Two planes, Three buildings. Do the maths.

Originally posted by ANOK
steel framed building do not collapse into their own footprints from fire.

none of the buildings at the WTC collapsed into their own footprint, why do you keep posting that lie here?

Originally posted by samkent
Yes there was. Twice that morning.

Lol, yes I know three steel framed building collapsed on that day, a day of many firsts eh?

So your logic is they saw the towers collapse and made the leap to, oh WTC 7 is going to globally collapse into its footprint?

You still don't get it do you?

Originally posted by hellobruce
none of the buildings at the WTC collapsed into their own footprint, why do you keep posting that lie here?

Have you looked at pics of WTC 7 post collapse?

Did you notice that the outer walls, facade, were on top of the rest of the collapsed building, folded inwards? Doesn't common sense tell you that is not possible from a fire induced collapse?

Do you know how an implosion collapse works? The center of the building is collapsed first (the penthouse) to allow the outer walls to fall inwards (the leaning). This is done with timed explosives because you have to force the building to act against normal physics. Normally the outer walls would be pushed out by the rubble, path of least resistance. There is no way an uncontrolled collapse can do that.

Even FEMA admitted as much...

"The collapse of WTC 7 was different from that of WTC 1 and WTC 2, which showered debris in a wide radius as their frames essentially "peeled" outward. The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion." FEMA: WTC Study, Chp 5 (05/02)

If you can't understand this simple concept, then you are completely lost.

Originally posted by ANOK
yes I know three steel framed building collapsed on that day, a day of many firsts eh?

yes, the first time high speed airliners were crashed into buildings

oh WTC 7 is going to globally collapse?

The FDNY examined the building and thus knew it was likely to collapse.

You still don't get it do you?

You are the one that does not get it, so why are you persisting with the lie that the buildings collapsed into their own footprint!

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by samkent
Yes there was. Twice that morning.

Lol, yes I know three steel framed building collapsed on that day, a day of many firsts eh?

So your logic is they saw the towers collapse and made the leap to, oh WTC 7 is going to globally collapse into its footprint?

You still don't get it do you?

If they thought it was going to "collapse into its footprint", why were they four blocks away? Surely a couple of blocks would've been sufficient if they had the foreknowledge you're suggesting. That they were four blocks away only goes to show that they were sure it was going to collapse. Period. Full Stop.

Geddit?

Fitz

Originally posted by hellobruce
yes, the first time high speed airliners were crashed into buildings

Dude your arguments are old. Even NIST admitted the planes had no effect on the actual collapses other than the fires. Because asymmetrical damage does not create symmetrical collapses.

The FDNY examined the building and thus knew it was likely to collapse.

Once again where is the precedence that they based that claim on? There is no way they could predict a 47 story steel framed building was going to globally collapse into its footprint, because it can't happen. Someone who new it was going to be imploded must have leaked that info.

You are the one that does not get it, so why are you persisting with the lie that the buildings collapsed into their own footprint!

It's not a lie, look at the pics. You can see just as well as I can that the outer walls are visible on top of the rubble pile, that cannot happen from anything but an implosion demolition.







It's pretty obvious if you understand what you're looking at.

Originally posted by ANOK
that cannot happen from anything but an implosion demolition.

And you know that how? How many buildings have you demolished? Oh, none you say, you get your information from "truther" conspiracy sites!

It's pretty obvious if you understand what you're looking at.

Yes, it is obvious the building did not collapse into its own footprint - it even severely damaged surrounding buildings, something it would not have done if it fell into its own footprint like you claim!

Originally posted by hellobruce
Yes, it is obvious the building did not collapse into its own footprint - it even severely damaged surrounding buildings, something it would not have done if it fell into its own footprint like you claim!

Details, details.



Fitz

Originally posted by hellobruce
Yes, it is obvious the building did not collapse into its own footprint - it even severely damaged surrounding buildings, something it would not have done if it fell into its own footprint like you claim!

You are taking the term too literally. In real life a 47 story building could never be put 100% into its own footprint. It's one reason the tallest building ever imploded was only 23 stories. The fact that they got most of a 47 story building to land in its own footprint is pretty spectacular, and if it was done officially would have given the demo company mass bragging rights, and would have been their biggest job, ever, by far, by 24 stories.

And you want me to believe fire could do the same thing?

Usually they won't implode a building that is as close as WTC7 was to other building, simply because you cannot control all the debris, impossible.

The implosion method is to ensure the majority of the building lands in its footprint, which is exactly what WTC 7 did.

You are making an argument based on taking terms literally, not by an understanding of those terms. Next you'll say I am widening the goal posts by changing to mostly in it's own footprint, but anybody who understands building demolitions would know it is always mostly.

Originally posted by ANOK
In real life a 47 story building could never be put 100% into its own footprint.

