Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,345 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,323,261
Pageviews Today: 2,524,718Threads Today: 987Posts Today: 18,258
10:35 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001

 
galdur

User ID: 1229845
Iceland
01/17/2011 01:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
Anyone out there that still believes that those towers were taken down with a 757 is either reeeeaaalllllllllly stupid or just living in a severe state of denial. There is so much proof out now that is do glaring of the fact that this was planned and deliberate. If you still believe that this was not an inside job....God help you understand and wrap your brain around what TPTB have done to this world.....and they are not finish yet by any means.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1154720


The energy sink does not add up by a long shot.

When a building collapses in a gravity driven event, its potential energy turns into kinetic energy. It´s practically a zero sum event. Fuel from a 200-ton aircraft has about as much effect on a 500 thousand ton tower in this context as a fly landing on a horse. When you consider that THREE skyscrapers collapsed to dust and no aircraft hit one of them the official fable becomes even more nonsensical. It was a made for TV disaster movie, a psychological operation. Pretty regular brainwashing actually, you beat the subject down, shock it with this horrendous event and when it is at its most vulnerable you pump it full of your propaganda. It works both on an individual level and nationally. This sort of indoctrination can be extremely difficult to shake (deprogram) since it´s a play on the subconscious.
galdur

User ID: 1229845
Iceland
01/17/2011 01:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
[link to wtc.nist.gov]

"""6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."""

So; they admit that those reinforced towers fell through themselves practically without resistance and offer total nonsense as explanation. Anyone who has finished Physics 103 should see that. I guess it´s true what Dulles said about the Warren Report, you can put anything out Americans don´t read.
galdur

User ID: 1229845
Iceland
01/17/2011 01:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
[link to wtc.nist.gov]

"""6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”


In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."""

So; they admit that those reinforced towers fell through themselves practically without resistance and offer total nonsense as explanation. Anyone who has finished Physics 103 should see that. I guess it´s true what Dulles said about the Warren Report, you can put anything out Americans don´t read.
 Quoting: galdur
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1221609
United States
01/17/2011 03:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
bump
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1081878
United States
01/17/2011 03:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
Go ahead and show me the physics buddy, as far as I see your just spouting out useless garbage. Lets see your math
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1206931


sure, here ya go;

500,000 tons divided by 110 stories equalls 4545.45 tons per floor times 15 floors equalls 68,181.81 tons

live load of one floor of WTC tower=100 pounds per square foot=2,178 tons live load per floor times 2.5 safety factor equalls 5,445 tons total live load


68,181 tons divided by 5445 tons equalls equals a twelve and one half times building overload


get it now?





now lets see your math
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1178876
United States
01/17/2011 08:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
Dude you are full of shit with that I knew someone who had an office at the WTC crap along with the jet fuel lameness.

You are a sucker my friend



oh really? you are saying that I don't know someone who had an office in the WTC?


okay, fine

there is really no reason to discuss this with you
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1232801

So, who did you know with a office at the WTC ?
zacksavage

User ID: 1213032
United States
01/17/2011 08:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
So, who did you know with a office at the WTC ?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1178876

I think they knew their sister’s cousin’s nephew’s cell-provider, who knew a girl that worked third-shift at the Home Depot next door to the Wal-Mart where a guy bought his socks from the dude that told him about the Towers being jam-packed.




Z
Free your mind,...your ass will follow.

--- parliament funkadelic
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1178876
United States
01/17/2011 08:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
So, who did you know with a office at the WTC ?

I think they knew their sister’s cousin’s nephew’s cell-provider, who knew a girl that worked third-shift at the Home Depot next door to the Wal-Mart where a guy bought his socks from the dude that told him about the Towers being jam-packed.




Z
 Quoting: zacksavage



That's what I was thinking !

dance
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1155369
United States
01/18/2011 01:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
So, who did you know with a office at the WTC ?

I think they knew their sister’s cousin’s nephew’s cell-provider, who knew a girl that worked third-shift at the Home Depot next door to the Wal-Mart where a guy bought his socks from the dude that told him about the Towers being jam-packed.




Z
 Quoting: zacksavage


WIN!!!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1221609
United States
01/18/2011 06:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
pin and let the people decide!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1073930

agreed,
this thread needs more exposure..



I have not seen the evidence of the debunkers saying this is an incomplete list..

are they going to come up with this ?
galdur

User ID: 1234491
Iceland
01/18/2011 07:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
pin and let the people decide!

agreed,
this thread needs more exposure..



