- Joined
- May 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,671
- Reaction score
- 535
- Location
- OC California
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
Well we don't know that at all but I'll accept it as an assumption for the purpose of the question.Now we all know that NIST could have proven that explosives were used on the 3 trade center buildings in order to facilitate the collapses, but they deliberately did not because it was a cover-up.
It's possible I guess though it would only open new questions, notably how "the government" would make the insurance companies pay out so much money without question and it would just introduce yet more people who would be aware that something was untoward yet none of them have apparently made a peep about it.The insurance companies that held Silversteins policies, however, had every right to do their own investigation if doing so could prove that terrorism alone did not completely destroy the buildings, did they not? Is it possible the insurance carriers were prevented by the government from conducting their own investigation for reasons of "national security"?
Well we don't know that at all but I'll accept it as an assumption for the purpose of the question.
It's possible I guess though it would only open new questions, notably how "the government" would make the insurance companies pay out so much money without question and it would just introduce yet more people who would be aware that something was untoward yet none of them have apparently made a peep about it.
Isn't it also possible that you're mistaken about explosives having been used, that the insurance companies did carry out their own investigations and that they independently concluded it was a terrorist act and thus a legitimate claim?
Well that was a nice rant but it wasn't really a response to my post now was it?
Now we all know that NIST could have proven that explosives were used on the 3 trade center buildings in order to facilitate the collapses, but they deliberately did not because it was a cover-up.
The insurance companies that held Silversteins policies, however, had every right to do their own investigation if doing so could prove that terrorism alone did not completely destroy the buildings, did they not? Is it possible the insurance carriers were prevented by the government from conducting their own investigation for reasons of "national security"?
Why wouldn't the insurance companies pay for a loss? Do you think they might have evaluated the situation and decided that there was little evidence of an inside job and proving it THEN would have been quite the task as the truth movement has not made a dent in this (although they think they have) in 12 yrs. It's pretty difficult to prove a CD job and the conspiracy to do it and cover it up... but easy to assert it.
Assertions are the bedrock of the truth movement.... assertions with little to no foundation.
It's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it to a person in denial.
To an open-minded and curious person, it doesn't take much proving because the evidence is so obvious.
It's a terrorist act. Terrorists number 1 MO is bombs. That's one reason. Another reason to perform tests on the materials from ground zero to see if explosives were used is that it had become a controversy - experts were saying that the collapses displayed every characteristic of controlled demolition.
As if that were not enough, when NIST released their preliminary findings, families of the victims demanded that they perform these tests. Even amidst the controversy, NIST refused to comply, thus failing to complete the investigation and leaving the victim's families in total anguish, which, to the government, is better than performing the tests and finding the nanothermite residue, which they knew they would find. How can this not be viewed as an admission of guilt? There is no excuse, period.
But, in the same way that OJ lost the civil suit but was acquitted in the criminal trial, I thought maybe the insurance carriers.....but who am I kidding, the government hindered and obstructed anyway they could so it's very likely they would pull the national security card. It's alarming to me that the government can pull something so blatant, and americans are so ....help me find a better word than just plain STUPID. Cowardly?
Well that was a nice rant but it wasn't really a response to my post now was it?
Isn't it also possible that you're mistaken about explosives having been used, that the insurance companies did carry out their own investigations and that they independently concluded it was a terrorist act and thus a legitimate claim?
Like slapping the tides. Best of luck.
Why wouldn't the insurance companies pay for a loss? Do you think they might have evaluated the situation and decided that there was little evidence of an inside job and proving it THEN would have been quite the task as the truth movement has not made a dent in this (although they think they have) in 12 yrs. It's pretty difficult to prove a CD job and the conspiracy to do it and cover it up... but easy to assert it.
Assertions are the bedrock of the truth movement.... assertions with little to no foundation.
Some of us aren't fooled, and we know a controlled demolition when we see one.
IIt's pretty easy to say we're crazy while blocking the investigation, but that is how they operate, and that is the kind of BS you are defending.
Apparently no, you don't since what happened on 9/11 in no way resembled a CD except that the buildings collapsed in the direction of gravity. As I keep pointing out to people they collapses don't even resemble each other, let alone a CD and if it were a CD where is the BOOM BOOM BOOM of explosive detonations which ALWAYS immediately preceeds a CD? Each should have registered a deafening 130-140 dB even 1 km away. Why were the people below now showered with high-velocity ejecta from those explosions? How did the explosives get planted without anyone seeing them on the exact floors where the planes hit? How did they survive the impacts? How did they survive the subsequent fires? Why wait nearly an hour or more to set them off? Heck, why bring down the buildings at all? What possible purpose does that serve the plot?
The purpose of NIST is to improve building standards, not to appease the whims of conspiracy theorists,.