So your claim that it fell into its own footpring is just silly then....

You are making an argument based on taking terms literally, not by an understanding of those terms.

I understand the term, it has 2 meanings:

1/ The term normal people use
and
2/ The term truthers use that distorts the meaning to fit their silly conspiracy theory!

but anybody who understands building demolitions would know it is always mostly

Anybody who understands building demolition does not claim the WTC's were bought down by explosives....

Only truthers make that silly claim.

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

You misunderstand me. I not getting into whether gage did or didn't leave something out of his video. The problem is that you seem to think that by attacking gage, you're vicariously debunking the entire truth movement. He is only a proponent, not the leader, spokesperson or guru. Many of the things he says, I'd already concluded before I'd even heard his name. So why not post a comment that doesn't include the words "Gage", "Sinister" or "Alien Lasers". That way we might be able to have a coherent discussion.

Well then that's the problem right there, isn't it? There IS no "Truth Movement". All it is, is a collection of people who think there's some sinister secret plot behind the 9/11 atatck and then they come up with a thousand of their own alternative explanations that they begin pushing. This person thinks the towers were blown up by controlled demolitions. That person thinks the planes were holograms. Just next door in the next thread down there's someone pushing the "nukes in the basement" theory. Plus of course, there you-know-who and her "lasers form outer space" claims which she actually went to court over. There's no way all of these alternative theories are "the truth" and even you have to admit in many cases people are simply seeing what they want to see and connecting the dots to form the picture they specifically want to be there. My position is that you're ALL seeing what you want to see and you're ALL connecting the dots to form the picturre you specifically want to be there.

Thus, when someone shows up arguing the Pentagon was actually struck by a missile I will attack Rob Balsamo because he's the main con artist promoting that idea. When someone shows up arguing about WTC 7 being destroyed by secret controlled demolitions I will attack Rickard Gage because he's the main con artist promoting THAT idea.

As for the photo, I have no idea..but that's not the point is it? I'm sure the woman had no idea which one was building seven either but that's irrelevant. She and other reporters were told that it had collapsed when clearly it hadn't. Mistaken identity just doesn't cut it as no other building collapsed that afternoon.

Excuse me, but that isn't the argument being used to drop innuendo of impropriety here. It's entirely over their stating the name of a building collapsing before it actually did. According to the conspiracy theorists, they did this despite their being able to look out the window and specifically identify which building was the Solomon brother's building and could see it was still standing.

This is the part where I now attack Alex Jones as he's the one who invented that whole "BBC had foreknowledge of the collapse" conspiracy-

Originally posted by ANOK


You are taking the term too literally. In real life a 47 story building could never be put 100% into its own footprint. It's one reason the tallest building ever imploded was only 23 stories. The fact that they got most of a 47 story building to land in its own footprint is pretty spectacular, and if it was done officially would have given the demo company mass bragging rights, and would have been their biggest job, ever, by far, by 24 stories.

NOT true yet again ANOK

3O floors for this one 380 ft tall.



29 FLOORS 439 ft tall



Haven't posted for a while still look now and again and still the same old BS from people that don't really understand structures or loadings on them.

Originally posted by ANOK

 

Alex Jones did not make up that term lol. To pull a building is old demolition slang from long before he was even born, still used by people who have been around that business for a long time, like Larry has.

You are making that up and we both know it. It was already proven in another thread that "pull it" refers to demolishing a building by pulling it down with cables. Someone even posted a link to a demolitions text book specifically stating that. It was likewise already shown in another thread that this was exactly what demolitions experts did to demolish the remains of WTC 6 and we know this because video of a conversation discussing this exists. It was this specific video Jones quotes out of context to imply "pulling" a building is done by explosives rather than cables.

There's no way such tomfoolery could have been produced accidentally. It had to have been done intentionally to make Silverstein's "pull it" statement more spooky-scary sounding than it really is.

'Pull it', meaning pull out the fire crew, is something OSers have made up to rationalise Larry's admission. Where is the proof that the term 'pull it' is used in the way you claim? And since when did a building owner have any say on the operation of fire fighters?

Let me answer your question with another question- since when have fire fighters ever been in the business of planting controlled demolitions? Have you forgotten already that according to your own conspiracy theory, Silverstein said THEY were the ones who "pulled it", not him?

If you can't get past that, then the rest of your conspiracy claims can't even get out of the gate.

Can you explain to me how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on columns that were designed to hold them, and had done since it's construction?

Who the heck told you that? They were NOT designed to hold that type of weight becuase each floor was held in air between the outside perimeter and the core columns, so each section was only capable of holding up the maximum load bearing limit of each individual floor. I don''t know what the maximum load of each floor was but it was clearly NOT fifteen times its own weight, as proven by the fifteen upper floors collapsing down upon that first floor that gave way. All this has been pointed out more times than I can remember and I know you've seen it.

