The Black Vault

by **Cole_Trickle** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:06 am

pandasex wrote:lets just say for s**ts and giggles it was blown up by our government.......WHY??

and im not trying to argue we are kicking around ideas. I really am not convinced that that our government had nothing to do with 911. There are a lot of things that dont add up to me. So i guess im not sure.

It's way more important that most care to accept, they'd rather want to believe the Lie. There's just way too many holes in the official story for it to be even a bit realistic.

Some have a vested interest in the Official Story, that's obvious and can't be denied.I can't look at Building 7 coming down and swallow NIST'S reasons why without laughing. It's ridiculous the stuff they come up with.

They did it to justify the upcoming business in the middle east. Many people are afraid to think about the Government having a hand in it, they would rather believe that they couldn't or wouldn't ever do something like that. I completely understand that line of thought. My problem is/are all of the holes in their story and the massive effort to control and remove much from the public domain in regard to those towers. It's a huge red flag to me.

Cole

by **Cole_Trickle** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:12 am

fortwynt wrote:Well I'd say why would the government do half the things it has done (or continues to do) to citizens (and citizens of other countries)?

Because quite frankly they just dont give a toss one way or another about you or I, so long as their power structure remains and remains in good working order, or otherwise if they get the chance to maximize or enhance their power structure, then 3000+ american lives, plus a whole host of other lives here and there, is not too much a price to pay, and in fact is quite small in scale to them im sure..

in short, why would they destroy the twin towers and building seven? I cant say why 7 was brought down precisely, there are some theories...but WTC 1and2 was for pure shock value, so that we would go along with what they had planned for later. Nothing like 3000+ dead americans in one or two hours to light a fire under peoples asses, or make them so fearful that they will literally HAND you all the power you've always wanted to have openly, but never have.

Simple and very accurate, hard to argue or disagree with. My only regret is that I didn't pay close enough attention in the early stages and gotten out ahead of all the disinfo.

Cole

by **fortwynt** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:14 am

Cole_Trickle wrote:
fortwynt wrote:Well I'd say why would the government do half the things it has done (or continues to do) to citizens (and citizens of other countries)?

Because quite frankly they just dont give a toss one way or another about you or I, so long as their power structure remains and remains in good working order, or otherwise if they get the chance to maximize or enhance their power structure, then 3000+ american lives, plus a whole host of other lives here and there, is not too much a price to pay, and in fact is quite small in scale to them im sure..

in short, why would they destroy the twin towers and building seven? I cant say why 7 was brought down precisely, there are some theories...but WTC 1and2 was for pure shock value, so that we would go along with what they had planned for later. Nothing like 3000+ dead americans in one or two hours to light a fire under peoples asses, or make them so fearful that they will literally HAND you all the power you've always wanted to have openly, but never have.

Simple and very accurate, hard to argue or disagree with. My only regret is that I didn't pay close enough attention in the early stages and gotten out ahead of all the disinfo.

Cole

Oh, but that's paranoid cole....conspiracy kook i am and all....*laughs*

people are so blind

by **jaydeehess** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:06 am

fortwynt wrote:Yes. That this is all complete rubbish....but of course i have no technical expertise on any of these issues, so I suppose thats what its worth.

So you have decided that, from a point of view of complete technical ignorance, to disbelieve all technical explanations.
Ok then........... :roll:

Just from the standpoint of a lay observation, (and yes ive read probably every scrap of information pro and con inside job theory), I just cannot and will not believe that this isn't highly suspicious....I just dont believe that the building would naturally (albeit not natural to have a plane hit) fall in the manner BOTH the twin towers did....it just seems highly impossible in the real world...yet there it is.

It most certainly is not natural to have a hundred ton aircraft moving at hundreds of MPH slam into a very tall building. In fact its only happened twice, on 9/11/01. Planes have hit other buildings, they have hit low, more horizontally spread out structures and structures constructed with short span, often refered to as post and beam, construction. Most have been smaller aircraft and travelling much slower. For instance, the B-25 that hit the Empire State building was travelling only 125 MPH (IIRC) and its total max weight is about the same of the weight of the max fuel load of a 767. Momentum is equal to mass times velocity, kinetic energy is equal to mass times velocity squared. Double the velocity and the kinetic energy quadruples.

Each tower did in fact collapse slightly differently. This is not unusual given that each tower was affected differently by the impact and had its fires started in not exactly the same places. There were of course similarities which is also not unusual given that both suffered damage from similar aircraft and had similar amounts of accellerant to ignite those fires.

Furthermore, the first tower to be hit was the second one to collapse, second to be hit being the first......so what this means is the tower that burned LONGER collapsed second, and within such a short time...it just seems very very suspicious and quite the "production".
you dont see that?

