9/11 WTC Demolition worker to confess!

[Galileo]

It was designed to withstand wind. It didn't. What else is there to say?



Here's a post from the last time this was brought up:




The fire is not tiny.

http://www.debunking911.com/wtcc.jpg

But thanks for pointing out that they were on floors critical to the structure. That helps me out a lot.

Not the final one. Neither have you.

So if the bridge got knocked over by the wind, was it because of a design flaw, or was the wind greater than designed for? You see, with the WTC, nobody has discovered any designed flaw nor that it took an attack greated than what it was designed for. But of course, the WTC was not designed for controlled demolition.

btw - your photos don't impress me. There were thousands of buildings damaged in WWII far less than WTC 7 that never fell.

The fire is very tiny compared to the size of WTC 7. If the fire was in my garage, it would be big.

I have read the scientific reports on the WTC.

[Yonivore]

So he is arguing that the WTC couldn't withstand a hit from one 767, but was designed to withstand multiple 707s, because the 767 weighs a little bit more?

No, he's arguing that the World Trade Center was designed to survive an accidental impact from a 707, traveling at normal airspeed or dropping out of the sky like a rock; not an intentional, full-throttle, fully-fueled impact from a passenger-carrying guided missile in the guise of a airliner.

Two 707s weigh more than one 767.

I'm not a physics professor but, I'd imagine that 1 767 traveling at full-throttle, fully-loaded with fuel, exerts quite a bit more kinetic energy on impact than even two 707s being piloted by four career pilots trying to save their lives or who have dumped their fuel in resignation of their fate.

The 707 has a higher landing speed than a 767.

Neither a crashing 707 nor a 767 being intentionally piloted into a building can be assumed to be traveling at "landing speed" in this scenario so, what the does that have to do with September 11 and the World Trade Center attacks?

The WTC withstood the impact of the 767 anyway. There was just a fire near the top. That's why all the firemen and policemen rushed in, they knew it was safe becasue the engineers knew the fire wouldn't have any impact on the steel structure.

I guess all the firmen and policemen failed to bone up on their "what the happens when a fully-throttled, fully-fueled, airliner flies into a building" continuing education.

[Yonivore]

So if the bridge got knocked over by the wind, was it because of a design flaw, or was the wind greater than designed for? You see, with the WTC, nobody has discovered any designed flaw nor that it took an attack greated than what it was designed for. But of course, the WTC was not designed for controlled demolition.

I think the point he is making is that some design flaws are not discovered until after a failure.

And, actually, design flaws in the WTC Towers have been discussed. From the design of the stairwells to the application of fire re ant to the construction of the trusses. There have been quite a few things that engineers said they could have improved upon had they known a bunch of ING TERRORISTS WERE GOING TO FLY FULLY-FUELED AIRLINERS INTO THE BUILDINGS AT FULL THROTTLE.

[Yonivore]

I've got a serious question for you Galileo.

Why bother with the airplanes at all? Why not just rig the buildings for a controlled demolition and blame terrorists?

Sure, the conspiracy you've conjured up involves many people having to keep their mouths shut. Why take the risk of having all those people who witnessed the su ious activities leading up to the event live? Why not just bring the buildings down in a controlled explosion and kill them all?

I don't understand the need for the airplanes in your scenario.

If I were going to do what you allege, and I were the government; I'd recruit a highly professional black ops team to go in, plant the explosives, leave some evidence to incriminate bin Laden, and simultaneously push the plunger on all three buildings at 8:45 A.M. on September 11, 2001.

Then, I'd have the black ops team assassinated.

[Galileo]

I've got a serious question for you Galileo.

Why bother with the airplanes at all? Why not just rig the buildings for a controlled demolition and blame terrorists?

Sure, the conspiracy you've conjured up involves many people having to keep their mouths shut. Why take the risk of having all those people who witnessed the su ious activities leading up to the event live? Why not just bring the buildings down in a controlled explosion and kill them all?

I don't understand the need for the airplanes in your scenario.

If I were going to do what you allege, and I were the government; I'd recruit a highly professional black ops team to go in, plant the explosives, leave some evidence to incriminate bin Laden, and simultaneously push the plunger on all three buildings at 8:45 A.M. on September 11, 2001.

Then, I'd have the black ops team assassinated.

spectacular TV and an atmosphere of fear, followed by the Patriot Act and war.

[Yonivore]

spectacular TV and an atmosphere of fear, followed by the Patriot Act and war.

