The Fortean/paranormal/conspiracy thread

[Dynamite Duane]

The way the Twin Towers go down is a lot different to WTC7, I point out WTC7 because it stands out so much as appearing to be a controlled demolition and experts have recognised this as I have quoted. Regards the Twin Towers they explode rather than implode. I guess you're implying the official story of the pancake "theory" is then correct. The problem here is the buildings were built in the 60s to the withstand the impact of a Boeing airliner colliding into them, 9/11 is the first case of a building being destroyed by a plane hitting it with the steel girders melting instead part of the structure still standing. If I recall correctly Keelan's excellent video covers this. However I've watched so many 9/11 investigative films the past couple of weeks revising on it all, that could be from another one. Also fires were put and people told it was safe, then there were explosions according to witnesses.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Dynamite Duane

[ReturnOfTheMack]

Duane go read the popular mechanics stuff please. It will answer a lot of your technical suspicions.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...ld-trade-center

 

 

 

 

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom

[DJ Stevie C]

The problem here is the buildings were built in the 60s to the withstand the impact of a Boeing airliner colliding into them, 9/11 is the first case of a building being destroyed by a plane hitting it with the steel girders melting instead part of the structure still standing.

 

Wait....

 

So they planned for Airliners that hadn't been conceived when they started construction on the towers.

 

That's really clever. Also no one had flown a fully laden plane as large as a 767 into a building before. I'm sure if they had there would be more cases of building collapsing due to this...

[Dynamite Duane]

Duane go read the popular mechanics stuff please. It will answer a lot of your technical suspicions.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...ld-trade-center

 

 

 

 

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

 

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

 

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

 

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

 

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

 

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

 

As for explosions and pancaking

 

Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

 

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

 

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

 

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

I've seen this young lad from Popular Mechanics on the BBC programme, I'm not convinced by them when there are so many experts in demolition, architects and engineers who say it's bollocks. Sorry I'm not buying this "full of air theory" that Charlie Veitch spouted after his BBC paid for trip to the States. It's even on film being said "it's going to come down" and "pull it".

Damn right the demolition expert is going to say he was misquoted, good chance he was threatened or paid off. If you watch the video you can tell he was amazed when he was told afterwards it was of the 3rd building that was destroyed on 9/11. By the way have you seen this footage I'm referring to ROTM? You can really hear amazement in his voice.

 

If you've got a clear video of a jet liner hitting the Pentagon please share it. What's currently in the public domain doesn't clearly show this.

 

Anyone care to explain the Nano-thermite particles found in the dust of what was discovered at ground zero?

 

- 5minute video, enjoy Edited September 24, 2011 by Dynamite Duane

[Dynamite Duane]

The problem here is the buildings were built in the 60s to the withstand the impact of a Boeing airliner colliding into them, 9/11 is the first case of a building being destroyed by a plane hitting it with the steel girders melting instead part of the structure still standing.

 

Wait....

 

So they planned for Airliners that hadn't been conceived when they started construction on the towers.

 

That's really clever. Also no one had flown a fully laden plane as large as a 767 into a building before. I'm sure if they had there would be more cases of building collapsing due to this...

They were built to withstand impact of the Boeing airliner of similar size that was in existence but not the exact model that collided into the towers. I suggest you research this rather than take my word for it.

 

EDIT:

 

Just done my own research, feel free to check other sources -

 

Aircraft impact

The structural engineers on the project also considered the possibility that an aircraft could crash into the building. In July 1945, a B-25 bomber that was lost in the fog had crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. A year later, another airplane nearly crashed into the 40 Wall Street building, and there was another near-miss at the Empire State Building.[60] In designing the World Trade Center, Leslie Robertson considered the scenario of the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707, which might be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark airports.[61] The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found a three page white paper that mentioned another aircraft impact analysis, involving impact of a jet at 600 mph (970 km/h), was indeed considered, but the original documentation of the study was lost when Port Authority offices were destroyed in the collapse of the World Trade Center.[62]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_...ld_Trade_Center

Edited September 24, 2011 by Dynamite Duane

[Devon Malcolm]

Anyone care to explain the Nano-thermite particles found in the dust or what was left of the Twin Towers?

