"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

Originally posted by ka119
...
And yes, I was aware that Janitors cleaned the world trade centers, as was I aware that they store there supplies. What I was not aware of was that these "plethora of chemicals" they seem to posses would create huge explosions, bringing down elevators.

Humm, I guess the EXPLOSIONS from the PASSENGER PLANES, and the fires from the JET FUEL couldn't have caused the elevators to collapse...

Of course not...

You have to live in a fantasy world to actually think CLEARLY instead of making up BS stories about what could have happened...

Originally posted by playswithmachines

No, he's right.
Shear & stress forces induced by taking out one corner of the building would mean that naturally, the building will collapse in that direction, it SHOULD have taken out 6 or 7 city blocks, but it didn't.

Debunked with maths.

www.911-strike.com...

Appendix II. Why Didn’t the Upper Part Pivot About Its Base?

Fail

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Because the base WASN'T THERE!
Which part of 'zero resistance' do you not understand?

Originally posted by Praetorius

 

Show me a video or present me with any other example of any building of any sort, anywhere, at any time collapsing into its own footprint otherwise.

Until then, I'll consider my point inarguable as all other examples of unintentional collapse or mishaps during intentional demolition - that I'm aware of - agree with what I'm saying.

IOW, your personal incredulity is all you need.

Gotcha.

Fail

Originally posted by playswithmachines

Because the base WASN"T THERE!
Which part of 'zero resistance' do you not understand?

Try again while using the quote button, brah.

I have no idea what post of mine you're referring to.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Joey Canoli

 

Show me a video or present me with any other example of any building of any sort, anywhere, at any time collapsing into its own footprint otherwise.

Until then, I'll consider my point inarguable as all other examples of unintentional collapse or mishaps during intentional demolition - that I'm aware of - agree with what I'm saying.

Show me a video of a building, similar to the WTC towers, with 10-18 floors collapsing on the floors below, and then show me what could happen next to the rest of the 90-100 floors...

BTW, you can't consider your point inarguable just because you can't find an incident similar to the WTC collapse...

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by playswithmachines

No, he's right.
Shear & stress forces induced by taking out one corner of the building would mean that naturally, the building will collapse in that direction, it SHOULD have taken out 6 or 7 city blocks, but it didn't.

Debunked with maths.

www.911-strike.com...

Appendix II. Why Didn’t the Upper Part Pivot About Its Base?

Fail

We're still on the same page, dude.
Zero resistance means freefall means impossible unless certain floors are pulverized in advance.
Did you know all security cameras were switched off for maintainance 2 weeks before the crash?

Besides, if i can prove mathematically that black is white or a bumble bee can't fly, does that mean it's true?

Originally posted by JordanTwoDelta

You don't think any were? People woke up all over town from the sound of the first plane.

Yeah the explosions from the planes were heard all over New York, but somehow the "demolition charges" people claim were there were "silent"...

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by conar
quote mined?

Are you denying that many firemen quotes are in fact quotemined?

If you were unaware of this, then you haven't done much research.

If you've done all the research, then I say you are a disgraceful human being involved in a heinous cover up.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Thermic charges detonate with a short 'crack' not the huge BOOM you get in hollywood films

reply to post by ElectricUniverse
I'll just allow you to go look up some of the other threads of videos directly showing those 10-18 floors destroying themselves before they started smashing those below.

BTW, you can't consider your point inarguable just because you can't find an incident similar to the WTC collapse...

I can do anything I want. This thread was asking for opinions, and I've provided mine. If you're a physicist, your time is best spent arguing with the other physicists until this thing is settled one way or the other for people like me to finally know the truth. Until then, I'll rely on what I view as my common sense, the available anecdotal evidence, the small bit of physics that's been provided to me and I can't find reason to disagree with, and so on.

And sidenote - I don't mean any offense to anyone here either by my opinions or my disagreements. I haven't spent a great deal of time researching this myself and none if it is my area of expertiese. Just providing my thoughts as I have them.

Take care.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Recently it seems to me that 9/11 Conspiracists have retreated to a point where they discuss only the "physics" of the collapse of the WTC towers. They brush aside the discussion of a grander conspiracy because the mechanics of the tower collapse are inherently suspisous. Any other argument is trumped by the fact that the towers cannot - simply cannot - have collapsed in the manner that they did.

So I would like to hear, in brief precis, why the collapse is impossible. Describe to me why, in simple terms, it cannot have happened without explosives.

