|
| :: Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rumpl4skn
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2848
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:41 am Post subject: |
  |
|
| StillDiggin wrote: | | Conversely, if this order was part of the plan, why would the south tower need to fall first? |
I've stated this before, but I'll repeat for the sake of this discussion:
Since my feeling has been all along that the WTC Emergency Center was the control center for the tower demolitions (and why it too had to go later that day), then the order of CD had to be WTC2 then WTC1.
Bringing down WTC1 first may have obscured the view from WTC7 to WTC2, plus WTC1 may have damaged WTC7's 23rd floor (subsequently, it did not - damage to WTC7 was reportedly from the 18th floor down.)
IMO, the 3 buildings had to go in that order - 2, 1 then 7.
I also feel that part of this op was to create a built-in debate. So, why not have the plane strikes go in opposite order to the collapses - a subtle, yet potentially meaningful detail that would arise in everyone's minds after the fact? (The masses minds, that is.)
_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Last edited by Rumpl4skn on Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:44 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hocus Locus
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 847
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am with you also, having arrived from a different vector:
| Rumpl4skn wrote: | | Since my feeling has been all along that the WTC Emergency Center was the control center for the tower demolitions |
Minor point of grammar, calling WTC7:23 the "control center for the tower demolitions" may be leaning too far in the direction of implicating those who were there en mass... I am sure you are merely identifying it as a location, but benefit of any hasty mobs with pitchforks a-ready... I think even implicating two individuals may exceed reality: once the pilots had done their part, only one solitary person was required to complete the day's operation. The one with the buttons. Placement and relative timing of each demolition already complete, literally no more than three buttons. With easy deference to the most trivial modern technology, fits easily in the pocket. No larger than, say, a guitar tuner. :)
| Rumpl4skn wrote: | | Bringing down WTC1 first may have obscured the view from WTC7 to WTC2, plus WTC1 may have damaged WTC7's 23rd floor (subsequently, it did not - damage to WTC7 was reportedly friomn the 18th floor down.) |
I add that at time for first demolition, the dynamics of tower collapse could not be known; for all a button pusher knew some anticipated effect might exceed its bounds. Therefore it is safest to detonate the tower furthest from button pusher's location.
North Tower was hit from North, South Tower from 'South': Might towers topple and collapse along vector of impact? Original planners not certain; if be so, let them topple 'towards each other' or 'within the complex'
| Rumpl4skn wrote: | | [Reason South Tower was hit at angle] WTC7 was spared any damage from flying debris from WTC2 |
Quite valid, considering velocity on impact, 'open floor design'; and in hindsight the physics (if not complicity) proven by the flaming engine fragment ejected from the South Tower.
(Has anyone done a mass/velocity calculation on Atta's (correction: Satam Al Suqami's) passport? Embedded dark matter? :)
Though not necessarily first, I ventured a motive why South Tower collapse was initiated at that precise moment (9:59): radio transmission from Firefighter stuck in elevator "in the shaft, punching through wall to get out" -- or Battillion Seven on floor 78 possibly close to getting a visual compromising part of demolition setup; their radios audible to dozens of responders in the area. (see page 3 of this thread or [1] for detail) hand in had with the (suspicious?) precognitive notion of an unknown person "at OEM"
I believe it possible that the hypothetical button pusher was interested in seeing as many civilians and firefighters evacuated safely as possible, so long as there was not a clear danger of immediate compromise, such as demolition evidence being discovered and mentioned over the radio.
North Tower fall (10:28) occurred before evacuation was complete; perhaps there is a similar hint in the dialogue or correlated data that attempts to explain the moment.
For North Tower, second collapse, 'AirSea' helicopter is purported to have noted instability in the EOC log [2]: "10:26:34 DOES APPEAR THAT TOP OF TOWER POSS LEANING AT THIS TIME, AIR SEA 14, IS BUCKLING, LEANING TO SW, APPEARS TO BE BUCKLING IN SW CRNR, 1-191+" (many sources, funny/inconsistent timestamps in this log. (Caveat emptor, consider this a possibly-modified 'official' source of information')
I would be interested in seeing corroborative reports of this instability; some have claimed it was not visible, but with faraway cameras, angle and tower confusion...
