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

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by JPhish

 

I read some of your posts, but even by the standards of most truthers you are in the category of far out theories or considered a disinfo agent with your no-plane theory. Although I must say it isn't that much more far out than the controlled demolition theory those same truthers believe in. Both theories have no evidence in favor and plenty of evidence against.

edit on 28-9-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

I wish you'd read more carefuly . . .

I never said there were no planes.

I said there were no plane impacts.

Big difference.

Everything else you said is a bare assertion.

Oh and btw...

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didnt look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

www.firehouse.com...

And....

Another report talks of damage that suggested collapse was a real possibility:

...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.

graphics8.nytimes.com...

Fire chief Daniel Nigro says further assessment of the damage indicated that it was severe:

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged (WTC Building 7). A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.

www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Another fireman reported damage that progressed as the day wore on.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

www.firehouse.com...

www.911myths.com...

The firefighters were reporting SEVERE damage to WTC7, including the LARGE gash caused by the falling debris from the tower...

reply to post by JPhish


A "no-plane" theory can as well mean there was not plane impact. It doesn't change any of what I said.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by JPhish

 

A "no-plane" theory can as well mean there was not plane impact. It doesn't change any of what I said.

you're right, what you said is still a bare assertion.

reply to post by JPhish


Do you have any PROOF of your claim?...

So the planes were there and then dissapeared?...

Perhaps you should get some sleep and think this over after you get a good night rest...

Originally posted by conar


So you agree NIST was wrong, and the truth is still out there. Cool, then we are on the same page.
We need to look for explosives and explosive theories though, because WTC 7 went into freefall. So we have to look into all possibilities if we want to follow the scienctific method

Again with the freefall exagerations and lies?...

It has been proven several times the towers did not collapse at freefall...

You should stop with the exagerations and lies...

Originally posted by tinfoilman

Well, in all fairness. We do have video of JFK being shot, so we all pretty much agree that he was shot. What we don't have is a picture of the guy as he was shooting him.

But do we see in the video the shooter shooting him?... no...


BTW, do read the reports from the firefighters I gave which corroborate that WTC7 was hit by debris from at least one tower and was badly damaged before the collapse...

Would you say a 20 floor gash is big, or not?... The firefighters say it was huge, and they KNEW it was going to fall...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by JPhish

 

Do you have any PROOF of your claim?...

So the planes were there and then dissapeared?...

Perhaps you should get some sleep and think this over after you get a good night rest...

Hold the phone.

The person making extraordinary claims is the one who must provide the extraordinary evidence.

I'm claiming that they blew up some buildings and lied to the public about it.

You're claiming www.youtube.com... ?

Are you seriously demanding I provide negative proof for something that DIDN'T happen???

All they did was fly a plane/UMV/etc close to a building and blow that building up.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by conar


So you agree NIST was wrong, and the truth is still out there. Cool, then we are on the same page.
We need to look for explosives and explosive theories though, because WTC 7 went into freefall. So we have to look into all possibilities if we want to follow the scienctific method

Again with the freefall exagerations and lies?...

It has been proven several times the towers did not collapse at freefall...

You should stop with the exagerations and lies...

edit on 28-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


If they didn't collapse at free fall, then they didn't fully collapse. Now I'm not saying they did fall at free fall. But that's not the point. Some people say they did, and some don't. I don't know.

But here's the trick I see being played. The media has got both sides arguing against each other about things we agree on. That the buildings collapsed. They played a Bugs Bunny on us.

The orig media story was that the buildings pancaked, not collapsed. Now what's the difference?

If it pancaked and each floor landed on top of the other floors while the structure was still intact, then the resistance of the breaking structure of each floor, should have made it fall slower than free fall. If we could actually measure the difference between the two speeds or not, I have no idea.

But the point is, nobody seems to remember, that that was the orig argument. Collapse vs pancake. It's just the truthers used the word demolition in place of collapse. And that's where the problem started.

Originally the truthers said that it fell so fast it must have collapsed structurally and could NOT have pancaked. That's what we were originally arguing about 10 years ago. Somehow the conversation got changed.

Now we're arguing about if they collapsed? But wait, aren't we agreeing? Doesn't that seem odd to argue about something we both agree on? That the buildings collapsed? I know they collapsed. I saw it happen!

What really happened is they changed the story! They change it to MATCH our story, while still telling us we were wrong and everyone fell for it. See the trick?

It was the classic Bugs Bunny switch aroo. And they got the truthers arguing against their own story by changing their story to match ours. So that they too said it collapsed and had structural failure. Now you have two sides both saying it collapsed AND STILL ARGUING ABOUT IT!

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by tinfoilman

Well, in all fairness. We do have video of JFK being shot, so we all pretty much agree that he was shot. What we don't have is a picture of the guy as he was shooting him.

But do we see in the video the shooter shooting him?... no...

Um.....that was kind of my point. Read the post again perhaps?

reply to post by tinfoilman


At 33 seconds. This is how we've been played.