Certainly not the way you do. You ignore the fact that tower 2 was hit more assymettrically, by a faster aircraft, at a shallower downward angle, that its fires spread faster than in WTC 1 and that because of the rectangular shape of the core versus the square shape of the perimeter the aircraft parts had further to travel to reach core columns in WTC 1 than they did in WTC 2.

All of which means that again you are operating from a deliberate standpoint of technical ignorance. Here's a good place to start on this particular subject.
http://www.debunking911.com/impact.htm

and what of the seismic events recorded JUST BEFORE collapse (not rumblings from collapse, but a clear first event directly preceding the collapses).....

You mean just before collapse that is visible from outside the building. You mean seismic recordings in a facility using an extremly accurate clock as compared to the time of day clocks being used to determine when the buildings began their outwardly visible collapse. Now ask yourself if the collapse of an internal floor would be readily visible from the outside and whether or not it would create a rumble.

then wt7....thats just a complete joke and not even worth the time to talk about it.

Given your utter lack of understanding of the towers I can expect you know little about WTC 7 as well.

by **jaydeehess** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:15 am

Cole_Trickle wrote:
PS. The second " so called strike " nearly missed the building,

Incorrect, the entire aircraft hit the building.

most all fuel burned up OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.

incorrect, most of the fuel from one wing burned on the outside of the structure so greater than half of the available fuel entered the building. the core is also closer to that side of tower 2 than it is to the side of tower 1 that was hit (the core is rectangular in shape) thus less of the fuel from the port side exited the opposite side of the structure.

Less damage to the middle, or core of the building

incorrect, the aircraft hit at a shallower angle and hit less floor concrete because of that, meaning that the debris which reached the core , which was also half as far from the perimeter as in tower 1, was moving faster.

It was planned. Just insane to argue anything else.

Actually it is insane to argue this subject from an utterly technically ignorant POV.

by **fortwynt** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:50 am

So then you're either going to argue that:

A: the steel melted at exactly the same rate across the board so as to produce a near perfect straight down freefall, with little or no resistance whatsoever....because lets face it, if the theory of pancaking floors were true, there would have been a BIT more resistance, certainly it wouldn't have dropped at free-fall speed and turned to dust.....(yes i know there were SOME bigger chunks)

or

b: steel melted just enough to collapse floor or floors above impace, these floors dropped slamming into next floors causing a cascading effect, and so on.

surely you arent suggesting a scenario even close to b, right?

here's the thing.

It really wouldn't matter to me if the buildings appeared to be demolished intentionally (by our government, not the alleged "hijackers" mind you) or if they wouldn't have collapsed at all.

there are many other things that point to (albeit do not "prove") government complicity.

....

?

by **jaydeehess** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:54 am

Cole_Trickle wrote:That's because truth camp isn't about the truth, surely in your infinite wisdom you understand this as fact.

Not sure who you are addressing this to Cole, me?

The movement was a set up from the beginning in order to control the information available.
Anyone who is the least bit objective can look at the visual evidence and clearly see the holes in the official story.

Is there no group then that you believe is actually looking for the 'truth' concerning the vents of 9/11/01?

Even though you like to think that I'm not capable of grasping certain aspects of 9-11, nothing can be farther from the truth, neither am I offended by your opinion in the least. You've a right to express yourself as you see fit, I'll do the same, only I'll leave out the insults, and personal BS.

If you have a technical arguement to make then make it. If you are going to tell me, as fortwynt effectively has, that technical understanding is unneccessary then without using more colorful language I can only state that this is incorrect.

THE 9-11 COMMISSION, was handpicked by those in charge, a sort of self policing and hardly a true investigation as regular investigations go. Oddly the same bodies that looked into other curious events, the same ones appointed by the usual suspects. A bit obvious if you will. People in power have trouble looking in the mirror, especially when it comes to investigating themselves.

the 911 Commission concentrated on the operational aspects of the 911 events, the prior intel, the use of intel to determine who was responsible, the reaction of gov't agencies on 911 and in the immediate aftermath.

NIST did most of the technical work concerning the destruction on 9/11.

Can you tell me specifically who in NIST fudged what data or wrote a fallacious report on the technical aspects of the destruction of the towers or WTC 7?

On 9-11 the agencies were there in advance! Why was that?

Tom Kenney got the day wrong. He said he was there on Monday, he got there on Tuesday.

Does FEMA (or any other agency you care to name) have an office in the largest cosmopolitan area in the USA, NYC? Yes, they do in fact, go figure.

by **jaydeehess** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:40 pm

fortwynt wrote:So then you're either going to argue that:

A: the steel melted ..............
or

b: steel melted ....................surely you arent suggesting a scenario even close to b, right?