Am I tempted to suggest that the North Tower collapse was a 'true' collapse? No. By my current reckoning the end result still seems to imply 'active' disassembly. Even if the tower was destined to fall anyway, if rigged for demolition then demolition it must be, to ensure the intended result: destruction complete enough to ensure fast cleanup. Even if evacuating firefighters are not 'all clear'. To avoid another miraculous coincidence... perhaps a necessity.
To inject a personal remark -- they do say murder is easier the second time around.
Rest in peace, Melissa.
[1] http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7687&sid=d24852e76b616f6d55569fda862d58c4#7687
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/EMSLog.pdf
__
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christophera
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 1851
Location: Santa Barbara
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hocus Locus wrote: | I add that at time for first demolition, the dynamics of tower collapse could not be known; for all a button pusher knew some anticipated effect might exceed its bounds. Therefore it is safest to detonate the tower furthest from button pusher's location.
North Tower was hit from North, South Tower from 'South': Might towers topple and collapse along vector of impact? Original planners not certain; if be so, let them topple 'towards each other' or 'within the complex' |
I do believe loco is suggesting we think that a tower with its bearing shear walls 61% destroyed on one side, should fall the other direction.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1410743
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667
_________________
"If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you've always got"
Info specific to WTC 1 via the documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers". WTC 2 had differences in its concrete core. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christophera
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 1851
Location: Santa Barbara
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another aspect of the "Wrong Tower Fell First" is that it elminates any possible reasonable logic within the ruse the perps were supposedly conducting, for the No Planes Theory, NPT".
How it does this is by showing for the NPT to work, remotes must be involved. Remotes exist to create last minute options and increase control over the event.
In that case 'WHY did the perps choose to have people think the first tower hit was WTC 1? And, then, WHY did they choose to detonate WTC 2 first and create reason for intense scrutiny with the backwards impact/fall sequence.
The NPTists cannot come up with a logical reason for the perps to choose this sequence.
The 2 I've heard are that fires were going out on WTC 2 and the perps were afraid that with no fire there would be no reason for collapse so dropped WTC 2 first. I've thought of a much better reason to have WTC 1 fall first and match the impact sequence.
http://algoxy.com/psych/whatis9-11disinfo-npt.html
_________________
"If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you've always got"
Info specific to WTC 1 via the documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers". WTC 2 had differences in its concrete core. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atm
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3578
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cannot we just agree on a basic fact? The wrong tower fell first.
There is no disputing that.
Work it out
atm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christophera
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 1851
Location: Santa Barbara
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atm wrote: | Cannot we just agree on a basic fact? The wrong tower fell first.
There is no disputing that.
Work it out
atm |
How elegant. A simple agreement upon logical sequence. The concept has my complete support.
A hmmmm, one small matter. Maybe the wrong tower was hit first, which is why we think the wrong one fell first.
Imagine, if you were a perpetrator, how upset you would be with that.
NO WONDER gwb looks so tweaked.
_________________
"If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you've always got"
Info specific to WTC 1 via the documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers". WTC 2 had differences in its concrete core. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atm
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3578
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
A hmmmm, one small matter. Maybe the wrong tower was hit first, which is why we think the wrong one fell first.
|
I see your point, precisely, Chris, scientifically so.
I get your premise. Excellent thinking process: rare these days.
Keep on keeping on
Regards
atm  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hombre
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Looking down from above it's clear to me that Two was to fall before One was, and if you look at the perimeter columns left standing after both have collapsed it would appear that's exactly what was to happen based on the photographic evidence.
Two if still standing, would have been in One's way causing who knows what during collapse. The debris fields indicate that the towers were directed to fall in the directions they did. JMHO
Hombre |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christophera
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 1851
Location: Santa Barbara
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:41 am Post subject: Remember Bill Biggart! |
|
|
| Hombre wrote: | The debris fields indicate that the towers were directed to fall in the directions they did. JMHO
Hombre |
I had noticed that, but indeed the accumulations and type of debris are succinct to a degree.
