Towers Of Lies

reply to post by Illustronic


yup sorry bro , your wrong ...... here ...... www.mirror.co.uk...

looks like i`m wrong too ,by this , they put it out a couple of hours ago.

anyway , yeah , it was set to be the biggest tower in Europe , burned for hours , and its still standing .... just thought id throw it out there because i know how -V- just loves his "office furniture" theory

reply to post by RockLobster


OK look back at my edit, seemingly a lot of construction these days catch fire. Comparisons are not applicable, it wasn't hit by a 200 ton aircraft full of fuel going 500 mph for one thing.

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Illustronic

 

yup sorry bro , your wrong ...... here ...... www.mirror.co.uk...

looks like i`m wrong too ,by this , they put it out a couple of hours ago.

anyway , yeah , it was set to be the biggest tower in Europe , burned for hours , and its still standing .... just thought id throw it out there because i know how -V- just loves his "office furniture" theory

The first issue is of course that there was no damage to the structure of the building, and the fire was being fought the entire time. Water on the materials will prevent them from heating to dangerous temperatures. I mean, that's what's obvious to me right away.

reply to post by Varemia


the proof of what ?

-V- .... i`ve seen you try to destroy so many threads with your opinion , acting like you know it all , then retreating to ... " hey i dont know , prove it " yeah , your see through buddy , see through.

Show me a building like the WTC collapse in the exact same way without explosives and i`ll fly to your house and kiss your feet.

Thats a promise.

BTW you do know this is a different person to who you were arguing with right ? .... just making sure kiddo , i missed you and your freaky videos , dropping pens `n` stuff to show us what gravity is

reply to post by Varemia


yeah obvious to you , you being a layman and all

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Varemia

 

the proof of what ?

-V- .... i`ve seen you try to destroy so many threads with your opinion , acting like you know it all , then retreating to ... " hey i dont know , prove it " yeah , your see through buddy , see through.

Show me a building like the WTC collapse in the exact same way without explosives and i`ll fly to your house and kiss your feet.

Thats a promise.

BTW you do know this is a different person to who you were arguing with right ? .... just making sure kiddo , i missed you and your freaky videos , dropping pens `n` stuff to show us what gravity is

As a response to the post after this, aren't you a layman too? I'm just trying to use objective logic in my reasoning, no strings attached. It doesn't make sense many of the conclusions people such as yourself draw, and as a budding anthropologist, it fascinates me a little, so I provide my perspective to see how you react. The interesting thing is that you react in a very similar fashion as evolution-deniers. The logical thought process is almost exactly the same, only seeing evidence you want to see, but I'm going on a tangent now.

You are asking me to find a building that collapsed without explosives exactly like 9/11, when 9/11 had extremely unique circumstances. The towers were built in a way that almost no other building in the world has been built, and I can't think of many buildings which have had a tower shower debris on them and then burn for 7 hours unfought.

Can't you see how ridiculous that is? The closest I can get to finding a building that even collapsed similarly to the towers, explosives or not, is the verinage method from France. The thing about that is that it has only been done with concrete structures thus far. The fact is that you are making an argument from ignorance, and nothing more.

reply to post by Varemia


I`m not making an arguement , just asking for evidence to back up your opinion and give me a view of 9/11 i have not seen before.

By the way , i firmly beleive in evolution so to even go there would be ... a mistake , unless you want a full run down of my beleifs ..... not advising it , but i`m open to it.

You see , i`m failing to understand the mentality of yourself and others who seem to have read the official reports and just , accepted it , i have seen many people on this site provide evidence over and over again , and its always met with the same blatant ignorance. You dont want to know the truth because you`ve already made up your mind , and that`s fine , but ..... devoting so much time to deconstructing everyones theory that does not fit with yours is , well , ignorant.

Not saying your a bad kid or anything , or working for the CIA , just ..... all this time and what`s changed ?