The steel did not "melt".
Would you like a description of the collapse that does not involve any math?

I posted this on another forum

The gravity load of a single floorspace is distrubuted along the long span trusses to the truss seats on core and perimeter columns.
The gravity load of the floors above any level is directed through the vertical columns.

When the columns suffered damage and fire weakening at the fire floor levels the total gravity load of all the floors above them then had to be taken up by the remaining columns. Compounding this was the fact that the upper portion was tilting meaning that an even distribution over all remaining columns was not possible. At one point the transfer of load itself would overload column(s) resulting in another transfer which would in turn overload more columns and the cascade effect would occur very rapidly. In effect the upper section fell quickly the distance of one level.

When columns fail they buckle or snap, either way the upper section no longer is aligned with the lower section.
Thus when the upper portion of the building falls to the next floor level the gravity load of the upper stories is impinged NOT directly on the columns of the lower section but on the floorspace of one level as the columns of the upper portion contact it. The truss seats were never designed to take the gravity load of 10+ stories, they were designed to take the gravity load of ONE floorspace(plus some safety margin) The truss seats fail immediatly under the combination of a static load much greater than they were ever designed for plus the impact , dynamic load they were never designed for either.

The upper end of the lower portion's columns also spear upwards failing the first upper floor.

The reamining intact upper section columns now hit the next floor down in less time than it took to fall the first floor distance as the velocity has now increased. The dynamic loading has thus increased. the static loading has remaing close to the same minus only the mass that has fallen off to the sides(basically less dense material such as pulverised drywall, paper debris etc., due to pressurization of the air in the floor's volume, and the perimeter column trees due to their location at the extremity of the building)

Within a few seconds the bulk of the falling part of the building consists primarily of concrete and steel debris that still vastly outweighs the gravity load that any floorspace could ever be expected to handle let alone arrest the downward movement of.

The core, suffering the impact of dense debris also loses most of the horizontal bracing between its columns. The core system itself could not have stood on its own for long even if the rest of the structure had magically disappeared let alone with the rest of the building being violently stripped away. Thus the core system breaks apart and also collapses. In the case of one tower a portion of the core system does survive the collapse but simply cannot survive on its own and it too buckles and falls.

What's the beef?

The OP stands. Unless there was sufficient force to stop the downward travel of the upper mass the building was doomed.
TM's often say that the upper section should have slid off to one side or topppled off. However that may be the case in a building with closely spaced columns where any assymettry might allow for such an arrest. The towers however were not constructed that way. The core columns contained enough strength to handle the collapse impacts BUT only if that force were directed along their long axis. It was not, could not have been.
Any assymettry would see either the loss of the truss seat at the core first, or at the perimeter. In either case then the mass would be in cantilever at the remaining truss seat and the only mass directly along the long axis of a column would be basically the mass of the column itself.

by **jaydeehess** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:44 pm

here's the thing.

It really wouldn't matter to me if the buildings appeared to be demolished intentionally (by our government, not the alleged "hijackers" mind you) or if they wouldn't have collapsed at all.

there are many other things that point to (albeit do not "prove") government complicity.

So although you claim above that controlled demolition is obvious you readily admit that you are unqualified to render that opion yet you expect me to believe that you are qualified to render other opinions.

You just destroyed your own credibility.

I have explained to Cole in the past that I ma not interested very much in getting into politics.
as you can see by my postings I am more interested and concerned with technical aspects.
If you wish to wail away about NWO or gov't lies then by all means go for it. I may well comment, or I may not.

by **fortwynt** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:01 pm

well this is the conspiracies area after all, no?

nevermind that.

So, your argument, then, is that the buildings were not designed with this general concept in mind?

Or is it that they Were, but in the real world they just didn't hold up....twice?

I could care less what math you (or anyone else) comes up with....yes, I can read it, and yes if I were one to believe the official version, it would seem to make perfect sense, but i think in this case the numbers do indeed lie....well, not so much the numbers I suppose, but those whose job it is to report those numbers....not sure really.

All im saying is, with or without the towers (though i do consider them a pretty clear example of in your face debauchery), their story falls to pieces at almost every angle....

Crucify me because I don't believe the words of a bunch of liars, and an institution that derives its very existence from lying the people it claims to care so much about.

The Black Vault

9-11

Re: 9-11

Share On:

Re: 9-11

Re: 9-11

Re: 9-11

Re: 9-11

Re: 9-11

Re: 9-11

Re: 9-11

Re: 9-11

Re: 9-11

The Social Network Buzz

Who is online