| Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Demoliton access and implications for no planes | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 17 2009, 02:21 PM (206 Views) | |
| abababba | Aug 17 2009, 02:21 PM Post #1 |
|
When I was looking at Kevin Ryan's recent articles on demolition access to the towers something struck me as odd. When he is examining the tenants on the impact floors, he is implicitly assuming something about what hit the wtc. If the wtc was hit by the actual Boeing 767 during a live hijacking, no one would have been able to rig the demolition to look like it started exactly on the impact floors. This results in the following argument: Make the following two assumptions: The WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition. The collapse of the WTC looks like it begins on the impact floors, in such a way that if there was a controlled demolition, then different types of explosives must have been used on the impact floors versus the other floors. Now, this implies that the impact floors would have been known before 9/11. But if this were the case, the towers couldn't have been hit by a live hijacking, which is most likely not accurate enough to hit specific floors with certainty. Remote control planes probably wouldn't even be this accurate, although I'm open to suggestions about this. One would need either a truly precision guided weapon or no object at all to get the right degree of accuracy. I'm interested in other thoughts or interpretations. These definitely aren't air tight arguments but its something I hadn't thought about until yesterday. |
 |
 
|
| DrBabs | Aug 19 2009, 02:33 AM Post #2 |
|
We know that at the very least WTC 7 was not taken down by regular controlled demolition because of the image that Rasga posted. A fire is a bit of a hazard, if you think about pre-wiring all those bombs in the building, right? Is it possible to pre-wire a building with explosives, set it on fire for five hours, and then successfully set off the explosives, so the building falls just like it's supposed to? It's a stupid story, and I don't believe it. No bombs were in WTC 7. 
Edited by DrBabs, Aug 19 2009, 02:36 AM.
|
|
|
|
| DrBabs | Aug 19 2009, 02:37 AM Post #3 |
|
Hi Broken Sticks! |
|
|
|
| achimspok | Oct 1 2009, 12:14 AM Post #4 |
|
Problem 1: It's a pleasure to start with a quote from 911myth and a paper called Remote Takeover. Quote: "Autoland - Coupled with ILS, performs an automatic landing by auto-idling thrust, auto-flaring and auto-rollout. If you ever notice an unusually soft landing, especially in bad weather - rest assured that the airplane has just landed itself. No applause necessary!" I assume that the plane found the airport + the runway + know it's altitude above the runway. Btw, the paper intents to debunk the possibility of a remote takeover. Major argument: The pilot and the crew (alive and able to react) would cut off all electric energy sources and fly the plane by hand and sight. (As far as I know, not one of the pilots was able to send the code for "hijack". Just Barbara Olsen, who according to the FBI called her husband for (duration) 0 seconds, said on the phone "the pilots were herded in the back". Minor argument 1: The autopilot wasn't precise enough and a precise GPS system would have required weeks out off service. (Hmm, the BTS database has nothing about these planes and responded with an nearly empty page on a FOIA request. Just some plane spotters spotted these planes during the year prior to 9/11.) Minor argument 2: A container of nerve gas would be that huge that the pilot immediately would have noticed. (Hmm, flight attendants from alleged AA11 and UA175 reported mace in business class. These mace containers apparently were small enough to bring it through the security check. ...if it was just mace. ...if it wasn't aboard already. VX nerve agent == O-Ethyl-S-[2-(diisopropylamino)-ethyl]-methylthiophosphonat == deadly dose = 300µg Problem 2: The picture of the WTC7 shows how the north wind sucked the smoke upwards in the wind shadow of the building.  You could also watch the live report of CNN shortly after the collapse of WTC2 while the anchor says "huge columns of smoke" and the WFC looks like burning on every single floor.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KELwL9DCqqw Meanwhile WTC5 and WTC6 burnt heavily in the shadow of the wind of WTC7 (just invisible in the FEMA-report photograph) Problem 3: Let's assume (just for the moment) a real plane hit the building. That plane caused some real damage and fire. And the damage and fire weakened the structure. Now, if the core wasn't able to carry the load then a) some load would be redistributed to the perimeter and b) the core starts to sag If the perimeter columns were overloaded then - BINGO - the building would collapse at the weakest link of the chain from the roof downwards to the basement. Therefore, the outer shell of the building would always collapse exactly at the floors you would expect to collapse first ... just ... may be ... the wrong corner first. A sagging core might explain the inward bowing of the south face of WTC1 / east face WTC2. Imo, some sagging floors cannot explain the observable inward bowing of 55inches maximum because these 18 meters wide span floor trusses had to sag for 3 meters to pull 55 inches inwards. The NIST full scale test confirmed just some inches of sagging after 2 hours of heavy burning and maximum load on the floor above. The damage estimation of the NIST report shows no damage to the (renovated) fireproofing in the area of that 55 inches maximum. The videos show no fire conditions in the area of that 55 inches maximum prior to the collapse of WTC2. Therefore the renovated fireproofed 18 meters long span floor trusses had 20 minutes to sag 3 meters. Any conclusion? The plane probably can do it - best without pilot. The building would collapse where the plane autolanded anyway. The demolition of the core at any elevation might be a better explanation for the inward bowing at the impact zone. (NIST could use their DYNASYS computer model to check it. They won't do it.) But - between the lines - the NIST report confirmed that the demolition of one single column would have totally demolished WTC7 at free fall acceleration. IF that "put the bunker in the basement" theory is right THEN what's about the towers? Some strange things going on inside of WTC1. Edited by achimspok, Oct 1 2009, 12:21 AM.
|
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Oct 1 2009, 01:22 PM Post #5 |
|
A 3m sag is required?! Geez. That's the height of a whole floor. A video showing exactly this (with some kind of overlay of the "required" sag) would be great you know. |
|
|
|
| achimspok | Oct 1 2009, 03:58 PM Post #6 |
|
Start here! I try to get a translation for the whole series. Btw, the only one photographic evidence for a sagged floor in the WTC towers is the hanging floor 83 WTC2. That floor apparently was ripped off the perimeter wall by either the plane impact or the pressure of the fuel-air explosion. In other words, that floor couldn't pull the perimeter columns inward because the floor connections were broken. Any supposition? Yes, the columns were bowed inwards. Edited by achimspok, Oct 1 2009, 04:11 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
9:56 PM Nov 28