I have not seen the evidence of the debunkers saying this is an incomplete list..

are they going to come up with this ?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1221609


For obvious reasons the supporting steel girders were the thicker the nearer to the ground. At ground level they were 4 inches thick (box girders) at the top 1/4th of an inch. Just this simple fact made it impossible for the towers to collapse through themselves at virtually free fall speed. Besides the towers virtually turned to dust in mid-air that dust being ejected away from the site so it´s really impossible to rationalize this official fable. How could mass that was ejected away from the towers simultaneously thrust them down?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1221609
United States
01/18/2011 07:19 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
pin and let the people decide!

agreed,
this thread needs more exposure..



I have not seen the evidence of the debunkers saying this is an incomplete list..

are they going to come up with this ?


For obvious reasons the supporting steel girders were the thicker the nearer to the ground. At ground level they were 4 inches thick (box girders) at the top 1/4th of an inch. Just this simple fact made it impossible for the towers to collapse through themselves at virtually free fall speed. Besides the towers virtually turned to dust in mid-air that dust being ejected away from the site so it´s really impossible to rationalize this official fable. How could mass that was ejected away from the towers simultaneously thrust them down?
 Quoting: galdur


im with you on that galdur..

we just need to verify that this tenant list is complete..
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1155369
United States
01/18/2011 12:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
pin and let the people decide!

agreed,
this thread needs more exposure..



I have not seen the evidence of the debunkers saying this is an incomplete list..

are they going to come up with this ?


For obvious reasons the supporting steel girders were the thicker the nearer to the ground. At ground level they were 4 inches thick (box girders) at the top 1/4th of an inch. Just this simple fact made it impossible for the towers to collapse through themselves at virtually free fall speed. Besides the towers virtually turned to dust in mid-air that dust being ejected away from the site so it´s really impossible to rationalize this official fable. How could mass that was ejected away from the towers simultaneously thrust them down?
 Quoting: galdur


Dude this thread is about lack of occupancy of the WTC supported by a FOIA regarding leases from 1972-2001.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1234791
United States
01/18/2011 12:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
So, who did you know with a office at the WTC ?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1178876



hey tards;

[link to www.google.com]

[link to www.usatoday.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1234791
United States
01/18/2011 12:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
now lets see your math
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1081878
galdur

User ID: 1229845
Iceland
01/18/2011 01:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
pin and let the people decide!

agreed,
this thread needs more exposure..



I have not seen the evidence of the debunkers saying this is an incomplete list..

are they going to come up with this ?


For obvious reasons the supporting steel girders were the thicker the nearer to the ground. At ground level they were 4 inches thick (box girders) at the top 1/4th of an inch. Just this simple fact made it impossible for the towers to collapse through themselves at virtually free fall speed. Besides the towers virtually turned to dust in mid-air that dust being ejected away from the site so it´s really impossible to rationalize this official fable. How could mass that was ejected away from the towers simultaneously thrust them down?


Dude this thread is about lack of occupancy of the WTC supported by a FOIA regarding leases from 1972-2001.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1155369


Yeah, I know, but those demolitions came up. This occupancy issue is a great addition to help us understand the 9/11 scam.
zacksavage

User ID: 1222417
United States
01/18/2011 03:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1234791

Does this post have a point?






Z
Free your mind,...your ass will follow.

--- parliament funkadelic
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1221609
United States
01/18/2011 03:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
[link to www.google.com]

[link to www.usatoday.com]

Does this post have a point?






Z
 Quoting: zacksavage

sealbump
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1235168
United Kingdom
01/18/2011 06:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
it may even suprise you to learn that "freefall" is about one third of the time it actually took the towers to fall, about the delay one might expect from the resistance the building offered after it's structural integrity was compromised



or I could be wrong, you may not be interested in facts and physics, they are certainly not convenient when WOOOOOO
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1232801

So you are saying it took the buildings 3 times longer to fall than dropping a brick from the same height? And this would be due to the resistance of the floors below!

You may want to check your figures - as the buildings fell as fast as a brick - there was no resistance!

Even the NIST report admits this.


Yes most people here like to listen to physics - just not figures dragged out of thin air!

hf
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1226236
United States
01/18/2011 06:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
So you are saying it took the buildings 3 times longer to fall than dropping a brick from the same height? And this would be due to the resistance of the floors below!

You may want to check your figures - as the buildings fell as fast as a brick - there was no resistance!

Even the NIST report admits this.


Yes most people here like to listen to physics - just not figures dragged out of thin air!

hf
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1235168

Shhhhhhh! Quiet now. You will ruin the illusion.
Munchaab

User ID: 1118614
United Kingdom
01/18/2011 07:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
So you are saying it took the buildings 3 times longer to fall than dropping a brick from the same height? And this would be due to the resistance of the floors below!

You may want to check your figures - as the buildings fell as fast as a brick - there was no resistance!

Even the NIST report admits this.


