WTC Challenge

page: 52
3
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   

The building was 200 feet wide. THis would mean that the top of the building would have to rotate over 100 feet laterally. The structure would have never been able to cope with the stresses of that.


I didn't think this would be an extremely hard concept for you to understand. Maybe I was wrong. Falling straight down and crushing all the building below, besides requiring all columns to give out simultaneously, would also require much more force and would be much more difficult than to just fall off the side, resisted by nothing but air.

Do you get what I'm saying? If the top section of the building was going to collapse, it would collapse inward towards the area of missing columns (least resistance to gravity, and the weak part of the structure), and continue falling in that direction, right off the side and down onto the surrounding buildings. Ok? Simultaneously snapping all of the columns required for a clean, downward sweep would not be likely in this situation without some sort of detonation blowing the columns out.

I didn't say it would be pretty, and that the rest of the building would be fine, but the rest of the building would certainly not continue collapsing as a result of this, if that's what you're suggesting. As far as I know, basic physics and common sense do not change and bend around the logic of an engineer, and buildings are not that freaking weak. In fact, the more we discuss this, the more respect I lose for the intelligence of engineers.


I've already addresses the footprint issue.


Probably in the same way you allegedly debunked that link I posted showing how the fires could not possibly have been at the alleged temperatures. I should post that again soon, and then maybe you can actually show us how you debunked it so we can all take a closer look for ourselves?

Here you go:

911research.wtc7.net...

Again, from earlier, since you never responded but claimed you had debunked it earlier. It shouldn't be too far off, if flawed at all in the first place.


As for the steel shooting out, there were a lot of torsional forces on the individual components. When some of the bolts broke, those pieces shot out like arrows.


You are aware that the same feature is distinctive of demolitions, right?

Couple that with the fact that progressive collapses can't be reproduced going off the way you think they work, and that these features aren't typical of other types of collapses... Only demolitions, and the unreproducible "progressive collapses".. Hmm.




posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I've heard many point to the fact that one of the towers began tilting before the implosion as a sign of collapse instead of demolition. However, it seems to me that it would point to the latter. Simple physics would relate that it would have been much easier for the top to simply "break off" rather than correcting itself.

Inertia - Physics. The tendency of a body to resist acceleration; the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in straight line motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on by an outside force.



With the building beginning to fall to the side, the support on the opposite side would have had to given way for the building to correct itself. But, if you use the definition simple definition of inertia, most of the pressure would have been on the side of the building to which the building originally began to collapse.

So, an "outside force" would have had to be responsible for the buildings correction.
This, in itself, disproves the pancake theory.

[edit on 19-8-2005 by white4life420]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 04:58 AM
link   
That's right, White4Life... I've been saying that throughout this thread and it has been pretty much ignore by the "Agents" we have posting on here.

I don't care how the building was constructed, it's physically impossible for any building to fall the way they did, with none or little resistance from the lower floors.

Planes and fire do not alter the effects of physics.
The opposition has NO argument, so we go round in circles and debating them is getting boring and pointless.
I have other things to worry about now...

AP&F...



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   
you must be kidding me man....now y'r labeling us (I'm asuming)....of all things "AGENTS"

And to bring up the point again....what do you know about STRUCTURAL DESIGNING??????????? to know HOW or IF the building would fall ?????? You don't so y'r view is as equal as the view that the planes and fires brought it down....but you don't see me (us) labeling you as some conspirator publisher


Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

PS Figured the tapes out now....more people would comment....I"ve only finished half of em' (will get to finishing the rest soon) and post what I think...and will always love to hear everyones views (even the Agents)



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
you must be kidding me man....now y'r labeling us (I'm asuming)....of all things "AGENTS"

And to bring up the point again....what do you know about STRUCTURAL DESIGNING??????????? to know HOW or IF the building would fall ?????? You don't so y'r view is as equal as the view that the planes and fires brought it down....but you don't see me (us) labeling you as some conspirator publisher


Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

PS Figured the tapes out now....more people would comment....I"ve only finished half of em' (will get to finishing the rest soon) and post what I think...and will always love to hear everyones views (even the Agents)


Structural design follows the same laws of physics as everything else.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
And to bring up the point again....what do you know about STRUCTURAL DESIGNING??????????? to know HOW or IF the building would fall ?????? You don't so y'r view is as equal as the view that the planes and fires brought it down....but you don't see me (us) labeling you as some conspirator publisher


The collapse of those towers is kind of like a magic trick. If you look at it without knowing how it works, you think, how the f*ck? That's not possible! And you'll start making up crazy theories about how they came down.
Untill someone hints or explains how it really works, then your reaction is "aah yes ofcourse how could I've been so stupid I didn't figure that out myself".

You keep thinking that magic happend on 9/11 though!



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
you must be kidding me man....now y'r labeling us (I'm asuming)....of all things "AGENTS"


Hmmm actually I was referring to our friend Howard, you're just a Troll.

You have bought nothing to this discussion that even remotely explains what happened on 9-11, yet you spout off like you know everything.

Saying "I am in construction" and "Go Howard your da man" does not have a whole lot of credibility on this site, sorry. I have far more respect for Howard, at least he puts some effort in even if it is in vain.

Bring me a scientific explanation of the WTC collapse, that I can't find holes in, then maybe you'll get some respect.

Why is it the only post I made that you answered to was this last one?

I have asked you numerous questions about the WTC topic and you have ignored them. This tells me you have no idea what you're talking about, and cannot answer the questions.

Agent, yeah sure...If you are an agent then damn this counties in a worse state than I thought...


Maybe if you spent some time studying government tactics you wouldn't be so quick to blindly support them. They poisoned thousands of their troops, using us as guinea pigs for testing vaccines. Many have died, and many including me are sick.
Don't trust the government, they'll stop at nothing to achieve their gaols of power and control.

AP&F..The only way to go.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by Hector

The extreme heat in the lobby came from the explosion at WTC 6 at 9:03 AM which was next to tower WTC 1.

Jules Naudet saw two persons on fire (to his right) as he entered the lobby.


Yeah from a neighbouring building... and we're the conspiracy theorists ?


World Trade Center 6 was north of World Trade Center 1. Here is a photo that shows where the missile exploded in the center of 6. The blast affected the lobby of WTC 1 and damaged the southwest corner of WTC 7; which is the reason WTC 7 had to be pulled.

Also please note the rectangle and semicircular holes in the roofs of the surrounding buildings. This is where superheated steel beams from WTC 6 landed and started some of the fires. If you trace the straight edges of the semicircular holes where the beams hit they direct you back to the center of the crater.

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Here is a photo that shows where the missile exploded in the center of 6.


How the hole can be as wide at top as it's at bottom if there was an explosion? Steel Structures that falled from WTC 1 and 2 explains that hole perfectly.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hector

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by Hector

The extreme heat in the lobby came from the explosion at WTC 6 at 9:03 AM which was next to tower WTC 1.

Jules Naudet saw two persons on fire (to his right) as he entered the lobby.


Yeah from a neighbouring building... and we're the conspiracy theorists ?


World Trade Center 6 was north of World Trade Center 1. Here is a photo that shows where the missile exploded in the center of 6. The blast affected the lobby of WTC 1 and damaged the southwest corner of WTC 7; which is the reason WTC 7 had to be pulled.

Also please note the rectangle and semicircular holes in the roofs of the surrounding buildings. This is where superheated steel beams from WTC 6 landed and started some of the fires. If you trace the straight edges of the semicircular holes where the beams hit they direct you back to the center of the crater.

911research.wtc7.net...



Missile ?
And you're telling me they decided that day, judging from the damage, that building 7 had to be pulled ? And by some wonder there were detonator charges planted in the building ?

Do you realize what you're trying to prove here ?

Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.