To all 9/11 Trusters on duty:

If WTC7 was "scooped out" on several floors, how did it manage to fall symmetrically the entire time without a simultaneous failure of all the remaining vertical support columns on those floors? Is it the Truster position that fairly isolated pockets of fire led to such a sudden simultaneous failure?

Furthermore, this building looks somewhat "scooped out" and burned too.


Another shot (WTC 5 on bottom, WTC 6 on top):


What is the Trusters' explanation of the final fate of these buildings? They remained standing despite all of the damage sustained from the events in the vicinity.

Don't forget to account for the fact that these buildings stooddirectly between the towers and WTC 7.

Well guys don't forget that the empire state building was hit by a B-25 bomber which weighed 33,000 lbs and a wingspan of 67 feet crashed into the 79th floor and guess what id didn't collapse. So how does another plane that yes is bigger hits another building and it falls.... hit something vital and collapsed? How about the other building?
Just food for thought

reply to post by MathiasAndrew



Nice lie again...

It was the second collapse of North Tower which caused the massive damage to WTC 7, The first collaspe
of the South Tower inflicted some damage to the building , but WTC 7 was shielded by the North Tower

Also pictures of the cars on the street (Barclay St) are on the north side of WTC 7 which was the side away
from the damaged side (South face)

Look at this and tell me why all that smoke is pouring out of the south face

www.911myths.com...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by conar


So you agree NIST was wrong, and the truth is still out there. Cool, then we are on the same page.
We need to look for explosives and explosive theories though, because WTC 7 went into freefall. So we have to look into all possibilities if we want to follow the scienctific method

Again with the freefall exagerations and lies?...

It has been proven several times the towers did not collapse at freefall...

You should stop with the exagerations and lies...

edit on 28-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

www.nist.gov...

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

Originally posted by rogerstigers
I am still on the fence on it.. it "looks" wrong, but perhaps someone can answer me this..

most of the force was applied to one side of the building.. kind of like Jenga, the side that is crippled, would apparently be the side that the tower falls on.. These towers did not appear to fall at ANY sort of angle. They collapsed straight down as if there was suddenly NOTHING holding any of it up any more.

If you put a stick through a hot dog it causes a bulge that can been visibly on the outside. And think about what happens if you are driving your car and someone in the back puts their feet into your seat, no matter how much padding, you always feel it.

Actually the airplanes went into the buildings at a 10 floor height.These airplanes were flying and they went into the buildings the force was not absorbed, the fire was immediate and set the inside of the buildings on fire.That weakened the inside of the buildings. The fire that consumed the floors weakened the internal structure of the building.

It is not as though the planes merely smacked the buildings and fell down, they went inside the buildings. They were eventually stopped by the steel beams of the buildings but the fireball explosion caused a sonic wave that pushed the air outward from the source and that created a vacuum momentarily and new air rushed in to feed the fire that got hotter.

Think about this, all buildings that are brought down through controlled detonation via TNT are ALWAYS done at the lowest levels then placed in higher floors.There were no bomb explosions from the bottom nor in any floor above it. In fact, the only explosion that occurred was at that particular spot where the planes hit.

In 1998, OBL ordered the WTC to be bombed, the terrorists set bombs in the underground garage. That explosion did not bring down the building, even though that was the intent. There was not enough explosive force. That explosion was absorbed by the ground and the roof of the garage. The WTC was not compact, meaning it was not solid inside. If you ever lived in an apartment building that is created in like manner, there are empty spaces between floors. The walls may be fairly thick, but if the person who lives above you walks heavy or drops something, you hear it. That is sound wave vibration. Now imagine that same vibration during an explosion of a plane full of jet fuel. Sound wave, energy wave and transfer wave all move the internal support. No matter what happens to the outside of the building, it is the internal damage that causes it to fall.

The force on the outside was miniscule compared to the damage on the inside. The building did not absorb the energy and because the buildings were not solid, the energy wave was not absorbed.

reply to post by conar


Two points:

Saying the building collapsed at free fall is a bit of a contentious statement as it accelerated briefly to free fall. It's collapse was NOT completely at free fall, as it would be in a demo btw.

Second, AE911 is, in many people's eyes, a completely ridiculous organisation that represents the fringes of the profession.Any time I see people posting their garbage I immediately assume they're not very serious.

AE911 not only represents the view of a meaningless number (statistically) of these professionals, but it's also posted things about mind control (do you believe in mind control??) on it's website... no doubt 1/1000 of ANY group of people believe crazy stuff, that says more about the insanity you run into when you look at any large enough group of people, and less about the particular group.

In fact, the prevalence of the truther belief is much less common in the engineering and architectural worlds than it is int he general public... in other words, engineers and architects are much LESS likely to believe this craziness than non- architects/engineers... that should tell you a lot...

Originally posted by jonyo1
I've simplified everything, because it is simple, there's no way those buildings could fall like they did

naturally.

So it is certainly curious that the physics profession has not resolved this in TEN YEARS and yet they expect us to get excited about neutrinos traveling 1/400th of 1% faster than light.

Is it because those neutrinos really have no practical political significance and are just one of those "nice" scientific facts?

psik