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

reply to post by PhotonEffect


NO ... and thank you for your spelling mistake , i never knew maroon was so funny

The way / speed the building collapsed is the good old " case closed" so explain to me and show your reasons , or YOU ARE BELEIVING A LOAD OF BS.... ive provided proof ... where is yours ?

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by Varemia

 

You do realise that everything you have provided a link to involves the BS right ?

*shakes head* I asked for YOUR theory ... explain it to me, dont provide links to utter dribble, i glanced over them ive seen them before , its BS... once you explain why you think its NOT BS ... i`ll explain why it IS BS !

READ IT!!!!

www.slideshare.net...

Don't "glance" at it. READ THE THING! Or is it too complicated for you to explain why you think it's wrong?

You have no say in anything if you refuse to even LOOK. You are a horrible liar, and I refuse to deal with your crap. If you can't bring up SPECIFIC POINTS as to why it is wrong, then get the hell out of here.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

It's not the 'pulled' that matter it is the 'it' that matters.

'Pull it' is a well known demolition term, and Silversteins' whole fortune was created from buying up old office complexes, demolishing them, and rebuilding. Saying he doesn't know demolition, is like saying he doesn't know real estate.

Come on man. Are you really trying to say Silverstein admitted to demolishing that building on purpose?

DO you even look at the evidence that suggests this was not the case at all? Or are you just as ignorant as your other truther buddies?

Yes, "pull it" is used in demo. But it literally means to pull the building down with cables. Which they did to #6. The term has not much to do with explosive controlled demo. Do your research.

"pull building 6"

reply to post by DeReK DaRkLy


Define perfectly uniform manner?

Debris from the collapse was wide spread. Destroyed buildings all around. They peeled open.

How is that perfectly uniform?

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy

I have yet to see any video evidence that a steel-framed skyscraper can collapse in a perfectly uniform manner without the use of uniformly placed explosives detonated in the proper sequence. It doesn't even sound possible.

If anyone has such evidence, please submit it.
Until then, I must personally conclude that there were explosives involved in all 3 buildings.

Anyone who tries to refute this basic, solid argument without evidence is simply denying their own ignorance.

edit on 19-10-2011 by DeReK DaRkLy because: ...

I agree wholeheartedly.... anyone care to take him up on this ?
2nd

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

NO ... and thank you for your spelling mistake , i never knew maroon was so funny

The way / speed the building collapsed is the good old " case closed" so explain to me and show your reasons , or YOU ARE BELEIVING A LOAD OF BS.... ive provided proof ... where is yours ?

edit on 19-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)

You seem to think the towers collapsed in 10s or "very near" free fall. That's your first problem.

And you still haven't addressed why the debris was falling much faster than the collapse if your claim is that the collapse was at or just near free fall. So you'd have us believe that the debris was falling faster than free fall rate, as if it had rockets attached to it.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Hang on ......look at your last post ..... and describe how that is possible without explosives.
2nd

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by DeReK DaRkLy

 

Define perfectly uniform manner?

Debris from the collapse was wide spread. Destroyed buildings all around. They peeled open.

How is that perfectly uniform?

It was uniform in the sense that the rubble and the collapse were symmetrical. Rubble was spread in a 360d arc, not in just one or two directions. The collapse was not biased in any direction, falling to one side or the other.

As far as destroying buildings all around, doesn't that tell you something? Our resident OSers claim all the mass stayed in the footprints, because for their hypotheses to be true it would have to. But if the rubble destroyed other buildings, then isn't it obvious the rubble was being ejected out of the footprints during the collapse? Which means mass and Ke was lost, meaning it was no longer available to collapse other floors?

reply to post by PhotonEffect


no ... the debris were BLOWN from the top ...... if you disagree.... provide your reason to do so.

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

no ... the debris were BLOWN from the top ...... if you disagree.... provide your reason to do so.

Read this:

www.slideshare.net...