If i was to tell you weather i am a layman or not , what would it matter ? you`d still try to deconstruct anything i say

Originally posted by RockLobster
You see , i`m failing to understand the mentality of yourself and others who seem to have read the official reports and just , accepted it , i have seen many people on this site provide evidence over and over again , and its always met with the same blatant ignorance. You dont want to know the truth because you`ve already made up your mind , and that`s fine , but ..... devoting so much time to deconstructing everyones theory that does not fit with yours is , well , ignorant.

That's the thing. I don't just accept the reports. In fact, I haven't read most of them in their entirety. Only one I read most of was the WTC 7 report that NIST did. I researched the testing they did, the conclusions they drew, and the simulations they ran. I don't think they are infallible, but their conclusions are sound based on their reasoning. I just haven't found any evidence in favor of the conspiracy theories, only contradictions and evidence in favor of the "official story."

Like I said, I try to be objective, and I'm more than willing to accept evidence that proves the conspiracy true.

Not saying your a bad kid or anything , or working for the CIA

, just ..... all this time and what`s changed ?

If i was to tell you weather i am a layman or not , what would it matter ? you`d still try to deconstruct anything i say

Well, I would respect your opinion on the matter more if you had studied in the field for a great deal of time. My opinions have certainly changed as my knowledge has grown. I actually deviate from the official story in that I believe the damage played a big part in the collapse of WTC 7. Sure, the fire started the collapse, but the damage from the tower collapse made it possible.

reply to post by Varemia


But then how could you explain tower 6 ? it took an absolute hammering from the rubble coming down , but it didnt collapse.

Plus the collapse of tower 7 was , well , it would be silly to say it collapsed from fire alone . I think you`ve seen the "penthouse footage" too right ? There`s no way was that from rubble and fire , the videos of the firemen say it all really.

Then there`s the emergency crews saying there was explosions , they were running from explosions , walls blowing out in the basement and such.

What we saw was a jet fly through one side of a building without any resistance then the towers collapsing with very very little resistance how could anyone not think " there`s a rabbit away ". There`s numerous videos out there showing the squibs, but i`m not even going to -start- trying to cram my theory down your throat , because you`ve seen it all before , and i`m getting too young

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Varemia

 

But then how could you explain tower 6 ? it took an absolute hammering from the rubble coming down , but it didnt collapse.

If I'm not mistaken, building 6 was much shorter, and was reinforced from the '93 bombing.

Plus the collapse of tower 7 was , well , it would be silly to say it collapsed from fire alone . I think you`ve seen the "penthouse footage" too right ? There`s no way was that from rubble and fire , the videos of the firemen say it all really.

The firemen interviews also "say it all." Dozens of them said that they expected the building to fall. Some of them talked about their experience being right next to the building and being concerned because of the extent of the damage, the inability to fight the fire, and the creaking and leaning of the building.

Then there`s the emergency crews saying there was explosions , they were running from explosions , walls blowing out in the basement and such.

Just about every time, these explosions took place during the collapse, which is not the style of demolitions. Demolition explosions happen before a collapse starts. Otherwise, you may be referring to the jet fuel explosion which carried down the elevator shafts after the plane impact. Very well documented.

What we saw was a jet fly through one side of a building without any resistance then the towers collapsing with very very little resistance

how could anyone not think " there`s a rabbit away ". There`s numerous videos out there showing the squibs, but i`m not even going to -start- trying to cram my theory down your throat , because you`ve seen it all before , and i`m getting too young

No resistance is very subjective from a layman's view. The planes had immense kinetic energy due to their speed, size, and weight. The same can be said for the tower collapse. The weight was very high, with a great deal of potential energy to convert into kinetic energy on its way to the next floor. All it takes is for the weight above to damage a single floor below and cause it to collapse, and that will in turn cause the full weight to collapse onto the next floor and so on.