And BTW I have not read anything by Richard Gage, other than that what you, and others, point out. I don't have to have someone tell me what to think.

Yes you have, actaully. You just don't know the information you're relying on came from him. It's the same way you didn't know the "pull it" information you're quoting came from Alex Jones.

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by totallackey

 

I know, I've seen the documentary (for free I might add.....) , but apparently, according to some people, if he doesn't show the full sequence in every video he's ever made, then he's somehow swindling people out of their hard earned savings......go figure...

So in other words you're now ADMITTING Gage does in fact tamper with the evidence he puts out. If you had come out and acknowledged that from the beginning we could have saved ourselves a lot of unnecessary grief.

So the next question is, when is it acceptable for Gage to be tampering with the evidence and when is it not acceptable?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by hellobruce
Yes, it is obvious the building did not collapse into its own footprint - it even severely damaged surrounding buildings, something it would not have done if it fell into its own footprint like you claim!

You are taking the term too literally. In real life a 47 story building could never be put 100% into its own footprint. It's one reason the tallest building ever imploded was only 23 stories. The fact that they got most of a 47 story building to land in its own footprint is pretty spectacular, and if it was done officially would have given the demo company mass bragging rights, and would have been their biggest job, ever, by far, by 24 stories.

And you want me to believe fire could do the same thing?

Usually they won't implode a building that is as close as WTC7 was to other building, simply because you cannot control all the debris, impossible.

The implosion method is to ensure the majority of the building lands in its footprint, which is exactly what WTC 7 did.

You are making an argument based on taking terms literally, not by an understanding of those terms. Next you'll say I am widening the goal posts by changing to mostly in it's own footprint, but anybody who understands building demolitions would know it is always mostly.

edit on 3/24/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

So I ask you again, how exactly is the WTC7 suppose to fall, if not down? Up?

Originally posted by GenRadek

 

So I ask you again, how exactly is the WTC7 suppose to fall, if not down? Up?

Excellent question, actually. I have said many times that if the conspiracy theorists disagreed with the (as they call it) the "official story" then it becomes their obligation to provide us with a better explanation that better fits all the facts. Unlike crackpots like Alex Jones, Richard Gage is uniquely qualified to conduct his own investigations into the accusations of controlled demolitions and he steadfastly refuses to do it. Even calculating out where the controlled demolitions would have been in the building to cause it to collapse in the way it did in the video would go a long way to make his case and he can't even do that much.

Unless the conspiracy proponents can document how WTC 7 should have fallen and how the debris field should have looked like, all they're doing is guessing and making things up. At least NIST took the time to come up with computer models.

reply to post by wmd_2008


I was going by this...

en.wikipedia.org...

Sorry if that is out of date.

But regardless 30 stories is not 47 stories, my point still stands.
My argument doesn't stand on what you keep arguing about. Throw all my other points out of the window, you still can't explain how WTC 7 landed in its footprint from fire, and asymmetrical damage. All you can do is deny this fact.

Other than that fact everything else is speculation. You should pay more attention to the vids you post. Look at this one and notice first off the lean as the outer walls fold inwards, and the fact that some of its rubble goes outside of its footprint, but the building as a whole is in one neat pile, just like WTC 7.



Now if you can find a steel framed building that collapses like that from fire, you might have a point worth considering.

Thanks for clearing up some points, and helping my argument.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Throw all my other points out of the window, you still can't explain how WTC 7 landed in its footprint from fire, and asymmetrical damage. All you can do is deny this fact.

How do you think it should've fallen? Toppled like a tree? What? You're making all sorts of noise about this as if it's meaningful but you aren't saying why it should've fallen any other way

Fitz

reply to post by ANOK


Once again try and look for detail and not just grab the first thing to prove your point because you end up looking an ass. FROM your video above.

This is the tallest reinforced concrete structure to ever be imploded.

Not STEEL is it!!!! Apples with apples, obviously you don't need detail in your job well I hope not!!!

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I was going by this...

en.wikipedia.org...

Sorry if that is out of date.

But regardless 30 stories is not 47 stories, my point still stands.
My argument doesn't stand on what you keep arguing about. Throw all my other points out of the window, you still can't explain how WTC 7 landed in its footprint from fire, and asymmetrical damage. All you can do is deny this fact.

Other than that fact everything else is speculation. You should pay more attention to the vids you post. Look at this one and notice first off the lean as the outer walls fold inwards, and the fact that some of its rubble goes outside of its footprint, but the building as a whole is in one neat pile, just like WTC 7.

Now if you can find a steel framed building that collapses like that from fire, you might have a point worth considering.

Thanks for clearing up some points, and helping my argument.

Don't you find it weird that in your video there is a constant stream of explosions just before the building falls.
Yet we hear nothing from any of the videos in NYC?