[W:57: 1585]Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

mike2810 · Mar 26, 2019

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
It is a big victory because, for however long this moment may last, the rule of law has prevailed. At least momentarily.

If the suit against the FBI for not following its congressional mandate also clears the first hurdle, it too will be a big victory.

With all manner of elected and appointed officials perjuring themselves before Congress with no punishment at all, many have begun noting that the rule of law is a joke, inside the Beltway.

The big victory is only that the first hurdle has been cleared. There are many more in the form of bureaucratic inertia and a corrupted political system entrenched inside the Beltway.

Have you donated? The Lawyer group needs 30K by April. They are well short as of yesterday.

How can it be a "big victory"? The US Attorney is required by law to proceed. Doesn't matter if the filing has merit or not. That is what the GJ will decide.

"legal action against the FBI aimed at forcing the Bureau to assess and report the evidence of the World Trade Center’s explosive demolition as well as other unaddressed 9/11 evidence"
The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry

The group is wanting the FBI to "assess and report" on what evidence they have on explosives. That tells me the group is fishing. They don't know what the FBI has or doesn't.

Irwin Corey · Mar 26, 2019

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

NWO_Spook said:
I know this is resurrecting an old post, but I read this claim for about five pages knowing full well it was incorrect. The 'failed into their own footprint' claim is simply a truther meme of no substance. The debris field was much larger than the 'footprint' claim and damaged several buildings surrounding the site (e.g. Verizon, and the Deutsche Bank). WTC1 struck WTC7 on the face off camera from the famous footage, thus causing a massive gash in the structure. The resulting fires weakened the bulding and down it came.

The fire dept. noted that WTC7 was becoming unstable and ordered an evacuation of the area. The FDNY could not fight the fires in WTC7 owing to the fact that the tower collapses cut off the water supply to the site.

There is no evidence of foul play and Controlled Demolition is the only remotely feasible hypothesis posited among a wealth of inanities and this doesn't stand up to scrutiny for very long, for how did explosives (as many claim existed) survive the fires? No truther or individual sceptical of the NIST report ever answers this simple question. They will argue and insult all day long, but they cannot answer this question with any degree of credibility.

View attachment 67253404

You didn’t ask a question, simple or otherwise.

NWO_Spook · Mar 26, 2019

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Irwin Corey said:
You didn’t ask a question, simple or otherwise.

I beg to differ, please note the third paragraph: "...for how did explosives (as many claim existed) survive the fires?"

zyzygy · Mar 26, 2019

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Irwin Corey said:
You didn’t ask a question, simple or otherwise.

You didn't notice the question mark?

ralphcdp · Mar 26, 2019

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

NWO_Spook said:
I know this is resurrecting an old post, but I read this claim for about five pages knowing full well it was incorrect. The 'failed into their own footprint' claim is simply a truther meme of no substance. The debris field was much larger than the 'footprint' claim and damaged several buildings surrounding the site (e.g. Verizon, and the Deutsche Bank).

As always, zero evidence.

WTC1 struck WTC7 on the face off camera from the famous footage, thus causing a massive gash in the structure. The resulting fires weakened the bulding and down it came.

The fire dept. noted that WTC7 was becoming unstable and ordered an evacuation of the area. The FDNY could not fight the fires in WTC7 owing to the fact that the tower collapses cut off the water supply to the site.

Illustrative of how metabunkers know nothing. NIST itself said that the damage to WTC7 from WTC1 had nothing to do with the free fall collapse of WTC7. Fires had never brought down a steel framed high rise before 9/11. The fires were small in WTC7 and like all office fires, they burned for 20 to 30 minutes and then after exhausting the fuel supply they moved on.

Fireproofed steel cannot be heated to any significant temperature by a 20 to 30 minute low intensity fire. Again, it illustrates how metabunkers don't know anything about which they speak.

You state, "The resulting fires weakened the bulding and down it came". That is not remotely close to NIST's claim and again, it illustrates how metabunkers don't know anything about which they speak.

ralphcdp · Mar 26, 2019

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

NWO_Spook said:
I just finished the thread on this.

Being unclear and deceptive is how metabunkers like to work.

Mick and the crew demolished many of the claims in the book and no one in the review thread challenged the facts presented

What the hell are you talking about?

