yup ... indeed ..

has anyone seriously documented the proof of the NIST explanation - through controlled experiment - yet? surely there are people studying this never before seen phenomena so that new buildings can be built without such flaws. it must be the talk of the materials science realm!

Originally posted by muzzleflash

There were plenty of Fire Safety Engineering Science experts who came out saying 911 was a sham, through the A & E for 911 Truth group.

So since there isn't a lack of fire experts speaking out, than what we do have actually here is a lack of accurate knowledge on your part.

Maybe you'd be so kind as to cite exactly what percentage of active, accredited professionals in the appropriate fields their membership represents? IIRC, that group's membership represents less than .01% of the professionals in the States alone let alone worldwide. And I trust they've thrown their not-inconsiderable weight behind providing their own detailed, data-backed report on what they in their professional expertise believe should've happened?

Fitz

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

As always, when conspiracy theorists show images of WTC 7 they avoid showing the south side which had a huge hole in it from falling debris and was belching smoke from top to bottom :-

www.youtube.com...

Huge buildings do not collapse symmetrically due to a huge hole on one side only... I would love to be proven wrong, please show me under what circumstances do buildings suddenly, completely and symmetrically collapse within seconds.

reply to post by samkent


Which is why I don't believe it could have been orchestrated internally in the US and do believe that it was an act of wanton terrorism by insane and evil fanatic's whom believed murdering innocent people would take them to paradise, there is another mystery though, was this tried before, do you remember the plane that crashed into the Hudson and some witnesses claimed they observed a missile like object intercept it before it crashed, was there a previous attempt that was thwarted?.

reply to post by LABTECH767

do you remember the plane that crashed into the Hudson and some witnesses claimed they observed a missile like object intercept it before it crashed, was there a previous attempt that was thwarted?.

That was in 2009.
I doubt even the most staunch truther can connect that with 911.

reply to post by LABTECH767

here is another mystery though, was this tried before, do you remember the plane that crashed into the Hudson and some witnesses claimed they observed a missile like object intercept it before it crashed, was there a previous attempt that was thwarted?

The only plane crash in the Hudson I can think of was after 9/11 and caused by a bunch of birds... What are you talking about?

Someone help me out here. There must be a video online somewhere of another tall building collapsing like this which is not a controlled demolition. Surely the defenders of the OS can come up with at least one such incident. Building damaged in some way, collapses in a manner that looks like controlled demo but isn't. Why is nobody bringing this video to the fore to prove that this kind of thing happens and is nothing unusual? Certainly these types of collapses aren't so rare and unusual that we can't find a single video of one, are they?

reply to post by LABTECH767


Are you talking about this one? Where he said it was "like a missile"?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by bigfootgurl
There must be a video online somewhere of another tall building collapsing like this which is not a controlled demolition. Surely the defenders of the OS can come up with at least one such incident. ....Certainly these types of collapses aren't so rare and unusual that we can't find a single video of one, are they?

How many other high speed jet airliners have crashed into very tall office buildings? They are very rare, which is why you cannot find a video of one!

The Twin Towers melted because they were made of a lot of glass.....unlike the Empire State Building that is made more of thick concrete.

When King Kong climbed the WTC in the remake of the eponymously named movie, you could see the tower bend from the great apes weight.

The Twin Towers were always considered good looking, but architecturally weak.


Why did the collapsed towers look so flat?
Before the terrorist attack, the twin towers were 110 stories tall. Constructed of lightweight steel around a central core, the World Trade Center towers were about 95% air. After they collapsed, the hollow core was gone. The remaining rubble was only a few stories high.

When the Twin Towers were constructed in the 1970s, the builders were granted some exemptions from New York's building codes. The exemptions allowed the builders to use lightweight materials so the skyscrapers could achieve greater heights. But, the consequences were devastating. According to Charles Harris, author of Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases (compare prices), fewer people would have died on September 11, 2001 if the Twin Towers had used the type of fireproofing required by older building codes.

architecture.about.com...

Originally posted by bigfootgurl
Someone help me out here. There must be a video online somewhere of another tall building collapsing like this which is not a controlled demolition. Surely the defenders of the OS can come up with at least one such incident. Building damaged in some way, collapses in a manner that looks like controlled demo but isn't. Why is nobody bringing this video to the fore to prove that this kind of thing happens and is nothing unusual? Certainly these types of collapses aren't so rare and unusual that we can't find a single video of one, are they?

I would also appreciate if someone post at least one such video. Because I found many that look like WTC7 but all of them are controlled demolition, with or without loud explosions but all are professionally and deliberately demolished.

