# simple question for the WTC collapse



## Days (Aug 15, 2013)

My father was the largest permanent installation window washing manufacturer in the nation.  We actually did work for the architect that designed the World Trade Center.  My father described the man as an absolute genius in his field.  One of the biggest concerns when manufacturing equipment that will hold men's lives is structural failure.  As a rigger and installer, I understood breaking strengths for the materials I worked with and things like torque and sheer and how to analyze the forces acting upon my rigging.  So, when I listened to the government explanation of how and why the WTC towers collapsed, I had to scratch my head in disbelief.  Mostly, the only explanation put forth was the pancake theory... but when it was pointed out that pancaked floors would have left behind the core, the official story went blurry and sort of settled in this idea that the core was somehow pulverized by the weight of the tops bearing down upon them... as if the weight of the tops weren't always bearing down upon them, as if that isn't exactly what the core holds up.  

Mostly, it is a taboo subject with the government, mostly they just don't want to talk about it.  They put out contracts with NIST for them to work up some kind of explanation, actually paying for it with our taxes.  The NIST contractors that won the contracts did their best to toss out real engineering studies that were somehow concluding what the government wanted to hear, without bothering to make any logical sense, but that wasn't the true goal as everyone involved understood it, a cover up doesn't need to make sense it just papers over the crime and walks away.  So it was mission accomplished by NIST, and still we have no clear explanation of structural failure, no congruent story that shows exactly what happened, and yes, that's exactly what engineers normally provide.

So, let me ask you... how did those towers collapse?  

I get all kinds of whacky answers, like the office fires super heated the steel; and other ridiculous nonsense that has no bearing in the real world, but when it comes right down to it, the bottom line is the government explanation for structural failure relies on the weight of the structure collapsing itself.  The structure is designed to hold its own weight + a lot of people (that had already left the tower when it collapsed) + class four hurricane winds.   Since the structural integrity of the lower floors were 100% intact, this idea that the weight of the upper portions of the towers somehow collapsed the lower portions makes absolutely no sense... not to anyone with any understanding of structural failure.

But just for the fun of it, let me ask the question anyway.  Could you please point out the big heavy object that is crushing the floors below it?  Because when I look at pictures of the collapse at their halfway point in their free fall speeds, drop to the pavement below; I can't see any top portion of tower doing this herculean crushing of the entire structure below it.  That's because the demolition wave began at points of impact and went in both directions; down and up, and since the towers were struck in the upper portions, the tops were blown to pieces by the time the bottoms were still only half blown to pieces.  So, there was no upper tower portion left bearing down upon the lower portions of the tower.  Which is why I scratched my head in disbelief at all those explanations that relied on this nonexistent weight to do all this crushing downward against the vertical core.  The  upper portions would have been pathetically incapable of performing that crushing had they existed to do so.  But they didn't exist to do so.  They were already gone by the halfway point of the demolition wave in the lower portions.

Okay school children,  Could you please point out the big heavy object that is crushing the floors below it?


----------



## TheOldSchool (Aug 15, 2013)

Aliens


----------



## Days (Aug 15, 2013)

invisible aliens, I presume.  Invisible Aliens about two miles tall, and quite fat, must have sat on the towers; but you know what?  If they were made of flesh and blood and not something much denser, like say LEAD or GOLD, those two mile high invisible aliens could have sat on the towers and the towers would have made a pretty sturdy stool for them.... still no collapse.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Aug 15, 2013)

Days said:


> invisible aliens, I presume.  Invisible Aliens about two miles tall, and quite fat, must have sat on the towers; but you know what?  If they were made of flesh and blood and not something much denser, like say LEAD or GOLD, those two mile high invisible aliens could have sat on the towers and the towers would have made a pretty sturdy stool for them.... still no collapse.





You've clearly never heard of repulsor technology


----------



## Days (Aug 15, 2013)

And you've clearly still not told me about it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2013)

Days said:


> My father was the largest permanent installation window washing manufacturer in the nation.  We actually did work for the architect that designed the World Trade Center.  My father described the man as an absolute genius in his field.  One of the biggest concerns when manufacturing equipment that will hold men's lives is structural failure.  As a rigger and installer, I understood breaking strengths for the materials I worked with and things like torque and sheer and how to analyze the forces acting upon my rigging.  So, when I listened to the government explanation of how and why the WTC towers collapsed, I had to scratch my head in disbelief.  Mostly, the only explanation put forth was the pancake theory... but when it was pointed out that pancaked floors would have left behind the core, the official story went blurry and sort of settled in this idea that the core was somehow pulverized by the weight of the tops bearing down upon them... as if the weight of the tops weren't always bearing down upon them, as if that isn't exactly what the core holds up.
> 
> Mostly, it is a taboo subject with the government, mostly they just don't want to talk about it.  They put out contracts with NIST for them to work up some kind of explanation, actually paying for it with our taxes.  The NIST contractors that won the contracts did their best to toss out real engineering studies that were somehow concluding what the government wanted to hear, without bothering to make any logical sense, but that wasn't the true goal as everyone involved understood it, a cover up doesn't need to make sense it just papers over the crime and walks away.  So it was mission accomplished by NIST, and still we have no clear explanation of structural failure, no congruent story that shows exactly what happened, and yes, that's exactly what engineers normally provide.
> 
> ...



*Because when I look at pictures of the collapse at their halfway point in their free fall speeds*

They didn't collapse at free fall speeds.

*Could you please point out the big heavy object that is crushing the floors below it?*

That would be all the floors above the impact zone.

*there was no upper tower portion left bearing down upon the lower portions of the tower*

Did it evaporate? Float up? Become magically weightless?


----------



## Days (Aug 15, 2013)

the upper tower portion must be there because you say it is there?  

one problem with that...

it isn't there.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 15, 2013)

Here we go again.  Bush knocked down the towers, right?


----------



## TheOldSchool (Aug 15, 2013)

Days said:


> And you've clearly still not told me about it.



It's the emission of a downward force typically used to keep platforms or vehicles hovering at a constant altitude.  With enough energy it can be an incredibly destructive, though inefficient, force.

It's in Star Wars.  And is clearly the only explanation for 9/11


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 15, 2013)

In order for there to be a conspiracy to hide the "real" evidence of the collapse one would need to have complete control over the hundreds of investigators and clean up crews. From 4 different agencies.

It has been 12 years and not a single person has talked. Not likely with the number of people that would have to be in on the cover up.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 15, 2013)




----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 15, 2013)




----------



## Days (Aug 15, 2013)

I would agree it is the only explanation plausible .... once you rule out the demolition that was obviously employed and left it's signature throughout all the evidence.  Is this what was happening when the jedi would push their hand at each other and shove objects around?  Star Wars was so ahead of its time.  Lucas actually did a film before Star Wars that is a must see social statement on economic rulership; [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hLXOVCZr-8"]THX1138[/ame]


----------



## Days (Aug 15, 2013)

there you went again, I guess.

Back to whatever it was you were discussing before I arrived...

while completely ignoring the post you supposedly replied to.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 15, 2013)




----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 15, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYzIbOYaSy8&feature=player_embedded]Important Message from 9/11 Truth! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Days (Aug 15, 2013)

A picture is worth a 1000 and that avatar of yours is priceless.

So are you on the side of the sheep or on the side of saying something original?

Can you see a huge, heavy object crushing the towers?

All I see above the demolition wave is smoke.

classic demolition


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 15, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXqs0ZYCHlA&feature=plcp]Controlled Demolition vs. Reality - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 15, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIWz7lbyYjk]THE 9/11TRUTHER EXPERIMENTS. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 15, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw]AE911TRUTH PLAYSCHOOL WITH RICHARD GAGE. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Days (Aug 15, 2013)

so you are a wordless Rat?

I guess you side with the sheep, then.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 15, 2013)




----------



## Gamolon (Aug 15, 2013)

Days said:


> The structure is designed to hold its own weight + a lot of people (that had already left the tower when it collapsed) + class four hurricane winds.



First, can you tell me the difference between the upper section as a static load and the upper section as a load in motion (downward)? Do you understand the difference between standing on a floor scale and dropping from twelve feet onto that same scale? What would the scale register for weight in each instance?

Second, the upper section and lower section weren't solid blocks. They were structures composed of many components, including CONNECTIONS. As the upper block descended, it tore/sheared through the lower sections as the connections could not withstand the force of the weight dropping on it. That is why you see the experimenter columns peeling away from the building. The upper section was also torn/sheared apart as it descending, but that does not change the weight. Think of gravel. If I drop a pile of gravel on you, it'll crush you flat.

A structure is designed to function as a whole. Engineers cannot design and analyse a structure for every single possible failure permutation. For example. They would not have looked a what would happen to the structure if one core columns on floor 86 failed. Or two columns on floor 86. 23 columns on 86. 23 core columns and 15 perimeter columns. How about 10 core columns on floor 86 and 10 core columns on floor 87? See the point?

Once you fail a component in a structure, the remaining components have to take up that load now. 



Days said:


> Since the structural integrity of the lower floors were 100% intact, this idea that the weight of the upper portions of the towers somehow collapsed the lower portions makes absolutely no sense... not to anyone with any understanding of structural failure.



You cannot think of the lower portion as a WHOLE. The increased load that the upper section created when it descended  had to pass through each component of the structure to get to the foundations resting on bedrock. The stress created sheared the connections. That's why you see bent or sheared floor truss connections on perimeter and core columns.

I always ask this. How do you expect these floor truss supports circled in red...




...to support this descending upon them?


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 15, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Important Message from 9/11 Truth! - YouTube


         
         
         
        ​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2013)

Days said:


> the upper tower portion must be there because you say it is there?
> 
> one problem with that...
> 
> it isn't there.



The upper portion is gone because it magically disappeared?


----------



## numan (Aug 15, 2013)

Days said:


> So are you on the side of the sheep or on the side of saying something original?


Oh, they are definitely pro Sheeple and never writing anything sensible. They have nothing but mockery on their side.

Probably they are on the side of those who are determined that the Sheeple remain Sheeple.
.


----------



## Days (Aug 15, 2013)

The structural design of the WTC towers was a vertical truss.  As such it retained its structural integrity section by section... literally floor by floor.  The vertical columns in the core were thicker at the bottom and thinned as they rose, hence, it didn't matter where you made a break, the bottom portion was designed to hold the static weight of the top portion + a lot of people + the kinetic force of a category four hurricane acting upon the entire structure.  Your question simulates a falling structure; but the towers were not bricks or gravel, they were seamless steel I-beam and concrete center columns that rose the whole height of the building.  How exactly does that "fall"?  It doesn't.  You have to perform a core snap to make that fall and the core snaps are only performed by demolition.  That's why the upper portion is at an angle at onset of implosion for both towers; the core had to be snapped to create that angle... it was the shape charges on the side of the core columns that kicked the entire upper portion sideways BEFORE it could begin to drop; otherwise, the angle never happens and the top portions fall vertical... as they should every time in a natural implosion without explosives.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 15, 2013)

Days said:


> The structural design of the WTC towers was a vertical truss. As such it retained its structural integrity section by section... literally floor by floor. The vertical columns in the core were thicker at the bottom and thinned as they rose, hence, it didn't matter where you made a break, the bottom portion was designed to hold the static weight of the top portion + a lot of people + the kinetic force of a category four hurricane acting upon the entire structure. Your question simulates a falling structure; but the towers were not bricks or gravel, they were seamless steel I-beam and concrete center columns that rose the whole height of the building. How exactly does that "fall"? It doesn't. You have to perform a core snap to make that fall and the core snaps are only performed by demolition. That's why the upper portion is at an angle at onset of implosion for both towers; the core had to be snapped to create that angle... it was the shape charges on the side of the core columns that kicked the entire upper portion sideways BEFORE it could begin to drop; otherwise, the angle never happens and the top portions fall vertical... as they should every time in a natural implosion without explosives.


 So you think the monominded murderers and mechanical mavens who masterminded and sent engineers, scientists, and doctors to guide the planes to their doom were too stupid to know exactly where to place those hits in a way that would overburden the system that was not supposed to break down for any reason? Even a vertical house of cards can flatten if you remove the right middle card. The buildings were calculated to go down with attention to where the support of the building would be damaged the most. 

They're brainwashed to think life on earth doesn't matter if you are killed or kill, and that if they kill enough infidels, they will get a double reward.

Saddam Hussein had hefty checks sent to each of the 19 homicidal maniac's families for their trouble. The reinforced the desire for local women to send out more of their own to commit atrocities.

They're smart people, Mr. Day. Very smart people.


----------



## Days (Aug 15, 2013)

Oh yeah, they are smart enough to know that the towers were designed to withstand jets being flown into them.  Osama Bin Laden had a civil engineer BS from an American university; he came from a very wealthy family.  When he made his strike on the one of the towers in 1993 he pulled off a classical engineering blow to structural integrity; he completely took out one of the corners at the 4th floor basement level.  That would normally be enough to bring down atypical hi-rise column design.  But like I said, the towers were designed different, they had the strongest design ever built and it shifted loads better than any design ever built.  The design was based upon a type of tree in Japan, and the towers actually swayed like trees.  Today, all super high rise skyscrapers do that, the world learned that from the WTC design.

But without going into the politics of what happened there (a real can of worms) stop for a moment and realize that this reply from Gomolon is still relying on the weight of the upper portion of the tower to crush the lower floors.  My top post is pointing out that the upper portion did no such thing as it was blown to bits while the bottom portion was still half there.  The last half of each implosion has only a demolition wave running down those structures, there is no top portion crushing them.  Look at the pictures, the top portion is part of that huge explosion of concrete and I-beams being blown out in every direction, that's where the top portion is, there is no weight bearing on the lower portions of the building for the bottom 50 stories of each implosion.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Aug 15, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Important Message from 9/11 Truth! - YouTube
> ...



That video's hilarious.  I apologize in advance 'Rat in the Hat' for stealing this link and posting it in every 9/11 conspiracy thread I come across


----------



## Days (Aug 15, 2013)

it was blown to bits.
_
"I can't see any top portion of tower doing this herculean crushing of the entire structure below it. That's because the demolition wave began at points of impact and went in both directions; down and up, and since the towers were struck in the upper portions, the tops were blown to pieces by the time the bottoms were still only half blown to pieces. So, there was no upper tower portion left bearing down upon the lower portions of the tower."_


----------



## eots (Aug 15, 2013)

Looks like a giant dust cloud with what must massive structural members being hurled horizontally...how odd


----------



## eots (Aug 15, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > The structure is designed to hold its own weight + a lot of people (that had already left the tower when it collapsed) + class four hurricane winds.
> ...



wouldint a collapse of this nature leave the core intact ..and take longer than secs ?..


----------



## eots (Aug 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > My father was the largest permanent installation window washing manufacturer in the nation.  We actually did work for the architect that designed the World Trade Center.  My father described the man as an absolute genius in his field.  One of the biggest concerns when manufacturing equipment that will hold men's lives is structural failure.  As a rigger and installer, I understood breaking strengths for the materials I worked with and things like torque and sheer and how to analyze the forces acting upon my rigging.  So, when I listened to the government explanation of how and why the WTC towers collapsed, I had to scratch my head in disbelief.  Mostly, the only explanation put forth was the pancake theory... but when it was pointed out that pancaked floors would have left behind the core, the official story went blurry and sort of settled in this idea that the core was somehow pulverized by the weight of the tops bearing down upon them... as if the weight of the tops weren't always bearing down upon them, as if that isn't exactly what the core holds up.
> ...



so how many secs did it take for this massive structure to collapse as compared to free fall  ?