[edit on 20-8-2005 by Shroomery]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by Hector

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by Hector

The extreme heat in the lobby came from the explosion at WTC 6 at 9:03 AM which was next to tower WTC 1.

Jules Naudet saw two persons on fire (to his right) as he entered the lobby.


Yeah from a neighbouring building... and we're the conspiracy theorists ?


World Trade Center 6 was north of World Trade Center 1. Here is a photo that shows where the missile exploded in the center of 6. The blast affected the lobby of WTC 1 and damaged the southwest corner of WTC 7; which is the reason WTC 7 had to be pulled.

Also please note the rectangle and semicircular holes in the roofs of the surrounding buildings. This is where superheated steel beams from WTC 6 landed and started some of the fires. If you trace the straight edges of the semicircular holes where the beams hit they direct you back to the center of the crater.

911research.wtc7.net...



Missile ?
And you're telling me they decided that day, judging from the damage, that building 7 had to be pulled ? And by some wonder there were detonator charges planted in the building ?

Do you realize what you're trying to prove here ?

Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.

[edit on 20-8-2005 by Shroomery]


Here is the streaking missile. WTC 7 was pulled by a demolition team later that afternoon due to the damaged caused by the explosion at WTC 6. It is possible two missiles hit, one in the center of WTC 6 and the other at the southwest corner of WTC 7.

www.geocities.com...



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by msdos464

Here is a photo that shows where the missile exploded in the center of 6.


How the hole can be as wide at top as it's at bottom if there was an explosion? Steel Structures that falled from WTC 1 and 2 explains that hole perfectly.


No massive chunk of building from WTC 1 tipped over and fell onto WTC 6. The collapse of WTC 1 pancaked vertically and did not tip over. However, the top portion of WTC 2 did tip over and fell toward the east destroying half of WTC 4. If WTC 1 tipover and fell onto WTC 6 then there would be no hole. Only the south side of the building would have been destroyed similar to what happened with WTC 4.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Hector,

Granted that I don't know wtf that streak is, it may be a little premature to start calling it a missile. Is there any evidence of it actually being a missile, especially evidence independent from that film footage? And is there any other footage that proves the streak was there and not an anomaly on the film?

At any rate, the hole that was created in WTC 6 is not consistent with any missile impact so far as I know. It looks more like big assed chunks of something fell on it. Nor have I seen any photographs of Building 7 showing that it was hit with a missile, either.

911research.wtc7.net...

Building 7 seemed to be in no real danger of collapse until it was pulled. And while we apparently agree that it was pulled, I seriously doubt that it could have been rigged up with the demolition equipment correctly, plans and all, on 9/11. In all likelihood, all three buildings had been rigged up just before 9/11, ie, the week before, when security had been laxed and all bomb-sniffing dogs removed. Especially if a building was on fire would you not be able to set up such a success top-down, footprint-resting demolition. If it could happen that fast, you'd see it happen that fast in the demo business, but it does not. It's more a matter of weeks and months of planning and preparation before demolitions can occur, than mere hours.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Hector,

Granted that I don't know wtf that streak is, it may be a little premature to start calling it a missile. Is there any evidence of it actually being a missile, especially evidence independent from that film footage? And is there any other footage that proves the streak was there and not an anomaly on the film?

At any rate, the hole that was created in WTC 6 is not consistent with any missile impact so far as I know. It looks more like big assed chunks of something fell on it. Nor have I seen any photographs of Building 7 showing that it was hit with a missile, either.

911research.wtc7.net...

The link you provided shows the smoke from the explosion at WTC 6. This CNN photo is NOT the collapsed of WTC 2 as claimed by others. To prove this, the smoke from WTC 1 is blowing in an opposite direction when WTC 2 collapsed.

Why wouldn't it be a missile if fighters from Otis were on the scene as the second plane hit WTC 2? It looks like they were aiming at the plane from a distance and missed due to the plane's impact into WTC 2. The missile fell to the ground hitting WTC 6 or possible the south west corner of WTC 7.