The "squibs" of course only take place during the collapse, when there is tons of fireproofing being crushed into the air, and plenty of other material is being compressed and pushed out by the tons of air inside the towers. Besides, the core is where the main strength of the towers were, so the squibs would be too far inside to show if they were there. To further illustrate one of my points, a great deal of the core of both towers survived the collapse for a few moments, but without the support of the exterior columns, which were necessary for stability, the core only lasted seconds after that.

I don't mean to sound super assertive about this, but these are things that are easy to find with a very small amount of detailed research.

reply to post by Varemia


See , i rest my case -V- , you have your mind made up and you try your best to deny anything that does not fit your opinion. And the whole quoting / dissecting a full post is completley unneccesary , i know what i said.

What temperatures did the fires reach from the burning Kerosene and furniture ? roughly ? because i know for a fine fact it wasnt enough to collapse a full tower , let alone three. When the top of the tower collapsed , if it was caused by fuel and impact alone , it would have broken up and left most of the tower standing. To see a structure collapsing like that and be told it was from fire and a jet , is ,

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Varemia

 

See , i rest my case -V- , you have your mind made up and you try your best to deny anything that does not fit your opinion. And the whole quoting / dissecting a full post is completley unneccesary , i know what i said.

What temperatures did the fires reach from the burning Kerosene and furniture ? roughly ? because i know for a fine fact it wasnt enough to collapse a full tower , let alone three. When the top of the tower collapsed , if it was caused by fuel and impact alone , it would have broken up and left most of the tower standing. To see a structure collapsing like that and be told it was from fire and a jet , is ,

I thought you wanted to see the reasoning I was using for my current understanding, but I see you're just here to act superior. Good luck with that. You've made up your mind more than I have, since I'm actually willing to consider alternate possibilities if someone would just post something resembling proof or reasoning. You just can't personally believe it, so you deny it.

reply to post by Varemia


-V- , i`ve seen you trolling 9/11 threads on here for years , i know what you beleive , i`m pulling your leg , trying to get i bite from you so you`ll do me another hilarious video with your pen

Look , carry on as you where , but it`ll bite you on the a$$ one day , trust me , your standards are slipping , and your arguements are getting weak. Resorting to , "i`m not lying , you`re lying" , that`s when you know your story is getting old.

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

There is a problem with building a scale model, getting the tinsel strength exactly representational, how can you simulate 1/10th concrete strength or less? I don't think thickness alone can do that. The only way a model can be constructed is full scale to test/demonstrate a collapse scenario. There are just too many factors. It's not like a scale model in a wind tunnel for testing aerodynamics of aircraft design.

My model is not even an attempt to be to scale. It is also not a tube-in-tube structure. It is only a gravitational collapse demonstration of a self supporting structure.

The trick I am using is to make my supports AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE in relation to the weight which is being supported. So it is not to scale since I do not think skyscrapers are designed to be as weak as possible. Now my model is still too strong in some areas because it takes from 12 to 15 washers to crush a single paper loop. But people with more resources than me could do a better test. Simply duplicate my model with heavier weights, say 10 pounds for the top weight and all lower weights in proportion to match the distribution in the WTC and then have supports between the weights individually designed to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE.

The problem is with the WTC collapse time. I presented my "magical" collapse program with floating weights. 12 seconds is the absolute minimum collapse time based simply on the conservation of momentum even with identical weights. Heavier weights toward the bottom will increase that to 14 seconds. There is no way that adding supports strong enough to hold the weights would not increase the collapse time to over 30 seconds. Most likely it would arrest just like my model. But we know the total collapse time for the towers was 25 seconds even counting the fall of "the Spire".

The Empire State Building is 80 years old and designed without electronic computers. There are 200 skyscrapers around the world over 80 stories tall. There is no way you can get me to believe this cannot be resolved without reconstructing an exact duplicate of the WTC. If the intermediate supports are half as strong as those of the WTC in proportion to the weight they must hold but the structure still won't collapse completely then that should settle it.

