Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
woodcraft
Trad climber
Fairfax, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 10, 2006 - 12:26pm PT
|
Stevep,
I am a building contractor, qualified by common sense, and a lifetime of making and fixing things. I've done welding, use an acetyene torch regularly, Build and take down buildings. I have direct experience of what it takes to melt steel. I have closely observed building fires. I'm not a structural engineer, but frequently negotiate with them to adjust their theoretical calculations to real site conditions.
The experiment is to illustrate that even if you accept the "pancake theory" there would still be a core column sticking up hundreds of feet in the air. Have you had to replace your fireplace grate because it melted? Have you seen photos of burning high rise buildings- hours and hours of raging inferno- no structural collapse, let alone in 10 seconds.
Wake up, man. See what you're looking at.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2006 - 12:38pm PT
|
Granite's explanation from the article makes the most sense so far. You can all relax, it wasn't a massive conspiracy. You're all paranoid schizophrenics, that's all. Cheers!
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2006 - 01:12pm PT
|
woodcraft,
It sounds like you're more qualified than many who take this on, but I'd argue that your experience in what sounds like smaller scale construction doesn't necessarily apply to this case. Nor does experience watching small fires, or even other fires in other high-rise buildings. The WTC event was very unique. No other high rise fires have been caused by large aircraft flying into them. It was the combination of the structural damage caused by the impact, and the fire that caused the failure. The WTC also had relatively unusual construction for a skyscraper, and this had some distictive effects on this disaster.
As for melting steel, the fire didn't get hot enough to do that. The official analysis admits that. But for things to fail, they don't have to melt, just be weakened, and it sounds like it did get hot enough for that.
As for why there weren't 800 ft high structural columns left standing...those weren't 800 ft long pieces of steel. They had joints would be likely to shear at those joints.
On WTC7, I don't know that I've seen a good explanation that completely understands why that building collapsed. Just somereasonable theories. But those theories are still more believable to me thatn purposeful demolition.
And with all that said, I'm definitely not a Bush apologist. He and the rest of the admin effed up royally in Iraq and should be held accountable for that. I just don't happen to think that they planned 9/11.
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2006 - 01:14pm PT
|
Happiegirl,
You forget I climb with Locker, which means, most of what I do roped is free solo anyway.
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
New York, NY
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2006 - 01:37pm PT
|
...I don't forget....
Gonna give you a 10.2mm dryrope wedgie, Woody.... Right when you've climbed above that littlest micronut that wouldn't hold the weight of a lizard's tail flicking the draw as it scampers passsstttt....
say UNCLE!!!
|
|
woodcraft
Trad climber
Fairfax, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 10, 2006 - 01:43pm PT
|
Klimmer-
Thanks for the links.
Paul Craig Roberts PhD. asst treasury secretary under Reagan:
"We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less a steel columned building, to 'pancake' at free fall speed. Therefore it is a non- controversial fact that the official explaination of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false."
So, we've been directed to- Popular Mechanics, Rolling Stone, Psychology today, a writer who was spit on, the 9-11 report (see above), and the NIST report (mumbo-jumbo about 'local load redistribution, etc.) Okaaaay
I hope this has been as fun for you as it has for me- gotta go.
Remember to ask your friends and neighbors- Why did building #7 collapse?
see you at the crags, Jay
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2006 - 02:23pm PT
|
Yes indeed. Ask why and how did WTC 7 come down and what do you find? The 9-11 Commission Report ignored it. NIST had no explaination, however, the owner of the WTC towers Larry Silverstein, who before 9-11 occured insured his towers against terrorist attacks for billions of dollars admits on film how WTC 7 came down . . .
Silverstein makes the decision to “Pull it” to demolish (CD) WTC 7 on 9-11-01:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=Silverstein%2C+Pull+it&hl=en
The 9-11 Truther “Sure” calls a CD company and gets clarification for the phrase “Pull it.” What does “Pull-it” mean in the CD world?:
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/pull_it_mix.mp3
http://www.pumpitout.com/ (Sure’s website)
Edit: Still not convinced? How about CD on WTC 6 after the clean-up. Here they discuss it . . . http://www.pumpitout.com/movie/pulling_wtc_6.mp4
Now we have it. WTC 7 was brought down by CD and the physical evidence says so in addition. So, since WTC 7 came down with CD, don't you think it puts WTC Tower 1 and 2's collapse in a new light? It sure does. And once again the means, motive, opportunity and the physical and eye-witness testimonies, all of this evidence screams so.
Book'em Dano.
Now let's go climb.
Further edit: Why does Silverstein lie about what he said in the NOVA program? Why does the 9-11 Commission Report ignore WTC 7? Why is NIST ignorant of how WTC 7 falls and has absolutely no explaination? Why does the BCF shill and apologist for the OCT from Popular Mechanics Magazine outright lie about "Pull it" not being used in the CD industry or having ever heard that term before used in that context? Everybody knows unless you are absolutely a numb skull . . .