I don’t believe that on a day of total chaos, three (3) different buildings, the Twin Towers and Building 7 sustained damage in different areas of each structure but all collapsed straight down into their own footprints. How convenient that the three collapses were all symmetrical and in rapid succession. I think that the only way to get that kind of result would be to plan for the demolition. Something chaotic like fires caused by planes flying into the two towers at different areas and a fire in a third building would not result in the destruction of all three buildings in the same exact way. The fact that the buildings collapsed is true, but how they collapsed and the cause remains questionable and not supported by facts or logic. Popular Mechanics’ investigation and debunking report said the first plane hit floors 92-94. So there were only 16 floors above the impact zone. How were the upper 16 floors of the first tower hit able to tear through the lower 91 floors that were still intact? The second attack impacted at the corner of the tower and when it started to collapse, logically it fell towards the damaged corner, but then all of a sudden the rest of the supports apparently give out, the tower stops its falling over and then decides to collapse straight down all the way down into its footprint. The way the towers fell like a deck of cards is also suspicious. Even though all the debunkers keep saying that the towers were weakened by fires, when the floors came down in a pancake effect, there should have been some sort of momentary resistance from the lower portion of the buildings that were still structurally intact. In the first tower hit, the collapsing floors should have come to rest on top of the structure that was still intact at least for a few seconds, but there seemed to be no resistance whatsoever. Both towers and Bldg 7 all collapsed in rapid succession from top to bottom. It would have made more sense if the collapsing portion of the towers would have fallen off the side away from the remaining structure I also never bought the explanation that the impact of the plane blew off the fireproofing. That sounds so stupid. First of all, how did they know that and second, that seems like a very specific thing to happen during a crash with an explosion. The debunkers also never seem to acknowledge that most of the fuel ignited in the explosion. There's no escaping it. The fuel doesn't get set aside for later. Even though there are desks, carpet, chairs and paper in the office, that would not burn hot enough to melt steel. The temperature of the fires wouldn't be sustained to the point of melting steel. Whoever was in charge of the logistics of 9/11 blew it.

Originally posted by playswithmachines

We're still on the same page, dude.
Zero resistance means freefall means impossible unless certain floors are pulverized in advance.
Did you know all security cameras were switched off for maintainance 2 weeks before the crash?

Let's drop on top of your head a car and see how much resistance you can provide...

BTW, first PROVE that "security cameras were switched off", second PROVE that ANYONE could plant tons of explosives in a building, and then when over 3,000 people return to the buildings to work NO ONE noticed anything suspicious...

reply to post by Joey Canoli
I'll gladly take evidence to the contrary. If you have some or links to it, I'll gladly take it for review.

As far as addressing the person my posts were in response to (I haven't been following the bulk of the thread itself since last night, just responses to me), I haven't seen anything but conflicting opinions - no facts or evidence, and there are mounds of it on each side.

So, if you want to help out, do so. Otherwise if you want to antagonize or clarify that you are only providing your thoughts as well, either do so or move on.

Originally posted by playswithmachines

We're still on the same page, dude.

No we're not.

My debunking provides maths.

Yours is nothing but a baseless assertion, absent of maths.

Fail

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by ka119
...
And yes, I was aware that Janitors cleaned the world trade centers, as was I aware that they store there supplies. What I was not aware of was that these "plethora of chemicals" they seem to posses would create huge explosions, bringing down elevators.

Humm, I guess the EXPLOSIONS from the PASSENGER PLANES, and the fires from the JET FUEL couldn't have caused the elevators to collapse...

Of course not...

You have to live in a fantasy world to actually think CLEARLY instead of making up BS stories about what could have happened...

edit on 27-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

This is like telling a child santa isnt real.
Well you know what, Im going to leave you be, and let you believe every little thing you are fed.
Your a big boy, I suppose we need to just let you drown in your ignorance.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
If you've done all the research, then I say you are a disgraceful human being involved in a heinous cover up.

So now I'm a paid disinfo shill or something, eh?

This is how one can tell when your counterpart has zero defense of his position.

Fail

reply to post by zerimar65


The towers were made to SWAY with the wind.. They weren't made to stand rigid, and they weren't made of one long piece of steel, but several thousands of pieces.

Are you seriously asking how 10-18 floors falling down upon the floors below could cause a total collapse?....

Ok, try lifting 100 pounds, and let's "assume" you can lift 100 pounds easily, and then lower it slowly...

Now have someone drop the 100 pounds on top of you from about 12 feet above you and see what happens...

Guys, and gals, please, please, please, think things through before you make such questions.

Originally posted by playswithmachines

Thermic charges detonate with a short 'crack' not the huge BOOM you get in hollywood films

Thermic charges eh?

What is this garbage all about?

Thermite works by being in contact with the steel, and by heat transfer, heats it up, causing it to melt away.

Any explosive charge with thermite incorporated is a stupid claim, cuz the thermite would be blown away by the conventional explosives and wouldn't have time to do its job.

Fail