Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:54 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Posts: 3519
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44840


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 6:01 am
Posts: 55
Location: Bridge City, Texas, USA
From http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.
In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." [wmv download]

In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." [mp3 download]

There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context.



Consider the facts:
The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible.
Firemen anticipated the building's collapse (even though fire had never brought down a fire-protected steel building prior to 9/11).
Silverstein said of the building "the smartest thing to do is pull it."
WTC 7 subsequently collapsed perfectly into its footprint at freefall speed.
Molten steel and partially evaporated steel members were found in the debris.
When you add to the above the fact that Madrid's Windsor Building remained standing after an 18+ hour 800°C fire there can be only one conclusion as to what happened to WTC 7: it was demolished.


The fires in WTC 7 were supposedly started by the collapse of WTC 1 meaning there would have been no time the rig the building for demolition on 9/11, therefore this had to have been done whilst the building was still occupied prior to 9/11.


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif

Take a close look at the manner in which WTC 7 collapses straight down. For the building to collapse in this fashion, all of the load bearing supports would have had to fail at exactly the same time.
The claim that the collapse was the result of a fire requires the fire be equally distributed throughout the entire floor of the building, providing equal heat for an equal amount of time, so that all the load bearings members would fail at the exact same moment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 10:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
Just passing through. Will look at links later. But this is BS. The WTC had a central core with elevators etc and the square outer walls that were also loadbearing. When the central core destroyed by the airplane impact and resulting fire, the weight was transfered to the outer wall, and when part of that failed the load on the rest instantly increased leading to rapid failure and a "neat" collapse. What is the alternative theory, that there were timed explosives already stashed in the upper floors to trigger the collapse? C'mon.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 6:01 am
Posts: 55
Location: Bridge City, Texas, USA
IJ wrote:
Just passing through. Will look at links later. But this is BS. The WTC had a central core with elevators etc and the square outer walls that were also loadbearing. When the central core destroyed by the airplane impact and resulting fire, the weight was transfered to the outer wall, and when part of that failed the load on the rest instantly increased leading to rapid failure and a "neat" collapse. What is the alternative theory, that there were timed explosives already stashed in the upper floors to trigger the collapse? C'mon.


So did an invisible plane take out the core supports of WTC 7?

The twin towers collapse could be debated forever.
Irregardless:

    The jets at Andrews AFB were not scrambled.

    WTC 7 collapsed even though it was not hit by a plane.

    Larry Silverstein slipped up and admitted to "pulling" WTC 7.

    Hijacking drills were going on that day. A convenient cover.


9/11 was a false flag op. The Republican party's fingerprints are all over it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
Sorry for misunderstanding. Don't know the building numbers and mistakenly believed we were talking about the twin towers since I've heard the same thing advanced about them.

So the alternative theory.... everything was taken down by the US government. We had WTC 7 taken down (this was planned in advance along with the planes) because, afterall, the twin towers going down wasn't eyecatching enough. Even though, I doubt most people are even aware of most of the collateral damage at the complex.

What's the point?

And they would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those darned kids (and scooby doo)! Afterall, the plane strikes were plausible. But they had to go level an extra building in a controlled manner.

Why?

To collect the insurance? Or what?

And don't controlled falls usually proceed sequentially? This one didn't, it just went down. And why is the only person investigating this outrageous crime also advocating pure nonsense (check out the rest of the site)?

Oh: and to answer the question on the website: they caught the implosion from multiple angles because NYC is extremely densely populated with people, many of whom had videocameras, and I guess something about the earlier events caught their attention.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
http://www.savethemales.ca/

Here's an example. A link explaining the Zionist's plans for world domination and how they've never had a "defensive" posture even though they were attacked first in all of the wars in the region. Found it on the WTC 7 site. Not exactly reliable sources.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 6:01 am
Posts: 55
Location: Bridge City, Texas, USA
Quote:
To collect the insurance?


Yes. And to avoid spending billions on an EPA mandated renovation.

Note the badly damaged buildings that are still standing in these photos.

http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
It's not that implausible, actually.... I hear most of NYC is wired to blow to avoid billions in EPA mandated renovations, should another opportunity present itself. However, most of those explosive devices were wired in AFTER people heard about the clever exploitation of 9/11.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:45 pm
Posts: 350
IJ wrote:
What is the alternative theory, that there were timed explosives already stashed in the upper floors to trigger the collapse? C'mon.


Interesting ideas everyone presents here. it made me do some top-notch investigative work (read : use google :) )

Apparently a physics professor think so : http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

Other professors claim thermite is present on the WTC rubble indicating the use of explosives : http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/08/06 ... index.html

other link : http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635198488,00.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:05 am
Posts: 1176
Basic question. Why did both towers come down in exactly the same manner as every single demolition job I've ever seen on television. As a matter of fact, I've never seen anything like this except for every single time I've seen a controlled demolition on television. The thing is, I think that every single person watching the event unfold had a little voice in their head saying "what?" when the towers came down. Like "it is completely surreal that these skyscrapers just imploded straight downward, without any discernable reason, but I'm in la la land right now, and all I can really think about is some plane might land on my head next."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
If we're talking about the 2 towers, both of those collapses began, as one would expect, at the site of the impacts. That damaged area couldn't support the weight so everything above started down, crushing everything below. Why would there need to be a "demolition" with charges? What point would it serve, other than increasing the odds of getting caught faking the cause of the tragedy, by a billion? I mean, think of all the cameras trained on those towers... how could charges going off not have a good chance of being picked up? Why doesn't a fully fueled airplane traveling at several hundred miles an hour smashing into a building satisfy people wondering just why they fell down?

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.

So, not only did he figure out that the 2 towers were demolished with carefully planned explosives, he also has figured out that those responsible for the explosives weren't Muslim, despite the well documented prior muslim terror attacks on the towers and the muslim highjack force on the planes, which, evidently, coincidentally hit the towers that day. Or maybe they were hired / suckered into doing it. What do you think they paid OBL to take credit? Before anyone surmises he decided to take credit after, he warned his family just before 9/11 he was going into hiding.

Oh yeah and what did these inside job people plan to gain by attacking the pentagon and the capitol or white house? As if the two towers wouldn't itself provoke a war or a tide of public opinion against fundamentalist arabs, or whatever they intended. Seems like broad coverage for an insurance scheme, taking out the US government.

"Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway?"

They wouldn't attempt such collapses. But I don't think they had much of a choice. Hit a building with a plane, you get what you get. It's not as if they could sequentially strike keey components with a flotilla of planes, right? One even hit off center, so you would think that it might have fallen sideways, but it didn't; the enormous weight above drove downward.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 667
I haven't been around here much, but someone apparent;y left the door open. Ian, what's the point of trying to engage these wing nuts?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... page=5&c=y

Here's a source I trust a little more than those thusfar posted (www.wingnut.com :) ). Only took me 4 seconds of googling. Kevin, to answer your question, its an entertaining warmup, before tackling other intellectual tasks.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17040
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.

Occam's razor prevails. Statisticians and scientists apply it all the time in their day jobs.

Quote:
Many scientists have adopted or reinvented Occam's Razor as in Leibniz' "identity of observables" and Isaac Newton stated the rule: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is,

"when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."


Personally I believe the guy behind the grassy knoll did it...

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group