Originally posted by -PLB-
So what is your proof or evidence for your "fact"? Can you back it up with physics? Or it is a "fact" based on a gut feeling?

I think you should first create a framework of what constitutes to fact, proof or evidence before you can continue with this exercise. My guess is that your definitions differ from mine and others.

I think, working with the iron that constitutes the structure of these buidings, for years day after day, is more than enough. You don't have to be an engineer or a piano maker to know the structures were compromised. Forty six massive center colums, were most definetly compromised in the towers. You can see the diagonal cuts in a lot of the pictures entered as evidence. I'm sure we have all seen them over and over and quite frankly, I see it as redundant to even post again.

The buildings were compromised before the planes even hit them. When they didn't fall immediatly ? There was a back up plan to make sure they came down, or the evidence would have been in plane view, to use a pun for no reason.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That's if you believe the official theory. And that's all it is: a theory. You can read more about that by clicking the link in my signature called "What is a 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist".

But, you're also forgetting that WTC 7 was not struck by a jetliner, therefore your point there is moot.

So, where is your proof except for your argument from ignorance?

Originally posted by -PLB-Why would you doubt it? Just for your own personal denial? No, I haven't seen proof that the diagonal braces went all the way to the top because of the limited photos and videos. However, there's no proof that they didn't go all the way to the top either.

Your opinion that the diagonal bracing didn't go all the way to the top is not proof that the diagonal braces weren't there. I've provided images that the core columns had diagonal bracing. However high they implemented diagonal bracing, the diagonal bracing is a fact and did exist.

I don't mind it either way, I don't have an agenda. I just asked you for proof because that is what this thread is about. But it turns out you only have assumptions. The reason by the way I don't think they went all the way up is because of videos I have seen and because the fact the structure got weaker higher up. But my opinion isn't really relevant either. You are making the claims in a thread about "facts and proof". Not me.

Then why don't you be the first person, in years of me asking, that finally provides "real" proof that a fire-induced collapse exhibits:

Puffs/ejections of dust debris.

Flashes going up, down, and around the building with popping or exploding sounds associated with the flashes.

Timed/synchronous booms during the collapse of the building.


Once you provide a fire-induced collapse that exhibits all of the above, I'll be more open to your "real" proof. Until then, your denial and ignorance is your real proof in your world, but not the real world.

Puff and ejections are to be expected when air is compressed. As for the rest, first proof any of it happened.

Originally posted by -PLB-
.....and because the fact the structure got weaker higher up.

Well 'weaker' is not a good way of looking at it, lighter and smaller because it wasn't needed, and necessary for the structure to be able to hold itself up and not collapse from gravity, is more accurate. 'Weakness' is a relative term. Every level had to hold the weight of the levels above it, so the higher you go the less steel was needed to hold the mass above it. The structure was as strong as it needed to be in every section of it. Your use of the term 'weaker' indicates a deficiency of some kind, which is of course not the case at all.

This is why the core columns tapered in size, and why the collapse would have had to overcome the resistance of an increasing mass to collapse in a 'pancake' fashion. Think of a pyramid for an extreme example, they can not collapse straight down as the mass increases in the downwards direction, just as the towers core structure did.

So my old question stands, how did the towers core columns collapse down through in increasing mass, an increasing path of most resistance?

Wait.....maybe I can add this tidbit, My lifelong best friend of 40 years plus had this to say.
His immediate family owned one of the biggest welding shops here in this part of Ontario.
They did a lot of truss welding and yes they did a lot of small stuff too.
Anyways I showed him the videos of the buildings coming down and he did not comment on it one
way or the other.
At least not right away, I gave him links to many sites and ATS included, and then after about a month I got a email from him.
He told me that was impossible to happen like it did, I believe him and you can't tell me otherwise.
He is still welding and at this time he welds high pressure propane tanks for semis.
But like I said earlier that he has welded I-beams for the heavy industry here in Sarnia Ontario.
Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by -PLB-
Puff and ejections are to be expected when air is compressed. As for the rest, first proof any of it happened.

If that is true and accurate, then you'll have no problem showing me an example of some kind of collapse, be it from an earthquake, or fire induced, that exhibits isolated ejections like these:





See, we know that those isolated ejections are part of controlled demolitions because I included a controlled demolition in the collage. Now, it's your turn to provide a building collapse that is not a controlled demolition (or the WTC), that exhibits these isolated ejections.

I've repeatedly asked you to back up your claims, and you as of this post, have done nothing but type text onto your screen. If these isolated ejections are "to be expected", then it stands to reason they can be commonly found in other collapse videos that are not controlled demolition.

I await your proof. If you cannot provide proof, then your credibility will be lowered to zero, and the discussion on this particular point will end here.

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
So, you agree that the OS is full of holes?

Unfortunately we are left to try and fill those holes and sometimes theories can be a little off kilter.

However, I would like a proper examination of what actually went down that day. When I say proper I mean totally indepedent of Government influence, but hey what would happen to the Western world if it does transpire that the U.S Government were complicit?

All those wars, all those deaths, all that money. It isn't going to happen and I know it, you know it, geez, we all know it.

I was talking in second person so I was not agreeing to anything. I agree that some part are still not fully known. I would not describe that as full of holes. But I don't think much more can be found out. At least not with enormous budgets.

As for that investigation you want, there is no secret government agency stopping truthers from getting that done. The only thing I can think of that is stopping truthers from getting their investigation going is lack of organization, incompetence and complete dependence on others (probably the government) to get anything done.

Originally posted by randyvsThis where you show you have no idea. You 'd be better off if you didn't even go there . NEG>

edit on 15-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Maybe I have no idea, its just that what I am saying is backed up by actual evidence. So me having no idea about it or not is not really relevant. The evidence shows us that many columns did not exceed their load capacity, but failed because of lateral forces. I can show you evidence of it, it is not hard to find though.