Yes most people here like to listen to physics - just not figures dragged out of thin air!

hf

Shhhhhhh! Quiet now. You will ruin the illusion.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1226236

lol

Ooopsie - silly me - nearly let the thirmate out of the bag!

hf

Not sure why my ID changed when I logged in?!

Last Edited by Munchaab on 01/18/2011 07:14 PM
I want the use of ALL of my brain!
"I hate the idea of yesterday being a replay of tomorrow!"
.
Because UK revolution matters too...
The Love Police: [link to www.youtube.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1210065
United States
01/18/2011 09:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
Of all the details to come out about 911 the one that still shocks me is the fact that at least 7 of the hijackers are still alive.

[link to whatreallyhappened.com]

[link to news.bbc.co.uk]

[link to guardian.150m.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1155369
United States
01/19/2011 01:19 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
Bump
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1236669
United States
01/19/2011 11:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
So you are saying it took the buildings 3 times longer to fall than dropping a brick from the same height? And this would be due to the resistance of the floors below!

You may want to check your figures - as the buildings fell as fast as a brick - there was no resistance!

Even the NIST report admits this.


Yes most people here like to listen to physics - just not figures dragged out of thin air!

hf
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1235168



oh bullfuckingshit


the towers can be timed by watching the footage, at the point where they would be on the ground at "freefall" speed they are just passing the top of Building 7, at 50 stories, and that even takes into account the fact that point of impact at tower two was 15 stories down
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1236669
United States
01/19/2011 11:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
now lets see your math

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1234791




we don need no stinkin' math!


an we don't need no stinkin' birth certificate


an we don't need no stinkin' truth


jus pile up the shit, yeah we luv that shit!
RaiZdbyDINGOES

User ID: 1236542
Australia
01/20/2011 01:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
i'm looking at spreadsheet, all I see is company name, floor, building, suite, and lease dates no mention of occupancy
those that see, can truly say they are not blind....
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1155369
United States
01/20/2011 03:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
Does it not seem peculiar that on the spreadsheet literally all of the leases, especially the north tower, begin in the mid to late 90's.

What does this tell us?

That from opening day (1972 approx.) these floors/suites never had occupancy.

We were told repeatedly that the WTC was a thriving business center full of thousands of companies and employees.

This FOIA regarding leases/tenants (from 1972-2001)
proves that Americans and the world were deceived and lied to about the very buildings these supposed airplanes crashed into.

This may be the strongest discovery to date that 911 was a LIE.

Wake up people!!
zacksavage

User ID: 1240583
United States
01/23/2011 11:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
Does it not seem peculiar that on the spreadsheet literally all of the leases, especially the north tower, begin in the mid to late 90's.

What does this tell us?

That from opening day (1972 approx.) these floors/suites never had occupancy.

We were told repeatedly that the WTC was a thriving business center full of thousands of companies and employees.

This FOIA regarding leases/tenants (from 1972-2001)
proves that Americans and the world were deceived and lied to about the very buildings these supposed airplanes crashed into.

This may be the strongest discovery to date that 911 was a LIE.

Wake up people!!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1155369

OH Dear,...

That makes clear sense.



Z
Free your mind,...your ass will follow.

--- parliament funkadelic
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1221609
United States
02/02/2011 06:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
now lets see your math

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1234791




we don need no stinkin' math!


an we don't need no stinkin' birth certificate


an we don't need no stinkin' truth


jus pile up the shit, yeah we luv that shit!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1236669


chuckle and a-bumpo-bumpum bump
!
User ID: 1260810
United States
02/09/2011 09:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 1/13/2011 - 9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA * 1972-2001
Does it not seem peculiar that on the spreadsheet literally all of the leases, especially the north tower, begin in the mid to late 90's.

What does this tell us?

That from opening day (1972 approx.) these floors/suites never had occupancy.

We were told repeatedly that the WTC was a thriving business center full of thousands of companies and employees.

This FOIA regarding leases/tenants (from 1972-2001)
proves that Americans and the world were deceived and lied to about the very buildings these supposed airplanes crashed into.

This may be the strongest discovery to date that 911 was a LIE.

Wake up people!!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1155369



truly comical, New York wouldn't have noticed all those years now would it? oh thats right it was holograms and movies shown on the wall right? no it was mass hypnotization of 20 million people for 25 years? no, aliens abducted everyone who ever entered new york and replaced them with a a matrix robot? no, simply new york never existed, chew on that lie!? yeah, that tower was empty the whole time, (except for the hollywood extras they brought in for the fake evacuation, and they ain't talkin), no, its the blamm-o-phage machine, top secret, don't tell anyone, wow how revealing!!!!

hey, how would you like for me to create a spreadsheet that shows the towers were made of peanut butter?


wow, that would prove they were all nuts





GLP