But we can't get OFFICIAL SOURCES to give us accurate steel and concrete distribution data. So how can anybody build a scale model without that anyway? So we have endless believers versus believers and the physics profession not demanding accurate data. So this nonsense is their fault.

psik

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Here's something new for you.

slenderness ratio.

your paper loops are too fat and short to exhibit buckling failure, so they are crushed instead.

read this en.wikipedia.org...

But they are tested to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE in relation to the weight they must support.

Who constructs building with the columns designed that way regardless of what you call the failure mode?

Find some more irrelevancies to bring up.

I am not claiming my model is proof. But it is a gravitational collapse and I did TWO DROPS.

psik

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by pshea38

 

Where can these 2x110 floors be found in photos of the WTC rubble DR.?
No wriggling please.

I've asked this before and you've never given a satisfactory answer, so I'll ask again- which conspiracy web site was it that put this whole "the buildings were fake" idea into your head, Pshea? Noone, but noone, watched what was happening on 9/11 and spontaneously wondered whether the towers were fake buildings. Someone had to have come along after the fact and thrown a bunch of propaganda at you for you to ever believe such an absurd thing.

Cumulative evidence and common sense g.o.d.
The links proving the point beyond reasonable doubt are listed by me in this
thread (and many others). But INDIVIDUALS on www.cluesforum.info and www.letsrollforums.com have gotten to the heart of not just 9/11, but many other faked propaganda events such as
7/7, madrid bombings, tucson and norway shootings etc. etc. But I know you know this s**t
already dave, and that's why you (and many others) can do what you do.

But a tide is turning. your name is on a list somewhere, and your role is known by others.
I believe you have the choice to go the easy way or the hard way.
Either way you are going!

Is it worth going the hard way?... is a good question.

I wouldn't have thought so!

All the answers to this completely faked 9/11 BS are found in the above links.
But who has the time these days, right?

We will see. Needs Must!

Best of luck dave.

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Varemia

 

-V- , i`ve seen you trolling 9/11 threads on here for years , i know what you beleive , i`m pulling your leg , trying to get i bite from you so you`ll do me another hilarious video with your pen

Look , carry on as you where , but it`ll bite you on the a$$ one day , trust me , your standards are slipping , and your arguements are getting weak. Resorting to , "i`m not lying , you`re lying" , that`s when you know your story is getting old.

edit on 3-4-2012 by RockLobster because: (no reason given)

Well, honestly, what's the point then? If you're not here to debate 9/11, why are you here? Do you just want to annoy people and act like you're some amazing dude?

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Failure mode makes a big difference in real life. The crushing type failure observed in your model absorbs more kinetic energy than a column buckling failure would. This is the key difference between your model and an appropriate model of the collapse process.

reply to post by RockLobster

But then how could you explain tower 6 ? it took an absolute hammering from the rubble coming down , but it didnt collapse.

WTC 6 was 8 stories tall, about a hundred feet and honeycomb steel construction why would it collapse it wasn't supporting imbalanced mass of 102 more stories? Did you expect it to fall over like a tree when its footprint was larger than its height?

I love to answer these questions. The simple ones I get a chuckle out of.

reply to post by Illustronic


What i am getting at is - if the rubble that was being fired out of the towers from all sides - was enough to make tower 7 collapse after standing strong for hours on end with a few scattered "office fires" , then why was tower 6 still standing , with severe damage from the rubble ?

Its not about the height or the build , what i am saying is , the rubble that hit tower 6 did that much damage it needed to be pulled down ............ the amount of rubble that hit tower 7 was no where near the same , infact you cant really see any extreme damage , but somehow , the tower collapses at a rediculous speed , into its own footprint , so , if it`s so easy , would you care to answer me without the attitude ? even though it was not directed at you.

EDIT :

" Did you expect it to fall over like a tree when its footprint was larger than its height? "

what are you saying ? the towers should have toppled and not fell "straight down" into their own print ?
what corner are you in ?