 

A residue left behind after thermite welding. It's usually used in railway tracks but has been used in some building construction. Next?

[Dynamite Duane]

Anyone care to explain the Nano-thermite particles found in the dust or what was left of the Twin Towers?

 

A residue left behind after thermite welding. It's usually used in railway tracks but has been used in some building construction. Next?

Thanks, but that's hearsay, please provide your source of it being used in the construction of the WTC steel structure. As you can see above I've quoted my source regards the construction of the towers to withstand impact of a Boeing airliner colliding into them.

 

 

Once you've provided it this one's next...

The passport of the alleged hijacker conveniently found despite nearly everything else literally turned to dust.

- to good to be true? Go on, tell me it was contained in lead

 

EDIT:

 

May I also suggest googling PNAC - Project for a New American Century. There are documents stating for the US to further assert itself as the only Super Power it needs a new Pearl Harbour.

 

To get up to speed on the videos I've seen check out all the following:

 

Blue Print for 9/11 Truth

- Richard Gage, architechs and engineers for 9/11 truth.

 

Elephant In The Room

Dean Puckett. Made by someone who doesn't believe 9/11 was an inside job but still presents compelling evidence.

 

9/11 - The Greatest Lie Ever Sold

Anthony J Hilder

 

History Cannot be permantly falsified

Ian R Crane (on Edge Media, might not be on youtube)

 

9/11 Ripple Effect.

 

Loose Change

 

Captain Sherlock Solves 9/11 - Field McConnell, former airline and fighter pilot investigates. See it on Egde Media - Sky 200.

- I've not got around to seeing the whole film yet but seen all his interview.

 

There's also Zeitgeist.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Dynamite Duane

[Astro Hollywood]

Anyone care to explain the Nano-thermite particles found in the dust or what was left of the Twin Towers?

 

A residue left behind after thermite welding. It's usually used in railway tracks but has been used in some building construction. Next?

Thanks, but that's hearsay

 

As opposed to...?

 

EVERY SINGLE THING YOU'VE EVER CITED ON HERE

 

I think the way you, and the conspiracy types, ditched Charlie Veitch after he changed his tune, rather than "Hey, this chap I've been saying is a stand-up guy, and linking to his videos because what he says is important and worth listening to now has a new take on things. I will listen to the new take..." sums it all up. There's literally nothing that will change your minds.

 

I've always said that if David Icke came out and said he was wrong, that he's now taking meds for his schizophrenia, or he just made it up for a laugh, the believers would all say that 'the man' got to him, and still believe in every word he'd said before he TURNED TO THE DARKSIDE. The way everyone immediately ditched former-champion Veitch, to the point of not even wanting to say his name or acknowledge that he existed, is absolutely hilarious, and a brilliant summing up of that whole mindset. He used critical thinking, informed investigation and facts to decide that he was wrong, but FUCK HIM, NOW HE'S ONE OF THE UNTHINKING SHEEP! Whut?

 

Duane, what's your take on the while Veitch thing? Is everything he ever said and did discredited now? Or just the stuff up to the point he changed his mind?

Edited September 24, 2011 by Woyzeck

[Dynamite Duane]

Anyone care to explain the Nano-thermite particles found in the dust or what was left of the Twin Towers?

 

A residue left behind after thermite welding. It's usually used in railway tracks but has been used in some building construction. Next?

Thanks, but that's hearsay

 

As opposed to...?

 

EVERY SINGLE THING YOU'VE EVER CITED ON HERE

 

I think the way you, and the conspiracy types, ditched Charlie Veitch after he changed his tune, rather than "Hey, this chap I've been saying is a stand-up guy, and linking to his videos because what he says is important and worth listening to now has a new take on things. I will listen to the new take..." sums it all up. There's literally nothing that will change your minds.