----------



## Days (Aug 15, 2013)

If you stop and examine these pictures, try to take in the scale of this explosion.  The dust cloud that rose up from these two implosions managed to travel for 125 miles before it completely dissipated.  Look at what is being blown outward in every direction; giant chunks of concrete and huge steel I-beams.  Think about what is happening there, where are the top portions of the towers?  ... they are part of that explosion of giant chunks of concrete and huge steel I-beams and also part of that huge dust cloud trailing off into the sky; that's where they are.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2013)

Days said:


> Oh yeah, they are smart enough to know that the towers were designed to withstand jets being flown into them.  Osama Bin Laden had a civil engineer BS from an American university; he came from a very wealthy family.  When he made his strike on the one of the towers in 1993 he pulled off a classical engineering blow to structural integrity; he completely took out one of the corners at the 4th floor basement level.  That would normally be enough to bring down atypical hi-rise column design.  But like I said, the towers were designed different, they had the strongest design ever built and it shifted loads better than any design ever built.  The design was based upon a type of tree in Japan, and the towers actually swayed like trees.  Today, all super high rise skyscrapers do that, the world learned that from the WTC design.
> 
> But without going into the politics of what happened there (a real can of worms) stop for a moment and realize that this reply from Gomolon is still relying on the weight of the upper portion of the tower to crush the lower floors.  My top post is pointing out that the upper portion did no such thing as it was blown to bits while the bottom portion was still half there.  The last half of each implosion has only a demolition wave running down those structures, there is no top portion crushing them.  Look at the pictures, the top portion is part of that huge explosion of concrete and I-beams being blown out in every direction, that's where the top portion is, there is no weight bearing on the lower portions of the building for the bottom 50 stories of each implosion.



*My top post is pointing out that the upper portion did no such thing as it was blown to bits*

Blown to bits? By secret charges?


----------



## Days (Aug 15, 2013)

You can not see the charges in the pictures, but you can plainly see what they are doing to the structure.

So, Todd, how about you point out where the top portion of the tower is at the midway point in the demolition wave ... do you see anything there at all bearing down upon the lower floors.  It obviously is there at the onset of demolition, but what happened to it, say 5-6 seconds into the implosion?  Where is it at that point in time?

And since you blatantly refuse to answer anything, I'll point it out for you; see that big explosion of tower steel, concrete, and office furnishings being blown outward in every direction?  That's where it is, that's where the whole tower ends up... blown to bits.  There simply is no tower section bearing down upon the lower towers halfway into their implosions; the demolition waves ripped downward through the bottom floors of the towers and the top floors of the towers were already flying outward with debris from all the other floors.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 15, 2013)

Physically impossible , there is no way that every floor above 86 was wired to blow. For one thing they were occupied, someone would have noticed the drilling, the wires and the construction.

Further hundreds of investigators from 4 different agencies descended on New York. Explain again how NONE of them detected your explosives, none of them detected construction or explosives. Not one has come forward to explain why they, according to you, lied. It has been 12 years there is no way hundreds were kept silent this long.

The upper floors are obscured by the dust and debris occurring as they crash into the lower floors.

How about the Pentagon and Pennsylvania? Who masterminded this massive coverup? Who conned 19 terrorists into being their patsies and who bribed threatened or otherwise silenced hundreds of investigators for going on 12 years?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2013)

Days said:


> You can not see the charges in the pictures, but you can plainly see what they are doing to the structure.
> 
> So, Todd, how about you point out where the top portion of the tower is at the midway point in the demolition wave ... do you see anything there at all bearing down upon the lower floors.  It obviously is there at the onset of demolition, but what happened to it, say 5-6 seconds into the implosion?  Where is it at that point in time?
> 
> And since you blatantly refuse to answer anything, I'll point it out for you; see that big explosion of tower steel, concrete, and office furnishings being blown outward in every direction?  That's where it is, that's where the whole tower ends up... blown to bits.  There simply is no tower section bearing down upon the lower towers halfway into their implosions; the demolition waves ripped downward through the bottom floors of the towers and the top floors of the towers were already flying outward with debris from all the other floors.



*So, Todd, how about you point out where the top portion of the tower is at the midway point in the demolition wave ... *

Right there, continuing to fall and hit lower floors.

*do you see anything there at all bearing down upon the lower floors. *

Yes. Not magically dematerialized. Tens of thousands of tons of steel and concrete, pancaking the floors below.

*And since you blatantly refuse to answer anything, I'll point it out for you; see that big explosion of tower steel, concrete, and office furnishings being blown outward in every direction?  That's where it is, that's where the whole tower ends up... blown to bits.*

Blown to bits? Did that reduce its mass at all, or did it still weigh tens of thousands of tons?

*There simply is no tower section bearing down upon the lower towers halfway into their implosions;*

That's simply ridiculous.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Physically impossible , there is no way that every floor above 86 was wired to blow. For one thing they were occupied, someone would have noticed the drilling, the wires and the construction.
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > You can not see the charges in the pictures, but you can plainly see what they are doing to the structure.
> ...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9XXy86895c]Physics: Work. Conservation of energy (1) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> > RetiredGySgt said:
> >
> >
> > > Physically impossible , there is no way that every floor above 86 was wired to blow. For one thing they were occupied, someone would have noticed the drilling, the wires and the construction.
> > ...


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > He claimed every floor above the crash site was blown up with explosives. So Eots you believe that is possible?
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Days said:
> ...



Thanks.
If the idiot from the OP watched that, he might not sound so stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## dblack (Aug 16, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V6Ebey458Q]Stuart - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-cByMfgSUA]9/11 Physics 101 - Newton vs. NIST - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


----------



## Snouter (Aug 16, 2013)

Ain't reading the thread since no modern buildings have ever fallen as a result of a fire, much less collapsed into dust.  

Fuck nine eleven as the gay, emotional concept it is.  It was an inside job.  Get over it.  A lot of things in life, like middle east religions for example, are complete and total bullshit designed to fuck with your ability to think freely.  Overcome.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 16, 2013)

Why fly the planes into the buildings AND use explosives?  If the objective is to drum up support for war, wouldn't the planes flying into the buildings be enough even if the buildings didn't come down?  OR...Why not just plant explosives, collapse the towers, and blame the muslims?  No reason to do BOTH.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Why fly the planes into the buildings AND use explosives?  If the objective is to drum up support for war, wouldn't the planes flying into the buildings be enough even if the buildings didn't come down?  OR...Why not just plant explosives, collapse the towers, and blame the muslims?  No reason to do BOTH.



no massive death toll from plane crashes alone..


----------



## S.J. (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Why fly the planes into the buildings AND use explosives?  If the objective is to drum up support for war, wouldn't the planes flying into the buildings be enough even if the buildings didn't come down?  OR...Why not just plant explosives, collapse the towers, and blame the muslims?  No reason to do BOTH.
> ...


So?  Terrorists flying planes into buildings isn't enough to justify going to war?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2013)

S.J. said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



He thinks someone wired every floor of the tower with explosives without being seen, there is no point in talking reality with people that are this far gone. Delusional comes to mind.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

S.J. said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



No a single terrorist attack carried out by a handful of people and no mass casualties might not of been enough to create the necessary paranoia and outrage


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



not being seen is not so difficult people have achieved much greater things than that...and why would you need wires ?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



If the point was a high body count why wait? Why let thousands escape? And of course you added no terrorists, what happened to the 19 terrorists? The passengers and crew of the 4 planes?

You are delusional. Seek medical help.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 16, 2013)




----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



what are you babbling about no planes no terrorist ? and I think we both know who needs the 'medical attention' here pal


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


>



*that loses a lot of its humor when its just not funny hair tan guy talking about aliens*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvvgdxBocfc]Sixth Man On The Moon Edgar Mitchell Ends UFO Cover Up.flv - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9CoWd6o6WI]NASA Astronaut - Gordon Cooper 1st Man In Space Admits Aliens are Real.flv - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEQdvYFMBAU]BREAKING!!! UFO ALIEN DISCLOSURE by Canadian Minister of Defense May 2013 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cET8l_BK24Q]UK's Former Advisor of Minister Of Defense - UFO Alien Disclosure on Fox News - YouTube[/ame]

*but thats another story*


----------



## editec (Aug 16, 2013)

It is not the obligation of those finding fault with the official account of the collapse to offer explanations for what REALLY IS going on.

It is enough IF they find VALID flaws in the explanation.

Personally I have difficulty believing the official story of both the WTC and the attack on the pentagon.

But my incredulity does not obligate me (or any other doubting thomases)  to offer an alternative narrative TO explain what happened.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 16, 2013)

Days said:


> the upper tower portion must be there because you say it is there?
> 
> one problem with that...
> 
> it isn't there.



Did the Enterprise show up and beam it to the cargo bay?


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > the upper tower portion must be there because you say it is there?
> ...



Now you are just being silly...


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 16, 2013)

Days said:


> But without going into the politics of what happened there (a real can of worms) stop for a moment and realize that this reply from Gomolon is still relying on the weight of the upper portion of the tower to crush the lower floors.



You have that wrong. I am not saying the "upper section" crushed the "lower section" like a foot stomping on the top of an empty aluminum can. The "upper section" tore/sheared the "lower section" apart. As the debris pile descended, it ripped the connections apart. That is why you see the perimeter column sections "peeling away from the building. As the "upper section" descended, it too was sheard/torn apart, yet still descended as a debris pile.



Days said:


> My top post is pointing out that the upper portion did no such thing as it was blown to bits while the bottom portion was still half there.



Wrong.



Days said:


> The last half of each implosion has only a demolition wave running down those structures, there is no top portion crushing them.



No. The sheared/torn apart sections was falling inside the perimeter columns tearing everything apart. 



Days said:


> Look at the pictures, the top portion is part of that huge explosion of concrete and I-beams being blown out in every direction, that's where the top portion is, there is no weight bearing on the lower portions of the building for the bottom 50 stories of each implosion.



Are you telling me that there is no way any column could have been pushed into a parabolic trajectory by the descending debris? Please show me a video of a column being ejected SIDEWAYS and not falling in a parabolic trajectory.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Days said:
> ...



Why would it? The core was comprised of steel that had connections also. There were beams, columns, elevator motors, elevator control panels, pieces of the hat truss, etc, that would have impacted the core components and sheared them apart.

The debris fell around the coe after a certain point and left a part of the damaged core standing, which eventually collapsed also. The core was not able to stand on it's own. standing,


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> wouldint a collapse of this nature leave the core intact ..and take longer than secs ?..



It took more than "free fall" timing for the entire towers to collapse.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 16, 2013)

Days said:


> If you stop and examine these pictures, try to take in the scale of this explosion.  The dust cloud that rose up from these two implosions managed to travel for 125 miles before it completely dissipated.  Look at what is being blown outward in every direction; giant chunks of concrete and huge steel I-beams.]



You are SO wrong.

She me a VIDEO of these huge steel columns and huge chunks of concrete being ejected HORIZONTALLY instead of a parabolic trajectory. Still photos can't be used to debate horizontal ejection due to an explosion vs. a parabolic trajectory due to being pushed sideways by debris.

Do you realize how much gypsum board were in those towers? Have you ever worked with drywall? How much dust it creates? It was just concrete and steel. How many of those "steel beams" are aluminum cladding that came apart from the perimeter columns?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 16, 2013)

Days said:


> You can not see the charges in the pictures, but you can plainly see what they are doing to the structure.
> 
> So, Todd, how about you point out where the top portion of the tower is at the midway point in the demolition wave ... do you see anything there at all bearing down upon the lower floors.  It obviously is there at the onset of demolition, but what happened to it, say 5-6 seconds into the implosion?



It was sheared apart as it descended! It was turned into a massive pile of debris consisting of steel, concrete, and everything else within those towers.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Days said:
> ...



No sillier than you and OP. 

Explain how the hundreds of people that had to be involved in a conspiracy of this magnitude have been kept silent for 12 years.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Aug 16, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > You can not see the charges in the pictures, but you can plainly see what they are doing to the structure.
> ...



So it broke the laws of physics...interesting....


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



lol it left a sliver of the core that stood for 2 secs then oddly collapsed into itself instead of falling over
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlYTZtkTbV4]WTC 1 core collapse - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



where do you get the number hundreds ? and  regardless physics is not interested in your assumptions on human psycolgy


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > wouldint a collapse of this nature leave the core intact ..and take longer than secs ?..
> ...



how much more ?


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 16, 2013)

Days said:


> it was blown to bits.
> 
> _"I can't see any top portion of tower doing this herculean crushing of the entire structure below it. That's because the demolition wave began at points of impact and went in both directions; down and up, and since the towers were struck in the upper portions, the tops were blown to pieces by the time the bottoms were still only half blown to pieces. So, there was no upper tower portion left bearing down upon the lower portions of the tower."_


 This version filmed by some office ladies across the way doesn't agree with your one-framed assessment.

[ame=http://youtu.be/wNNTcHq5Tzk]September 11 2001 Video. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 16, 2013)

*Hi, I'm Johnny Knoxville.*


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Aug 16, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > it was blown to bits.
> ...



That's true. in the office ladies across the street version, they missed the "collapse" sequence entirely.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



But cover-ups ARE dependent on human psychology. 

There had to be hundreds of people involved in planning, financing, executing and covering up so massive a conspiracy.
The clean up crew alone involved hundreds of construction workers. The volunteers and first responders, surviving police, firemen and paramedics, dog handlers are another thousand or more.
Either every single person believed in and supported a conspiracy or BILLIONS of dollars changed hands. Do you see any NYC cops arriving at work in chauffeur driven limos?
Retired paramedics living on Fisher Island in Miami?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 16, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Days said:
> ...



What laws of physics were broken?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



A "sliver" eots?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Portions of each core stood 15 to 25 seconds AFTER collapse initiation.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



I find your static picture highly questionably


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Aug 16, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



The first law of thermodynamics, and the conservatio of energy. What you're essentially saying is that the building acted as a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. Work was done without energy input. Anyway, this debate has been gone over ad neaseum.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Why fly the planes into the buildings AND use explosives?  If the objective is to drum up support for war, wouldn't the planes flying into the buildings be enough even if the buildings didn't come down?  OR...Why not just plant explosives, collapse the towers, and blame the muslims?  No reason to do BOTH.
> ...



If they had just demo'd the buildings, they would have killed thousands more.
Why warn everyone by crashing planes first?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Aug 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Well, under the demolition theory (a theory I do not subscribe to), there would need to be cover of some type. How could any cover story be provided if the buildings suddenly just "collapsed"?

(As the demo theory goes)


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



much easier to explain failures that allowed aircraft to hit the towers than..explain who and how terrorist set charges throughout the towers
butt hats all speculation..what is not speculation is these buildings could not collapse in the manor they did without the use of explosives


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



They don't need a cover, Osama did it, he killed 10,000 people.

I agree, the demo theory is idiotic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I was ready to go to war after the second plane hit, no need for a demo to go to war.

I disagree that they couldn't collapse. Just how strong do you think the steel brackets were?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



At least from a conventional knowledge standpoint. There are, however, other theories as to what occurred.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Aug 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Well, it's really no more idiotic than the NIST conclusions.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


So, you may or may not find the picture?


----------



## numan (Aug 16, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > If they had just demo'd the buildings, they would have killed thousands more.
> ...


One aspect of the operation was providing an hour of terrible fear and suspense,  and then forcing an entire nation to endure traumatic stress, over and over, as the events were re-broadcast endlessly. The nation, in shock, was then subject to hypnotic brainwashing and subliminal conditioning, which was very effective (as can be seen by the idiotic people here who totally accept the "official story."

And don't forget the anthrax terror (funny how that seems to be no longer remembered) which maintained the shock for days and days, and caused many, many people to fear for their _own_ safety.

.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 16, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Explain why, using the laws stated above, you think the lower structure should have halted or stopped the upper section.

This should be interesting.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Translation: I can't defend my previous statement.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Aug 16, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



IThat wasn't the issue at hand, though another point that needs to be addressed. The issue at hand is that you're saying the upper section of the building sheered off into debris on its way down. Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both. You would need an energy input for that to occur and we dont have one. Unless you know something we dont.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



translation: a questionable unsourced static picture is all I can provide


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 16, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Interesting.

Please explain how the building at 3:22 of this video completely collapsed.


