De grote 9/11 topic

[exodus]

Inderdaad Steve, de plannen van het WTC tonen nu aan dat de core wel op zichzelf kon staan, in tegenstelling tot het mechanisme dat Firestone en Parcifal beweren.

Hier nog een stuk uit het artikel:

The blueprints show that FEMA's report was inaccurate in stating that core columns were "freestanding" when in fact large horizontal beams cross-connected the core columns in a three-dimensional matrix of steel.
The NIST report into the collapses has also been proven inaccurate by the blueprints as it has implied that the only the corner columns were "massive" and that the core columns decreased in size in the higher stories when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height.


These omitted and distorted facts serve to render the official reports extremely questionable. It seems that facts were being tweaked in order to get closer to an explanation for the collapses. Even then the reports both failed to provide adequate explanations of why the buildings fell.

[Firestone]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door exodus

Inderdaad Steve, de plannen van het WTC tonen nu aan dat de core wel op zichzelf kon staan, in tegenstelling tot het mechanisme dat Firestone en Parcifal beweren.

Geef een degelijke bron die aangeeft dat de core op zich bestand was tegen laterale krachten.

Geef ook eens aan wat er in de NIST-verslagen staat dat door de plannen wordt ontkracht.

Ik bedoel uiteraard niet de idiote interpretaties van Hoffman.
Dat hij zaken verkeerd interpreteert, en dan zegt dat NIST loog, dat is zijn probleem.

Wat ik graag zou willen zien is iets als het volgende (uiteraard is het voorbeeld fictief):

"In NISTNCSTAR1-3, pagina 75 staat dat de core column nummer zeven 10 cm breed was. Uit de plannen blijkt dat ze 20 cm breed was."

[exodus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Firestone

"In NISTNCSTAR1-3, pagina 75 staat dat de core column nummer zeven 10 cm breed was. Uit de plannen blijkt dat ze 20 cm breed was."

Het voorbveeld dat jij geeft kan niet, want NIST geeft de dimensies van de core collumns niet. Maar dat wist je wellicht wel en daarom gaf je dit voorbeeld. Je dekt je natuurlijk wel in door te zeggen dat het fictief is.

[exodus]

Anayway, ik verwijs daarvoor naar het artikel van 9/11 resaerch site:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...lueprints.html

Hier worden de weglatingen, distortions en vaagheid van de NIST reports besproken.

Een voorbeeld uit eht artikel:

In 2005 NIST published its 'Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers' -- a 280-page report that was extremely vague in a number of respects, including any description of the structural systems of the Towers. It contains very little information about the core columns, the following being one of the only passages describing them:

The 47 columns in this rectangular space were fabricated using primarily 36 ksi and 42 ksi steels and also decreased in size in the higher stories. The four massive corner columns bore nearly one-fifth of the total gravity load on the core columns.

The passage implies that only the corner columns were "massive" when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height.

[illwill]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door exodus

Anayway, ik verwijs daarvoor naar het artikel van 9/11 resaerch site:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...lueprints.html

Hier worden de weglatingen, distortions en vaagheid van de NIST reports besproken.

Een voorbeeld uit eht artikel:

En er word niets meer besproken van het proces 9/11 tegen Bush?

Wie laat er nu dingen weg? Ben jij duidelijk?

[Pindar]

LOL

CNN REPORTED NO EVIDENCE PLANE HIT PENTAGON 9/11

den video..


Pin d'Ar

[parcifal]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pindar

LOL

den video..

Pin d'Ar

Een duidelijke leugen gebaseerd op een 'verdraaiing' van wat gezegd wordt.

De reporter zegt :

"From my close up inspection there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere NEAR the pentagon.
The only (crash)site is the actual side of the building that has crashed in".

[Pindar]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door parcifal

Een duidelijke leugen gebaseerd op een 'verdraaiing' van wat gezegd wordt.