Griffin and co.'s other claims have been dealt with previously and repeatedly, and I think it is more accurate to state that Griffin is the individual who received 1 out if 5 (and that's generous), as is usual for his trash.

Typical metabunker evidence.

NWO_Spook · Mar 26, 2019

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

ralphcdp said:
As always, zero evidence.

Did you miss the pic demonstrating otherwise?

Illustrative of how metabunkers know nothing.

Your personal attacks are becoming tiresome. Please try to debate like an adult.

NIST itself said that the damage to WTC7 from WTC1 had nothing to do with the free fall collapse of WTC7.

I didn't say it did. "The resulting fires weakened the bulding and down it came" is a key sentence.

Fires had never brought down a steel framed high rise before 9/11.

So what?

The fires were small in WTC7 and like all office fires, they burned for 20 to 30 minutes and then after exhausting the fuel supply they moved on.

Incorrect. The FDNY knew the fires were out of control and they had no water to fight the conflagration. They noted the building was becoming unstable and evacuated the area.

Fireproofed steel cannot be heated to any significant temperature by a 20 to 30 minute low intensity fire.

But that is not the case.

Again, it illustrates how metabunkers don't know anything about which they speak.

I appear to know far more than yourself.

You state, "The resulting fires weakened the bulding and down it came".

So now you understand the point, so what was all that silly noise about above?

That is not remotely close to NIST's claim

Yes, it is actually. WTC7 was destroyed by fire. The building was severely damaged and suffered fire for seven hours prior to collapse. The NIST modelling suggested a beam in the atrium gave way under the stress and owing to the heat, and as a result of these factors, the building collapsed.

and again, it illustrates how metabunkers don't know anything about which they speak.

LOL I seem to have a better grasp than your self.

NWO_Spook · Mar 26, 2019

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

ralphcdp said:
Being unclear and deceptive is how metabunkers like to work.

What the hell are you talking about?

Typical metabunker evidence.

So, you've got nothing? I kind of figured that.

ralphcdp · Mar 26, 2019

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

NWO_Spook said:
Did you miss the pic demonstrating otherwise?

What pic?

Incorrect. The FDNY knew the fires were out of control and they had no water to fight the conflagration. They noted the building was becoming unstable and evacuated the area.

The fires were not out of control meaning anything beyond normal office fires which HAVE NEVER caused the collapse of any SF HR before or since. You are suggesting perhaps that Muslims can suspend the laws of physics, in a building, WTC7, that they never came close to?

I appear to know far more than yourself.

Because of all the "evidence" you present?

The NIST modelling suggested a beam in the atrium gave way under the stress and owing to the heat, and as a result of these factors, the building collapsed.

"In the atrium", this illustrates just how little you know. And Quag "likes" your uninformed opinions, your shocking lack of knowledge of the facts, science and total lack of any evidence to back your uninformed opinions.

NWO_Spook · Mar 26, 2019

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

ralphcdp said:
What pic?

The pic of the site in the post.

The fires were not out of control meaning anything beyond normal office fires

Completely untrue.

which HAVE NEVER caused the collapse of any SF HR before or since. You are suggesting perhaps that Muslims can suspend the laws of physics, in a building, WTC7, that they never came close to?

No, that is stupid. It seems I'm going to have to repeat myself endlessly here, so I don't think I'll bother.

Because of all the "evidence" you present?

Where's yours?

"In the atrium", this illustrates just how little you know.

So, disprove my claim.

And Quag "likes" your uninformed opinions, your shocking lack of knowledge of the facts, science and total lack of any evidence to back your uninformed opinions.

And more personal attacks, Is this all you do here?

ralphcdp · Mar 31, 2019

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

NWO_Spook said:
Where's yours?

Thousands of highly principled, highly educated science professionals.

So, disprove my claim.

Okay. You are advancing metabunker drivel. From which metabunker "scientists"?

ralphcdp · Mar 31, 2019

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

NWO_Spook said:
The pic of the site in the post.

OKay, so which steel framed high rise collapsed?