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

In a forum built for discussion, I have six replies in this thread from Rat in the Hat, and he writes exactly zero words aggregate in all those replies.  So, I conclude that he/she is a wordless Rat, and some other poster gives me negative reputation for that and comments that I am an idiot.  That poster doesn't even bother to post in the thread.  We have no way to know whether this is the behavior of a 13 year old or just someone that acts like a 13 year old.  This top post asked one simple question; where's the weight bearing down upon the structure that NIST ascribes super force strength?  It clearly does not exist.  Did any of these posters who replied in the negative bother to answer that question?  Nope.  That was the title of the top post, that was the whole point.  How can they reply to the thread and not respond to the question?  I wrote a post about energetic particles and got similar replies.  zero intelligent content, about what you would expect from a 3rd grader playing around on the site instead of doing his/her homework.  Look at that first response; all the guy writes is one word: Aliens.  Is that a serious reply?  The guy might as well just type; I'm too stupid to look at a picture and see whether a giant object is there or not.  I'm not asking them to spot a dime on the ocean floor, we are looking at pictures of the World Trade Center, are the upper floors there or are they already blown to bits?  An honest first grader can answer that question.  So how pathetic is this batch of posters?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Aug 16, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Controlled Demolition vs. Reality - YouTube



   For the sake of argument,they would hardly have started at the bottom if they wanted it to look like an accident.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 16, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



So let's see.

The upper section starts to fall. The first lower floor of the upper section impacts the first top floor of the lower section. Both floors are sheared and become "debris". The mass of the upper floor hasn't changed at all. 

Are you suggesting that some of the mass/weight of the upper section evaporated when the it impacted the lower section? Sorry, but the mass of the upper section INCREASED because you now added the mass of the sheared first floor of the lower section to the descending debris mass. Instead of being just the upper section that is moving downward, it is now the upper section +1 floor.

Isn't this what happened in the video I just posted?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2013)

Days said:


> In a forum built for discussion, I have six replies in this thread from Rat in the Hat, and he writes exactly zero words aggregate in all those replies.  So, I conclude that he/she is a wordless Rat, and some other poster gives me negative reputation for that and comments that I am an idiot.  That poster doesn't even bother to post in the thread.  We have no way to know whether this is the behavior of a 13 year old or just someone that acts like a 13 year old.  This top post asked one simple question; where's the weight bearing down upon the structure that NIST ascribes super force strength?  It clearly does not exist.  Did any of these posters who replied in the negative bother to answer that question?  Nope.  That was the title of the top post, that was the whole point.  How can they reply to the thread and not respond to the question?  I wrote a post about energetic particles and got similar replies.  zero intelligent content, about what you would expect from a 3rd grader playing around on the site instead of doing his/her homework.  Look at that first response; all the guy writes is one word: Aliens.  Is that a serious reply?  The guy might as well just type; I'm too stupid to look at a picture and see whether a giant object is there or not.  I'm not asking them to spot a dime on the ocean floor, we are looking at pictures of the World Trade Center, are the upper floors there or are they already blown to bits?  An honest first grader can answer that question.  So how pathetic is this batch of posters?



*are the upper floors there or are they already blown to bits?*

They're still there. They still weigh 10s of thousands of tons, even if they broke into pieces on the way down. Clear?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 16, 2013)

Days said:


> In a forum built for discussion, I have six replies in this thread from Rat in the Hat, and he writes exactly zero words aggregate in all those replies.  So, I conclude that he/she is a wordless Rat, and some other poster gives me negative reputation for that and comments that I am an idiot.  That poster doesn't even bother to post in the thread.  We have no way to know whether this is the behavior of a 13 year old or just someone that acts like a 13 year old.  This top post asked one simple question; where's the weight bearing down upon the structure that NIST ascribes super force strength?  It clearly does not exist.  Did any of these posters who replied in the negative bother to answer that question?  Nope.  That was the title of the top post, that was the whole point.  How can they reply to the thread and not respond to the question?  I wrote a post about energetic particles and got similar replies.  zero intelligent content, about what you would expect from a 3rd grader playing around on the site instead of doing his/her homework.  Look at that first response; all the guy writes is one word: Aliens.  Is that a serious reply?  The guy might as well just type; I'm too stupid to look at a picture and see whether a giant object is there or not.  I'm not asking them to spot a dime on the ocean floor, we are looking at pictures of the World Trade Center, are the upper floors there or are they already blown to bits?  An honest first grader can answer that question.  So how pathetic is this batch of posters?



I did answer you. It's not there as the intact, structural upper section you are expecting to see. It was turned into a pile of sheared/torn apart components.


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

I'm telling you that the debris were thrown outward in every direction; not bearing down upon the lower sections... and the fact that they are debris in the first place and not a connected skyscraper is the result of demolition.  Was there any weight bearing down upon the top section?  What tore it apart, then?

bottom line: there's no upper section still intact, it is blown to bits in every picture taken from every angle. And yet Todd somehow still sees it.  And you seem to forget that if it is a pile of debris, then it is just dead weight, which never could have collapsed the bottom floors and especially could not have collapsed the center column.

Gravitational collapse was simply impossible, and there is zero evidence of it; we have clear video of demolition.  The upper floors above impact point are blown to bits and there is nothing bearing down upon them.  The lower floors below impact are blown to bits and in short order, there was next to nothing bearing down upon them.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 16, 2013)

Days said:


> I'm too stupid to look at a picture and see whether a giant object is there or not.  I'm not asking them to spot a dime on the ocean floor, we are looking at pictures of the World Trade Center, are the upper floors there or are they already blown to bits?



The floors are still there, just in a different "form".

If I buy all the parts to build a desk and stack them all on a scale, they will weigh the same when I connect them all together and BUILD the desk.

If I drop that stack of pieces onto a scale, it will register the same amount of weight if I drop the desk made from them on it.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 16, 2013)

Days said:


> I'm telling you that the debris were thrown outward in every direction; not bearing down upon the lower sections... and the fact that they are debris in the first place and not a connected skyscraper is the result of demolition.  Was there any weight bearing down upon the top section?  What tore it apart, then?



Explain how the building starting at 3:22 in the video I posted above completely collapsed WITHOUT explosives.

Explain what happened to the upper section of that building beginning at 3:22 in the video I posted above.



Days said:


> bottom line: there's no upper section still intact, it is blown to bits in every picture taken from every angle. And yet Todd somehow still sees it.  And you seem to forget that if it is a pile of debris, then it is just dead weight, which never could have collapsed the bottom floors and especially could not have collapsed the center column.



Bottom line is that the MASS is still there whether or not the structure is intact or not. This has been explained to you over and over.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2013)

Days said:


> I'm telling you that the debris were thrown outward in every direction; not bearing down upon the lower sections... and the fact that they are debris in the first place and not a connected skyscraper is the result of demolition.  Was there any weight bearing down upon the top section?  What tore it apart, then?
> 
> bottom line: there's no upper section still intact, it is blown to bits in every picture taken from every angle. And yet Todd somehow still sees it.  And you seem to forget that if it is a pile of debris, then it is just dead weight, which never could have collapsed the bottom floors and especially could not have collapsed the center column.
> 
> Gravitational collapse was simply impossible, and there is zero evidence of it; we have clear video of demolition.  The upper floors above impact point are blown to bits and there is nothing bearing down upon them.  The lower floors below impact are blown to bits and in short order, there was next to nothing bearing down upon them.



*I'm telling you that the debris were thrown outward in every direction*

Mostly down. Onto the floors below.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 16, 2013)

Days said:


> In a forum built for discussion, I have six replies in this thread from Rat in the Hat, and he writes exactly zero words aggregate in all those replies.  So, I conclude that he/she is a wordless Rat, and some other poster gives me negative reputation for that and comments that I am an idiot.  That poster doesn't even bother to post in the thread.  We have no way to know whether this is the behavior of a 13 year old or just someone that acts like a 13 year old.  This top post asked one simple question; where's the weight bearing down upon the structure that NIST ascribes super force strength?  It clearly does not exist.  Did any of these posters who replied in the negative bother to answer that question?  Nope.  That was the title of the top post, that was the whole point.  How can they reply to the thread and not respond to the question?  I wrote a post about energetic particles and got similar replies.  zero intelligent content, about what you would expect from a 3rd grader playing around on the site instead of doing his/her homework.  Look at that first response; all the guy writes is one word: Aliens.  Is that a serious reply?  The guy might as well just type; I'm too stupid to look at a picture and see whether a giant object is there or not.  I'm not asking them to spot a dime on the ocean floor, we are looking at pictures of the World Trade Center, are the upper floors there or are they already blown to bits?  An honest first grader can answer that question.  So how pathetic is this batch of posters?



Post something intelligent and you will get intelligent replies. What we've seen so far deserves no well thought out replies, just the ridicule you are getting.


----------



## numan (Aug 16, 2013)

'
*How the Towers were Demolished*


*Sorry, Dr. Greening*



> Dr. Greening is, I believe, a chemist so it is only fair to look at this field of study first of all. One of his most well known arguments is that there could have been natural thermite reactions within the tower fires. He lists those ingredients which are necessary for this natural thermite and shows that all of these ingredients were present, so his argument follows that a natural thermite reaction could have taken place. Now I will never claim to be good at chemistry but I know that if I leave margarine, flour, sugar and fruit in a cupboard, when I next open the cupboard I will not find a fruit crumble. Some mechanism is required to convert the ingredients. Similarly, if I take these same ingredients, set them alight and throw them out the window, I still will not get my fruit crumble. The mechanism must have some order. Dr. Greening fails to provide any explanation or narrative for these required mechanisms but rather relies on simply ticking off the ingredients and falling back on the unfailing support of his accolytes. It came as an enormous surprise to me that some educated people have been taken in by this, most notably and recently was Manuel Garcia, in his Counterpunch article. What we are being asked to swallow in place of our absent fruit crumble, is that the tonnes of aluminium aircraft parts were powderised upon impact, thoroughly mixed with tonnes of rust from the towers steel superstructure in exactly the required proportion to form tonnes of thermite, which then hung around for about an hour before distributing itself to key structural points throughout the tower, then igniting in a complex sequence to cause the towers' collapse. It is granted that a good imagination is a requirement for a good scientist, but this just abuses the privilege. Perhaps the name for this natural thermite should instead be intelligent thermite, or intelligent malevolent thermite.


.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Aug 16, 2013)

First of all,I'm not saying whether it was an inside job or not,but there are some things that seem a little odd.
  First being the way the two towers collapsed as if demolished. Then you have the building next to the towers that was on fire but did not get hit by the planes....strangely enough it fell just like the two towers.
Straight down. As if demolished. And there's no way a fire would cause a modern building to collapse.
  Then you look at the Pentagon. In no way does the damage look like it was caused by a jumbo jet.
The areas next to the hole in the building showed no sign of damage where the wings would have hit.

  What are the odds of three buildings collapsing that way? When you look at the picture where you can see the top of the building starting to come down,it's at an angle. How did it correct itself and fall straight down?
   Like I said,I'm not saying it was an inside job. But it does seem a little weird.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 16, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> *How the Towers were Demolished*
> 
> 
> ...



You unwittingly just proved the existence of God.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 16, 2013)

damn, even Eots gave up on this.

sorry new guy, 9/11, shit happens and just b/c you don't understand the explanation, doesn't mean that's not how it happened


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 16, 2013)

So I see there is still no new evidence to support a demo theory....

Carry on.......


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2013)

editec said:


> It is not the obligation of those finding fault with the official account of the collapse to offer explanations for what REALLY IS going on.
> 
> It is enough IF they find VALID flaws in the explanation.
> 
> ...



My personal opinion is that no one knows why the towers collapsed but that is not an answer the US would accept so they came up with the best they could.

But the looney tunes reasons given by the truthers are beyond stupid. Honestly claiming that every floor was set with explosives and that the building was completely blown up? REALLY?

Or that the planes were controlled from some other source? And don't even start on the idiotic claims about the pentagon.


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

where did it go?  It is right in front of you, it is part of that huge debris being blown out in every direction.


----------



## KevinWestern (Aug 16, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> In order for there to be a conspiracy to hide the "real" evidence of the collapse one would need to have complete control over the hundreds of investigators and clean up crews. From 4 different agencies.
> 
> It has been 12 years and not a single person has talked. Not likely with the number of people that would have to be in on the cover up.



Are all of those agencies and clean up crews actively engaged in determining HOW the towers collapsed, or were they instead focused on doing their job in a sort of "silo" - per se?


----------



## KevinWestern (Aug 16, 2013)

Thing is, people think in order for a conspiracy theory to work, "everyone" must be in on it. That's not the case.

Most people would rather get through the day by doing just THEIR job and not ponder the macro implications of their collective work.


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

If you ever stood at the ground level and looked up at the towers, you would appreciate how large they were.  They were immense buildings, and here we are talking about the top 40 stories of Tower Two.  It isn't hiding behind some dust, it is blown to bits... if it had not been blown to bits, it would still be there.  NIST explanation for implosion required those 40 stories to remain intact and bore through the bottom floors; NIST doesn't explain the core snaps that happened at onset of implosion to separate the upper floors from the bottom floors, but that obviously happened, and it is visually recorded by the tilting of the entire upper floor structure.  

No one has ever denied that the debris was thrown out in every direction.  Tell me you didn't go there.  

It takes immense energy to tear apart a truss, and that's what happened.  So, let me ask you this about those tops of the structure, in this case the top 40 floors of Tower Two, what blew them to bits?


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

America has had false flags since the days of the revolution.  Remember the Maine?  We set off the forward magazines of our own battleship to make it look like it was fired upon in the Havana harbor. That's how we started the Spanish/American war.


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

There are very simple answers to those questions.  But before I answer your questions, you should answer the question in the top post.  Can you see an intact 40 story structure bearing down on the lower floors in that picture?  I don't see any intact structure, there's nothing but debris.  What happened to 40 stories of vertical truss?  What blew that to bits?  In 5 seconds time?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2013)

Days said:


> America has had false flags since the days of the revolution.  Remember the Maine?  We set off the forward magazines of our own battleship to make it look like it was fired upon in the Havana harbor. That's how we started the Spanish/American war.



Actually a boiler blew. But don't let that get in the way of a good rant.

As to your claim the debris was not VAPORIZED thus the weight still existed even if your ignorant claim is true. Further that many tons of material if thrown to the sides would have crushed the other buildings. Once again for the slow and delusional the upper stories are obscured by the debris but they are there.

It is physically impossible that someone set explosives on every floor of the twin towers, And that you think it is not is proof you are insane.


----------



## Rozman (Aug 16, 2013)

I am still not buying into this false flag or black ops mission where
the floors in both towers were rigged with explosives.

Nooooo Way.


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

Your opinion was formed by what?  Certainly not the evidence.... because all the visual evidence is demolition, floor by floor, and what exactly is it about demolition that creates your incredulity?  Really?  demolition? as if it isn't done all the time.  What's so incredible about demolition?


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

How long does it take for falling debris to fall to the ground?  Falling debris from the tower collapses in the morning started fires in WTC7 in the afternoon.  So, I guess those debris flew around for 3 hours before landing in the building across the street.  Strange doesn't begin to cover it.  Thousands of file cabinets completely vanished, and yet, the paper inside them survived.  It was damn strange.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 16, 2013)

KevinWestern said:


> Thing is, people think in order for a conspiracy theory to work, "everyone" must be in on it. That's not the case.
> 
> Most people would rather get through the day by doing just THEIR job and not ponder the macro implications of their collective work.



All the debris was taken to Fresh Kills land fill. Where anything larger than a pebble was examined... Nothing that pointed to explosives was found.


----------



## testarosa (Aug 16, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


>



Woot!

Fantasy Unicorn Land Conspiracy Killing


----------



## testarosa (Aug 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Fantasy Unicorn Land Conspiracy Killer Wingman

One, two, three, four, five.  FIVE stars.