 

I've always said that if David Icke came out and said he was wrong, that he's now taking meds for his schizophrenia, or he just made it up for a laugh, the believers would all say that 'the man' got to him, and still believe in every word he'd said before he TURNED TO THE DARKSIDE. The way everyone immediately ditched former-champion Veitch, to the point of not even wanting to say his name or acknowledge that he existed, is absolutely hilarious, and a brilliant summing up of that whole mindset. He used critical thinking, informed investigation and facts to decide that he was wrong, but FUCK HIM, NOW HE'S ONE OF THE UNTHINKING SHEEP! Whut?

 

Duane, what's your take on the while Veitch thing? Is everything he ever said and did discredited now? Or just the stuff up to the point he changed his mind?

Fair enough for saying it's here-say as I'm generally referring to films I've seen, hence listing them all to bring those who wish up to speed! However I still would appreciate some evidence since I've done likewise in reply to Stevie.

Will there be a reply? Or will Gladdy "do a Duane"? Fair is fair eh?

 

Regards Veitch he was never a researcher on 9/11. As he's said himself he's someone who's watched some videos online. Well put it this way it certainly makes me question if he was genuine in his motives. 9/11 truth and justice wasn't his only thing, he's into challenging the way we perceive authority, the difference between Common Law and statutes. I'd still go along with some of his stuff still but wouldn't want to be associated with him in anyway now. I thought he was inspirational and had a lot of guts, while others said he was an egotist and arrogant, think I was fooled. Glad others like Ian R Crane already saw through him and distanced themselves earlier.

 

I never agreed totally with him. He's anti all religion, including Scientology and against border controls. He could be too antagonistic as well. Danny Shine's (Spiritual Entertainer on youtube) approach is better. They parted ways and he's also parted ways with Silko Carlo, his now ex-girlfriend who brought over Richard Gage to do a presentation. Anyway I gave Charlie the benefit of the doubt but he's never replied to me and others on Facebook. Also he doesn't have a new take, he just adopted the official story as do his followers in their V For Vendetta masks.

 

Check out his latest work, he's now at odds with so called conspiracy theorists, why has he made all these enemies? Controlled opposition, you decide?

 

Conspiracy Theorists are the Enemies of the Resistance

 

EDIT:

 

Oh yeah and he feels threatened by a 65 year old lady, crikey he's about 6'4!

Edited September 24, 2011 by Dynamite Duane

[Devon Malcolm]

Will there be a reply? Or will Gladdy "do a Duane"? Fair is fair eh?

 

Frustrating, isn't it?

[Dynamite Duane]

Will there be a reply? Or will Gladdy "do a Duane"? Fair is fair eh?

 

Frustrating, isn't it?

Not really...

 

Anyway as I've said I'm happy for people to PM for a reply if it appears I'm ignoring anyone, you could've done that before if you've previously felt I've ignored you.

[Reznor]

The problem here is the buildings were built in the 60s to the withstand the impact of a Boeing airliner colliding into them, 9/11 is the first case of a building being destroyed by a plane hitting it with the steel girders melting instead part of the structure still standing.

Strictly speaking, the towers weren't designed to withstand any aircraft impact; rather the lead designer took it upon himself to carry out a post-design assessment as a result of publicised safety related complaints raised by a rival property owner. It's believed it was a pretty simple analysis, based on initial impact, considering speeds of under 200mph, and taking no account of fuel and the effects from widespread fires.

 

Even if a detailed assessment was an integral feature of the design, carried out by specialists rather than a plain old Structural Engineer, it goes without saying that in the 60s, technology related to Fire Engineering was a whole lot more primitive than it is today. Added to the fact that these designs were so innovative at the time, it would have been practically impossible for anyone to say with any certainty how the buildings would behave in such a scenario.

 

9/11 is the first case of a building being destroyed by a plane hitting it

Edited September 24, 2011 by Reznor

[The King Of Swing]

Everyone is an expert except the actual experts sums up the "truthers" mentality.

[ReturnOfTheMack]

I was going to reply Duane, but I think its been covered by everyone else now. Just so you dont think Im doing a you.

[thefallenangel]

Didn't Matt Bellamy make the last Muse album after spending ages reading into conspiracy theories?