspiracy theories. Again, don't mislead people with FALSE information.

[Soul Doctor]

The whole implosion stuff has been debunked by experts on explosive demolition. Who are we supposed to believe---you or the experts?

I highly recommend reading this PDF document on the supposedly controlled demolition you keep babbling about. This report was created by Protec, one of the most knowledgeable authorities on explosive demolition.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Articl...09-8-06%20.pdf

Even THEY do not agree with the conspiracy theories. Again, don't mislead people with FALSE information.

Hahaha.
The experts.
The building was full of experts.
If youve watched the video it was shown there that those experts who occupied in one of the offices in the building--patented the the "super thermite" that was probably used in the building.

But where are the evidence?
Where were they taken?
The FBI is in custody of it.
But can anyone look at it? NO.
No one is allowed to enter the facility much more investigate.

But why?
because it was all debunked?

[pinoy_09]

Hahaha.
The experts.
The building was full of experts.
If youve watched the video it was shown there that those experts who occupied in one of the offices in the building--patented the the "super thermite" that was probably used in the building.

But where are the evidence?
Where were they taken?
The FBI is in custody of it.
But can anyone look at it? NO.
No one is allowed to enter the facility much more investigate.

But why?
because it was all debunked?

What "evidence" are you referring to? Visual evidence (pictures, videos) is enough to conclude whether or not a controlled demolition happened. But experts further released more testing on the site which include seismographs and ground vibration data to conclusively dismiss the controlled demolition theory.

The data has been RELEASED to the public for everyone to see. Read Assertion #4 of the PDF document I provided above.

[Soul Doctor]

Let look at their comments.

Assertion # 1
"the tower's collapse looked exactly like explosive demolition".

Protec comment: "No they didn't. It's the "where".

And you call this people experts?

The whole building is designed to withstand a direct hit from a plane.
In fact its designer insisted that you could crash 3 planes in it and it would not collapse.

You must understand structural design to see through this lie.

if you design a 4 story building.
the lower floor is designed to support twice the stress of the structure above it.

the higher the building the bigger the "allowance" from the stress of the upper floors.

example if the 4th floor stress is 100 tons.
the third floor is designed to support 200 tons.
the second floor is designed to support 400 tons
and the ground floor supports were designed to support 800 tons.

If you get the idea.
There is no "where" as stressed by the portec experts.
Designers made sure that every part of the building can support twice the load above it.
That is the essence of Structural Engineering.

Obviously, you are not reading their report.
Because the report is totally unbelievable to a normal person.

so just that common tao can understand what they are saying.

Let us say that for example a forty story building caught fire.
Let us say in the 20th floor.
Lets assume that the support of the 20th floor was compromised and it gave in.
the weight above it forced the beams to break.

The question is-- where was all these weight before the support were compromised?
Exactly, it was there all the time.
It was not added during the collapse.
It was there all along.
And the whole structure stood their for years.

If the structure failed-- at a specific point.
the building would not collapse on its foot.
The upper part of the building will simply lean on one side and fall.
it would never crush the structure under it, due to lack of required load to do the "crushing"..
And it would never crush itself as it goes down.

[Soul Doctor]

But there is also a similar document debunking the so called protec expert.

Pilots For Truth -> Debunking Brent Blanchard's Wtc Analysis

this is a more believable document.

Why the towers fell: Two theories
By William Rice

Posted March 1, 2007

Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.

I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology). The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the floor truss connectors failed and caused a “progressive pancake collapse.”

The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which is also unlikely. Without mentioning the word “concrete,” the latter documentary compared the three-second collapse of the concrete Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building with that of the Twin Towers that were of structural steel. The collapse of a concrete-framed building cannot be compared with that of a structural steel-framed building.

Since neither documentary addressed many of the pertinent facts, I took the time to review available material, combine it with scientific and historic facts, and submit the following two theories for consideration.

The prevailing theory

The prevailing theory for the collapse of the 110-story, award-winning Twin Towers is that when jetliners flew into the 95th and 80th floors of the North and South Towers respectively, they severed several of each building’s columns and weakened other columns with the burning of jet fuel/kerosene (and office combustibles).

However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over the missing columns.

After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower, John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but “the building structure would still be there.”

The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.

Let’s assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into the seven levels below the street level.

The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.

Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn’t exist.



The politically unthinkable theory

Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and “debunks” the message rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president’s 9/11 Commission to start an “investigation” into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission’s investigation also didn’t include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the “unusual and unprecedented” manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.

The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let’s consider this building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on 9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on either side received relatively little structural damage and both continue in use today.

Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.

The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was omitted from the government’s 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse has yet to be investigated.
Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let’s start by contacting our congressional delegation.

William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses.

[pinoy_09]

Let look at their comments.

Assertion # 1
"the tower's collapse looked exactly like explosive demolition".

