This is what I remember

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I didn't see any real evidence in your post. (I'm not being rude.) But all you did was regurgitate a whole lot of hot air that conspiracy theorists go crazy over - No doubt your post will get a hundred stars because people don't know any better. Shame on them if you ask me. Shame on them.

I also have no time to go explaining in detail why it WASN'T a CD. I wish people would just do their own research instead of just flaming others. I mean, jeez. Some people (like you) need to get a life seriously.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Without the lateral stability provided by the floors and the exterior walls the central core could not stand

Like standing a pencil on its end

There are photos of the central core of the South Tower (about 60 floors) standing for several seconds afrer
the floors and exterior wall have fallen.

Lacking the support from the rest of the building it soon collapsed......

Originally posted by Vio1ion
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Not every buildings, but it would be kind of logical to try to prevent one from falling sideways and causing more unnecessary damage and death. Any accident that would threaten the building to collapse.

That would make moot the bomb-sniffing dogs, cost LOTS of money, and leave the building vulnerable to total destruction should the wrong person gain access to the controls. Not to mention, it would have to be regularly checked to ensure it was still intact.

No, I don't see this as being a viable solution to the (VERY) off chance of some accident. Fires have raged for 18 hours and not brought down highrises. So that wouldn't be a concern... In fact, the ONLY thing that has ever brought down highrises has been CD. Even on 9/11. But that was not placed as "insurance." It was placed deliberately for the deception.

Originally posted by routerboy
Why is it so hard for anyone to understand the pancake effect of the floors smashing down on each other with the building giving way underneath due to the sheer weight. OK, you all keep going on and on about how it looked like a controlled demolition - because that's all you have seen before. We haven't got any other footage of planes flying into skyscrapers to compare this incident with.

You would have a case if every other video of a plane flying into a skyscraper produced different results, but you don't. And from what I seen with my own eyes on that day - Planes flew into the WTC and it crumbled from the damage at the top due to the floors smashing down on each other.

Has it not occurred to people that the loud bangs that they heard *moments before* the buildings fell weren't bombs exploding but rather the floors up above smashing down on each other?

Give it a rest everyone - It's completely ridiculous to suggest a controlled demolition when we have footage of the planes crashing into the building. Not everything's a conspiracy - you freaks.

Have you done any research at all ?

Pancake effect ?????
The loud bangs were floors smashing on each other???
Did you see how fast those buildings came down ? A pancake effect would have took effin ages !!!
Even if you allowed One second per floor.....do the maths.

Those floors blew out from under each other.
Sorry mate but you dont have an argument .

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Without the lateral stability provided by the floors and the exterior walls the central core could not stand

Like standing a pencil on its end

There are photos of the central core of the South Tower (about 60 floors) standing for several seconds afrer
the floors and exterior wall have fallen.

Lacking the support from the rest of the building it soon collapsed......

The central core was part of the support. Why would it collapse without what it was supporting? Makes no sense.

Originally posted by routerboy
I didn't see any real evidence in your post.

In other words, you're ignoring the links directly to NIST that most of my post was based off of? Hilarious.

Originally posted by routerboy
I also have no time to go explaining in detail why it WASN'T a CD.

But you've got plenty of time to type a bunch of already-debunked text onto your screen, and then attack/flame others? Hilarious.

Originally posted by routerboy
I'm not being rude. I wish people would just do their own research instead of just flaming others.

In fact, you are trying to deliberately be rude and flame others, against your own requests:

Originally posted by routerboy
you freaks

Originally posted by routerboy
Some people (like you) need to get a life seriously.

Yep. You are deliberately being rude and flaming others your damn self. That would make you the epitome of a hypocrite.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Without the lateral stability provided by the floors and the exterior walls the central core could not stand

Like standing a pencil on its end

There are photos of the central core of the South Tower (about 60 floors) standing for several seconds afrer
the floors and exterior wall have fallen.

Lacking the support from the rest of the building it soon collapsed......

Here`s some video of the core column.......turning to dust .

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by lambros56
Here`s some video of the core column.......turning to dust .

Gotta love the deliberate disinformation of the "core turning to dust" hoax every time it is peddled.

You can clearly see the core columns falling straight down leaving dust hanging in the air. Yes, those heavier steel columns will fall faster than the very light dust particles.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by lambros56
Here`s some video of the core column.......turning to dust .

Gotta love the deliberate disinformation of the "core turning to dust" hoax every time it is peddled.

You can clearly see the core columns falling straight down leaving dust hanging in the air. Yes, those heavier steel columns will fall faster than the very light dust particles.

I don't know... I looked at that several times and tried to see the core columns and no matter what I tried to see, it sure looked like disintegration, and not just dust shaken off as the column fell. I'll look again, but I doubt I will see that on yet another viewing.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by lambros56
Here`s some video of the core column.......turning to dust .

Gotta love the deliberate disinformation of the "core turning to dust" hoax every time it is peddled.