The clearest evidence are the simplest of facts having to do with shear plan failure. Shear planes acting as an closed box will fail in the direction of the damaged. The north tower top should have fallen on wtc 7 but instead the top toppled over southward.
The south tower top should have fallen to the south east, but this seems to be it here, slamming WTC 3 on the west side.
The cube shaped brownish gray object can only be a piece of the concrete core. There is nothing else that would have that shape or appearance. One corner of the very top makes sense.
WTC 2 had a different design to its concrete core with twice as many hallways. Two hallways divided it on each axis. That would be most of one outside corner, probably the northwest because there was more wall between halls on the north south axis, and its perpindicular north face, a narrow chunk of wall to the first hallway. A piece of perimeter wall seems to have gotten lodged in front, below the falling structure.
Then the body of WTC 2 falls east, when the damage was direct to the south east core corner.
After much consideration the only conclusion I could arrive at is that the design of the demo sequence was very specific in attempt to mimic a cartoon type "plane hits tower" scenario. The plane hits it and flys through it. The tower top falls in the direction the plane arrives from, and the rest basically goes a little in the direction the plane was flying.
With that scenario and a planned impact location/fall/sequence of WTC 2 being hit first on west side and WTC 1 hit 2nd on the south side, the pieces which fell in the directions they did, have a logical cause from plane impact and the result is logically consistent, in sequence, with events.
_________________
"If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you've always got"
Info specific to WTC 1 via the documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers". WTC 2 had differences in its concrete core. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christophera
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 1851
Location: Santa Barbara
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christophera wrote: | | atm wrote: | Cannot we just agree on a basic fact? The wrong tower fell first.
There is no disputing that.
Work it out
atm |
How elegant. A simple agreement upon logical sequence. The concept has my complete support.
A hmmmm, one small matter. Maybe the wrong tower was hit first, which is why we think the wrong one fell first.
Imagine, if you were a perpetrator, how upset you would be with that.
NO WONDER gwb looks so tweaked.
|
What I did not say is how gwb's reaction could be unconscious, and the look on his face would be the same as if he new which tower was supposed to be hit first.
Do you remember his heading nodding with glazed eyes sitting there on video with the goat story being read. That, is a very typical post hypnotic reaction to a fairly traumatic conditional trigger being tripped.
_________________
"If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you've always got"
Info specific to WTC 1 via the documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers". WTC 2 had differences in its concrete core. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusty shackleford
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 66
Location: The Frozen Waste of Manitoba
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:50 pm Post subject: Re: The Wrong Tower Fell First |
|
|
| Fintan wrote: | The Wrong Tower Fell First
One of the strongest arguments to discount the official theory that fires
caused the collapse of the towers is that the wrong tower fell first. The
South Tower fell before the North --even though it had been hit later.
And the Tower that fell was also the one least likely to have been affected
by fire, because --as the massive fireball shows-- most of the fuel on the
plane that hit the tower burst out into open air on the other corner of
the tower. That's what made the huge fireball.
I first made these points seven days after the event, in the first of our
'WagTheWTC' articles. An excerpt is repoduced below.
The issue does not features much on 9/11 sites, which is a pity, because
I think it's an issue the average person can relate to. After all, they all
saw that fireball.
Theres another point I'd like to make, which I have mentioned when
interviewed on this. The banked approach was a very bad idea if a
real pilot had been directing the plane. It increased the chances of
missing the tower altogether. Straight and level flight would be best.
However an offcentered strike on the tower --with a banked approach--
was vital if you wanted to have a spectacular visual fireball. Hitting the
tower straight on would have dumped most of the fuel inside --where
oxygen was in limited supply.
And if a computer was handling the approach --not a pilot-- then such a
banked approach would be easy.
So the banked angle into the South Tower is evidence that whoever
carried out the hit used computer-controlled flight for pyrotechnic effect.
That's three issues in all:
1: Wrong tower fell first.
2: South tower got little jet fuel.
3: Strike was guided for pyrotechnics.
Those three points still look good --even after five years.
