Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE]^yesme, so what really occurred on 9/11? WTC, Pentagon, building 7, etc...what do you honestly think went down from your information gathering, etc..
The reason I ask is so many of the videos that were put together by counter-theorists insinuate in one or more ways that it was "an inside job" but inside by who precisely and why.
[/QUOTE]
should i spend an hour typing up what and why and maybe who? i dont think so, you will not believe anything i say, cause i dont 50 degrees in anything i talk about, not to mention the nature of the human species to reject that which it finds uncomfortable, and just a fyi, it is an unconscious trigger, something you would not even understand, the mind protects itself from what it considers to be damaging information.
you have to come to the understanding yourself.
a good starting point is to realize that it is also human nature to rule it all, the alpha male thing.
then you have to realize that for 1700 years man has tried to rule it all by force(we can all agree that never really worked)
so either
a. man has fought human nature and now no person/group/country wants to run anything.
b. man has found a way to rule it all subversively.
then think of all the ways this could happen and who is in a position to pull this off.
after years of research it is amazing how many people all tie in together.
take for example the fed reserve bill and the income tax act, and col house. also the senator who helped pass both acts(even though 2 years before he was against an income tax)
who helped president wilson with an old fling from college and what did he give his old friend once he was president(hint first "religious" person of this kind to be appointed to supreme court).
why is the balfour declaration made out to one person and not the jewish community as a whole?
everyone knows we intake 100% of our information thru our eyes and ears, we also know that governments have been doing psyops for 50-75 years, but we somehow imagine that these would not be used against us(even though controlling the mass population has been going on since the roman times(youu think they built the colliseium for shits and giggles? it was to appease the roman population, keep them happy and not thinking what the roman leaders were doing)
most history professors will be glad to tell you as much.
it's almost funny that people believe old john d wreck a feller was such a nice guy that he set up a trust and that trust invests in school textbooks, out of caring for the lesser mans education.
[QUOTE]Miro and myself have agreed on occasions that there could be something more to the highjacking specifically, having lived in San Diego for nearly 10 years (during 9/11) I wasn't shocked in the least to hear that the 2 highjackers lived there and trained there (also where many gov't contractors are hq'd)...[b]But a controlled demolition? Why?[/b]
[/QUOTE]
because the towers had to come down, the asbestos fireproofing had to be removed, the towers were losing money every year, and the insurance company already told the port authority they would not pay for the removel, it would have to come out of pocket.
maybe thats why no one believes old lary would sign a 99 year contract for a building that needed a billion dollars out of pocket repairs.
i dont know, maybe that seems like a good business move to you.
you ever looked into the 93 wtc bombing at all? know who the lead gov witness is for that case? ever heard of the tapes he made of his fbi handlers?
[QUOTE]Ok. I may be able to find the weights. I don't think it is such a secret; you can probably search for it yourself on the net. [/QUOTE]
right, cause in 8 years i might not have looked for them, gotcha:roll:
[QUOTE]Most any physicist could estimate it pretty well with some knowledge of the building specs and the characteristics of the key materials used. I believe I have seem some studies that have this data... I'll look and see.
[/QUOTE]
here i'll help you since i have seen all the data put out.
they take the weight of the building(500k which is way to much to begin with anyway) and divide it by the number of floors.
again to assume that the first floor(with the added supports to hold up the whole building, weighed as much as the top floor, which had no added support since it did not support any floors above it)weighs as much as the top floor is beyond stupid.
[QUOTE]Also, please show some info about the bottom floors being "heavier" than the top floors - I've seen no such information.
[/QUOTE]
are you kidding dude? how about common sense?
[QUOTE]
Fighting Gravity
The main obstacle in building upward is the downward pull of [B]gravity[/B]. Imagine carrying a friend on your shoulders. If the person is fairly light, you can support them pretty well by yourself. But if you were to put another person on your friend's shoulders (build your tower higher), the weight would probably be too much for you to carry alone. To make a tower that is "multiple-people high," you need more people on the bottom to support the weight of everybody above.
This is how "cheerleader pyramids" work, and it's also how real pyramids and other stone buildings work. There has to be more material at the bottom to support the combined weight of all the material above.[/QUOTE]
or to put it in a simply physics term you might understand
center of gravity
[QUOTE]How is this possible? It's pretty simple, and requires just one little physics concept: [B]center of gravity[/B]. In a human being, your center of gravity is somewhere in your abdomen. The [I]higher[/I] your center of gravity is above the floor, the tougher it is to balance.[/QUOTE]
you need the supports and the majority of the weight on the lower floors and in the ground.
but really i want to know why you think that the 110th floor with no other floor to support would weigh as much as the 10th floor with 10 floors to support?(common sense would lead me to believe the 10th floor would need more steel and concrete in order to support the 100 floors above it, the extra supports would seem to add more weight.
but this somehow escapes you?
[QUOTE]If you search for published values of the mass of WTC 1 or 2, the number quoted is invariably close to 500,000,000 kg or 500,000 tonnes. But where does this number come from?
I have certainly never seen a detailed calculation of the mass of WTC 1 or 2; but there are plenty of references on the web for the weight of the materials used in the construction of the WTC Towers. For example, the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96,000,000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48,000,000 kg per Tower. I have also seen the weight of aluminum cladding reported to be 2,000,000 kg, and the weight of wallboard quoted at 8,000,000 kg per Tower, giving a total weight of structural materials of 154,000,000 kg per Tower.
