Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by dadgad
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

oh you piece of /.... that is pure fantasy and a insult to common sense. 50% is/might be possible, however only if the heat source is centered at one point. Office fires wont do that, they never did and they never will. Stop spreading myths.

Nobody said it was JUST the office fires that did it ,use some common sense will you? Unlike most office fires, the crashes piled debris against the furthest walls and corners, providing fuel for the persistent fires right at the most vunerable points of the building. And like someone already mentioned if you know anything about the structural design of the building it becomes musch easier to understand.

Just more idiocy.

Not enough heat, not enough structural damage to cause what you trying to make us believe. Get another job, try to serve the truth for once.

Originally posted by notsoperfect
reply to post by dadgad

 

There are three shills on top of the OP on this disinfo campaign. You know who they are..

They have prepared even the drawings ready to display...

I aaure you if I am a shill, I am the brokest ever.

I am a peson that likes the facts. not made up unrealistic jargon thrown together for someones delight.

If this is as intelligent as your comments get..... I can see why you believe what you do.

The shill argument always comes out when the person making the claims is all out of ammo.

Have a nice day troll.

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by ANOK

 

The NIST report was only up to the collapse initiation. You know this you have been around a long time.

Yes that is why the NIST report fails, it is incomplete. What is your point?

The missing truss seats are an obvious sign of progressive collapse.

How? There is more to pancake collapse than that. A pancake collapse is called that because floors stack up like pancakes. where are the pancakes in the WTC footprint?

Explain the missing truss seats in detail Truther.

How can I, you can't either? I will say though that pancake collapse is not the only answer for missing truss seats, and YOU know that. Go argue with NIST if you think they're wrong.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

wtc.nist.gov...

See they moved on to the sagging trusses hypothesis. You are a little bit out of date mate.

BTW the doesn't the missing truss seats contradict the NIST claim, 'required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards'?

So when and how did the truss seats fail? That is the question there is no logical answer for.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


If I were a bystander, I wouldn't be able to pull up such a nice drawing ready to display on time.

It cries loud, shills. You guys are pathetic trying to pull this nonsense.

In the mean time, the ATS becomes a loser.

Bottom line, whether it was thermite, Neal Bush's 'Security Team', two planes or a goat and an appetite, the point is moot when you consider ALL of the events of the day, not just these two buildings.

There are enough reports, claims, and questions that even if those buildings were destroyed just as the NIST says, there are a ton of other events and responses that prove some level of complicity.

Events and responses that have even ATS' 9/11 conspiracy debunkers very quiet.

Originally posted by liejunkie01

Originally posted by notsoperfect
reply to post by dadgad

 

There are three shills on top of the OP on this disinfo campaign. You know who they are..

They have prepared even the drawings ready to display...

I aaure you if I am a shill, I am the brokest ever.

I am a peson that likes the facts. not made up unrealistic jargon thrown together for someones delight.

If this is as intelligent as your comments get..... I can see why you believe what you do.

The shill argument always comes out when the person making the claims is all out of ammo.

Have a nice day troll.

You're a lying junkie just as your username tells us. Does the state pay your fix?

reply to post by jimnuggits


STARRRED!! sometimes I think I'm going crazy with the NUMEROUS threads I've read with all the technical data Ive looked over, with all the expert posters who have in other threads laid out enormous amounts of supportive data for the truth movement that people still act like some of us are crazy for believing there was more behind this than a few terrorist with some cash and simulated flight training experience. Thank you NUGGITS!

reply to post by dadgad

Just more idiocy.


Not enough heat, not enough structural damage to cause what you trying to make us believe. Get another job, try to serve the truth for once.

I have taken metallurgy. Heat excites the atoms in steel. This makes the atoms vibrate at an increased speed. Which in turn makes the Space Lattuce Structure of the steel become unstable. Which can lead to fatigue, hairline fractures, and or complete failure of the structure or steel under load.

Look up load, weigh, heat, and steel. See how they all come together.

It does not take alot of heat to do this. You have no idea what you are talkinbg about and your unfounded attacks on the op make you look silly.

I called my theory on how the towers fell a progressive/pancake collapse but I meant the mass from the above floors gained momentum and force from gravity, and amcumilated mass from the debris causing the tower to collapse "progressively" in a pancake like fashion but not each floor pancaking like the pancake theory suggests. It is true that the NIST report does not support the pancake theory but it refutes the controlled demolition theory even more. Check this page out.

wtc.nist.gov...

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Averysmallfoxx

 

I really don't see your point here?

The core held the majority of the weight, the outer walls provided stability and allowed it to sway. That link you provided from wiki is incorrect.