Because they are covering for the crime of the century --- 9/11 MIHOP.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2006 - 02:26pm PT
|
Thanks for that link Klimmer, and thanks woodcraft, Karl, warbler etc.
And the real idiots like WoodySt, Chaz et al are beginning to look very very poor. Rolling Stones? for a credible news source.
You guys really truly blow me away, ugh & gag!!!!!!!!
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2006 - 02:46pm PT
|
Isn't it possible that the controlled demolition was done because the building was too compromised to salvage or allow to remain standing? I was under the impression that the Fire Dept. didn't want to go inside to quell the fire because the building was so compromised, so they 'pulled it' with the buiding owners consent. That's the way I heard it anyway.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2006 - 02:50pm PT
|
It think it's kinda the wrong way to go looking at how the buildings fell and so on. I'd just like some investigation instead of whitewash on some issues along these lines, so we'd have the answers:
*. Details and reasons for the 9-11 war games that took fighters away from NY and DC and placed false blips on radar screens to air controllers couldn't tell what's real or not. (At least that's been reported)
* Details about operation Able Danger, pre 9-11 surveilance of Mohammed Atta
* 9-11 financing: How involved were the Saudis? (remember the redacted pages of the 9-11 report?) Did the Head of Pakistani intel, who met with George Tenet on 9-11 in DC, really wire $100,000 to Mohammed Atta as reported by the Time of India immediately after 9-11.
* Why were the interview tapes with 9-11 air controllers destroyed?
* On who's orders was so much physical evidence of 9-11 hauled off and destroyed without analysis/
* Why did the administration claim that they never dreamed anyone would use a plane as a weapon when they had done plenty of thinking and planning along those lines/
* Who WERE the 9-11 highjackers. Remember, some of them turned up alive after 9-11 in other countries. George Tenent was asked about it and explained that some highjackers might have been under assumed names. But those assumed names are still listed as the official culprits. WHy? Who did it and who were they linked to?
Some time as passed. National Security might be a valid or lame excuse to keep some of this stuff secret but job security is a more likely explanation for some of it.
Peace
Karl
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2006 - 03:04pm PT
|
Karl, actually Curt Weldon (r-pennsylvania, I believe)did alot of probing into Able Danger. He still is I believe. He also did a probe into what documents Sandy Berger destroyed from the national archives to keep from the 911 commission. After continually hounding on these two issues, the FBI began inverstigating his daughter on things that she had been cleared of 2 years prior by the House. Maybe old Curt was too close to something?
Edit: Link added http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050917&articleId=965
|
|
snooky
climber
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2006 - 03:06pm PT
|
Good questions Karl. One question still lurks about why members of the BinLaden family had flights out the the USA arranged for them when ALL non-military flights were grounded. All airports were closed for days but they got flights home??
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2006 - 03:15pm PT
|
If we can spend 130 million on Saddam's trial, we can at least get open and honest answers to one of the biggest landmarks in our history.
Then the conspiracy theories could be laid to rest.
Otherwise it will linger far longer and stonger than even the Kennedy stuff.
Peace
karl
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2006 - 03:17pm PT
|
Chaz:
This is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x56836#56838[/i]
Chaz, Thanks for posting this. Hilarious! Even better then a Monty Python thread.
From that dude's post: "What I conclude is that a fairly flimsy steel structure does not distort and bend and collapse very easily from a simple hydrocarbon fire."
Hmm, then why do building codes require encasing steel beams with fireproof coverings? Or does that just "prove" that the people who wrote the building codes were part of the conspiracy! :-) There is a more plausible explanation here (written by a co-conspirator undoubtedly :-) : http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2006 - 04:21pm PT
|
Happiegirl,
You're dealing with someone who initially climbed barefooted, with a rope woven out of reeds and used small stones and marbles for pro. Nothing can faze me. I even like falling; ask locker.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2006 - 04:28pm PT
|
The incompetance is just a limited hang-out excuse. I don't believe the questions I asked are adequate (or sometimes at all) addressed in the 9-11 commission report, which avoided the tough issues, including the collapse of building 7.
The Sept 11 commission chairmen have already admitted downplaying the role of US policy towards Israel in their findings for purely political reasons and also admit this"
from
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003223.htm
"The 9/11 Commission was supposed to give the America people a complete, unbiased story of the government failures that led up to the September 11 terrorist attacks. But the Commission now admits its acclaimed Final Report ignored key information provided by a U.S. Army data mining project, Able Danger, which identified Mohammed Atta and several other hijackers as potential terrorists prior to the September 11 attacks. The Able Danger team recommended that Atta and the other suspected terrorists be deported. That recommendation, however, was not shared with law enforcement officials, presumably because of the "wall" between intelligence activities and domestic law enforcement.
According to the New York Times, the 9/11 Commission officials said that Able Danger had not been included in their report because some of the information sounded inconsistent with what they thought they knew about Atta.
In other words, the Commission staffers were told about the project but ignored it because it didn't fit their pre-conceived conclusions."
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!