You can clearly see the core columns falling straight down leaving dust hanging in the air. Yes, those heavier steel columns will fall faster than the very light dust particles.

Sorry mate but dont accuse me of deliberate disinformation.

I`m telling it as i see it.
Look at the video.....where did the dust come from ?

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Bonesy.....you are so close to understanding. I see it in your many, many OTHER very logical, and physics-grounded posts on a myriad of topics. In this very thread you, once again, point out one of the many, many fallacies from those who pose as "truthers"....

....but, I am afraid, the claim of "CD" is still a wonk. I know that some have invested a whole lot of emotional energy into that meme....you are on the verge of comprehension, though. Once you break through.

AS TO the construction design...the "tube-in-tube" concept??

I only related that, in regards to the Towers, as being "unique" based on my (admittedly) layman's understanding. HOWEVER: Granting that, in your area of expertise, you will know more about other examples of existing similar designs....I think it can be safe to agree that NONE of any other similarly constructed skyscrapers have suffered a terrorist attack by Jet-A filled Boeing 767s at very high velocities?? Because, the results from any other such similar events, should they (hopefully not ever) occur, would be well worth considering.

The reason why I think/hypothesize CD explosives were already in place is the preparation required to make this possible. And again, they fell too fast and too straight, considering that all the floors were not damaged equally. Also to consider, the bottom part of the towers were already supporting the weight of the upper floors, and should have provoked a lateral displacement.

But more importantly,the time it took for both towers to fall implied that there was almost nothing slowing down the effects of gravity.

reply to post by Vio1ion


Wellllll.......

...why I think/hypothesize CD explosives were already in place....

There have been LOTS of discussions about "shelf-life" limitations of explosives.

As well as the simple fact that there were no indications of any such thing having been done, previously. Really....it just beggars belief to assert some sort of precise foreknowledge of these airborne attacks....

...I said "precise" because I still feel the warnings were there, and either dismissed, or ignored or thought to be "sometime in the future".....and THAT, mesdames et monsieurs, is the REAL "9/11 conspiracy cover-up"....some meat on those bones, there......

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...I said "precise" because I still feel the warnings were there, and either dismissed, or ignored or thought to be "sometime in the future".....and THAT, mesdames et monsieurs, is the REAL "9/11 conspiracy cover-up"....some meat on those bones, there......

I know of no one who has assembled most of the known facts and understands the why and how of 9/11 who disagrees. There has to be no conspiracy at all, simply incompetence. If the TM had concentrated in this area rather than the other kookiness and sillyness of all of the other typical truther garbage there may have been some progress. As it is NOTHING AT ALL has been accomplished by them in over 9 years except an Internet polluted with garbage.....

Originally posted by Vio1ion
The reason why I think/hypothesize CD explosives were already in place is the preparation required to make this possible. And again, they fell too fast and too straight, considering that all the floors were not damaged equally. Also to consider, the bottom part of the towers were already supporting the weight of the upper floors, and should have provoked a lateral displacement.

But more importantly,the time it took for both towers to fall implied that there was almost nothing slowing down the effects of gravity.

Well, I remember reports by a number of people who worked in the Towers that "workmen" were seen a lot in the days leading up to the collapse. If they came in dressed as delivery people - with something in boxes labeled "Dell" or some other company with equipment used, and then changed into "workmen" or whatever, it could EASILY be done right under noses. I mean, how often do you really pay attention to the maintenance guy meandering through your office?

Originally posted by lambros56
Sorry mate but dont accuse me of deliberate disinformation.

No, but you're peddling disinformation that has been debunked years ago. This disinformation was created by the likes of Judy Wood et al.

Originally posted by lambros56
Look at the video.....where did the dust come from?

Oh, I don't know, maybe from a 110-story building that just collapsed and left tons of dust on the whole pile and in the air, including those core columns.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I think it can be safe to agree that NONE of any other similarly constructed skyscrapers have suffered a terrorist attack by Jet-A filled Boeing 767s at very high velocities??

For your consideration, I'll re-post what the lead engineer, John Skilling, said about the 1200-page analysis that was done by his firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson:

“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed… The building structure would still be there.”

According to his firm's analysis, the fuel was considered. And his expertise allows him to conclude that the structure would still survive after the fires. That is what history has told us as well. That in every other situation where there has been a fire in a steel-structured highrise, the structure has always remained.

I'll trust the lead engineer, the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and history, before I trust anything from anybody in an agency that receives its funding directly from the government. Thank you.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by lambros56
Sorry mate but dont accuse me of deliberate disinformation.

No, but you're peddling disinformation that has been debunked years ago. This disinformation was created by the likes of Judy Wood et al.

Originally posted by lambros56
Look at the video.....where did the dust come from?

Oh, I don't know, maybe from a 110-story building that just collapsed and left tons of dust on the whole pile and in the air, including those core columns.

I keep looking, BoneZ. Just not seeing it as you describe. Not saying you're wrong, but it looks like it disintegrated.