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

sorry, that you are dead set on your agenda.  btw, shit happens from food that was eaten... it doesn't pop out until food went in.  Ever heard of GIGO?

NIST did their best to blame the demolition of the towers on a gravitational collapse.  The top post points out that the upper portions of the towers were blown to bits before the bottom portions were half destroyed.  Not much left there to debate.  There was no upper floors to blame the collapse on.  Just look back at the pics taken halfway into the collapse... the upper floors are completely blown to bits.  The new guy doesn't see any wiggle room for that Lie.   Know why they call it the 09/11 Truth movement?  Because the government purely Lied.  Now go ahead, choose to stand with the Liars.

I despise Liars.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2013)

Days said:


> sorry, that you are dead set on your agenda.  btw, shit happens from food that was eaten... it doesn't pop out until food went in.  Ever heard of GIGO?
> 
> NIST did their best to blame the demolition of the towers on a gravitational collapse.  The top post points out that the upper portions of the towers were blown to bits before the bottom portions were half destroyed.  Not much left there to debate.  There was no upper floors to blame the collapse on.  Just look back at the pics taken halfway into the collapse... the upper floors are completely blown to bits.  The new guy doesn't see any wiggle room for that Lie.   Know why they call it the 09/11 Truth movement?  Because the government purely Lied.  Now go ahead, choose to stand with the Liars.
> 
> I despise Liars.



Think of it this way------a whole lot of little things weigh a lot when there are tons of them falling AT THE SAME TIME.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 16, 2013)

dilloduck said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > sorry, that you are dead set on your agenda.  btw, shit happens from food that was eaten... it doesn't pop out until food went in.  Ever heard of GIGO?
> ...



They have a difficult time understanding that a ton of feathers weigh as much as a ton of concrete.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2013)

dilloduck said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > sorry, that you are dead set on your agenda.  btw, shit happens from food that was eaten... it doesn't pop out until food went in.  Ever heard of GIGO?
> ...



We are to believe that A) the floors were all rigged to blow and no one knew, B) that all the upper floors were not only blown up but it Vaporized the tons of material on explosion OR C) the tons of debris all rained down on the city and did absolutely no damage any where.


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

The top post was about old evidence that is right in front of your nose.  The top 40 stories of Tower Two was blown to bits in 5 seconds, by that point in the implosion they only show up as debris.  40 stories blown to bits in 5 seconds and nothing was falling on the upper floors.  If it wasn't demolition, it was something worse than demolition... but, Ollie, you did notice that 40 stories were reduced into falling debris in 5 seconds time?  You can see that much, right?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2013)

Days said:


> The top post was about old evidence that is right in front of your nose.  The top 40 stories of Tower Two was blown to bits in 5 seconds, by that point in the implosion they only show up as debris.  40 stories blown to bits in 5 seconds and nothing was falling on the upper floors.  If it wasn't demolition, it was something worse than demolition... but, Ollie, you did notice that 40 stories were reduced into falling debris in 5 seconds time?  You can see that much, right?



nothing was blown to bits. It fell apart and then it fell down, crushing everything in it's path as it descended.


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

In 2008 they found the explosive; nano thermitic devices, brand new technology in 1999, the only people who had it in 2001 was US military Labs (probably still the case).

You make false statements.  You obviously have an agenda.


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

Okay, it fell to pieces in 5 seconds.

know anything about vertical trusses?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2013)

Days said:


> In 2008 they found the explosive; nano thermitic devices, brand new technology in 1999, the only people who had it in 2001 was US military Labs (probably still the case).
> 
> You make false statements.  You obviously have an agenda.



I'll let you talk with someone else who is not with the FBI-----hang on a sec.


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

So your answer as to what is crushing the lower floors?


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

you call that thinking?  really?

structural failure happens when a superior force overcomes an inferior force.

What was the force acting on the upper floors?  falling for 5 seconds?  anything else?


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

I volunteered Navy for Gulf War I, Todd.  I come from a military family.  My father was drill team commander in the Air Force, the epitome of military snap and precision.  My brother graduated from the Air Force Academy and flew recon in Korea, 18 months of daily battle missions.  

None of that changes what happened to the upper 40 floors of WTC Tower 2; it was blown to bits in 5 seconds as the pics plainly show.  40 stories of vertical truss devolved into flying debris in 5 seconds.


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

other possible additional energies, sure, but not replacing demolition, just in addition to demolition.  The demolition is obvious.


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

IOW, 3-4 seconds after collapse.  Are you suggesting it was a separate event?  I didn't think so.  So what is your point?


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Aug 16, 2013)

Days said:


> it was blown to bits.
> _
> "I can't see any top portion of tower doing this herculean crushing of the entire structure below it. That's because the demolition wave began at points of impact and went in both directions; down and up, and since the towers were struck in the upper portions, the tops were blown to pieces by the time the bottoms were still only half blown to pieces. So, there was no upper tower portion left bearing down upon the lower portions of the tower."_



Sigh...  There was a mythbusters episode about whether a trailer truck filled with birds was lighter if the birds were flying inside the trailer. Think about it.


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Aug 16, 2013)

Days said:


> other possible additional energies, sure, but not replacing demolition, just in addition to demolition.  The demolition is obvious.



Is controlled demolition a likely scenario from the top to the bottom when there is an intervening airplane crash into the building at the 93rd floor and a fire ranging in the upper floors for almost an hour?  

If you were doing a controlled demolition and had placed explosives inside the building so as to achieve such demolition, would you not be concerned that such a catastrophic intervening event might disrupt your ability to proceed with the demolition?  And if you are unable to proceed, the evidence would be left in place allowing for easy discovery.

Think about it.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HZmafy_v8g8]Carl Sagan - Millions, Billions and Trillions. All the illions from Cosmos and in order. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > other possible additional energies, sure, but not replacing demolition, just in addition to demolition.  The demolition is obvious.
> ...



Further the debris was ALL checked for explosive residue, NONE was found. So now we have magical explosives that were magically painted on the supports and beams with no one noticing set off magically and then magically left no residue. I guess the Unicorns blew up the trade towers.


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

14 minute 10 second mark, she completely missed the first collapse, as she was focusing in on the traffic jam in the streets.  19 minutes 43 seconds, she catches the second collapse and the debris is clearly seen hurled far from the building, in fact she catches a massive chunk of concrete that is hurled 100 feet clear of the tower.  The 2nd tower to fall (Tower One) hardly even started with any upper floors to begin with, it was all demolition wave, top to bottom.  There's clearly no upper floors crushing the lower floors, her video proves that.


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

there are also 50 moons orbiting Jupiter.  My guess is the birds maintain their body weight aloft by pushing down on the air, hence the trailer weighed the same if it was sealed tight.  

selah


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

there's nothing more disconnected than government agencies.  Even the agencies that are relying on shared information were disconnected, that's why GWB formed Homeland Security cabinet position... not that it worked.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 16, 2013)

Please tell us days, just what caused the indentions of the sides of the tower just before the collapse...The one estimated to be somewhere around 50 inches....

And no I haven't looked up the link recently....


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

We didn't go to war over Boiler failure, it was the forward magazines, you are turning into a fountain of disinformation.

The debris that were thrown clear of the building are not acting on the lower floors, are they?

Demolition is not impossible work, it happens all the time.  Impossible, would be two 1350 foot skyscrapers coming apart in 12 seconds without demolition.


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Aug 16, 2013)

Days said:


> there are also 50 moons orbiting Jupiter.  My guess is the birds maintain their body weight aloft by pushing down on the air, hence the trailer weighed the same if it was sealed tight.
> 
> selah



Bingo.  Next question

Now did the debris from the collapse weigh:

1.) more;
2.) less; or,
3.) the same

as it did before it was converted into debris when the collapse began?


----------



## testarosa (Aug 16, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > it was blown to bits.
> ...



Shhh!!!!

This is my LOL thread of the day.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2013)

testarosa said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> > Days said:
> ...


were you jumping up and down on 9/11 by any chance ?


----------



## testarosa (Aug 16, 2013)

dilloduck said:


> testarosa said:
> 
> 
> > legaleagle_45 said:
> ...



No.

I was sobbing.

And Bush 43 gave us the strength.  And he drew and walked the line.

And in that single worst attack on our homeland.  He glued us.  And he never backed down.

You can say what you want about 43

But a good man with balls from Texas is a good man with balls from Texas.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2013)

testarosa said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > testarosa said:
> ...




I meant jumping up and down hard enough to possibly cause anything that large to fall.


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

Are you talking about the crumpling of the sides at the impact area?  Do you mean the inward crimp when it folded on the floor just as the collapse began?  Because if you are trying to say that the collapse sequence began with that entire floor collapsing, I would agree with that.  The question is; what caused that floor to collapse?


----------



## testarosa (Aug 16, 2013)

And New Orleans is a crime hell hole (sorry NOLA) but that was local dipass that did that to you.

 Well and Mother Nature.

I would rather have a prezbo with some black and white balls than the bicycle bell ringer NOTHING  pussy bend over boi we have.

Bend over America.  We're taking it the ass for pussyboi.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > it was blown to bits.
> ...



MYTH BUSTERS ..LOL AND THERE CREDIBILITY IS WHAT EXACTLY ???

*
Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng &#8211; Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.*  Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden.*  Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988).*  Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986). * Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000. * Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career.

Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
*"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center].*

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q]THERMITE CUTTING STEEL - VALIDATED - EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

testarosa said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > testarosa said:
> ...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKX6luiMINQ]Bush Jokes about WMD - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 16, 2013)

Days said:


> Are you talking about the crumpling of the sides at the impact area?  Do you mean the inward crimp when it folded on the floor just as the collapse began?  Because if you are trying to say that the collapse sequence began with that entire floor collapsing, I would agree with that.  The question is; what caused that floor to collapse?



Actually the video footage shows it several minutes before the collapse.....


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

retiredgysgt said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> > days said:
> ...


shut the fuck up.. No testing was done for explosive residue  numbnuts..you have no clue what you are babbling about


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> > Days said:
> ...



How many of those rigs were needed and who placed them in what time period? Come on EOTS you know they couldn't be placed in those buildings....


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

*" NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."*

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> retiredgysgt said:
> 
> 
> > legaleagle_45 said:
> ...



Yes it was you lying piece of dog shit.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > legaleagle_45 said:
> ...



the myth buster claim was it took a truck load and still could not melt steel...clearly this is false...and these devices are what a handy man with no budget could do in his back yard...myth buster myths...busted


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 16, 2013)

There was no reason for NIST to test for explosives as there were no explosives..... As most thinking people can see by the total accumulation of evidence... Or lack thereof.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

retiredgysgt said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > retiredgysgt said:
> ...


I posted the quote directly from the NIST web site.. Nipplehead... are you arguing with nist again ?...lol


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

sfc ollie said:


> there was no reason for nist to test for explosives as there were no explosives..... As most thinking people can see by the total accumulation of evidence... Or lack thereof.



see.. At least when I educated Ollie on the facts he retained the information and was smart enough to move the goal post and put a spin on it


----------



## testarosa (Aug 16, 2013)

Here's your next conspiracy thread topic.

Knock yourselves out.

Thread: Hurricane Katrina fake and planned by government srs
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Fake Hurricane Katrina...Coming in 

Hurricane Katrina fake and planned by government srs

>>Anyine else feel this way. I think the government was trying to kill of the blacks in new Orleans so I >>say it's fake? Plus George bush doesn't care about black people wouldn't surprise me brah 

>>agreed. repped


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

NIST, formerly ANSI, is the national standards institute.  The law requires the local police to do the forensics that would have tested for explosives... but Mayor Giuliani ordered the forensics to not be done.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

testarosa said:


> Here's your next conspiracy thread topic.
> 
> Knock yourselves out.
> 
> ...



NICE STRAWMAN DORTHY
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nauLgZISozs]If I Only Had a Brain - The Wizard of Oz (4/8) Movie CLIP (1939) HD - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

okay, so what is your point?  I don't see what you are getting at.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > retiredgysgt said:
> ...



Anyways  RGS for future reference  "There was no reason for NIST to test for explosives as there were no explosives..... As most thinking people can see by the total accumulation of evidence... Or lack thereof."...is the debwunker line you should parrot if the subject of testing for explosive residue should arise


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 16, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhMBjxyH9eg]What National Geographic has to say about thermite and 9/11/2001 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> What National Geographic has to say about thermite and 9/11/2001 - YouTube



YES WE ALREADY DEBUNKED YOUR TERMITE MYTH PAY ATTENTION

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q]THERMITE CUTTING STEEL - VALIDATED - EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED - YouTube[/ame]

MAYBE YOU SHOULD JUST GO BACK TO POSTING PICS OF YOUR BIG HAIR FAKE TAN BOYFRIEND...


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 16, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MusSulcJwSk]Richard Gage 9/11 - Explosive Contradictions! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## testarosa (Aug 16, 2013)

September 11th

Morons: 

As broken down for our 2nd graders.   
*
I. Just. Can't. Make. It. Any. Easier.

Read it twice if you have trouble with 2nd grade reading comp:
*
 What happened that day?

On September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked the Unites States. They hijacked four airplanes in mid-flight. The terrorists flew two of the planes into two skyscrapers at the World Trade Center in New York City. The impact caused the buildings to catch fire and collapse. Another plane destroyed part of the Pentagon (the U.S. military headquarters) in Arlington, Virginia. The fourth plane crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Officials believe that the terrorists on that plane intended to destroy either the White House or the U.S. Capitol. Passengers on the plane fought the terrorists and prevented them from reaching their goal. In all, nearly 3,000 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks.

Who attacked us?

A total of 19 terrorists hijacked the four planes on 9/11. All of the men were from nations in the Middle East. They belonged to a terrorist group called Al Qaeda (ahl KAY-dah), led by Osama bin Laden. Al Qaeda practices an extreme version of the religion of Islam. The group is intensely opposed to the United States and other Western, democratic nations. They are especially against the military presence of these countries in Arab nations. Since the groups creation by bin Laden in the late 1980s, Al Qaeda has helped coordinate and fund numerous bombings worldwide.

Visit scholastic.com for further reading or visit a psychiatrist for help with the paranoia.  psychiatrists are doctors and can prescribe anti conspiracy meds and EVERYTHING!!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > What National Geographic has to say about thermite and 9/11/2001 - YouTube
> ...



Which would have required construction to reach the beams and wires to set off the thermite retard. And remind us how they accomplished that on every floor above the one the plane hit. Remind us how no one would notice anyone planting explosives on all the walls columns and core  pillars.

Remind us how no one in the crew that supposedly painted all those floors has never talked. Remind us how when the claim was made that bits of explosives were discovered in the residue of the materials from the towers it was debunked and made to look foolish.

It is physically impossible that somehow every floor was rigged for explosion. And you know it. Or you really are insane.

Remind us how the Pentagon and the crash in Pennsylvania were faked too. How there really were no terrorists and the planes all landed at their destinations. All the passengers were accounted for and the crews. Because you have supported that claim in the past too.

The upper floors are obscured by the debris thrown up by the collapsing tower crushing the floors beneath them.

Remind us how according to your new pet theory that thousands of tons of materials were sprayed out onto New York when 40 floors were pulverized by explosives and yet there is no debris trail, no multitude of damaged buildings or buried streets.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



stop rambling...focus


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

testarosa said:


> September 11th
> 
> Morons:
> 
> ...



nice story...to bad physics cares not about you little docu-drama


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Answer the questions and quit deflecting. You have stated you support the theory that 40 floors were blown up by rigged explosives. Explain how they were rigged, explain how thermite was placed on the steel beams without construction. Explain how no one on all those floors noticed anything. Further explain how all the lower floors were rigged with explosives as claimed by your new theory. And no one the wiser.

Then if you have time explain how they coordinated to blow each floor in sequence to make it look like the building collapsed.

And while you are at it explain how they knew which floors the planes would hit on both buildings.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



humans have pulled of far greater feats and deceptions than covertly planting wireless explosives...


