Some more 9/11 truth

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>take your meds dude, if i wrote that aliens had moon bases in 300pt type it wouldnt make it true, <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>where do these marvellous tales of floors that sank and walls that cracked come from</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, below the impact points from the people running for their lives down the stairs, and i am sure there was large swaying from the impact, but that doesnt mean that the buildings integrity had been catastrophically challenged<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I got the "marvelous tales" from the first hand stories I spent hours pouring over this weekend. There are several places to find those extensive first-hand accounts, but here's the one I happened to be reading this weekend:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.mjbarkl.com/locked.htm">www.mjbarkl.com/locked.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>If the building swayed enough to make cracking-spaghetti type sounds, then it <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>could</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> mean that the building was <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>extensively</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> damaged, to the point where an enormous fire and the severing of so many load-bearing columns <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>could</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> have catastrophically fucked the buildings. That's my impression. I <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>also</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> wonder about the lack of a staggered collapse, the speed of the collapses, and the reports of basement explosions. I'm willing to consider that thermite was planted throughout the towers, or bombs planted in the basement, etc. But I recognize that the damage from the planes and the fires was quite intense. Because there is no choice but to recognize that. The damage was intense, and it's at least <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>possible</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> that the buildings could have collapsed without additional explosives.<br><br>Now, WTC7 is a different story.<br>"Neat", "symmetrical", "effortless"...<br>All apt descriptions of WTC7's collapse.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>and really, 'you will not allow' people to spread 'neat collapse bullshit' who do you think you are, if this were straightforward and provable either way the conversations wouldnt continue in the way they do, and 'fact-slapped'? there wasnt a single 'fact' in yor post, only assertations, by you ego-slapped more like looked pretty neat and unreasonably symmetrical to me<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I repeat: You will not post that shit here without me fact-slapping you. The <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>WTC1</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> and <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>WTC2</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> collapses were <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>NOT</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> "neat" or "unreasonably symmetrical". This is provable. This is unquestionable. Go ahead and tell me otherwise, and I'll link the living shit out of the myriad photos and videos that clearly show you are parroting someone else's (truthies?) bullshit description and not actually describing on your own what actually occurred. <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Admittedly from PBS but valid nonetheless-<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_damage_03.html">www.pbs.org/americarebuil...ge_03.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>The North Tower<br><br>GEORGE TAMARO: <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The North Tower came down almost directly within its footprints, so you had extraordinarily compact material.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> The pile within the footprint represented the full height of the tower — the remaining debris was compacted from street level down to the bedrock, 70 feet down. The fireman standing on the pile indicates the massive size. In some areas we found valleys of completely collapsed structures, in others, loose debris piles subject to subsequent collapse. Elsewhere, individual pieces of debris penetrated the ground and below grade structures.<br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/images/engineering_img_damage_3.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The North Tower came down almost directly within its footprints, so you had extraordinarily compact material.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>The footprint = the surface area of the building touching the ground, and in any photo it is obvious that an enormous amount of debris is pushed away from the tower and scattered all over the surrounding neighborhood. If you want to say "most", then maybe that's correct, if technically 51% or more of the debris stayed within the boundaries of the tower's footprint. But to say that either of the towers collapsed "into their own footprint" or "almost directly within its footprints" is inaccurate and misleading. <p></p><i></i>

[smithtalk]

foot·print (ftprnt) <br>n.<br>2. The surface space occupied by a structure or device: the footprint of a building<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>therefore 208 feet x 208 feet</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>ped&#8231;ant&#8194; (ped-nt)<br>n.<br>2.        a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.<br>3.        a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>lets face it, a building 1,368 feet tall cannot be collapsed into a 208 feet x 208 feet square</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>so reasonable people talking about the wtc footprint mean a relatively small circle surrounding the aforementioned 208 feet x 208 feet square<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>lets face it, a building 1,368 feet tall cannot be collapsed into a 208 feet x 208 feet square<br>so reasonable people talking about the wtc footprint mean a relatively small circle surrounding the aforementioned 208 feet x 208 feet square<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>As opposed to a relatively large circle? Like I said, I also wonder why the barriers at the elevator lobbies didn't create at least a staggered effect if not a more pronounced toppling effect. But barring that happening, the debris is going to fall <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>somewhere near</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> the towers, as opposed to falling in Central Park. Gravity, dude. Anyway, much of the debris travelled at least 208 feet <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>away</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> from the towers, some more than that. What I find amusing is that some "truthies" argue that the collapses were neat and compact, and yet others argue that the collapses were "explosions" that threw debris outward. What I know for sure is that the towers did not collapse into their own footprints. If you want to avoid having me bark at you, be more precise next time. And are you going to retract the "neat", "orderly", "effortless", "perfect", "symmetrical" stuff -- or will I be required to post a shitload of pictures and videos? Can you at least save me the trouble and google the images yourself and take back those careless adjectives? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=fourthbase>FourthBase</A> at: 8/29/06 1:39 am<br></i>

[smithtalk]

well whether you bark and howl all day it wont help me do anything with images because i still havent worked out how to post them,<br><br>and stop using stupid fucking tags like truthies, i am not a member of any movement, just one person reading widely and trying to make the best sense of what i read and see,<br>no movement, no preset lines to take, no alignment to any figure or idea,<br>just trying to work it out for myself <p></p><i></i>

[medicis]

a distinction without a difference.<br><br>Overwhelming evidence for explosions in WTC 1 & 2 exists. Whether they fell 'exactly' into their own footprints or not. It was close enough for government work, don't you think? <p></p><i></i>