Here is one with explosions: Obvious explosives used to take out support columns all around the building.



Here is one without: Obvious weakening of support columns all around the building.



Someone please show me on what floor of WTC7 support columns were damaged all around the building causing it to symmetrically collapse.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by bigfootgurl
There must be a video online somewhere of another tall building collapsing like this which is not a controlled demolition. Surely the defenders of the OS can come up with at least one such incident. ....Certainly these types of collapses aren't so rare and unusual that we can't find a single video of one, are they?

How many other high speed jet airliners have crashed into very tall office buildings? They are very rare, which is why you cannot find a video of one!

Well apparently no airplane is necessary. These kinds of collapses occur as a result of fire and structural damage. Certainly it cannot be the case that never in the history of tall steel structures has one collapsed in a "controlled demolition" style fall without it actually being a controlled demolition. Buildings catch on fire, are bombed, etc. There's got to be one that has collapsed from this kind of damage, doesn't there?

Originally posted by whatsecret

Someone please show me on what floor of WTC7 support columns were damaged all around the building causing it to symmetrically collapse.

edit on 10-4-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)

So that second one was not a controlled demo, or was it? That's all I'm looking for. One video of a building collapsing straight down a la 9/11 that is NOT a controlled demolition. Haven't tall buildings been damaged before and collapsed, or has every tall building ever damaged by fire or an explosion somehow managed to stay up, except for the three in New York?

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by LABTECH767

 

do you remember the plane that crashed into the Hudson and some witnesses claimed they observed a missile like object intercept it before it crashed, was there a previous attempt that was thwarted?.

That was in 2009.
I doubt even the most staunch truther can connect that with 911.

The "missile" was a flock of Canada geese getting sucked into the engines. I don't think Al Qaeda has expanded beyond homo sapiens but I'm sure there's someone here who'll take me to task for that assertion.

Fitz

reply to post by bigfootgurl

So that second one was not a controlled demo, or was it?

It was a controlled demolition only without explosives or cables. They first went all around the building on few floors and physically weakened columns, then they used hydraulics to start the collapse and then gravity did the rest.

What I'm saying is that they have ways to implode a building without explosives, and gravity can take care of the collapse itself, but in order for the building to symmetrically implode the damage must also be symmetrical on all sides. WTC 7 had damage on one side only and collapsed symmetrically.

I'm not sure that it's possible in this dimension.

Originally posted by Ewok_Boba

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by SpearMint

 

You mean besides the interview where the guy that owned the WTC complex said he made the call to "Pull it"
The insurance policy covering acts of terrorism he took out a month or so before the attacks.

I can't post links from my phone, but it's not hard to find this info.

You mean the fire commander on scene that made the decision to pull the firefighting operations? Before you make an accusation please be informed of the facts. Also insurance payouts did not cover the expenses even remotely of clean up, reconstruction and the losses in property taxes on the site.

You should get your facts straight, sir.
Fire commander =/= owner of WTC complex. I think he's referring to Larry Silverstein. Haha. Your second point is moot.


"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

-LS

edit on 10-4-2013 by Ewok_Boba because: (no reason given)

< snip >
"I remember getting a call from the fire dept. commander," = Larry got a call from a fire dept. commander
"telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire" = the fire commander is saying that the building fire is out of control, no water pressure in the pipes to fight the fires, and the building is showing signs of growing structural integrity failure. Also they have other issues with the first collapses and the rescue ops in the rubble.
"and I said, 'We've had such a terrible loss of life," = They have lost so many firefighters and first responders already trying to save the first two towers
"maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." = maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull the firefighting operation and get them out of there so we dont lose anymore people in a hopeless situation.
"And they made the decision to pull" = The NYFD commander and chiefs made the decision to pull the firefighting operations and set up a collapse perimeter and pull back all the firefighters from WTC7 so in case of collapse, no one will get killed.
"and we watched the building collapse." = and they watched the building fall down later in the day.

So, again, where exactly did Larry tell them to blow up anything?
Also, since when is the NYFD in the demolition business?

You see, my facts are all in order. How about yours?

MOD EDIT: Please see warning in earlier posts. Further ad-hominem attacks can and will result in permanent loss of posting privilege.

reply to post by GenRadek
Whatever the owner of the building said is moot. Insurance coverage = what he said and what he did might be two different things.

Originally posted by IAMTAT
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

I'm guessing the one hit by two airliners full of jet fuel.

Yah!!! That one that never got hit by that plane full of jet fule! ! I think your on to something