De reporter zegt :

"From my close up inspection there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere NEAR the pentagon.
The only (crash)site is the actual side of the building that has crashed in".

over draaien gesproken! heel goed hoor Parcifal, heel goed. pfff


Nuff said Nuff seen

Pin d'Ar

[parcifal]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door democratsteve

Zodat goedgelovigen als parci beweringen gaan doen over die "zwakke" core.

Al wat ik daarover gezegd heb is dat de core-structure niet gedesigned is om laterale belasting op te vangen.
Dat is trouwens een feit want daarvoor is het grondoppervlak te klein.

Maar dat verzwijgt u natuurlijk weer doelbewust.

Die core was trouwens inderdaad (te) zwak om de impact van de instorting op te vangen. Dat is al lang en breed bewezen. Onder meer door de analyse van Dr. Greening.
Maar ik weet wel dat cijfers of rapporten jou niets zeggen.

Jou kunnen ze alles wijsmaken, Steve.

[exodus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door parcifal

Maar ik weet wel dat cijfers of rapporten jou niets zeggen.

Ahum, in het NIST rapport gaven ze zelfs geen cijfers. Ze gaven de dikte van de collums niet, dat we nu weten dankzij de gelekte plannen van één WTC toren.

En wat blijkt daaruit? Dat ze dingen wegaten, vaagheid creeren , distortions etc.

[exodus]

Interessant stukje over de redenen dat mensen niet in 9/ inside job kunnen/willen geloven.

911: Can You Handle The Truth?

Russell Gentile

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

9-11 is one of the most infamous days of our current time. Many people experienced the events of that day with surprise, shock, sadness, and anger. I am one of them.All of these emotions clouded my judgment until I early on discovered an entire, very credible counter culture for lack of a better term that from almost day one has researched and opposed the official government story parroted by the mainstream. This counter culture that involves people and experts from all walks of life has been mostly unable to get an honest spirited debate in the mainstream without being labeled nut cases and anti-American. Why is this?


DENIAL AND DISMISSAL

In my study of the events of that fateful day, I have encountered two primary reasons why most people dismiss an engaging debate on the subject:

1. The Government cannot do anything right let alone keep a grand conspiracy like this under wraps
2. George Bush, as hated as he is, especially by the liberal media would incite responses/investigations from those in the media to expose him for being part of it.

There should be a national and ongoing debate among participants of both sides of the aisle bringing key facts, figures, and witnesses to bear to bring into the open a true discussion. After all, if the government has nothing to hide, why is there no debate on one of the most important issues of our time, in which wars are being justified, liberties trashed, literally trillions of dollars spent, laws and agencies erected which are classically un-American or unconstitutional, and society re-engineered?
Obviously we are no longer truly free, if this debate is stifled in any way.

Lees verder op:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...0307handle.htm

[Akufen]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door parcifal

Dat is al lang en breed bewezen. Onder meer door de analyse van Dr. Greening.
Maar ik weet wel dat cijfers of rapporten jou niets zeggen.

Jou kunnen ze alles wijsmaken, Steve.

http://www.teamliberty.net/id289.html (augustus 2006)

Dr. Frank R. Greening to argue in support of government account of the events of September 11, 2001 at the National 9/11 Debate

The National 9/11 Debate is pleased to announce that Frank R. Greening Ph.D. has agreed to participate in the National 9/11 Debate on March 10, 2007 in Charleston, South Carolina. Frank R. Greening will be part of a seven-member debate team that will support the U.S. government’s official account of 9/11 events.

http://www.teamliberty.net/id245.html (January 2007)

On January 31, 2007 the Muckraker Report canceled its effort to hold a National 9/11 Debate. We thank everyone who expressed interest in the event, particularly those patriotic Americans that were willing to publicly debate the government officials responsible for the “official” account of what happened on September 11, 2001. Jim Fetzer, George Nelson, Judy Wood, Philip Berg, Steven Jones, Morgan Reynolds, David Ray Griffin, and many others in the “Truth Movement” – the Muckraker Report salutes you and thanks you.