Gideon Naudet took the missile photo as he was riding in the back of a pickup truck with volunteer firemen heading toward WTC 1.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Here is Matt Drudge's report on the missile.

www.public-action.com...



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Interesting article on the explosion at WTC 6.

www.americanfreepress.net...



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hector
The link you provided shows the smoke from the explosion at WTC 6. This CNN photo is NOT the collapsed of WTC 2 as claimed by others. To prove this, the smoke from WTC 1 is blowing in an opposite direction when WTC 2 collapsed.


As you can see in the following photos, the dust from the South Tower's collapse did not discriminate in regards to which direction it went:




You can find more pics (too large to post here) by clicking here.

If you can find additional sources for that dust besides the collapse of WTC2, feel free to share, but at least provide us some evidence to back it up (ie, photos clearly showing a secondary source, unrelated to WTC2's collapse).


Why wouldn't it be a missile if fighters from Otis were on the scene as the second plane hit WTC 2?


I'm not saying it wouldn't be possible. I'm asking: what evidence do you have that this was the case? And again, was this captured from any other angles so as to show that it wasn't a film anomaly? Just questions; I'm inquiring.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   
The trajectory looks wrong for the damage that was done to the building. From the angle that the "object" is leaving the building the damage to WTC 6 should have been angled into the ground from the top, but from the pics I saw it went straight down from top to bottom. At the time and location of those pics, if it was a missile then it should have already started to change its trajectory in the pics so that it was curving to dive straight into the building.

If it WAS an A2A missile that hit, then there would have had to have already been damage inside to cause a MUCH bigger secondary explosion. Most A2A missiles only have maybe 20 pounds of explosive in the warhead. 20 pounds of explosive isn't going to cause the giant hole that appeared in the building.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Hector
The link you provided shows the smoke from the explosion at WTC 6. This CNN photo is NOT the collapsed of WTC 2 as claimed by others. To prove this, the smoke from WTC 1 is blowing in an opposite direction when WTC 2 collapsed.


As you can see in the following photos, the dust from the South Tower's collapse did not discriminate in regards to which direction it went:


In my comment I was referring to the smoke coming from WTC 1 tower. In the first link you provided it shows the CNN footage of the smoke coming from WTC 6 at around 9:04AM. In this CNN photo the smoke from the burning tower WTC 1 is blowing toward the west. When WTC 2 fell at 9:59 AM the smoke from the burning tower WTC 1 was blowing toward the east. My point is these are two different events in time.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 06:21 AM
link   
This link is of Secretary Elaine Chao's speech given to OSHA employees. OSHA was one of the agencies in building 6. After the first plane hit WTC 1 government employees evacuated WTC 6. Chao speaks of the destruction of WTC 6. She says the OSHA employees were outside building 6 as the second plane hit WTC 2.

Then she says after the second plane crashed into WTC 2, the north tower WTC 1 then collapsed onto WTC 6. This can not be the case. WTC 2 collapsed BEFORE WTC 1. A missile hit WTC 6 seconds after the second plane hit WTC 2. She has the timing right for the destruction of WTC 6 but not the cause.

www.dol.gov...

"On the morning of September 11, 2001, OSHA employees had begun a routine day when an explosion shook the building. The Assistant Area Director immediately issued the order to evacuate. As the first plane hit the North Tower of the WTC, debris began falling on Building 6. OSHA staff rushed into the hallway. Three employees helped their co-worker in the wheelchair down the corridor and into a freight elevator they had used during the practice drill. They descended to the basement, into a garage, down some steps, and into another garage, where they escaped from the building.

The group moved outside just as the second plane hit the South Tower. As the group moved away from the site, the North Tower collapsed, destroying OSHA’s Manhattan Area Office as it fell. We are so thankful that no Department of Labor employee was lost during that tragic day. Thanks, in no small part to OSHA’s careful emergency planning, everyone knew what to do—even in this unprecedented circumstance."





top topics
 
3
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join