It goes over how stuff got blown out. The air pressure. Yes, air pressure. Slide 47. Read it.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Come on man. Are you really trying to say Silverstein admitted to demolishing that building on purpose?

Not on purpose obvioulsy, he just didn't realise his statement would be scrutinized so much.

Why would he have anything to do with the fire crews? The owner of a building can not order firefighters to stop, or even have a say on the subject. Fire crews would tell the guy to shut up and go away, or even have them arrested if they got in the way.

Look at the whole statement...

“I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.”

If that was referring to fire fighters it would be grammatically incorrect.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

no ... the debris were BLOWN from the top ...... if you disagree.... provide your reason to do so.

Read this:

www.slideshare.net...

It goes over how stuff got blown out. The air pressure. Yes, air pressure. Slide 47. Read it.

reply to post by Varemia


air preassure ?? hmmmmmm , you have already proven how un-educated you are , and this link adds to that FACT .... oooohh i said the F word again.

ever wonder why your only EVIDENCE comes from the same sources ?

Originally posted by ANOK

It was uniform in the sense that the rubble and the collapse were symmetrical. Rubble was spread in a 360d arc, not in just one or two directions. The collapse was not biased in any direction, falling to one side or the other.

As far as destroying buildings all around, doesn't that tell you something? Our resident OSers claim all the mass stayed in the footprints, because for their hypotheses to be true it would have to. But if the rubble destroyed other buildings, then isn't it obvious the rubble was being ejected out of the footprints during the collapse? Which means mass and Ke was lost, meaning it was no longer available to collapse other floors?

edit on 10/19/2011 by ANOK because: typo

Hi ANOK,

Are you going to show us any evidence of rubble being ejected outside the footprint? Or are you confusing the exterior columns as the "majority of the building's mass"? Still waiting for those pictures of floors being ejected outside the footprint.

Any time now ANOK. You've had about two months to do so.

reply to post by ReptileRipper


Fine. Tell me exactly what is wrong with it. Go on, explain with your "science." You seem to have all the facts and the knowledge. Tell me so I can become educated!

Or... are you just talking out your ass like a presumptuous liar?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Come on man. Are you really trying to say Silverstein admitted to demolishing that building on purpose?

Not on purpose obvioulsy, he just didn't realise his statement would be scrutinized so much.

Why would he have anything to do with the fire crews? The owner of a building can not order firefighters to stop, or even have a say on the subject. Fire crews would tell the guy to shut up and go away, or even have them arrested if they got in the way.

Look at the whole statement...

“I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.”

If that was referring to fire fighters it would be grammatically incorrect.

Thank you for being a gentleman about this.

Why wouldn't he talk to the fire chief?? He owns the building. The building that is heavily damaged and on fire. He's receiving reports from the scene about what's happening to HIS building. The word was that it had become very unstable and was most likely going to collapse. This was coming from the fire personnel who were there. At this point the first 2 towers had already come down. The fire dept had taken a huge hit on life and equipment. They didn't have the means to fight the fire that was raging through the bottom floors of #7. The new it was going to come down and it wasn't worth losing any more life. "Pull it". As in pull the fire stopping efforts. Pull the operation.

What does loss of life have anything to do with demolishing a building?? Why would he proceed the "pull it" part with that statement if he wasn't concerned about preventing more loss of life?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Will ask you again are the relative strengths of the components of your model the same as the items they represent on the towers IF THEY ARE NOT YOUR MODEL IS BS!!!!

If you think they ARE lets see the proof if you can't your model is BS!

Who said they REPRESENT anything? The paper loops PERFORM THE FUNCTION of the columns. The washers are MASS that must be supported. My model is a DEMONSTRATION OF PRINCIPLES. It is not my fault that you think in terms of analogy instead of in terms of PHYSICS.

The nice thing about a small model is that the components can be tested relative to other components and the process repeated and controlled.

As I have said many times we don't have the data on the amount of steel on each level of the buildings so how can any model be scaled to the buildings besides in external dimensions which I am making no attempt to duplicate. I am only demonstrating physical principles.