[AnnaLivia]

0 0 0

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~twyeld/ftp/WTC_collapse/wtc_collapse1%5b1%5d.jpg">www.itee.uq.edu.au/~twyel...5b1%5d.jpg</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://cayankee.blogs.com/cayankee/images/wtc_collapse2.jpg">cayankee.blogs.com/cayank...lapse2.jpg</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://timmer.org/Distance%20Learning/Images/17B_L28/WTC_collapse2.jpg">timmer.org/Distance%20Lea...lapse2.jpg</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.airpower.at/news01/0922_coffee_doughnuts/wtc_collapse_02a.jpg">www.airpower.at/news01/09...se_02a.jpg</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.911research.com/talks/towers/docs/wtc1b.jpg">www.911research.com/talks.../wtc1b.jpg</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://sageauthoring.com/images/WTC/911/Collapse/WTC_Collapse010.jpg">sageauthoring.com/images/...pse010.jpg</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.rossandchristine.com/WTC-collapse-3.jpg">www.rossandchristine.com/...apse-3.jpg</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.niftythings.org/usattack/wtc_collapse/wtc41.jpg">www.niftythings.org/usatt.../wtc41.jpg</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/wtc-southtower.jpg">www.oilempire.us/graphics...htower.jpg</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>I know it might seem like I'm overreacting to "semantics", but it is not "semantics". The WTC 1 & 2 collapses were not "neat", "orderly", "effortless", "symmetrical", or "perfect". Using careless adjectives like that only serves to discredit 9/11 skepticism in the eyes of undecided people who can see quite clearly that the collapses were <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>quite</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> messy and asymmetrical.<br><br>Like I said, though, there still may have been additional explosives in or underneath WTC 1 & 2, and WTC7 looks like a classic controlled demolition. <p></p><i></i>

[greencrow0]

the discussion regarding controlled demolition is <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>over</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->.<br><br>the CD people won.<br><br>Period. <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

Yes, I have read numerous accounts from rescue people, demolition experts and many others commenting on the very low level of debris left by the collapse. This simply was not an ordinary structural failure. Anyone, except those with a very set agenda, can see that. The fire was minor and contained yet NOTHING, no desks, no lamps no furniture, no bodys and very few actual body parts were recovered. Very strange indeed and not a simple "pancaking". The only verifiable objects were paper scraps blown everywhere by the blast. If it were just a fire the paper would have been burnt up. If it were just a collapse, alot of squashed but recognizable people, furniture and equiptment would have been recovered. But virutally none was or if it was, I never saw one photo of it. Can you supply me with a photo of it FB? <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

WTF are you talking about? STFU, greencrow.<br>The conversation is NOT over, that's completely retarded. <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Yes, I have read numerous accounts from rescue people, demolition experts and many others commenting on the very low level of debris left by the collapse. This simply was not an ordinary structural failure. Anyone, except those with a very set agenda, can see that. The fire was minor and contained yet NOTHING, no desks, no lamps no furniture, no bodys and very few actual body parts were recovered. Very strange indeed and not a simple "pancaking". The only verifiable objects were paper scraps blown everywhere by the blast. If it were just a fire the paper would have been burnt up. If it were just a collapse, alot of squashed but recognizable people, furniture and equiptment would have been recovered. But virutally none was or if it was, I never saw one photo of it. Can you supply me with a photo of it FB?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>Can't supply you with a photo of that, dark, and perhaps none exists, which would be very interesting. But perhaps photos do exist and are locked away in NYPD/FBI/whatever vaults.<br><br>The paper would not have been all consumed by fire, that's kind of laughable. Do you realize how much paper was in the towers?<br><br>The fires that the firemen who reached the impact zone saw were in fact small and containable, according to them. How hot could these fires have been? And of course by now we've all seen the lady waving from the crash hole.<br><br>The transformation of cement etc. into powder is indeed curious, but as far as I've heard could be the result of the gigantic force of the "pancaking", or more accurately, "piledriving". If you took the top 30 floors of a WTC tower as an object in itself and dropped it onto the remaining 70 or so floors, what would happen?<br><br>I see no conflict between the piledriving theory of collapse and the theory that additional bombs exploded, particularly in the basements. Basement bombs could have <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>triggered</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> the kind of collapse that the official version says occurred. There need not be bombs/thermite placed throughout the upper and middle floors for there to be a tower-collapse-conspiracy. Even though the closeups of the damaged WTC2 corner pre-collapse show what looks like a thermite reaction. <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

Even "pile driving" does not vaporize bodies, desks, light fixtures, electrical wiring etc. etc. The stuff in upper floors as the driviers of the pile should have been quite recognizable yet none was as far as any evidence yet presented reveals. Where is this stuff? Simply vanished? If so, then this fact alone implies the presence of much more pervasive and destructive explosives than "pile drivers" and basement bombs. <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Thanks for those links, FB. Never miss a chance to restate important things or reintroduce evidence.<br><br>Educating people including ourselves is an ongoing non-stop process so we shouldn't discourage people from asking for info or questioning even if it feels tedious to revisit topics.<br><br>Example:<br>Even though I've moved on from investigating the JFK hit many many people are just looking for the first time and need a guide through the salient points and warnings away from the disinfo traps.<br><br>I don't know the source but found this in the 'Images Only' thread-<br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n306/oorrzz/WTC-A4-150.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i></i>