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 16, 2013)

Days said:


> The top post was about old evidence that is right in front of your nose. The top 40 stories of Tower Two was blown to bits in 5 seconds, by that point in the implosion they only show up as debris. 40 stories blown to bits in 5 seconds and nothing was falling on the upper floors. If it wasn't demolition, it was something worse than demolition... but, Ollie, you did notice that 40 stories were reduced into falling debris in 5 seconds time? You can see that much, right?


The top did not become weightless anti-matter nor was it sucked up into a black hole. It was still matter that weighed exactly the same amoung whether it was 'vaporized' and fell straight down or fell floor by floor like the video I posted that takes 26 minutes to watch shows.


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Aug 16, 2013)

*I can clear it all up for you. Bush and Cheney flew the planes (wearing yarmulkes and Star of David shoulder patches of course) and parachuted just before impact. The 5 dancing Israelis planted the charges. So our government and the Jews did it. There...we killed 2 birds with 1 stone. Simple as that.  *


----------



## testarosa (Aug 16, 2013)

Night night conspiracy unicorns.


----------



## Days (Aug 16, 2013)

2 points:

1) The NIST report required the top portion to pulverize the core.  Even if the upper portion had remained fully intact, it could never have achieved that.  But when the upper portion of floors above the impact area is fragmented in 5 seconds time and blown outward in every direction; NOTHING is bearing down on the core.  See, that's the point in the top post.  Pancaking doesn't destroy the core, so NIST had to fudge some murky explanation that the core was pulverized by the weight of the upper floors, so I'm looking at that and saying it is a worse answer than pancaking; there simply is no structure bearing down on the core, it doesn't exist, the upper floors were blown to bits in 5 seconds time.

2) Then there's also the question of what blew the upper floors to bits in 5 seconds time?  The core was pulverized in those floors also... how?  A truss is the strongest construction design known to architects; what tore apart the (upper) 40 story truss of Tower 2 in just five seconds?  This was 40 stories of Tower 2, which would make it an enormous structure in its own right... reduced to debris in five seconds.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

testarosa said:


> Night night conspiracy unicorns.



this speaks far more of you than anyone else ..


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > The top post was about old evidence that is right in front of your nose. The top 40 stories of Tower Two was blown to bits in 5 seconds, by that point in the implosion they only show up as debris. 40 stories blown to bits in 5 seconds and nothing was falling on the upper floors. If it wasn't demolition, it was something worse than demolition... but, Ollie, you did notice that 40 stories were reduced into falling debris in 5 seconds time? You can see that much, right?
> ...



*yet it never slows...*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5oQ2mTwa9s]NEWTON'S LAWS VS. NIST - 9/11 EXPERIMENTS - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Days (Aug 17, 2013)

There's a 700+ page book out there, written by an ex LA police detective, that is totally devoted to white house documents, which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Cheney spent the entire day in the White House bunker, directing the nation's military.


----------



## eots (Aug 17, 2013)

days said:


> there's a 700+ page book out there, written by an ex la police detective, that is totally devoted to white house documents, which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that cheney spent the entire day in the white house bunker, directing the nation's military.



books ?..maybe if you could put it into an inane picture with a corny caption they would read it...


----------



## Days (Aug 17, 2013)

09/11 was the biggest experiment in mass hypnosis and media distortion of events, ever.

The government had everything in place beforehand, every story prepared in advance, they even reported the collapse of WTC7 30 minutes before it actually collapsed... and if you listen to the story, they tell you what caused the collapse definitively; 30 minutes before it was demolished, while the building was still standing.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_4CroCsLOw"]Live on 09/11[/ame]


----------



## Days (Aug 17, 2013)

mostly outward.  But the question is still not answered; what turned the top 40 stories of Tower 2 into debris in five seconds?  40 floors of vertical truss was blown to bits in five seconds, in mid-air.  

The descent of the roof lines in all 3 WTC collapses was uniform acceleration, which means they fell at exactly the speed of free fall and made no contact with the lower floors.  That's physics, that already settled science.  The upper floors didn't even make contact with the lower floors, the lower floors were taken out from beneath the upper floors faster than the debris from the upper floors demolition could fall to earth.  That's why the debris mass elongates.  Look at how compact it is in the first pic.  Then look how it grows in size vertically.  The lower floors are being blown to bits faster than the upper floors can fall into the exploding lower floors, that forms nice perfect arcs of debris, because there is no contact between the lower floor debris spray with the upper floors debris spray, which continue their graceful arcs outward.  So the upper floors made no contact with the lower floors; they just fell through air - for five seconds - and that was enough to totally rip a 40 story truss apart into a spray of debris?   uhm, you kind of need demolition to help out in accomplishing that.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 17, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Here we go again.  Bush knocked down the towers, right?



Bush or the Jews...or both


----------



## Politico (Aug 17, 2013)

Wow all that to ask this....

*So, let me ask you... how did those towers collapse?*

Planes hit them. Hope that helped.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 17, 2013)

LegalEagle is correct about the weight of the debris demolishing the lower floors.

The construction of the WTC was part of the reason why it collapsed in the way that it did. Each floor was designed to only hold the weight of whatever was on that floor and that load was then transferred to the outside structure which was responsible for holding up the entire building. The impact of the planes destroyed both the integrity of the outer structure and the floor supports. They also knocked the remaining floor supports out of alignment. The fire only had to heat the outer structure to the point where it started to bend under the weight of the upper floors. Since the bending could not go inwards it had to go outwards instead. That bending pulled the remaining floor supports out and that floor then collapsed onto the floor below which wasn't strong enough to support 2 floors which then collapsed onto the floor below. Essentially it was like vertically stacked dominoes from that point onwards.

As far as the "explosions" are concerned the air between each floor was instantly compressed by the collapsing floors and had to go somewhere. It was effectively "blown outwards" by the force of the debris above and took with it whatever wasn't nailed down and closest to the windows. The air pressure was great enough to look like an explosion and the collapsing structural members would have sounded like "explosions" as they were destroyed in milliseconds. 

It was an extremely violent event and it was primarily driven by the sheer weight of the building and the force of gravity after the planes did the initial damage. From a mechanical engineering point of view this is what happens when the strength of materials and the factors of safety are exceeded. If it had been possible to extinguish the fires instead of allowing them to weaken the supports the buildings would have survived the impacts. However putting out a blaze of that magnitude at that level was far more than the sprinkler system could cope with.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 17, 2013)

candycorn said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Here we go again.  Bush knocked down the towers, right?
> ...


Which Jews are you talking about, and what is your evidence?  I'm sure you don't mind sharing it with us.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 17, 2013)

Days said:


> 2 points:
> 
> 1) The NIST report required the top portion to pulverize the core.  Even if the upper portion had remained fully intact, it could never have achieved that.  But when the upper portion of floors above the impact area is fragmented in 5 seconds time and blown outward in every direction; NOTHING is bearing down on the core.  See, that's the point in the top post.  Pancaking doesn't destroy the core, so NIST had to fudge some murky explanation that the core was pulverized by the weight of the upper floors, so I'm looking at that and saying it is a worse answer than pancaking; there simply is no structure bearing down on the core, it doesn't exist, the upper floors were blown to bits in 5 seconds time.
> 
> 2) Then there's also the question of what blew the upper floors to bits in 5 seconds time?  The core was pulverized in those floors also... how?  A truss is the strongest construction design known to architects; what tore apart the (upper) 40 story truss of Tower 2 in just five seconds?  This was 40 stories of Tower 2, which would make it an enormous structure in its own right... reduced to debris in five seconds.



There is no evidence that the "the upper portion of floors above the impact area is fragmented in 5 seconds time and *blown outward in every direction*". The *air* between the pancaking floors is "blown outward" and it contains the smoke and burned debris from the fires. But the remaining concrete and steel is what pancakes down and pulverized the core in the process.

The steel trusses were weakened by the softening effect of the fire and started to bend under the weight. They were never designed to support that weight under those temperatures.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 17, 2013)

Days said:


> So your answer as to what is crushing the lower floors?



Do you know the difference between CRUSHING and SHEARING?

According to what you keep saying, you don't.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 17, 2013)

Days said:


> you call that thinking?  really?
> 
> structural failure happens when a superior force overcomes an inferior force.
> 
> What was the force acting on the upper floors?  falling for 5 seconds?  anything else?



Here's a question for you. Which direction did the upper section shear apart? From top to bottom or bottom to top? Are you suggesting that they rigged the descending upper section with explosives to detonate from the bottom up? As it fell?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 17, 2013)

Days said:


> 2) Then there's also the question of what blew the upper floors to bits in 5 seconds time?  The core was pulverized in those floors also... how?  A truss is the strongest construction design known to architects; what tore apart the (upper) 40 story truss of Tower 2 in just five seconds?  This was 40 stories of Tower 2, which would make it an enormous structure in its own right... reduced to debris in five seconds.



You need to get your facts straight first. 

Where are you getting 40 stories above the impact zones? WTC1's collapse initiated on the 98th floor which gives us 12 floors. WTC2's collapse initiated on the 82nd floor which gives us 28 floors.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 17, 2013)

Days said:


> 40 floors of vertical truss was blown to bits in five seconds, in mid-air.



WRONG! See post above.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 17, 2013)

Days said:


> The descent of the roof lines in all 3 WTC collapses was uniform acceleration, which means they fell at exactly the speed of free fall and made no contact with the lower floors.  That's physics, that already settled science.  The upper floors didn't even make contact with the lower floors, the lower floors were taken out from beneath the upper floors faster than the debris from the upper floors demolition could fall to earth.  That's why the debris mass elongates.



Ah Days...

Are you familiar with the work of femr2? Who has studied and analyzed video of the collapse. I suggest you do that because you are looking foolish. Take a look at his work and tell me what you find.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> LegalEagle is correct about the weight of the debris demolishing the lower floors.
> 
> The construction of the WTC was part of the reason why it collapsed in the way that it did. Each floor was designed to only hold the weight of whatever was on that floor and that load was then transferred to the outside structure which was responsible for holding up the entire building. The impact of the planes destroyed both the integrity of the outer structure and the floor supports. They also knocked the remaining floor supports out of alignment. The fire only had to heat the outer structure to the point where it started to bend under the weight of the upper floors. Since the bending could not go inwards it had to go outwards instead. That bending pulled the remaining floor supports out and that floor then collapsed onto the floor below which wasn't strong enough to support 2 floors which then collapsed onto the floor below. Essentially it was like vertically stacked dominoes from that point onwards.
> 
> ...



To add to the above. For those who don't understand how loads are distributed, here is a good diagram.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 17, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Days? eots? TakeASteBack? Explain how your "violated" laws of physics apply to the building at 3:22 in the video above.

No explanation?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 17, 2013)

Days said:


> In 2008 they found the explosive; nano thermitic devices, brand new technology in 1999, the only people who had it in 2001 was US military Labs (probably still the case).
> 
> You make false statements.  You obviously have an agenda.



7 years after the fact some conspiracy people supposedly tested some dust from supposedly 4 different places and found particles of elements that make up thermite.

There is no way this so called evidence can be admitted into court  because there is no train of custody on the dust. And the amount of so called thermite found in the dust would mean there would have had to have been hundreds of tons to leave behind that much  thermite. 

Please play again......


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Aug 17, 2013)

eots said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> > Days said:
> ...



So you must believe that a truck trailer filled with birds actually weighs less when the birds are flying, right?


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Aug 17, 2013)

eots said:


> the myth buster claim was it took a truck load and still could not melt steel...clearly this is false...and these devices are what a handy man with no budget could do in his back yard...myth buster myths...busted



Err, the Mythbusters never did a show on 9/11. That is another myth.


----------



## Graphix (Aug 17, 2013)

TheOldSchool said:


> Aliens



Sure, why not?


----------



## eots (Aug 17, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



lol...its a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION...people made calculations and precise cuts to structural support removing these supports rapidly and in sequence then it appears as if the top HALF of the building crushes the bottom after it has been weakened and prepared...it sure did not happen from small office fires or random damage that much is for sure


----------



## eots (Aug 17, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > the myth buster claim was it took a truck load and still could not melt steel...clearly this is false...and these devices are what a handy man with no budget could do in his back yard...myth buster myths...busted
> ...



No one said they did...they did one on can thermite cut steel...


----------



## eots (Aug 17, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > legaleagle_45 said:
> ...



lol it  looks like your the majority of your birds have flown well away from the truck horizontally and appear to be heading south for the winter


----------



## eots (Aug 17, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > In 2008 they found the explosive; nano thermitic devices, brand new technology in 1999, the only people who had it in 2001 was US military Labs (probably still the case).
> ...



they did not find the elements...they found unignited nano-thermite


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Aug 17, 2013)

eots said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You mean the one where they showed thermite does cut steel?  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPAYZMzGMwQ]Mythbusters Toast 1/2 Ton of Thermite - YouTube[/ame]

The episode showed that it melted steel even though it did not cleanly cut the SUV in half... which is what Jamie wanted to do.

Obviously you rely upon what other people say rather than looking at the evidence directly because if you watch the episode in question you will see the steel melting and hearing Jamie say "you can see it dripping off the front".  

You like to make claims which are exactly opposite of the truth, huh?


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Aug 17, 2013)

eots said:


> lol it  looks like your the majority of your birds have flown well away from the truck horizontally and appear to be heading south for the winter



Seems like you are a bird brain.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 17, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Days said:
> ...



Thermite was used to cut up the steel debris afterwards. If there hadn't been any in the dust around the site that would have been remarkable.



> Thermite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Thermite reactions have many uses. Thermite is not an explosive; instead it operates by exposing a very small area of metal to extremely high temperatures. Intense heat focused on a small spot can be used to cut through metal or weld metal components together both by melting metal from the components, and by injecting molten metal from the thermite reaction itself.


----------



## numan (Aug 17, 2013)

Days said:


> where did it go?  It is right in front of you, it is part of that huge debris being blown out in every direction.


It does appear that a considerable portion of the mass of the buildings was ejected beyond the perimeter of the buildings, and so would not participate in the collapse of the lower floors.

.


----------



## eots (Aug 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



thermite was not used to cut the debris..


----------



## candycorn (Aug 17, 2013)

S.J. said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



I was kidding man...

Whenever a conspiracy about 9/11 is hatched, almost always the person in charge was either Bush or the Jews or both.  Eventually, Days will appoint an accusing finger at one of the aforementioned parties.  Just wait.


----------



## eots (Aug 17, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > legaleagle_45 said:
> ...



I did not say melt...I said cut..he says the thermite could not 'cleave' through the sheet metal. and failed to cleanly cut implying it could not cut through heavy steel

.Verb
Split or sever (something), esp. along a natural line or grain.

Synonyms
split - slit - splinter - crack

but the fact is it could easily cut through sheet metal  and even thick steel in applied properly and the reason they failed was how they chose to utilize the thermite


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2013)

numan said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > where did it go?  It is right in front of you, it is part of that huge debris being blown out in every direction.
> ...



It seems very difficult to tell to me.  There is so much smoke, how can you determine the amount of debris falling away from the structure?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 17, 2013)

I wonder just how much thermite it took to cause molten steel to run.... And in what concentration, and if it was used to cut the columns how did it all get together in one spot to run?

BTW if you look at more than one video of the collapse, (like not the one the truthers always try to show) you can see the roof line all the way into the smoke and dust...it was intact for quite some distance.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 17, 2013)

And Days nor anyone else has been able to account for the bowing in of the building before the collapse...I suppose some magical thermite caused that too........


----------



## eots (Aug 17, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Days said:
> ...



that is not smoke that is the debris made into a cloud of pulverized concrete


----------



## eots (Aug 17, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> And Days nor anyone else has been able to account for the bowing in of the building before the collapse...I suppose some magical thermite caused that too........



its not magical ..nothing magical about it...account for bowing ?...ti was hit by a plane maybe ?...none of the explains how a small over-all portion of the building crushed not only itself but everything underneath it with almost no Resistance.. NIST report and computer simulation only show their collapse initiation theory then stops...so they do not have to explain the rest of the collapse because there is no way they could NIST simply avoids these issues  by simply claiming that "global collapse" was "inevitable" after the "initiation of collapse."


