| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| PJK |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 09:24:09 AM
this.
http://news.aol.com/article/feds-say-theyve-solved-911-mystery/143502?icid=200100397x1207782847x1200447479 |
| 12 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| dan p. |
Posted - 08/23/2008 : 3:47:27 PM
excellent points, and to my amateur eye it makes sense. blown support at 79 would have produced some visible effect prior to collapse.
however, with 79 gone, wouldn't that put a lot of strain on 80 and 76? what would be the result of that? i feel like if the resulting strain on 80 and 76 was too much, those would have failed, putting more strain on 81, 73 and especially 77, that being connected to both 80 and 76. i mean, i don't really know a whole lot about it, so maybe that's not the case at all and i'm way off. it'd be interesting to know, though.
but then, even with the failure of all of those, wouldn't it still create some sort of visible effect?
the trouble with the article is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. they posit that because the 79 theory is wrong, it must have been explosives. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 08/23/2008 : 06:12:14 AM
Two Powerful Forces Should Have Made WTC 7 Tip Over
George Washington’s Blog
Saturday, Aug 23, 2008
World Trade Center building 7 was not a square or a rectangle, but a trapezoid:
As such, the larger side of the building would be heavier and more massive.
NIST claims that column 79 collapsed, leading to the collapse of the whole building.
Column 79 was located towards the larger end of the building (towards the bottom of the following diagram):
Because NIST claims that only column 79 was destroyed in the beginning of the collapse sequence, and because the same side of the building in which 79 was located was the bigger, heavier side of the building, two different influences should have ensured that the building tilted toward the bigger end.
Therefore, high school physics shows that - if column 79 had collapsed and explosives did not take out all of the other support columns at once - building 7 should have tipped towards one side.
NIST’s argument that the strong exterior steel held the building perpendicular and didn’t let it tip over is illogical. The forces generated by the two above-described processes would be larger than any dynamic NIST describes. At the very least, the contrary forces would have been visible, and there would have been buckling, swaying or other indications of competing forces.
NOTE: If the collapse had started at the base of the building, then perhaps the wider base on the larger side of the building might have compensated for the greater weight. However, NIST states that the collapse started at the thirteenth floor. The wider base should not have offset the greater weight and failure so high up - from the 13th floor upwards - at least not entirely. In the absense of explosives, we still should have seen substantial deformities, buckling and/or tipping.
I encourage physicists and engineers to estimate how much heavier the larger side of the building was than the smaller side, and to calculate the forces which would have been at play given the hypothetical collapse of column 79. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 7:41:34 PM
Also read this blog there are some hyperlinks I wasn't able to copy and paste.
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/08/debunking-nists-conclusions-about-wtc-7.html |
| rubylith |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 7:34:28 PM
You rule Pam! Going to be down in Cville soon (maybe September/October) to play I will let you know!! Dan you're amazing. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 5:28:25 PM
this new story requires proof that the collapse of the towers broke the water main. you can't just sit there and go "the water main broke. it's science." that's not how science, or plain old rationality works. this explanation fails for the same reason the conspiracy theory fails: no proof. |
| PJK |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 5:02:55 PM
Suuuuurrrrrre, just email my addy to your email address.........that gets returned due to being invalid!!!! LOL
You accidentally added a 'K' to the .com part and I didn't look when I sent the email. So, I copied what I wrote and sent it back to you again, minus the 'K'.
So, you've got mail!  Can't wait to hear you new music, Dave! |
| rubylith |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 4:49:47 PM
Yes the new cd is out and available for FREE for anyone on this board. Email me your address to dcmedia2@hotmail.comk I will be happy to send it to you!!!
Going to see DMB tonight I am in San Diego. It's beautiful out! |
| rubylith |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 4:48:29 PM
The government has found that the government was not responsible...hah
NIST WTC 7 Report: Shameful, Embarrassing And Completely Flawed
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, August 22, 2008
NIST Claims “New Phenomenon” Occurred For First Time Ever In Collapse Of WTC 7
Yet fails to address why ground zero workers and media outlets had prior knowledge of an “extraordinary event” never before observed an hour in advance, plus myriad of other ignored issues
In its final report on the collapse of WTC 7 that news outlets are reporting “puts 9/11 conspiracy theories to bed,” NIST claims that the never before observed “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” was to blame for the destruction of the building, a completely ludicrous conclusion in a report that simply ignores eyewitness testimony and hard evidence that points to the deliberate demolition of the structure.
NIST completely fails to address prior knowledge of the building’s collapse, including why news outlets like the BBC and CNN reported that the building had collapsed an hour before it actually fell, as well as firefighters on the scene who are heard on video saying, “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.”
If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a “new phenomenon” and an “extraordinary event” that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, then why did news stations and gro |
| KevinLesko |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 3:02:31 PM
quote:
was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a skyscraper.
oh brother. |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 2:02:08 PM
LOL Like you PJK, when I saw that headline I immediately thought of Dave and contemplating posting it. Once again, you beat me to it. hehe |
| PJK |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 1:11:49 PM
quote:
Case closed! The feds solved it!
Yep, don't ya love the way they can do that? Kind of like the way they came up with the "one" gun man in the JFK assassination.
Do I believe them? Oh yeah, sure, after all they "are" the government aren't they? Now, can I interest anyone in some "water front" property I have in the middle of Florida?
Anyway, I did think of you Dave and knew you would just "love" what they came up with. BTW, did your new CD ever come out? Sorry, been out of touch. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 12:38:18 PM
Case closed! The feds solved it!
Now if we could only explain those put options on the airline stock...
And why the alarms were off in 7,
or why bomb sniffing dogs were removed in the days prior.
The same people who brought you this investigation are the same people who brought you the attacks. |
|
|