But regardless there is no evidence of pancaking, are you still insisting that happened when NIST themselves rejected that hypothesis? A lot of people fell for that at first, but most realised years ago, including NIST, that pancake collapse was not the answer.

NIST rejected pancaking for collapse initiation because it was obvious the exterior walls were pulled in by sagging trusses. After the columns failed nothing else needed to fail under compression only sheer. One floor collapsed on to the next shearing off the truss seats and pancaking al the way to the ground,


Once again. Explain the missing truss seats Truther.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by dadgad

You're a lying junkie just as your username tells us. Does the state pay your fix?

This is the last time I will give any amount of time from me.

It is obvious what you are and what you are about. Ignorance knows no boundaries and you are definitely there. And I even hate to use the word ignorant. But that is what your posts are.

You bring no value to any discussion above and your attitude is inexcusable...

Now ecuse me, I have to get my fix...........of nicotine..............

Troll.

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by dadgad

 

Just more idiocy.


Not enough heat, not enough structural damage to cause what you trying to make us believe. Get another job, try to serve the truth for once.

I have taken metallurgy. Heat excites the atoms in steel. This makes the atoms vibrate at an increased speed. Which in turn makes the Space Lattuce Structure of the steel become unstable. Which can lead to fatigue, hairline fractures, and or complete failure of the structure or steel under load.

Look up load, weigh, heat, and steel. See how they all come together.

It does not take alot of heat to do this. You have no idea what you are talkinbg about and your unfounded attacks on the op make you look silly.

edit on 18-6-2011 by liejunkie01 because: spelling

I doubt you have taken anything but another fix.
You are an insult to common sense. The tower got hit at the top, a little structural damage and there was an office fire. No reason for it to collapse at free fall acceleration. You see, I don't even need to conjure up fancy terms, I still have common sense left.

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by dadgad

 

You're a lying junkie just as your username tells us. Does the state pay your fix?

This is the last time I will give any amount of time from me.

It is obvious what you are and what you are about. Ignorance knows no boundaries and you are definitely there. And I even hate to use the word ignorant. But that is what your posts are.

You bring no value to any discussion above and your attitude is inexcusable...

Now ecuse me, I have to get my fix...........of nicotine..............

Troll.

Yes, great! Please leave. GO! Stop polluting the web, stop polluting ATS.

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
I called my theory on how the towers fell a progressive/pancake collapse but I meant the mass from the above floors gained momentum and force from gravity, and amcumilated mass from the debris causing the tower to collapse "progressively" in a pancake like fashion but not each floor pancaking like the pancake theory suggests. It is true that the NIST report does not support the pancake theory but it refutes the controlled demolition theory even more. Check this page out.

Now the story is changing lol.

Pancake collapse is pancake collapse. There is not pancake like fashion. Pancake is a form of progressive collapse. It either pancaked or it didn't. Evidence does not point to pancake collapse. If it did NIST would have been all over it.

NIST didn't even consider controlled demolition, but of course they would reject it lol, it's a cover up remember?

Stop trying to find excuses, and look at the reality mate.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by notsoperfect
reply to post by liejunkie01

 

I don't think you have even taken the physics 101 let alone the metallurgy "junkey".

You are a shill.

It is nice to see that you all are coming out of the woodwork.

I must be hitting the TRUTHER ALARM.

Is that all you have to bring to te table?

And it is Junkie.........with an ie......Troll.

I am having fun here op.....

reply to post by ANOK


Did I say I believed in the pancaking theory? I don't know what to believe aside from the fact that we are lied to in this disaster, also I think you got the wrong poster your replying to because I never pointed you to any wiki.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Averysmallfoxx

 

I really don't see your point here?

The core held the majority of the weight, the outer walls provided stability and allowed it to sway. That link you provided from wiki is incorrect.

But regardless there is no evidence of pancaking, are you still insisting that happened when NIST themselves rejected that hypothesis? A lot of people fell for that at first, but most realised years ago, including NIST, that pancake collapse was not the answer.

NIST rejected pancaking for collapse initiation because it was obvious the exterior walls were pulled in by sagging trusses. After the columns failed nothing else needed to fail under compression only sheer. One floor collapsed on to the next shearing off the truss seats and pancaking al the way to the ground,


Once again. Explain the missing truss seats Truther.

You know very well there are more possible answers to that. Unfortunately the beloved state of America sold the entire crime scene before it could be examined, so now we are left with crappy photos.

I don't care what anyone says, evidence or otherwise, those towers had controlled demolitions. You can see them going off on the separate floors, I may be blonde but I am by no means stupid. May be naive but far from stupid. Explain why the towers had a blackout the night before, and explain why floor level 13, 16, or 26 was empty with no offices? Have you ever seen a demolition? They fell the exact same way as other demolitions. Straight down, not lopsided or falling onto each other.