You don't think a sudden, unannounced, demolition of three building -- totalling somewhere north of 250 stories and containing more than 20,000 people would have been spectacular and instill an atmosphere of fear?

[Galileo]

I think the point he is making is that some design flaws are not discovered until after a failure.

And, actually, design flaws in the WTC Towers have been discussed. From the design of the stairwells to the application of fire re ant to the construction of the trusses. There have been quite a few things that engineers said they could have improved upon had they known a bunch of ING TERRORISTS WERE GOING TO FLY FULLY-FUELED AIRLINERS INTO THE BUILDINGS AT FULL THROTTLE.

The WTC was designed to withstand multiple large airliners at full throttle. Only one hit it. Many people in the WTC didn't even know anything happened at first because the WTC was designed to take a hit.

I am asking you WHAT DESIGN FLAW caused the WTC to fall, not some bull about the stairwells.

Have you ever read the scientific reports, or do you just regurjitate everything your hear on TV?

Here's one example:

The NIST report says 6 core columns were severed in the North Tower. This Tower was hit straught on at the 95th floor.

So what does NIST say about the South Tower? It says 10 core columns were severed, even though this was hit on the side and at a lower floor where the columns are thicker. This is total BS. Guess where they got these numbers, do you think they have any actual evidence? Nope. The had to had this many columns severed or the WTC wouldn't fall according to their computer simulations. That is not scientific reasoning folks, that's circular reasoning.

Here's some good movies to learn what happened to the towers:

9/11 Revisited: Were explosives used? (v.2)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=8

911 Mysteries Demolitions recut
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1

Improbable Collapse : The Demolition of our Republic
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

These are the three best movies on the subject, in increasing order of technical analysis.

Go for it, and learn the truth.

[Galileo]

You don't think a sudden, unannounced, demolition of three building -- totalling somewhere north of 250 stories and containing more than 20,000 people would have been spectacular and instill an atmosphere of fear?

More spectacular with airplane crashes. James Bond would approve.

[Yonivore]

The WTC was designed to withstand multiple large airliners at full throttle.

You're going to have to source that one.

[Yonivore]

More spectacular with airplane crashes. James Bond would approve.

More visual evidence from which nutters, such as yourself, can construct wild and fantastic conspiracy theories.

Not very James Bondish.

I seriously don't think you've given much thought to the sheer number of people who would have to know about the controlled demolition of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 and keep quiet.

First of all, whose plan was it?

Then, assuming you think it's the Bush cabal, did President Bush, himself, recruit the people to install the explosives? Or, did he delagate?

How many levels of people between Bush and the people that planted the explosives were there?

You're a nut.

[Galileo]

More visual evidence from which nutters, such as yourself, can construct wild and fantastic conspiracy theories.

Not very James Bondish.

I seriously don't think you've given much thought to the sheer number of people who would have to know about the controlled demolition of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 and keep quiet.

First of all, whose plan was it?

Then, assuming you think it's the Bush cabal, did President Bush, himself, recruit the people to install the explosives? Or, did he delagate?

How many levels of people between Bush and the people that planted the explosives were there?

You're a nut.

So how does this prove an office fire took down WTC 7? Was it the core column cabal that conspired to fall down at 5:20 PM?

[Al Gore]

Then, assuming you think it's the Bush cabal, did President Bush, himself, recruit the people to install the explosives? Or, did he delagate?

How many levels of people between Bush and the people that planted the explosives were there?

You're a nut.

Yonivore would be great to debate with if he wasn't so bias. Let go of Bush's sac for 5 minutes so we can get down to real 9/11 talk. Stop pulling out the Bush card 24/7

[Yonivore]

So how does this prove an office fire took down WTC 7? Was it the core column cabal that conspired to fall down at 5:20 PM?

I'm going with the NIST finding that a good chunk of the face of WTC 7, approximately 10 floors, gouged out to an approximate depth of 25% of building, near the center of the south face, caused by debris impacts from WTC1, is the likely culprit when combined with the fires fed by a pressurized fuel line fed from the basement.

[Yonivore]

Yonivore would be great to debate with if he wasn't so bias. Let go of Bush's sac for 5 minutes so we can get down to real 9/11 talk. Stop pulling out the Bush card 24/7

Isn't that who he believes is behind this?

[IceColdBrewski]

We've officially reached that point in the 9-11 conspiracy thread where the conspiracy nut starts grasping at straws.