This was not a money plot, the money was just a by-product of the whole thing. While Silverstein did fulfill his role, it's not necessarily evil jew...or is it? He ate breakfast every single morning at the top of the trade center (except for on 911 he had a doctor appointment) and his 2 sons worked in one of the towers every day, except for on 911 (no doctor appointment - they just didn't show up that day).While I realize Silverstein fulfills the necessary "Evil Jew" role in the plot, the idea that this was all some overly-elaborate money-making plot is stupid beyond words.
but they certainly did address "Hypothetical Blast Scenario's" in NCSTAR 1_9, Appendix D..
I seem to be unique in taking the position that the towers had what I call are engineering flaws... or questionable design decisions which in effect allowed them to collapse. Buildings DO have reserve strength in their frames. but there are aspects of the design which appears to me to be similar to an Achilles heel, a weak link in a chain... such that if the entire thing can fail of the link fails... the heel falters. Seven was essentially built to span over a power station with massive load transfer structures on floors 5,6&7... If those structures failed the floors above with drop like a lead sinker.
The twins had column free long span light weight floors which spanned between a structural facade and a rather typical but large footprint core. Both the core and the facade were dependent on the floor system to remain standing. When the floors were crushed by the tens of thousands of tons of the upper floors dropping on them.. the columns had no role in resisting this assault and quickly became the victim as the bracing was ripped from the frame making the too tall columns too unstable to stand... and the columns broke at their relatively weak seams from what is known as Euler stresses. It all held together as long as the floors were intact and bracing the steel frame. It was the collapsing floors which did in the frame. And this was particularly unique to long span column free floor spaces. There was no way to arrest the runaway floor collapse. Once the floors were gone there was no way the flame could stand on its own. Robertson understood this. But of course did not want to take the heat from his novel concept which was driven by the developers who wanted flexible open floors and very cheap construction.
The so called technical investigations dodged all the crazy engineering design decisions and treated these structures as if they were typical office towers... they were far from that. All those involved in the design decisions never were placed in the hot seat... never faced any accountability for what they did. All responsibility was placed on the terrorists.
All? I question that.
Sure, the cone within a cone is the weak design they chose to build the trade center. A building they knew might one day be subject to a large plane hitting it. I'm not sure but I think to make up for the design, they put extra thick steel columns. The jet fuel burned up quickly. Also, I don't think building 7 had the same type of structure as 1 and 2.That all becomes irrelevant because if CD explosives were not used, and they actually collapsed because of weakened steel, then with nothing to hide, the government would not need to block and hinder
Apparently no, you don't since what happened on 9/11 in no way resembled a CD except that the buildings collapsed in the direction of gravity. As I keep pointing out to people they collapses don't even resemble each other, let alone a CD and if it were a CD where is the BOOM BOOM BOOM of explosive detonations which ALWAYS immediately preceeds a CD? Each should have registered a deafening 130-140 dB even 1 km away. Why were the people below now showered with high-velocity ejecta from those explosions? How did the explosives get planted without anyone seeing them on the exact floors where the planes hit? How did they survive the impacts? How did they survive the subsequent fires? Why wait nearly an hour or more to set them off? Heck, why bring down the buildings at all? What possible purpose does that serve the plot?
Please note that there is a video showing the firefighters explaining how they heard "Boom, Boom, Boom ..." when the towers started to "collapse"
, also there is a LOT of evidence to indicate that the "FLT11" & "FLT175" airliners never existed, the images on video were FAKE.
The ONLY way to get the WTC buildings to "collapse" as they did, as fast as they did, is with an additional source of energy, that is explosives ... or would you prefer black magic & witchcraft?
Since when has the government held corporations such as BP, Exxon, PANY or LERA responsible for their failures and incompetence? They usually do nothing and there is no accountability and those injured might get some compensation from the government to essentially buy their silence.
The twins were not cone inside of a cone design. You clearly have no conception of the structural strategy to deal with gravity and wind shear.... extreme height and a large footprint meaning lots of occupants per floor. The core itself was almost like a typical office frame.. but it would need diagonals to counter the wind shear. The facade were 4 large vieredeel trusses to counter wind shear and support one side of the floor. But the floors braced the facade and the stiff core also was part of the wind shear strategy. Clearly the floor structure was the Achilles heel. When they went south, the entire building was a goner.
Seven was different but it also had long span column free floors but used wide flange girders and beams to support the floors. The Achilles heel were to load transfer structures on flrs 5,6&7 which were more like a Rube Goldberg..." is best known for a series of popular cartoons depicting complex gadgets that perform simple tasks in indirect, convoluted ways." Once the transfer structure started to fail... they took the core with them... and this included the braced frames which supported the facade up to floor 8... the facade structure and curtain wall came down with no resistance from floor 8 until it slammed into the ground collapsing in itself.
The extra thick columns in the twins had nothing to do with the collapse and most of the columns in both towers were hardly damaged at all... breaking apart at their connections.
Progressive collapse... a failure of connections!
1. NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.
2. NIST did not conduct tests for explosives residue as noted above, such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive.
Both of these statements are absurd. On top of that, how about just performing the tests for ****s and giggles, you know, if not just to appease the grieving families who were demanding they perform the tests? Nope.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?