View attachment 67253448

NWO_Spook · Apr 1, 2019

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

It looks like o'l Ralphy is still libelling me even though he knows I have him on 'ignore'. How cute

zyzygy · Apr 1, 2019

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

NWO_Spook said:
It looks like o'l Ralphy is still libelling me even though he knows I have him on 'ignore'. How cute

He probably doesn't realize it yet. Give him time.

gerrycan · Apr 9, 2019

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gamolon said:
Looked at this a little more. Now I'm even more confused as to why you think core destruction did NOT extend to the corner core columns, especially column 508. See below. The last two buckling/moving columns are in line with column 508.
View attachment 67251354

Column 508 is where the corner hat truss outrigger connected to the facade. This is in line with the last two moving/buckling perimeter facade columns below, pointed out by you.
View attachment 67251356

Edit: Added column 508 outrigger perimeter facade connection in correlation to last two moving/buckling facade columns.
View attachment 67251358

At the N face of the N tower at initiation, perimeter column 150 doesn't descend but is pushed slightly east by the panel formed by columns 147-149, which themselves descend for less than a foot for 149 and less than 5 feet for 147 initially by way of pulling from columns 146 and those west of it. At initiation column 146 is the most easterly column on the N face to descend without meeting enough resistance to arrest it's descent and column 150 does not fail as part of the initiation.

It's pretty much as you would expect given the damage to Column 148 and 147 around floor 93.......

There does appear to be failure at initiation in the N face perimeter columns West of column 147 below floor 94 though, and that could change the complexion of the supposed initiating event considerably. But whatever problems that may bring for the official story, the fact remains that column 150 does not fail in the initiation.

gamolon · Apr 10, 2019

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gerrycan said:
At the N face of the N tower at initiation, perimeter column 150 doesn't descend but is pushed slightly east by the panel formed by columns 147-149, which themselves descend for less than a foot for 149 and less than 5 feet for 147 initially by way of pulling from columns 146 and those west of it. At initiation column 146 is the most easterly column on the N face to descend without meeting enough resistance to arrest it's descent and column 150 does not fail as part of the initiation.

Okay, but explain how this leads you to the conclusion that core columns (specifically column 508) didn't fail?

gerrycan · Apr 11, 2019

gamolon said:
Okay, but explain how this leads you to the conclusion that core columns (specifically column 508) didn't fail?

No distortion at the North face East of column 150, which there would have been had the transfer truss failed, which it would have if CC508 had failed at initiation.

gamolon · Apr 12, 2019

gerrycan said:
No distortion at the North face East of column 150, which there would have been had the transfer truss failed, which it would have if CC508 had failed at initiation.

Based on what calculations or FEAs do you make this claim? How do you know the trusses didn't bend/shear at the perimeter column facade when column 508 dropped?

gamolon · Apr 30, 2019

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
The proper use of specially designed nuclear devices would also render boiling iron.

There was NEVER any temperature observed high enough to indicate boiling iron, 5,184°F (2,862°C). You made that up.

Thoreau72 said:
And it would explain the strangely burned vehicles observed.

These vehicles showed the same burn patterns as vehicles involved in regular fires. You're again making things up.

Thoreau72 said:
And it might explain the lateral displacement of massive structural steel pieces.

So does a simple parabolic trajectory of a falling heavy object from high up. More made up nonsense.

Thoreau72 said:
And it would explain the forbidden photos taken by Kurt Sonnenfeld as he worked for FEMA.

This proves four nuclear events?

Thoreau72 said:
It would also explain the hotspots.

Not for boiling iron like you claimed above.

Thoreau72 said:
It would explain the high incidence of radiation sickness developing there.

It's not radiation sickness as has been explained to you numerous times. It's from breathing in toxic dust and fumes. Which is why firefighters decontaminate themselves after firefighting. There are numerous documents about the process.

Thoreau72 said:
It would explain why Matt Tartaglia's teeth fell out after he worked in those hot spots, and his subsequent death.

You STILL have not proven that Matt passed away. I have looked and can find nothing about his death.

Why do you continue to make up lies to support your theory?

Good4Nothin · May 7, 2019

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

9/11 was not an inside job. There was absolutely no reason for the plane theatrics. They could have exploded the towers and blamed Muslim terrorists without having to fake all that plane stuff.

gerrycan · May 24, 2019

gamolon said:
Based on what calculations or FEAs do you make this claim?

Based on a knowledge of the elements at that area and how they were connected, and observations of how the building behaved. I suppose we could go through the demand/capacity ratio for that column compared to it's neighbouring cores, but it does seem somewhat strange that you appear to be leaning toward a simultanious failure of the North perimeter columns around floor 96.

gamolon said:
How do you know the trusses didn't bend/shear at the perimeter column facade when column 508 dropped?