A single paper loop collapses under the static load of a minimum of 12 washers and a maximum of 17 washers. The washers average 1.7 oz. By dropping various combinations of washers from varying heights I was able to determine that it takes 0.118 joules to crush a paper loop. So my model has 11 single loops at the top with 17 double loops below that and 5 triple loops at the bottom. The washers do vary in thickness and I don't have a postal scale but 3 of the thinnest washers are about as thick as two of the thickest so I am estimating that the weights range from 1.4 to 2.1 oz. I stacked the washers with the thickest at the bottom. So my structure gets stronger and heavier toward the bottom which a real skyscraper would have to do.

So since you can't supply data on the steel and concrete distributions down the towers demanding that information from me relative to the towers makes no sense. You are simply playing debating games to force me into a lose-lose situation when you don't have any data that is worth a damn.

But my model must support its own weight which the towers had to do and the falling top portion must crush the supports strong enough to hold that weight. Which is supposedly what happened on 9/11.

But I made my model AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE which is not how skyscrapers are designed. It is not my fault that neither you nor anyone else has built a model that CAN COMPLETELY COLLAPSE due to the fall of the top 15% or less by height and weight. If that is what happened on 9/11 then shouldn't one of our uber-expensive engineering schools be able to produce such a model. In fact why haven't the engineering schools been demanding and publishing that steel and concrete distributions data on the towers? After TEN YEARS their silence looks pretty peculiar.

Yeah, Purdue made a computer simulation of the north tower impact. And the core columns don't move when the plane hits even though the NIST says the south tower deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor. Two EXPERT INSTITUTIONS don't agree.

Thanks to 9/11 the Physics Profession has spent a decade proving that physics is history.

It can be rewritten to serve anybodies agenda.

www.youtube.com...

psik

reply to post by Varemia


Did i or did i not ask for YOUR science ? YOUR proof ? before i tell you how much BS you have inhaled... you are really really fcuking dumb if you think i`ll play your games... i know the truth, i have shown you the truth , and asked for your honest opinion ,.... if you cant even show your EVIDENCE ... how can you argue ?

reply to post by psikeyhackr


If your principle was vertical column falling directly on vertical column with no lateral bending or pressure, then you succeeded. Congratulations!

Otherwise, your model serves no purpose other than to say that vertical supports hold each-other up. It does not dictate any kind of collapse behavioral mechanisms whatsoever.

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by Varemia

 

Did i or did i not ask for YOUR science ? YOUR proof ? before i tell you how much BS you have inhaled... you are really really fcuking dumb if you think i`ll play your games... i know the truth, i have shown you the truth , and asked for your honest opinion ,.... if you cant even show your EVIDENCE ... how can you argue ?

BS. You are not saying anything at all in your post. You are avoiding the question completely because you don't have an actual answer. Otherwise, you would have answered me like an academic.

Your opinion is now worthless. Thank you for your time.

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

no ... the debris were BLOWN from the top ...... if you disagree.... provide your reason to do so.

Isn't the purpose of controlled demo to implode buildings? Not explode them.

You seem very certain explosives were used. If you have a look at videos of buildings (towers) being demolished, you will notice they all carry very high powered and repeated explosions. They fall into themselves and/or straight down. They aren't exploded outwards then peeled out from the top like a banana spewing shards of debris in all directions. There's nothing controlled about that.

The explosions that would've been needed to bring down the twin towers would've had to have been immense and most likely would've been noticed from outside. Yet not one video shows anything of the sort.

Listen to all the explosions from a demo of a 31 story tower. Not one piece of debris is ejected outwards


Listen. And look- No outward peeling of debris.


Listen. And look- Again it implodes as it comes down. Doesn't explode debris from the sides.



I have yet to find a top down demolition of a tower using explosives. Maybe you can help? (funny how googling top-down demo only brings up wtc stuff) The only ones I can find are "pulled" down using bull dozers. Oh wait, no here's one. Check out the explosions. Why don't we see this when the twin towers came down??