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 17, 2013)

And no one else can explain them in any other manner that makes any sense........

There were no demolitions...

There is no evidence of demolition, there is no evidence of explosives......

There is no evidence of any damage other than that instigated by the planes crashing into the buildings......


----------



## candycorn (Aug 17, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> And Days nor anyone else has been able to account for the bowing in of the building before the collapse...I suppose some magical thermite caused that too........



C'mon Ollie,

The terrorists were so clever that they hung the bags of thermite from the rafters in the middle of the building to make the beams bow in the middle.  That is what the planes were aiming for and when planes hit them, the bags got heavier, causing the bowing...

Then the bags were ignited, boom, whoop-thay-it-is.  

<sarcasm off>

Sadly, in 12 years, it's among the most plausible conspiracy theories ever penned here.


----------



## eots (Aug 17, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> And no one else can explain them in any other manner that makes any sense........
> 
> There were no demolitions...
> 
> ...



you forgot steel and concrete crushing steel and concrete with...no resistance..no slowing of the collapse...no loss of energy


----------



## numan (Aug 17, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


the Denialists sure like to lie, don't they?

.


----------



## numan (Aug 17, 2013)

'
The essential problem with the Official Conspiracy Theory about the WTC disaster is that the buildings collapsed at free fall speed, or close to it.

Propagandists who deny this simple fact can be refuted by anyone who uses a stopwatch and views the videos.

Without explosives removing the resistance of the lower floors, the collapse could not be at free fall speed -- it would be much slower.

The mass of an intact building below the initial collapse zone was quite large. Before falling debris could  cause the upper portions of an intact building to collapse, it would need to break up the resistance of the building's structural integrity and cause the mass of each floor to accelerate from zero speed to free fall speed. This would absorb energy from the collapse and would lengthen the time of collapse considerably.

On the premise of an intact lower building, it is impossible that the collapse could be as swift as it was. 

Therefore the initial premise is incorrect. The inexorable Law of Conservation of Momentum directly negates the Official Conspiracy Theory.

*All other questions and red herrings are quite irrelevant in the face of this basic fact.*

.


----------



## Days (Aug 17, 2013)

The towers didn't collapse when the planes hit them.  Neither did anyone, except you, attribute their collapse to the jet impacts.  So, No, it didn't help.... and it is totally untrue.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 17, 2013)

Days said:


> The towers didn't collapse when the planes hit them.  Neither did anyone, except you, attribute their collapse to the jet impacts.  So, No, it didn't help.... and it is totally untrue.



You need to learn how to use the quote function so you don't seem like an idiot...


Who are you talking to?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 17, 2013)

eots said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



The steel beams were covered in construction material. it would have required extensive construction work to expose the metal on the floors needed. But no one saw a thing, heard a thing or suspected it at all. Go back to claiming the walls were painted with invisible explosives.


----------



## Days (Aug 17, 2013)

_LegalEagle is correct about the weight of the debris demolishing the lower floors._

*Weight of debris?  Where did the debris come from?  You have to first blow the truss to pieces to attain the debris.  And how exactly could debris fall on top of the center columns when they ran continuous top to bottom?  
*

_The construction of the WTC was part of the reason why it collapsed in the way that it did. Each floor was designed to only hold the weight of whatever was on that floor and that load was then transferred to the outside structure which was responsible for holding up the entire building. The impact of the planes destroyed both the integrity of the outer structure and the floor supports. They also knocked the remaining floor supports out of alignment. The fire only had to heat the outer structure to the point where it started to bend under the weight of the upper floors. Since the bending could not go inwards it had to go outwards instead. That bending pulled the remaining floor supports out and that floor then collapsed onto the floor below which wasn't strong enough to support 2 floors which then collapsed onto the floor below. Essentially it was like vertically stacked dominoes from that point onwards.
_*
The construction of the towers was a vertical truss.  The strongest central cores ever built by mankind was connected by heavy steel beams, the kind found only on maintenance floors in regular skyscrapers (to hold up the heavy elevator equipment) to walls constructed with heavy steel tubes.  All three components far exceeded normal skyscraper design.  The truss is itself a support structure, we hold bridges up with trusses, we add trusses to weak designs to strengthen them.  The WTC towers were ridiculously strong, the architect wanted to provide the first office towers free of the connecting beams in a normal skyscraper design; all the floors at the World Trade Center were completely open space from the center elevators to the windows.  This was achieved by building a vertical truss; every one of those floors were, in fact, stronger than the a-typical maintenance floor located at mid-height and roof levels of normal skyscrapers.  

The impact of the jets punched holes in the curtain wall, and this has been likened to sticking a pencil through a screen, you have to punch a lot of holes before you destroy the " integrity of the outer structure".  Neither did the jet impacts collapse the floors.  There's pictures of people hanging out the gashes of those jet impacts; obviously the floor leading to the holes in the curtain wall had to be intact.  

Tower 2 fire was not a hot fire.  There has been hotter fires in weaker structures, and yet, none have ever collapsed.  The sprinkler system functioned just fine on both towers on 09/11/2001.  Some stairwells had as much as 3 inches of water running down them in spots.  Also, firemen entered the towers and fought the fires, Tower 2 was very close to extinguished when it was demolished... that was what they call a "cold fire", under 1000 degrees.  There was no bending or buckling from a cold fire.  The fire did not collapse any floors, not even the floors of impact... how hot could that steel be if people were hanging onto it with their bare hands?  Not hot at all, warm maybe, but try this, heat your oven to 300 degrees and try hanging onto the steel with your bare hands.  (don't really try that)  The fire was originally hottest at impact, reaching 1500 degrees but that lasted ten minutes, tops.  Fire burns up and then the floors of impact were below the fire, cold enough to hang onto what had been the hottest steel in the fire.  The steel that was in the active fire heats up, but then the fire travels and the steel cools.  No floors collapsed from the fire.

Pancaking only happened at the very onset of demolition.  Very quickly, the demolition wave moved down and up the tower, faster than the floors could drop.  The towers collapsed first on the impact floors... which were already cool floors by the time they pulled the buildings.  Visually, they gave the imagery of having been caused by the fires, when in fact, the fires were stone cold on those floors, with people hanging onto the steel openings with their bare hands. The only loss of structural integrity would have been the holes caused by the jet impact... and the building was designed to handle that.  You are still stuck on the discredited pancaking theory... pancaking didn't happen, if it had happened, the cores and very likely the walls would still be standing, and the floors would still be stacked up, 100+ high; that's the result of pancaking, no one is saying it was pancaking, that was an early Lie from the government meant for consumption by the very foolish.  Pancaking does not reduce a structure to a pile of debris, and the WTC design was not susceptible to pancaking; the floors were too strong.
*


----------



## Days (Aug 17, 2013)

Have you ever studied the list of "terrorists" the FBI produced in 3 days time and never changed.

You are not replying to the thread.  I asked a very specific question aimed at the final cause NIST settled on for collapse.  It points out that the upper towers, which NIST attributed as the cause of collapse, combined with the heated steel, didn't even exist for the bottom 50 stories, which were stone cold.  

Ollie isn't answering that question either.  You two are just jiving and shucking.  I'm asking science and you two are responding with political science.  pure bull shit.


----------



## Days (Aug 17, 2013)

watch my watch
listen to my voice
you are getting sleepy
you will obey my every command
there was no demolition
now wake up

psyops


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Aug 17, 2013)

eots said:


> I did not say melt...I said cut..he says the thermite could not 'cleave' through the sheet metal. and failed to cleanly cut implying it could not cut through heavy steel



Oh no?  I suppose this muct be a plot by the the evil doers who brought down the twin towers... they must have hacked your computer and took over your identity and posted this:



eots said:


> the myth buster claim was it took a truck load and still could not melt steel...clearly this is false...and these devices are what a handy man with no budget could do in his back yard...myth buster myths...busted



Either that or you are an idiot.


----------



## eots (Aug 17, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > I did not say melt...I said cut..he says the thermite could not 'cleave' through the sheet metal. and failed to cleanly cut implying it could not cut through heavy steel
> ...





> Err, the Mythbusters never did a show on 9/11. That is another myth.






> No one said they did...they did one on can thermite cut steel...



my first statement..


----------



## eots (Aug 17, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > legaleagle_45 said:
> ...



thats according to you the electrical engineer at the WTC has  a different opinion I find his to be more credible than yours


----------



## eots (Aug 17, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJy7lhVK2xE]Richard Humenn P.E. - WTC Chief Electrical Design Engineer - AE911Truth.org - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 17, 2013)

Days said:


> Have you ever studied the list of "terrorists" the FBI produced in 3 days time and never changed.
> 
> You are not replying to the thread.  I asked a very specific question aimed at the final cause NIST settled on for collapse.  It points out that the upper towers, which NIST attributed as the cause of collapse, combined with the heated steel, didn't even exist for the bottom 50 stories, which were stone cold.
> 
> Ollie isn't answering that question either.  You two are just jiving and shucking.  I'm asking science and you two are responding with political science.  pure bull shit.



It's been answered so many times. not my fault you don't want to believe fact instead of fiction that can't be proven...

Each floor added weight to what was hitting the floor below. How much per floor? I haven't a clue but not as much as the BS you want to believe....

Please tell us how much of what explosive would have been needed to blow the buildings the way you claim they were blown. And then invent a way to get those explosives in place.


----------



## eots (Aug 17, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever studied the list of "terrorists" the FBI produced in 3 days time and never changed.
> ...



why don't you look at the physics and mechanics involved instead of your imagined scenarios of how hard it might be or what technologies may have been utilized ?...I believe anyone rational doing so would have to conclude at minimum..NIST  did not definitively find the cause of any of the collapses and their findings are highly questionable


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 17, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Days said:
> ...



No where near as questionable as the conspiracy theories that are out there floating around.....


----------



## Days (Aug 17, 2013)

my bad, I should have used 30 stories.


----------



## Days (Aug 17, 2013)

radio operated explosives, they can detonate in any direction at any speed they want.  It was high tech stuff.  They had time to program it to start at the level of impact and send it in both directions... time to spare, actually, as that was likely done in five minutes or less.

here's a question for you...

How was the truss changed into debris?  At any level.  Somewhere had to be the first; how was the core severed, how did the wall fail, to collapse the first level that collapsed?


----------



## Days (Aug 17, 2013)

Just itching to get at it, aren't you?  But this thread was about the engineering conclusions of NIST.

Who was behind 09/11?  My money would be on Cheney and the globalists, all the signers of the document that called for a "Pearl Harbor type event" to galvanize support for a war on terror.


----------



## Days (Aug 17, 2013)

I've posted this picture a dozen times now, the upper floors are blown to bits, there's nothing remaining of the upper floors, just debris blown outward in every direction....


----------



## eots (Aug 17, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Thats a bit of a dodge from the fact NIST failed to find the cause of these collapses..while refusing to consider blast scenarios based solely on subjective assumptions like it would of been to hard..someone would of seen them..it would of been as loud as a shotgun blast..etc


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 17, 2013)

Days said:


> Just itching to get at it, aren't you?  But this thread was about the engineering conclusions of NIST.
> 
> Who was behind 09/11?  My money would be on Cheney and the globalists, all the signers of the document that called for a "Pearl Harbor type event" to galvanize support for a war on terror.



Now, what would be the motivation of wanting a war on terror that we didn't already have? What did "Cheney" expect to happen? And how did he get all this elaborate plan and coverup ready in less than 9 months?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 17, 2013)

Days said:


> I've posted this picture a dozen times now, the upper floors are blown to bits, there's nothing remaining of the upper floors, just debris blown outward in every direction....



And your pictures are dishonest still shots taken after the roofline was obscured by the dust and smoke cloud.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 17, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



All these things are true when you look at a video of a real Demo, you can hear the blasts, you can ask one of the guys what it would have taken to drop a building like that..One of the things they will tell you is they remove the elevator cars...They cut halfway through the columns. It takes time and manpower, and the bigger the job the more time and manpower it will take...yeah, someone would have noticed......


----------



## Days (Aug 17, 2013)

While trailing off into how and where and what types of explosives were used, which is not this thread, you keep affirming that the WTC towers pancaked.  They didn't pancake.


----------



## Days (Aug 17, 2013)

800 lb gorilla doesn't bother you, does it?  

better question:

how was any floor of those 105 story vertical trusses changed into debris to begin with?


----------



## eots (Aug 17, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > I've posted this picture a dozen times now, the upper floors are blown to bits, there's nothing remaining of the upper floors, just debris blown outward in every direction....
> ...



You are being dishonest its not dust and smoke its is pulverized comcrete


----------



## Days (Aug 17, 2013)

politics.  that's what you want to discuss.  You certainly don't understand WTC design and how it failed.  As if discussing why we would want to pull a false flag operation would disprove whether or not we did pull a false flag operation.  Why would we want to get into a war in Vietnam?  But we did.  And there was no naval action in the Gulf of Tomkin, that was a total media hoax.  

This thread points at an obvious major total failure in the NIST analysis of structural failure for the towers.  That's not at all trying to cover the magnitudes of evidence for demolition, neither did I go there.  I wanted to discuss structural failure.  But nobody else came here to do that.  Except eots, but he seems to understand the obvious; only demolition could have resulted in the collapse.


----------



## eots (Aug 17, 2013)

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



the wtc electrical engineer  did not think the logistics of reaching the elevators would be all that difficult.there are reports of construction activities before 9/11   controlled demolitions are not done with stealth in mind there are other techniques explosives and incendiaries that could be utilized


----------



## eots (Aug 17, 2013)

At 439 ft. tall Hudson&#8217;s is the tallest building ever imploded, eclipsing the record  held by CDI since 1975 with the felling of the *361 ft. tall *Mendez Caldiera Building in Sao Palo, Brazil.


The wtc 7 was a much taller building than the tallest building taken down with controlled demolition  at 576 feet high...nothing close to the twin towers 1300 has ever been demoed..it seems likely that new technology would have been utilized


----------



## Days (Aug 17, 2013)

eots answer tells you where it went and also you can look at next day pics of ground zero... these guys claim that the debris fell straight down and managed to pulverized steel concrete structures and shred thick steel beams from the structure, so where is this pile of debris that weighs so much?  Roughly one story of it actually landed on the WTC tower footprints, that's about 1/15th of what fell down.  So when I say most of it was thrown outward, I'm actually making an understatement, damn near all of it was either thrown outward or pulverized into dust... by the demolition.


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

> eots answer tells you where it went and also you can look at next day pics of ground zero... these guys claim that the debris fell straight down and managed to pulverized steel concrete structures and shred thick steel beams from the structure, so where is this pile of debris that weighs so much? Roughly one story of it actually landed on the WTC tower footprints, that's about 1/15th of what fell down. So when I say most of it was thrown outward, I'm actually making an understatement, damn near all of it was either thrown outward or pulverized into dust... by the demolition.



*Indeed..*


----------



## Days (Aug 18, 2013)

Well, you almost got the story right.  Actually, we are talking about a Phd. on staff at BYU, who looked at a whole lot of dust from the streets of NYC, because he examined the dust under an electron microscope and found the chemical signature of explosives early, early on.  So they searched for years for traces of the explosive.  Nano technology doesn't leave any traces, it totally consumes itself; we are talking grains the size of single molecules, this is atomic chemistry, very few people were capable of tracking this down... even fewer were capable of building the explosives.  It wasn't until 2008 that they wrote the paper on the four traces that they manage to discover over a five year search; remember, they have to find it under an electron microscope; a needle in a haystack would be infinitely easier to find.  You scratched together enough of a smear of the account to tell me that you know what the real story is; and I notice you totally hid the publication in the scientific journal that proved the explosive used was nano-thermite.  So these were nuclear devices, military hardware, that's what produced all those radiation cancers in the ground zero workers.  40,000 of the 50,000 workers at ground zero succumbed to radiation related deaths in the decade after 2001.  Ten times as many as died in the collapse of the towers.  