[Al Gore]

Isn't that who he believes is behind this?

You pull out the Bush card no matter what the topic is. I know you love Bush and you probably have some sort of shrine dedicated to him in your trailer but if you want to show others your real political debate skills, (which you used to be known for) you need to think on your own without saying to yourself "what would Bush say" it makes for better conversation.

[Al Gore]

We've officially reached that point in the 9-11 conspiracy thread where the conspiracy nut starts grasping at straws.

Who is grasping? It seems to me anyone who has to resort to insults has run out of legit come backs. (cue in johnsmith to ruin this topic)

[Yonivore]

You pull out the Bush card no matter what the topic is. I know you love Bush and you probably have some sort of shrine dedicated to him in your trailer but if you want to show others your real political debate skills, (which you used to be known for) you need to think on your own without saying to yourself "what would Bush say" it makes for better conversation.

Well, unfortunately, the left wing nuts believe George Bush, Cheney, and Karl Rove are behind all that is wrong or that has gone wrong in the past 2,000 years.

Again, isn't Galileo saying that our government is behind 9-11?

By the way, you should have shut the up after your concession speech in 2000.

[johnsmith]

Who is grasping? It seems to me anyone who has to resort to insults has run out of legit come backs. (cue in johnsmith to ruin this topic)

At least you know for sure it's me talking.


By the way, which one of your trolls has a life?

[Al Gore]

[QUOTE=Yonivore]Well, unfortunately, the left wing nuts [quote]

Insult #1 (shows your desperate and in a corner).

believe George Bush, Cheney, and Karl Rove are behind all that is wrong or that has gone wrong in the past 2,000 years.

You just couldn't go 5 minutes w/o using the Bush card again could you?

Again, isn't Galileo saying that our government is behind 9-11?

Who cares who is behind 9/11 lets find out how 3 steel frame building just happen to collapse into dust.(first time in history) Then if we have time, we can go into who and why.

By the way, you should have shut the up after your concession speech in 2000.

Don't worry who ever you vote for will have the same opportunity in 08

[Yonivore]

Insult #1 (shows your desperate and in a corner).

No, there are nuts...generally, but not always, on the far left...that believe our government is behind the 9-11 attacks. If I'm not mistaken, that group includes Galileo.

You just couldn't go 5 minutes w/o using the Bush card again could you?

You know, when the implication is always there that our government, currently presided over by George Bush, is complicit in the greatest terrorist act committed on American soil, it demands to be made explicit.

Does he think George Bush had something to do with 9-11 or not? Simple question.

Who cares who is behind 9/11 lets find out how 3 steel frame building just happen to collapse into dust.(first time in history) Then if we have time, we can go into who and why.

First of all, who is a bit more important than how. But, secondly, I believe the NIST has what they call a "working theory" that does not include controlled demolition charges.

Something about WTC1 and WTC2 being struck by really, really, fast moving airplanes loaded with fuel. And, WTC7 being struck by gobs and gobs of debris from the collapsing WTC1.

I don't know, seems more plausible than a crew of demolition experts sneaking around planting charges and then, arranging for suicide plane bombings to cover their nefarious plan.

Don't worry who ever you vote for will have the same opportunity in 08

We'll see, eh? At least you're not going to be on the ballot. Unless of course, you're still a liar.

[Jimmy]

Not that's the Yonivore I remember from WOAI

[Yonivore]

Not that's the Yonivore I remember from WOAI

Do I know you?

[ChumpDumper]

So how does this prove an office fire took down WTC 7? Was it the core column cabal that conspired to fall down at 5:20 PM?

How did the government demolition crews make WTC 7 deform measurably enough to lead the firemen to evacuate the area because THEY KNEW IT WAS GOING TO COME DOWN?

Please answer this question.

[Galileo]

I'm going with the NIST finding that a good chunk of the face of WTC 7, approximately 10 floors, gouged out to an approximate depth of 25% of building, near the center of the south face, caused by debris impacts from WTC1, is the likely culprit when combined with the fires fed by a pressurized fuel line fed from the basement.

NIST says the 10 floors that were gouged out were the SW corner between floor 8 and 18. This area is limited to a few yards from the corner.

This gouge has nothing to do with a building falling in a controlled demolition, or the east Penthouse on the other side of the building falling down.

MEMO

Controlled demolition companies do not start their demolition by gouging out 10 floors in one corner of the building.