Bam. Bam. Bam. 
| Quote: | Excerpt From:
THE SPLIT-SECOND ERROR
by Fintan Dunne, Research Kathy McMahon - 18 September 2001
 
FIGURE 1 & FIGURE 2
Ed Note: The flight line in our early graphics overstate the bank angles.
The North Tower approach was straight on, and the South Tower
approach was not quite as acute.
THE ARC OF FAILURE
Earlier, the North Tower impact site had been right in the center of the tower (2 right). The entire fuel load and flotsam was dumped deep inside and remained in the building -where it exploded (8 & 9).
But now as Flight 175 disappeared inside the South Tower, it burst like a paper bag full of water. The thousands of pounds of jet fuel were liberated to follow a path dictated by the momentum of what had once been an aircraft.
A wash of jet fuel and airplane parts tore through the interior of the building at hundreds of miles an hour; sweeping everything before it and just starting to ignite as it rushed along. But it didn't take the same course as had aircraft debris inside the North Tower, eighteen minutes before. By contrast, the majority of the fuel and debris from the second plane smashed out of the building and exploded OUTSIDE in the open air over the street (9)(fig 2).
The plane's approach was an arc of a great circle -one that had tightened even further with that final twitch on the controls. Imagine again a paper bag of water spun on the end of a string. If the paper bag bursts, the water inside will head off at a tangent to the original arc.
In the same fashion, the fuel now tried to take a course to the right of the original flight path. The aircraft had impacted near the corner of the building. Within fractions of a second the already igniting fuel had raced diagonally across the corner to burst out into the open air again, on the adjacent side of the Second Tower. Photos even show a smoking engine which shot out as it had not even been slowed by the building interior (10).
This air explosion provided a stunning pyrotechnic spectacle witnessed by countless millions, but it was an operational disaster. For it left the thorny question of explaining how the South Tower -which took less than half the fuel load of its North Tower twin -was the first of the two to collapse.(See Fig 1&2)
THE WRONG TOWER FELL FIRST
Even before the second plane hit the South Tower, its northern counterpart was already burning strongly, with a great plume of dense black toxic fumes drifting over a stunned Manhattan. Flight 11 had rocketed deep inside the building before the fuel ignited. On some floors the fire burned across the entire width of the building. By 9:45 a.m. the North Tower was ablaze not just on the floors that took the impact, but all the way to the top of the building (10).
The towers sprinkler fire extinguisher system were bolstered by automatic hermetrically sealing doors on every floor to prevent the spread of fire. But office workers still found themselves stumbling down sometimes darkened and smoke-filled fire escape stairs.
The giant steel beams used to build the towers had been cast in Japan -no American steel milll could roll out the massive 'I' beams. The explanation accepted by the mainstream media pundits for the collapse of both towers is that these beams softened like warm toffee in the intensity of the fires.
If that were the case, then the North Tower was the obvious candidate to be the first to collapse. Not only did it have almost a twenty minute head start on the South Tower conflagration, but the fire extended to the whole area of many floors. The South Tower fire was smaller and more confined, so that by 10:30 a.m. there was an obvious difference visible to those in the streets below and the hypnotized TV cameras now trained on the incredible sight.
http://www.breakfornews.com/wag/the_split_second_error.htm
Photo 8 & Photo 9
|
|
Ouch, that's a nasty bump Fintan.
_________________
Guns don't kill people, the Government kills people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bri
Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 2887
Location: Capacious Creek
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I second the bump and think the wrong tower fell first issue needs to be addressed...minus the disdainful and hostile tone.
I have never seen this addressed on "debunking" sites. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bri
Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 2887
Location: Capacious Creek
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
fireproofing?...weight?
| Quote: | | But Solomon questions whether the thickness of fireproofing is related to how fast the buildings collapsed. He notes that Two WTC, which fell first, was struck at a lower point than One WTC, and thus the damaged Two WTC had more weight to support. The relative times to collapse "probably had more to do with the additional weight that [Two WTC] was trying to support," he says. |
from a link Fintan posted earlier in this thread:http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/001304.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusty shackleford
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 66
Location: The Frozen Waste of Manitoba
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The idea that the wrong tower fell first directly implies CD. Someone here has been playing us for fools.
_________________
Guns don't kill people, the Government kills people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