I'm sure they did, but that's not the question. The building is failing in the one way zones initially. Column 146 on the North face is the furthest east column who's descent is not arrested. The two way zone to the NE then follows just after. As this is all happening the roofline is descending more or less evenly.

The initial movement at the North face panels reflects the damage pattern sustained by them.

The green panel falls, the yellow one falls a little and stops, the red one doesn't descend at all, the yellow circle's at floor 96 and column 508 is just west (to the right) of opposite perimeter 151 which is the centre column of the red panel. What would be breaking the spandrel connections above and west of it, if 508 had failed opposite it ? The building at the North, is failing initially in the one way zone only.

gamolon · May 28, 2019

gerrycan said:
The building is failing in the one way zones initially. Column 146 on the North face is the furthest east column who's descent is not arrested. The two way zone to the NE then follows just after.

gerrycan said:
The 2 way zone at the NE corner does not initially descend with the one way area but rather is pushed East as can be seen in the aluminium cladding at initiation.

The two way zone, per the drawing below, went to column 142. How can you say that the 2 way zone does not initially descend. According to the drawing and photos of the facade, some of the two way zone descended did and some of it didn't.

SanderO · May 28, 2019

gamolon said:
The two way zone, per the drawing below, went to column 142. How can you say that the 2 way zone does not initially descend. According to the drawing and photos of the facade, some of the two way zone descended did and some of it didn't.
View attachment 67257219

This cartoon is inaccurate.

The two way zones do not make sense to me. All the trusses were of two lengths... long and short. There should have been a transfer truss at the corners framed into the core corner columns (actually framed into the corner of the belt truss around the core)

Note the the core columns decreased in their cross section going up the tower... but were set on the same CL. The belt truss was cantelivered off the core with longer and longer stub out beams the higher you go. But this allowed for all the trusses on all levels to be manufactured off site in uniform sizes - long and short. Cross trusses were erected perpendicular to the floor trusses in the field.

gerrycan · May 28, 2019

SanderO said:
This cartoon is inaccurate.

The two way zones do not make sense to me. All the trusses were of two lengths... long and short. There should have been a transfer truss at the corners framed into the core corner columns (actually framed into the corner of the belt truss around the core)

Note the the core columns decreased in their cross section going up the tower... but were set on the same CL. The belt truss was cantelivered off the core with longer and longer stub out beams the higher you go. But this allowed for all the trusses on all levels to be manufactured off site in uniform sizes - long and short. Cross trusses were erected perpendicular to the floor trusses in the field.

The reason it is not making sense to you is a confusion in terminology. What you're saying above is correct in terms of floor truss direction in a sense, but that's not what one/two way zones are referring to. A one way zone in the building is the area that will transfer predominantely in one direction, and the two way zones are areas toward the corners where the the movement is more in both directions.

The presence or relative absence of transverse trusses is in part a reflection of that overall structural characteristic rather than an indicator of where one and two way zones are bordered.

Where the diagram is misleading is that the area of lower shear in the slab for example would be right in the middle ie the centre of the one way zone. The horizonral transition from there to becoming the two way zone is a graduated increase in shear, rather than an arbitary line. IMO the height of the building would also result in a proportional narrowing of the one way zone.

As for the trusses being manufactured the same span for all levels, you're mistaken. There were 13 different zones from floor 9 to 107 and the difference in span for a panel at any given point is anything up to around 3ft or so I think. I could look the sheet out for you if you like.

gerrycan · May 28, 2019

SanderO said:
Note the the core columns decreased in their cross section going up the tower... but were set on the same CL. The belt truss was cantelivered off the core with longer and longer stub out beams the higher you go. But this allowed for all the trusses on all levels to be manufactured off site in uniform sizes - long and short. Cross trusses were erected perpendicular to the floor trusses in the field.

The "cross trusses" or bridging trusses were manufactured on the panel along with the rest before they got to site and the ends welded similarly to the edge single primary truss that would be shared with the one on the edge of the adjacent panel.

As for the panel sizes, here is a sheet detailing the difference in panels A-E. You can see that any given panel's dimensions will vary up to 2' 2" over 13 different height zones in the building rather than being manufactured uniformly. Vaulting the core perimeter truss up to an additional 2' 2" out from the cores must not have seemed like a good idea.

[W:57: 1585]Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

Proud AmeriCAN