The reason for canceling this effort is simple. After hundreds of letters, e-mails, and phone calls, not one of the 9/11 Commissioners or the government scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology have agreed to debate their conclusions. In fact, they all have declined to debate. In addition, the corporate media has refused to report on the debate effort and declined to cover the event.

[Griffin]

Ik onthou vooral FONT HELVETICA

[Akufen]

Ja dat verbaast me niet

[Griffin]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Akufen

Ja dat verbaast me niet

Het is de NWO!

Ha, je hebt het aangepast, waarvoor dank!

[Akufen]

Meer over greening en de 'experts' van de overheid:

The Bazant & Zhou paper mentioned earlier, and another paper by Frank Greening, both claim to
have mathematical models that show how a high-rise steel structure can crush itself at the rate of
free-fall. These theoretical "pancaking" scenarios do not take into account the strength of specific
structural features like the continuous verticality of the core column assemblies or the fact that much
stronger and heavier materials were used in the lower part of the building. They also employ the
entire mass of the structure to drive the process while ignoring the fact that most of this mass is
inexplicably landing OUTSIDE of the original footprint and would therefore be unavailable.

But even if we forget all these objections, something else about the notion of a pancaking collapse
occurring at the rate of free fall defies intuition. The obvious problem with this idea is that it does
not allow time or energy to overcome the inertia of the materials in the lower part of the building that
must be instantly accelerated up to the rate of free fall in order to join the already falling material from
above - without slowing it down. In fact, each of these encounters with stationary mass will require
an energy expenditure from the falling material, which will slow it down — and, when combined with
the strength of the structure, quickly stop the process altogether.

[Griffin]

Aha, het debat is afgelast omdat er volgens de organisatoren niemand wilde deelnemen vanuit de overheid. En omdat er geen aandacht aan gegeven werd door de media.
Dus... ?

[exodus]

Goeie tekst Akufen , maar de believers van eht officiele verhaal zullen zeggen dat het niet exact in vrije val was, maar het was alleszinds zeer snel en de redenering in je post blijft opgaan.

[exodus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Griffin

Aha, het debat is afgelast omdat er volgens de organisatoren niemand wilde deelnemen vanuit de overheid. En omdat er geen aandacht aan gegeven werd door de media.
Dus... ?

Dus wat?

[Akufen]

En nog een reactie op Greening z'n fabeltje:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/a..._RossReply.pdf

Dr Greening states,
"Certainly, if Ross’ suggestion that 24 floors below about the 95th
floor moved downward after the impact of the upper section, the videos and photographs of the
th

collapse of WTC should show a noticeable downward displacement of floors between the 70
th
and 94
levels immediately after the impact. In fact, no such movement was observed. "

My analysis showed that a gravity only collapse would produce a "noticeable downward
displacement" and an arrest. I would argue that the absence of a noticeable downward
displacement is less significant than the very noticeable absence of arrest. Since neither was
observed then logic would dictate that either the analysis is wrong or it was not a gravity-only
collapse.

By adopting Dr. Greening's own arguments, corrections, contentions, figures and
reasoning, the analysis once again shows that the collapse would be arrested at an early stage.
Dr. Greening has not disproved the logic and conclusions of my article, but has in fact
reinforced the most important conclusion: that collapse would have been arrested at an early
stage.

Further doubt has been cast on a gravity-driven collapse using the analysis Dr.
Greening has provided in reference to the pulverisation of the concrete. Combining this
with our knowledge of the theoretical minimum collapse time having regard only to
momentum transfer, it is shown that a collapse time of 17.5seconds, is the theoretical
minimum collapse time having regard only to the momentum transfers and the concrete
pulverisation. This timing contrarily does not take regard of the loss of effective mass that
would be present due to the pulverisation and the ejection of the concrete pieces outside the
area where they play a role in promulgating the collapse. Having regard to this and the
other energies involved, the theoretical minimum collapse time can be seen to be
approaching double that of the figures given for the collapse timing in official reports, even
with no account taken of the energy demand from the distortion and destruction wrought
to the steel superstructures.