Now let’s add in reasonable “guesstimates” for plumbing fixtures (5,000,000, kg), air conditioning (5,000,000 kg), electrical and telecommunication wiring (5,000,000 kg) and we have an additional 15,000,000 kg of structural mass that civil engineers always include as part of the “dead load” of a building. Thus combining all these contributions, we arrive at a weight, or dead load, of 169,000,000 kg for one WTC Tower. Surprisingly this accounts for only about 1/3rd of the oft-quoted 500,000,000 kg, so where is the missing mass?
The answer would appear to be in what civil engineers call the “live load” of the building, which in the case of one WTC Tower would have to be (500,000,000 - 169,000,000) kg or 331,000,000 kg, i.e., twice the dead load! We will show that this result leads to major problems …..
But first, let’s convert our load data in to more familiar engineering units based on floor areas. Building codes usually express loads in pounds per square foot (psf) or kilograms per square meter (kg/m^2). For example, the specification for a high live-load capacity floor is typically about 150 psf or 750 kg/m^2.
From the dimensions of a WTC Tower we estimate the available floor area per Tower was about 320,000 square meters. Hence, the live load was 331,000,000 kg divided by 320,000 m^2 which is equal to 1034 kg/m^2 or 212 psf. We see from the live load example given in the previous paragraph that 212 psf represents a very high live loading. But let’s look at just how high this load is…..
If the live loading within one WTC Tower really was 331,000,000 kg (more or less), that equals 3,009,091 kg per floor or about 3000 tonnes per floor!! I believe each WTC Tower employed about 15,000 people so we have an average of 136 people per floor. [b]This means that each person working in the Twin Towers contributed about 22 tonnes of live load!!![/b] That's an awful lot of office furniture, computers, printers, telephones..... or am I missing something?
[URL]http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/What-was-the-weight-of-a-WTC-Tower_4299.html[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]It's rather hard to believe (without additional evidence) mainly because it's so stupid of an idea.
Why go to all that elaborate waste to blow the building up from the top down - [I]after[/I] having planes crash into it? If your goal is to blow up the buildings, then[b] why not just blow them up in a straightforward fashion and cook up a story of how terrorists succeeded in bombing the thing? [/b]
[/QUOTE]
it can not be any more stupid then paying a company millions of dollars to do a cd of your building when you jst got to cut 1/100th of the support columns and then knock over some drums of jet fuel and light a fire.
to the bolded question....they tried that in 1993 and it did not go over so well, even though we have audio tapes of the fbi knowing about the bombing before it happened, i'm guessing you think we had no inside job on that either correct?
[QUOTE]No, these guys did. Read it - even if you're not a calculus expert (which maybe you are), you can still follow along with the key parts. This is the technical version of what I was trying to explain to you.
See Appendix 2 on Page 5.
[URL="http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf"][COLOR=#9b9b9b]http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Papers/405.pdf[/COLOR][/URL]
[/QUOTE]
i have yet to look at the part you mention but from the first page, i can see the report is flawed.
they begin talking about how prolonged heating(56 mins?) lead to creep.
i wonder why the longer hotter fire that covered more floors in 1975 did not also experence this?
imagine standing in an oven for 3 hours and not getting burnt.
then stand in a oven that has half the heat for 56 mins and being totally burnt to nothing.
sound feasible to you?:roll:
but i'll go look at your part now.
be sure to sometime in the next 30 pages to provide SOME kind of evidence that the fires in the wtc were hotter and covered more area and burned longer then the 1975 fires and you might have a case.
ok, having now viewed your part i can say without a doubt these guys are crackpots.
can you tell me whats wrong with figure 4 on page 5?
notice how none of the coloumns are missing on their diagram of the south tower?
notice how the undamaged columns are not pulled by the tipping of the tower(because they left the columns that were destroyed still in the diagram, otherwise the diagram would not make any sense)
in the diagram, part c starts to pull, but then in d it seems to snap back inward????:roll:
oh wait, is this the bazant paper?
lol
yeah, that has been debunked time and time again, are you kidding me?
[QUOTE]
[B]DR. BAZANT - NIST's 911 FALL GUY[/B]
by [URL="http://gordonssite.tripod.com/index.html"]Gordon Ross, ME[/URL], June 4, 2007*
When NIST encountered the sticky problem of how to explain the various facets of the collapse of the WTC Towers which did not fit their pre-ordained conclusion they must have been overjoyed to come across a hastily written paper by Dr. Bazant which purported to show, in a theoretical manner, that once started, the tower collapse would inevitably progress to ground level.
[b]Dressed up a little to remove the obvious shortcoming that it talked of the columns reaching temps of 800 C[/b] [/QUOTE]
800c?
ANY evidence for those temps AT ALL?
so in the very basic respect, his theory is flawed.
but here is one of the debunkings of bazant, done by yes, an engineer.
[URL]http://www.911blogger.com/node/9154[/URL]
when you find something that supports your view, do me a favor, look for a debunking of the paper, read it and see if it makes sense to you.
surely you know that no one, not even nist is claiming temps as high as 800c.
if this is the level of research you do, it is no wonder why you believe the offical theory.
i mean in 5 mins i pointed out major flaws in his theory, and i dont have a phd.
but again, i already understand that you are not going to change your mind, i mean it would not matter to you if bazant said 800c or 2800c, cause to you it's all good, who cares if there is no evidence to support either temp, at least it goes with the mainstream thinking right?