Protec comment: "No they didn't. It's the "where".

And you call this people experts?

lol. You obviously didn't read the body of the message. Why only read the header? You seem to have so much time reading conspiracy theories yet so little time to read REAL documents.

The whole building is designed to withstand a direct hit from a plane.
In fact its designer insisted that you could crash 3 planes in it and it would not collapse.

Again, read the document.

It is not "how" or "when" the building failed, but "where".

You must understand structural design to see through this lie.

I do not claim to be an expert on structural engineering, but a few research here and there should help one distinguish between FACT and OPINION.

if you design a 4 story building.
the lower floor is designed to support twice the stress of the structure above it.

the higher the building the bigger the "allowance" from the stress of the upper floors.

example if the 4th floor stress is 100 tons.
the third floor is designed to support 200 tons.
the second floor is designed to support 400 tons
and the ground floor supports were designed to support 800 tons.

If you get the idea.
There is no "where" as stressed by the portec experts.
Designers made sure that every part of the building can support twice the load above it.
That is the essence of Structural Engineering.

That's the fundamentals of engineering. But seeing it from the point of view of the demolition is different from seeing it on how the structure/building was made. With controlled demolition, explosives are concentrated on the lower structures to maximize the collapse, yet on the 9/11 videos you can clearly see that the explosions started on the middle floors. Why is that?

Obviously, you are not reading their report.
Because the report is totally unbelievable to a normal person.

so just that common tao can understand what they are saying.

Let us say that for example a forty story building caught fire.
Let us say in the 20th floor.
Lets assume that the support of the 20th floor was compromised and it gave in.
the weight above it forced the beams to break.

The question is-- where was all these weight before the support were compromised?
Exactly, it was there all the time.
It was not added during the collapse.
It was there all along.
And the whole structure stood their for years.

If the structure failed-- at a specific point.
the building would not collapse on its foot.
The upper part of the building will simply lean on one side and fall.
it would never crush the structure under it, due to lack of required load to do then crushing..
And it would never crush itself as it goes down.

I read the report... twice.

I agree that the lower structures were there all this time while the upper floors went down---again, fundamentals of engineering. Pretty straightforward.

One word: GRAVITY

The lower floors remained intact until they were consumed by the impact from above. If this was a controlled demolition it would have been the complete opposite---the explosions would originate from the lower floors to maximize the damage, because, like you said, the lower structures are designed to support more stress. But as we clearly see from the videos---this was simply not the case.

[Soul Doctor]

If the government hired Brent Blanchard to make a report on the 9/11.
Then Im sure he is the one contracted for the demolition of those towers.

If I was assigned to investigate 9/11, he should be the one who gets investigated first.

He was in the demolition business for so long, yet he stated that he did not see anything that resembled a controlled demolition in the tower collapse.
That alone is billion dollar B.S.

My bet, He got the contract to demolish the building.
Why would he say what he said if he is not part of it?

[Soul Doctor]

lol. You obviously didn't read the body of the message. Why only read the header? You seem to have so much time reading conspiracy theories yet so little time to read REAL documents.

Again, read the document.

It is not "how" or "when" the building failed, but "where".

I do not claim to be an expert on structural engineering, but a few research here and there should help one distinguish between FALSE and OPINION.

That's the fundamentals of engineering. But seeing it from the point of view of the demolition is different from seeing it on how the structure/building was made. With controlled demolition, explosives are concentrated on the lower structures to maximize the collapse, yet on the 9/11 videos you can clearly see that the explosions started on the middle floors. Why is that?

I read the report... twice.

I agree that the lower structures were there all this time while the upper floors went down---again, fundamentals of engineering. Pretty straightforward.

One word: GRAVITY

The lower floors remained intact until they were consumed by the impact from above. If this was a controlled demolition it would have been the complete opposite---the explosions would originate from the lower floors to maximize the damage, because, like you said, the lower structures are designed to support more stress. But as we clearly see from the videos---this was simply not the case.

wow you read it twice?

i could not even got to the end of it without laughing.
You must have a good laugh then.

the explosions did originate from the lower floors.
But all you see in the video is the top of the building going down.
But you could not see the lower floors because of the buildings surrounding it.

But have you seen the cars and the firetrucks just outside the buildings?
They were literally thrown away by a mysterious force.
How do you melt a firetruck anyway?

Try seeing the video again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I97sF8LRFqk

[pinoy_09]

wow you read it twice?

i could not even got to the end of it without laughing.
You must have a good laugh then.

the explosions did originate from the lower floors.
But all you see in the video is the top of the building going down.
But you could not see the lower floors because of the buildings surrounding it.

But have you seen the cars and the firetrucks just outside the buildings?
They were literally thrown away by a mysterious force.

Try seeing the video again.

The progression of the explosions were from top down---not down to up.