911 is joke in your town...CDI bought to make you cry

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

As I said...

...the smell of desperation. Just make up any explanation, no matter there isn't any proof at all...make it up, and hope someone will believe in it.

You mean like floor trusses failing and causing a complete global collapse of two 110 story buildings?

Where is your proof of that?

Or that WTC 7 tilted to the west, and only one wall because of that ended up on top of the debris pile?

No proof of that either, in fact visual proof proves all four walls were on top of the debris pile. How is that explained with a natural collapse?

That's just the most obvious ones, I could write a book...

Originally posted by Insolubrious

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
We know it can't have been bombs that caused the collapse because, as shown in ANOK's video above, the destruction begins at the point of entry.

So this is your proof of no explosives used - because the collapse initiation started at the point of plane entry? CDI have proven to us that demolition charges can quite happily survive an inferno without detonation. They put on pyrotechnic displays including setting fires on multiple floors with incendiary charges without interfering or setting off any of the actual demolition charges.

More likely the collapse was initated from the point of impact to make it look as if the plane caused the collapse. It would of looked stupid if the collapse initiation started anywhere else BUT there, the planes would of been pointless and demolition obvious. Such things are considered and are the very nature of a deceptive covert operation.

It's possible to fly a plane into a demolition charge without setting it off?

It's possible to fly a plane into a building at precisely the point you want? To the yard?

Possibly. But there are more likely explanations.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
And the WTC didn't fall into its own footprint anyway. Remember the sections being "blown 400ft"?

I was referring to WTC7.

It was impossible for the towers to land in their own footprint, too tall and thin for that to happen. But the debris was ejected symmetrically in all directions, showing that there was no asymmetrical resistance.

So you can't CD a tower without ejecting bits of it 400ft? I'm not sure about that.

And why do the towers' demos look so different?

Anyway, that's not really the issue. If you're right about the towers then that building in the video must be a CD as well.

reply to post by ANOK


It's true! When scanning through all these replies, others have said you make stuff up...it's true, you do!

It's nice to seeit so handily presented, too --- for all to witness. The "made up strawman" attempt to 'debate'....

You mean like floor trusses failing and causing a complete global collapse of two 110 story buildings?

Good job on that, selectively minimizing the complexity of a very chaotic and complicated event.

~~~ Love your hair, hope you win!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

As I said...

...the smell of desperation. Just make up any explanation, no matter there isn't any proof at all...make it up, and hope someone will believe in it.

Sounds more like you're describing the official conspiracy theory to me.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by Insolubrious]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ANOK

 

It's true! When scanning through all these replies, others have said you make stuff up...it's true, you do!

Show me where I've made stuff up, or apologize for lying.

Good job on that, selectively minimizing the complexity of a very chaotic and complicated event.

~~~ Love your hair, hope you win!!

How is that a strawman, what the hell are you on about, what am I going to win? You make no sense as usual. You have to post garbage because I made what you said look stupid. BTW I have no hair, I probably lost it before you were ever heard of.

Isn't NIST hypothesis that failure of the floor trusses caused the collapses, or has that changed again?

[edit on 7/26/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK

You mean like floor trusses failing and causing a complete global collapse of two 110 story buildings?

Right there.

You made this up.

Nowhere in the NIST report does it say that the trusses failing alone caused the collapse.

There are several other factors, making you deceitful through omission of facts while making your arguement.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ANOK

You mean like floor trusses failing and causing a complete global collapse of two 110 story buildings?

Right there.

You made this up.

Nowhere in the NIST report does it say that the trusses failing alone caused the collapse.

There are several other factors, making you deceitful through omission of facts while making your arguement.

LOL I didn't say that the trusses caused the collapse on their own, but according to NIST it was the main collapse mechanism.

In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely 2 The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.
Executive Summary Draft for Public Comment xliv NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.
In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building. WTC 2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel.

wtc.nist.gov...

Jeez I think if I was to argue that the fire did cause the collapses you'd argue it didn't...