Is it normal to call a group of fire fighters "it" as in "pull it" ?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
If you think fire made 7 collapse then hey - next time you want to demo a building just start a bunch of random fires on some random floors and let the building take care of itself, perfect symetrical implosion will result. 9/11 proved there is no need for controlled demo teams any more since fire can bring about the exact same results. Less effort, less time, less money. Controlled demolitions should only be carried out by con artists.

Yeah no need for months of planning and prep for a CD! Just start some fires and let nature do the rest!

Oh but of course - planes brought down the twin towers didn't they.
edit on 3-11-2010 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Only if can arrange for some jet planes to fly into buildings first .......



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Chef ramsey screams " Shut IT down" at his kitchen staff, and they leave the kitchen.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Only if can arrange for some jet planes to fly into buildings first .......


Not to mention, a nearby gigantic building collapsing and taking the entire power grid and water feed from the street along with it.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jambatrumpet
 



Please explain to me how damage to the top third of a building causes the complete structural failure of all of the floors below it...what, they weren't designed to sustain the weight of the floors above them?


No , the floors were not designed to support the weight of the floors above them .

Just in case you seriously don't know how the towers were constructed , and taking into account that your question might be sincere , I will explain it to you .

The columns supported the floors , the floors did not support the columns . The floors also did not support the successive floors above them .

Put another way , each individual floor was fastened to the perimeter columns and core columns . The next higher floor was fastened in the same manner . The columns did not set on top of each floor , the floors did not set on top of the columns . The floors were attached to the sides of the columns .

So , airplane crashes into building at floor "P" , thereby damaging floor "P" and floor "Q" above it , and floor "O" below it .

Fires break out and the columns at floors O , P , and Q are weakened . Keeping in mind that the perimeter columns were held in an upright position only because they were attached to the floor structures , which were in turn attached to the core columns .

Floors O , P , and Q are damaged and sagging from the damage due to the impact . Those floors have been disengaged from the perimeter columns so , critical support is now taken away from those columns , the same columns that relied on the floor structures to maintain them in the vertical position .

Add to this the massive fires that are now heating those columns to the point of severe stress from the remaining floors above that they are supporting . The combined weight of those higher floors are now , along with the fire , causing those columns to bow , because floors O , P , and Q , are no longer attached to the columns , no longer helping to hold those columns in the upright position .

The fires finally take a toll on those columns , causing them to buckle under the weight of the higher building structure . Everything above the impact point comes straight down onto floor O . There is absolutely no way anyone can seriously expect that floor O would support all of that combined weight crashing down onto it .

Floor O breaks free from it's supports with all of the higher floors riding on top of it . All of this weight then crashes down onto floor N , then floor M , then floor L ... all the way to the bottom .

Meanwhile , the columns are now being thrown out and away from the tower because there is nothing to hold them in an upright position . The inside of the towers were actually falling faster than the outside of the towers . Once the inside collapse initiated , there was absolutely nothing to hold the outside in place .

A little lengthy but , I hope I made it simple enough to understand .

You can choose to consider it or you can reply to me in the typical truther fashion . It's your choice .



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 

Well...I did consider it...and yes, what you describe is a possible scenario. I believe controlled demolition is a more likely scenario.

In reference to your argument, I do not believe the fires burnt long enough, or hot enough, to significantly decrease the integrity of the steel.

While your description is feasible, no examples of a similar collapse of a steel high rise can be cited. Thus, you are asking me to believe in an anomaly occurring....Twice..within a very short period of time.

What I saw was a classic controlled demolition. Something that has occurred thousands of times.

You are asking me to believe the exception, not the rule. To take a leap of faith, instead of, what i consider logical deduction.

That being said. I want to thank you for your thoughtful, thorough explanation...And demonstrating to me that there are thoughtful, intelligent people on both sides of this debate.

edit on 3-11-2010 by jambatrumpet because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-11-2010 by jambatrumpet because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Only if can arrange for some jet planes to fly into buildings first .......


well then if you believe that why not simply make a large hole in a building then add some jet fuel = complete collapse. Still way cheaper than a demolition and far quicker. Who needs a plane anyhow?



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 



well then if you believe that why not simply make a large hole in a building then add some jet fuel = complete collapse. Still way cheaper than a demolition and far quicker. Who needs a plane anyhow?


Ever hear of momentum?

The kinetic energy of a plane travelling at 500 mph does a hell of lot of damage compared to simply cutting holes

You are aware of this ....?



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Socratic Method
Human error, well atleast we know he's human.


Or diabolic intent!





top topics
 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join