And your little dity about no train of custody is a joke; nano thermite has exactly one source of production; US military labs.   Like I said, You make false statements. You obviously have an agenda.


----------



## Days (Aug 18, 2013)

Actually, blow torches were used.  

The thermitic reaction is a chemical reaction, it produces chemicals, aluminum being one of them, I think, it also produces oxygen, which would account for the fires lasting so long nine floors below ground level where they cut the footers with thermitic devices.


----------



## Days (Aug 18, 2013)

You think those supports on the walls that were steel stock sticking through the walls and holding up the floor trusses in sheer, were sheared off, don't you?  I saw that red circle in your first post, pretending there's something weak about steel bar in sheer with a steel wall; in reality, what you are saying is the steel bar was cut through by what exactly?  falling debris?  And where did the debris come from?  You need explosives to make those cuts, it isn't so easy to shear steel bar.  All you have done is returned to the pancake theory except now instead of pancaking resulting in pancaking, it results in demolition; because that's what reduces a steel structure to a bazillion pieces of debris; demolition does that... not pancaking.  At any rate, a vertical truss doesn't pancake.  And the WTC was built with the highest grade steel known to construction, so it didn't melt from office fires, and the four inch thick steel that was pile driven 80 feet into bedrock never had contact with the office fires, yet that steel was reduced to molten pools of liquid metal, even though it was nine floors below street level (over 100 feet below ground).  Obviously they cut the footers with thermitic devices; and they did a thorough job, WTC had a lot of footers and every single one was cut and melted.  Demolition always cuts the footers, but they are a tad out of reach of normal office fires.  WTC had all the results of demolition; the towers were blown to bits, not just collapsed, the footers were all cut, explosives throughout the structure performed the softening up job prior to pulling the building, and the towers fell at free fall acceleration.  This top post was just pointing out that the NIST analysis called for an intact upper floors (tops) to perform both shearing of the walls and pulverization of the core; and that never existed.  Again, the core ran from ground level to rooftop, it was seamless, and it was enormously thick, enormously strong, how exactly could it be pulverized by falling debris?  Objects falling down do not fall sideways, the most you could hope for would be friction from sliding against the core, there is no shearing from falling debris.  How exactly was the first shear performed?  The cores were snapped in half BEFORE the towers collapsed; what sheared the cores and kicked the tops out at angles?  That's exactly what shape charges on the side of the core would do.  Without demolition, how could you possibly snap the core in half and kick the whole top out at an angle at the ONSET of the collapse sequence?  (maybe a giant angel swung his sword at WTC?)  I don't think God had it in for the towers, which leaves exactly one other possible cause of destruction; explosives.  When a building or structure is thoroughly demolished, chances are pretty good that the demolition was probably caused by explosives carefully placed, logistically engineered and timed by experts in the field of demolition.


----------



## editec (Aug 18, 2013)

Assume, Days that all this is provable in a court of law.

Who do you suppose is going to be charged and by whom will those charges be levied?

The above questions might very well explain why many Americans simple do not care about this issue.

Because even if you are 100% correct, we know that NOTHING will be done about it since it is our GOVERNMENT (and I do not mean JUST _the Republicans_) who are responsible for it.

If what you are saying is true?

There is absolutely no chance anybody will ever be charged for this treasonous crime and we KNOW it.

_NONE dare call it conspiracy, amigo.
_


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Oh eots. What a tangled web you've woven yourself into.

You forget what all your thruther brethren believe eots. There was a FOS (Factor of Safety) built into the towers correct? And as long as the towers stayed upright, the FOS was not overcome. Remember? According to you and all the other truthers, structural engineers DESIGN buildings to resist collapse in EVERY scenario.

After they supposedly weakened the structure I am showing you at 3:22 in the video, it is still standing right? The lower section still supports the upper section. Isn't that the argument? That means the FOS was not overcome. 

That's what your buddy TakeAStepBack is trying to say. How was enough force/energy created to destroy the upper and lower sections COMPLETELY WITHOUT explosives if the FOS of safety was still high enough AFTER the structure was weakened to not only support the upper section, but the entire structure. 

Let's see you talk yourself out of this one.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Days said:
> ...



No, they found paint.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 18, 2013)

Days said:


> I've posted this picture a dozen times now, the upper floors are blown to bits, there's nothing remaining of the upper floors, just debris blown outward in every direction....



Why not show the image at the moment of structural failure instead?






The collapse is clearly occurring along the impact lines where the 767 severed the outer curtain walls. Furthermore you can clearly see that "the upper portion of floors above the impact area is fragmented in 5 seconds time and blown outward in every direction" did not happen at all. It is still largely intact as the damaged curtain and central core fail.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Days said:
> ...



Another self-debunking.

If they used thermite, what supposedly EJECTED the beams and chunks of concrete Days keeps talking about? Thermite doesn't explode, it BURNS.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



It's not just "pulverized concrete". There was a shitload of gypsum wallboard and ceiling tiles. surrounding the core. I suppose you've never worked with wallboard eots?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And Days nor anyone else has been able to account for the bowing in of the building before the collapse...I suppose some magical thermite caused that too........
> ...



Another lie. It did not "crush" the structure below. It tore it apart. Do you know the difference between shearing and crushing? Obviously not.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And no one else can explain them in any other manner that makes any sense........
> ...



As I've said before, you need to study the work of femr2. What you're saying is pure ignorance because you haven't looked any further than what hear from other truthers.

If there wasn't resistance, why didn't the towers totally collapse in 9 seconds?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 18, 2013)

Days said:


> The towers didn't collapse when the planes hit them.  Neither did anyone, except you, attribute their collapse to the jet impacts.  So, No, it didn't help.... and it is totally untrue.



Now for your garbage.

Nobody is saying it was just plane impacts. It was the plane impacts and the resultant fire. Why do you keep getting stuff wrong? Is that why your view is wrong? Because it's based on incorrect facts?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 18, 2013)

Days said:


> my bad, I should have used 30 stories.



It's still "you're bad". It's not 30 stories. It was 12 and 28.

Again, get your shit straight. You look stupid when backing your claims with incorrect information.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 18, 2013)

Days said:


> I've posted this picture a dozen times now, the upper floors are blown to bits, there's nothing remaining of the upper floors, just debris blown outward in every direction....



How much of that was the gypsum planking and ceiling tiles?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 18, 2013)

Days said:


> 800 lb gorilla doesn't bother you, does it?
> 
> better question:
> 
> how was any floor of those 105 story vertical trusses changed into debris to begin with?



Do you understand the difference between a CONNECTION and an actual column/beam? a connection is the weakest link. A series of connections are used to support the design weight of the building when at 100% structural integrity. They are not designed to withstand 28 or 12 floors worth of gravity driven force. 

Something had to give. It was the connections.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 18, 2013)

Days said:


> You think those supports on the walls that were steel stock sticking through the walls and holding up the floor trusses in sheer, were sheared off, don't you?  I saw that red circle in your first post, pretending there's something weak about steel bar in sheer with a steel wall; in reality, what you are saying is the steel bar was cut through by what exactly?  falling debris?  And where did the debris come from?  You need explosives to make those cuts, it isn't so easy to shear steel bar.  All you have done is returned to the pancake theory except now instead of pancaking resulting in pancaking, it results in demolition; because that's what reduces a steel structure to a bazillion pieces of debris; demolition does that... not pancaking.  At any rate, a vertical truss doesn't pancake.  And the WTC was built with the highest grade steel known to construction, so it didn't melt from office fires, and the four inch thick steel that was pile driven 80 feet into bedrock never had contact with the office fires, yet that steel was reduced to molten pools of liquid metal, even though it was nine floors below street level (over 100 feet below ground).  Obviously they cut the footers with thermitic devices; and they did a thorough job, WTC had a lot of footers and every single one was cut and melted.  Demolition always cuts the footers, but they are a tad out of reach of normal office fires.  WTC had all the results of demolition; the towers were blown to bits, not just collapsed, the footers were all cut, explosives throughout the structure performed the softening up job prior to pulling the building, and the towers fell at free fall acceleration.  This top post was just pointing out that the NIST analysis called for an intact upper floors (tops) to perform both shearing of the walls and pulverization of the core; and that never existed.  Again, the core ran from ground level to rooftop, it was seamless, and it was enormously thick, enormously strong, how exactly could it be pulverized by falling debris?  Objects falling down do not fall sideways, the most you could hope for would be friction from sliding against the core, there is no shearing from falling debris.  How exactly was the first shear performed?  The cores were snapped in half BEFORE the towers collapsed; what sheared the cores and kicked the tops out at angles?  That's exactly what shape charges on the side of the core would do.  Without demolition, how could you possibly snap the core in half and kick the whole top out at an angle at the ONSET of the collapse sequence?  (maybe a giant angel swung his sword at WTC?)  I don't think God had it in for the towers, which leaves exactly one other possible cause of destruction; explosives.  When a building or structure is thoroughly demolished, chances are pretty good that the demolition was probably caused by explosives carefully placed, logistically engineered and timed by experts in the field of demolition.









*Fucking sockpuppet.*






*[/unsubscribe]*


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 18, 2013)

Days said:


> eots answer tells you where it went and also you can look at next day pics of ground zero... these guys claim that the debris fell straight down



Wrong. The perimeter columns were sheared from the floor truss connection and pushed OUTWARD. The the concrete, core columns, elevator motors, electrical panels, etc., fell downward. What about the hat truss? Are you familiar with that?



Days said:


> and managed to pulverized steel concrete structures and shred thick steel beams from the structure,



It's SHEAR, not SHRED.



Days said:


> so where is this pile of debris that weighs so much?  Roughly one story of it actually landed on the WTC tower footprints, that's about 1/15th of what fell down.  So when I say most of it was thrown outward, I'm actually making an understatement, damn near all of it was either thrown outward or pulverized into dust... by the demolition.



One story??? You mean only 12 feet of debris was present at the footprints of ground zero??? Goes this look like 12 feet, one story to you? The debris is up the the bottom of the "forked" perimeter columns. Do you know what floor the "forks" started Days? Between the 5th and 6th floors. That's about 56'! Again, you keep getting shit wrong. Not to mention that some of the debris fell into the 5 sublevels below.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 18, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > and the towers fell at free fall acceleration.
> ...


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 18, 2013)

Days said:


> You think those supports on the walls that were steel stock sticking through the walls and holding up the floor trusses in sheer, were sheared off, don't you?  I saw that red circle in your first post, pretending there's something weak about steel bar in sheer with a steel wall; in reality, what you are saying is the steel bar was cut through by what exactly?  falling debris?  And where did the debris come from?  You need explosives to make those cuts, it isn't so easy to shear steel bar.  All you have done is returned to the pancake theory except now instead of pancaking resulting in pancaking, it results in demolition; because that's what reduces a steel structure to a bazillion pieces of debris; demolition does that... not pancaking.  At any rate, a vertical truss doesn't pancake.  And the WTC was built with the highest grade steel known to construction, so it didn't melt from office fires, and the four inch thick steel that was pile driven 80 feet into bedrock never had contact with the office fires, yet that steel was reduced to molten pools of liquid metal, even though it was nine floors below street level (over 100 feet below ground).  Obviously they cut the footers with thermitic devices; and they did a thorough job, WTC had a lot of footers and every single one was cut and melted.  Demolition always cuts the footers, but they are a tad out of reach of normal office fires.  WTC had all the results of demolition; the towers were blown to bits, not just collapsed, the footers were all cut, explosives throughout the structure performed the softening up job prior to pulling the building, and the towers fell at free fall acceleration.  This top post was just pointing out that the NIST analysis called for an intact upper floors (tops) to perform both shearing of the walls and pulverization of the core; and that never existed.  Again, the core ran from ground level to rooftop, it was seamless, and it was enormously thick, enormously strong, how exactly could it be pulverized by falling debris?  Objects falling down do not fall sideways, the most you could hope for would be friction from sliding against the core, there is no shearing from falling debris. * How exactly was the first shear performed?  The cores were snapped in half BEFORE the towers collapsed; what sheared the cores and kicked the tops out at angles?  *That's exactly what shape charges on the side of the core would do.  Without demolition, how could you possibly snap the core in half and kick the whole top out at an angle at the ONSET of the collapse sequence?  (maybe a giant angel swung his sword at WTC?)  I don't think God had it in for the towers, which leaves exactly one other possible cause of destruction; explosives.  When a building or structure is thoroughly demolished, chances are pretty good that the demolition was probably caused by explosives carefully placed, logistically engineered and timed by experts in the field of demolition.



All of these questions can be answered WITHOUT the need for any demolition.



> "How exactly was the first shear performed?"



The initial shearing of the floor supports were caused by the impacts. The 767's have a dry weight of 124 tons and a 156' wingspan. The images of the impact sites clearly show that they outer curtain walls have been massively compromised which means that there are no outer supports for the floors at that level and all of the upper floors are bearing down on those wide gaps.






Close up of one of the impact points.









> "  The cores were snapped in half BEFORE the towers collapsed; what sheared the cores  "



Concrete can bear massive VERTICAL loads but it is brittle. The impact of 140 tons traveling at 400+ mph would be like an axe hitting a tree. The concrete core would have been forced to "flex" at the point of impact. The near side would have compressed while the far side would have "stretched". Under those stresses the integrity of the concrete core would have been destroyed. It would have developed shearing stress cracks from the impacts. The reinforcement bars (rebar) would have kept the basic shape but the integrity was gone. The impact would also have torn away the floor supports that were anchored to the concrete core on the impact side. On the far side the concrete they were in would be compromised by the "flexing"

So with up to 40% of the floor supports destroyed and/or compromised by the initial impact we then have the fire. The damage to the core probably took out the water pipes too. The images of the fire show an intensity that would have been more than enough to soften the steel floor trusses enough to make them sag and pull away from the core and curtain supports. 






The same fires would have been weakening the remaining curtain wall supports that had not already been compromised by the impact but which were now having to carry the entire weight of the upper floors. At this point they are at the limit of their own point of failure. 



> "and kicked the tops out at angles?"



The inner core has stress fractures, the outer curtain wall is severely damaged and there is a raging out of control fire that is weakening the inside floor trusses. All it would take at that point is for a single additional factor for it start the collapse. When the floor immediately above the fire sagged to the point where the remaining supports failed it would have dropped onto the floor below and this relatively small shift in the load bearing down on the remaining supports would have been enough to trigger the entire collapse. 

Granted it is impossible to prove following the utter destruction that followed but it fits all of the known damage and does not require any explosives or demolition.

The major problem with the "thermite/demolition" conspiracy is that the explosives had to be on the exact floors that were impacted and still functional after spending an hour or so in a raging fire.


----------



## Days (Aug 18, 2013)

In theory, this is possible, if the jet's impact got lucky.  But in reality, both cores survived the jet impacts.  Which was pretty easy for Tower Two since the jet flew the corner of Tower Two and missed the core.  And while there's little doubt that the jet impacts took out floor supports where the jet punched holes in the steel curtain wall (they took out the entire wall) yet those holes did not result in any floor collapses.

The buildings were designed to withstand jet impacts and they held up beautifully.  It took demolition to bring them down.


----------



## Days (Aug 18, 2013)

No, that's your false information, all three buildings fell at free fall speeds and that's widely available on the internet, someone has it posted in this thread.  You are posting Lies, that's all.  And you are labeling the truth I'm posting as "garbage information".  So, you have an agenda, you are out to push, which is to smear the truth with disinformation.  You aren't discussing anything, neither are you engaged in discussion, you are just attacking the truth with your own bag of Lies and disinformation.  I've patiently answered as many of your false posts as I could and you respond by calling the truth a bunch of garbage.  So you have an agenda to discredit the truth in this area.  I've noticed a couple of your cohorts are busy tossing negative reputation at my posts in this thread, so they are attacking like jackals while you are attacking with false debate, but the group of you obviously came here to attack the thread, not discuss it.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 18, 2013)

Days said:


> No, that's your false information, all three buildings fell at free fall speeds and that's widely available on the internet, someone has it posted in this thread.  You are posting Lies, that's all.  And you are labeling the truth I'm posting as "garbage information".  So, you have an agenda, you are out to push, which is to smear the truth with disinformation.  You aren't discussing anything, neither are you engaged in discussion, you are just attacking the truth with your own bag of Lies and disinformation.  I've patiently answered as many of your false posts as I could and you respond by calling the truth a bunch of garbage.  So you have an agenda to discredit the truth in this area.  I've noticed a couple of your cohorts are busy tossing negative reputation at my posts in this thread, so they are attacking like jackals while you are attacking with false debate, but the group of you obviously came here to attack the thread, not discuss it.



From what I remember of the various 9/11 threads I've participated in here, even most of the inside job theorists don't claim the buildings fell at free fall speed for the entirety of their collapses.  I think it's usually a claim of free fall speed for a portion of the collapse.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 18, 2013)

Days said:


> In theory, this is possible, if the jet's impact got lucky.  But in reality, both cores survived the jet impacts.  Which was pretty easy for Tower Two since the jet flew the corner of Tower Two and missed the core.  And while there's little doubt that the jet impacts took out floor supports where the jet punched holes in the steel curtain wall (they took out the entire wall) yet those holes did not result in any floor collapses.
> 
> The buildings were designed to withstand jet impacts and they held up beautifully.  It took demolition to bring them down.



Your "demolition theory" has no credibility because it requires far too many things to happen without anyone being aware of them. We have the hard evidence of exactly how much damage a 140 ton aircraft flying at 400+ mph can do when it hits a MASSIVELY REINFORCED CONCRETE structure and blows a hole all the way through it.






The concrete cores of the WTC towers were not reinforced in the same way that the Pentagon had been recently upgraded to withstand. If the impact could make a hole that huge in the Pentagon wall the WTC concrete cores would have been damaged just as severely if not even more so. 

I have provided a completely plausible scenario based upon all of the available evidence that demonstrates how the impacts followed by the fires were able to bring down the buildings. You have provided no credible evidence of any demolition or explosives. 

The onus is on you to explain how the explosives ended up on the exact impact floors, how they were not damaged by the impacts, how they survived the raging fires and then how they were set off in an area crawling with police and firefighters with thousands of witness and cameras rolling non stop.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 18, 2013)

Days said:


> No, that's your false information, all three buildings fell at free fall speeds and that's widely available on the internet, someone has it posted in this thread.



MY false information? LMAO! No, it's YOUR false information. It is PROVEN that the towers totally collapsed in almost DOUBLE the time it would have taken in free fall. 



Days said:


> You are posting Lies, that's all.  And you are labeling the truth I'm posting as "garbage information".



I'm posting lies? Let's see what lies you've posted so far.

1. 40 stories worth of the upper section was destroyed. _Wrong, it was 28 and 12._
2. The towers fell at free fall acceleration. _Wrong, the collapsed in almost DOUBLE the time for free fall._
3. There was one story (12 feet) worth of debris within the tower footprints. _Wrong, there was almost 56' worth of debris in the footprints, proven by photos. That's more than four times what you claim._

What other garbage do you have to provide us?



Days said:


> So, you have an agenda, you are out to push, which is to smear the truth with disinformation.  You aren't discussing anything, neither are you engaged in discussion, you are just attacking the truth with your own bag of Lies and disinformation.  I've patiently answered as many of your false posts as I could and you respond by calling the truth a bunch of garbage.  So you have an agenda to discredit the truth in this area.  I've noticed a couple of your cohorts are busy tossing negative reputation at my posts in this thread, so they are attacking like jackals while you are attacking with false debate, but the group of you obviously came here to attack the thread, not discuss it.



Right. You post bullcrap information that we prove wrong, and WE'RE the ones with agendas.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 18, 2013)

Days said:


> The buildings were designed to withstand jet impacts and they held up beautifully.  It took demolition to bring them down.



Correct. They DID hold up to the jet impacts. It was the fire that further weakened the reaming components to fail.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2013)

Days said:


> In theory, this is possible, if the jet's impact got lucky.  But in reality, both cores survived the jet impacts.  Which was pretty easy for Tower Two since the jet flew the corner of Tower Two and missed the core.  And while there's little doubt that the jet impacts took out floor supports where the jet punched holes in the steel curtain wall (they took out the entire wall) yet those holes did not result in any floor collapses.
> 
> The buildings were designed to withstand jet impacts and they held up beautifully.  It took demolition to bring them down.



*yet those holes did not result in any floor collapses.*

Sure they did. It took a while.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> > eots answer tells you where it went and also you can look at next day pics of ground zero... these guys claim that the debris fell straight down and managed to pulverized steel concrete structures and shred thick steel beams from the structure, so where is this pile of debris that weighs so much? Roughly one story of it actually landed on the WTC tower footprints, that's about 1/15th of what fell down. So when I say most of it was thrown outward, I'm actually making an understatement, damn near all of it was either thrown outward or pulverized into dust... by the demolition.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Concrete is brittle and shatters upon impact. When you have thousands of tons of steel falling from 1300' it will pulverize concrete into dust. The air pressure on the lower floors as they collapsed was more than enough to blow that concrete dust outwards since it had nowhere else to go. There were no explosives and no demolition. There is no evidence of any explosives or demolition either. There is evidence of massive impacts capable of destroying the integrity of both the core and the curtain walls. There is evidence of a raging fires fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel. When metal under pressure is heated it deforms. Those are irrefutable reproducible facts. There are no facts for any "demolition".


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > eots answer tells you where it went and also you can look at next day pics of ground zero... these guys claim that the debris fell straight down and managed to pulverized steel concrete structures and shred thick steel beams from the structure, so where is this pile of debris that weighs so much? Roughly one story of it actually landed on the WTC tower footprints, that's about 1/15th of what fell down. So when I say most of it was thrown outward, I'm actually making an understatement, damn near all of it was either thrown outward or pulverized into dust... by the demolition.
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > The buildings were designed to withstand jet impacts and they held up beautifully.  It took demolition to bring them down.
> ...



so office fires brought down the towers as well as building 7...yet firefighters made it to the 79th floor reporting 2 small fires sec before the collapse


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Days said:
> ...



Did you miss the pictures of the flames and towering plumes of black smoke pouring out of the buildings from the impact sites?


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



the top photo is enhanced anyone can see that.. the other two show smoke


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > No, that's your false information, all three buildings fell at free fall speeds and that's widely available on the internet, someone has it posted in this thread.  You are posting Lies, that's all.  And you are labeling the truth I'm posting as "garbage information".  So, you have an agenda, you are out to push, which is to smear the truth with disinformation.  You aren't discussing anything, neither are you engaged in discussion, you are just attacking the truth with your own bag of Lies and disinformation.  I've patiently answered as many of your false posts as I could and you respond by calling the truth a bunch of garbage.  So you have an agenda to discredit the truth in this area.  I've noticed a couple of your cohorts are busy tossing negative reputation at my posts in this thread, so they are attacking like jackals while you are attacking with false debate, but the group of you obviously came here to attack the thread, not discuss it.
> ...



Nist coincides to fee-fall occurring on building 7


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Days said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

* Syham Sunder of NIST can explain it for you*


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C15KxDhqxNc]9/11 Debunked; World Trade Center- no Free-Fall speeds? Let's ask Shyam Sunder.. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

'although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have *no evidence* that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have."
OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## Days (Aug 18, 2013)

All three buildings fell at free fall speeds.  That's an honest assessment of how they fell.  Any truth can be twisted.  It's possible to attack any idea, when I was in college a fellow student in my integral calculus class showed me the proof that 1+1=3.  It was a valid proof.  But it was also a Lie.  If you come here and argue that 100 + 100 = 300 because of the proof that 1+1=3, you would be intellectually dishonest.  And when you come here and call all the truths I've presented "garbage information" while presenting nothing but Lies, distortion, and disinformation that they obviously know are exactly that, that is intellectual dishonesty at its worse.  Perhaps they are paid to do so or perhaps they have corrupt minds, no matter, they are still Lying and attacking the truth.  I posted a thread on radiation levels during the Apollo flights and nobody showed up.  I posted this thread and a pack of jackals pops in and starts ripping flesh.  You don't think that's terribly obvious to me?  This isn't unique behavior, it has accompanied 09/11 postings on the internet for 10 years.


----------



## Days (Aug 18, 2013)

The thread is there for anyone to read and determine who is posting disinformation and twisting the truth.  All you are doing is validating that you came here for the express intent of attacking my posts... you might as well admit that much... it's the only posting you have here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2013)

Days said:


> All three buildings fell at free fall speeds.  That's an honest assessment of how they fell.  Any truth can be twisted.  It's possible to attack any idea, when I was in college a fellow student in my integral calculus class showed me the proof that 1+1=3.  It was a valid proof.  But it was also a Lie.  If you come here and argue that 100 + 100 = 300 because of the proof that 1+1=3, you would be intellectually dishonest.  And when you come here and call all the truths I've presented "garbage information" while presenting nothing but Lies, distortion, and disinformation that they obviously know are exactly that, that is intellectual dishonesty at its worse.  Perhaps they are paid to do so or perhaps they have corrupt minds, no matter, they are still Lying and attacking the truth.  I posted a thread on radiation levels during the Apollo flights and nobody showed up.  I posted this thread and a pack of jackals pops in and starts ripping flesh.  You don't think that's terribly obvious to me?  This isn't unique behavior, it has accompanied 09/11 postings on the internet for 10 years.



*All three buildings fell at free fall speeds. *

No they didn't.


----------



## Days (Aug 18, 2013)

sorry, yes, they did.  The roof lines accelerated at free fall speed.  fact.

You are another one, not being honest, not seeking open discussion of how WTC design failed, just seeking to attack any opinion that doesn't match your own.  You came into this thread with your agenda, distorting the truth, trying to ply a completely false view of the engineering.  You pretend that the WTC design was inferior according to your disinformation.  I replied it was a vertical truss, it was the strongest skyscraper ever built, all of which is true, and all of which you are attacking and trying to discredit.  You even joined ernie in tossing negative reputation at posts in your sick attack on the truth they presented.

I've been a preacher for over 30 years.  I can discern the spirit of your attack.  It isn't hard.  You don't make it hard.  You make it easy.  If it attacks like a jackal, it is the spirit of a jackal.


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

toddsterpatriot said:


> days said:
> 
> 
> > all three buildings fell at free fall speeds.  That's an honest assessment of how they fell.  Any truth can be twisted.  It's possible to attack any idea, when i was in college a fellow student in my integral calculus class showed me the proof that 1+1=3.  It was a valid proof.  But it was also a lie.  If you come here and argue that 100 + 100 = 300 because of the proof that 1+1=3, you would be intellectually dishonest.  And when you come here and call all the truths i've presented "garbage information" while presenting nothing but lies, distortion, and disinformation that they obviously know are exactly that, that is intellectual dishonesty at its worse.  Perhaps they are paid to do so or perhaps they have corrupt minds, no matter, they are still lying and attacking the truth.  I posted a thread on radiation levels during the apollo flights and nobody showed up.  I posted this thread and a pack of jackals pops in and starts ripping flesh.  You don't think that's terribly obvious to me?  This isn't unique behavior, it has accompanied 09/11 postings on the internet for 10 years.
> ...



so you disagree with syham sunder of NIST


----------



## Days (Aug 18, 2013)

this is a pack of jackals, they aren't being the least bit honest, nor are they trying to be.


----------



## Days (Aug 18, 2013)

It will be a cold day in hell when I need to learn how to direct my posts in a thread from you.  I have over ten years experience doing that and my posts are placed exactly where they belong... yours, on OTOH, and consistently misplaced and tossed about nilly-willy in the thread.  All you are doing is making as big a mess of the thread as you possibly could.  That's not brand new to me, Ollie, I've been watching hucksters post like that for over a decade.  It's called disinformation, at least it is one more part of posting disinformation.... attempting to cloud the issue and confuse the reader.  I've never seen anyone more blatant about making their droppings than you.  You must be proud.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 18, 2013)

Days said:


> No, that's your false information, all three buildings fell at free fall speeds and that's widely available on the internet, someone has it posted in this thread.  You are posting Lies, that's all.  And you are labeling the truth I'm posting as "garbage information".  So, you have an agenda, you are out to push, which is to smear the truth with disinformation.  You aren't discussing anything, neither are you engaged in discussion, you are just attacking the truth with your own bag of Lies and disinformation.  I've patiently answered as many of your false posts as I could and you respond by calling the truth a bunch of garbage.  So you have an agenda to discredit the truth in this area.  I've noticed a couple of your cohorts are busy tossing negative reputation at my posts in this thread, so they are attacking like jackals while you are attacking with false debate, but the group of you obviously came here to attack the thread, not discuss it.


You may call those that have sent you neg rep attacking jackals, but most would call what we are doing, slapping an asshole.

You still haven't addressed how hundreds, if not a thousand or more people that had to be involved in the preparation and cover-up have been kept silent.

Let's hear you address that. Show some verifiable proof.


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

ernie s. said:


> days said:
> 
> 
> > no, that's your false information, all three buildings fell at free fall speeds and that's widely available on the internet, someone has it posted in this thread.  You are posting lies, that's all.  And you are labeling the truth i'm posting as "garbage information".  So, you have an agenda, you are out to push, which is to smear the truth with disinformation.  You aren't discussing anything, neither are you engaged in discussion, you are just attacking the truth with your own bag of lies and disinformation.  I've patiently answered as many of your false posts as i could and you respond by calling the truth a bunch of garbage.  So you have an agenda to discredit the truth in this area.  I've noticed a couple of your cohorts are busy tossing negative reputation at my posts in this thread, so they are attacking like jackals while you are attacking with false debate, but the group of you obviously came here to attack the thread, not discuss it.
> ...



physics is not interested in your imaginings of how many people would need to be silent and how that was done..


----------



## Days (Aug 18, 2013)

Your attacks are baring more and more teeth.  Did you confess that your sole purpose in coming into this thread was to attack the truth and discredit it?  First let's re-read Politico's post...

_Wow all that to ask this....

*So, let me ask you... how did those towers collapse?
*
Planes hit them. Hope that helped._

then let's look at my reply...

_The towers didn't collapse when the planes hit them. Neither did anyone, except you, attribute their collapse to the jet impacts. So, No, it didn't help.... and it is totally untrue._

... and then your attack...

_Now for your garbage.

Nobody is saying it was just plane impacts. It was the plane impacts and the resultant fire. Why do you keep getting stuff wrong? Is that why your view is wrong? Because it's based on incorrect facts?
_

here, you are actually agreeing with me, we both claim that the towers did not fall solely from the planes hitting them.  And yet, you are still somehow attacking me and calling my reply garbage.  Pretty soon, you will just be name calling and cussing, that's inevitable, isn't it?  You are a jackal, are you not?  Starting to froth at the mouth, yet?  Is it dripping onto your key board?  Take a look in the mirror, is your face beet red?  C'mon, admit it, you are a jackal and your only purpose in posting is to attack the truth and attack the poster who's posting the truth.

It's already obvious what you are and what you doing, there's no point in us discussing anything.  I walk in the light, you walk in darkness.  I post the truth, you post Lies.  We are like oil and water, we can mix it up, but we don't mix.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> ernie s. said:
> 
> 
> > days said:
> ...


No it's not, but logic is.

Try to answer instead of deflecting, OK?


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ernie s. said:
> ...



High ranking Military,FBI and CIA do not seem to have a problem with this concept and it is their field of expertise


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

*Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) &#8211; Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart). * Appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 - 1994), and on the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.  Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C. 1990 - 1994.
Article 7/1/06: "The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and Colonel has gone on the record to voice his doubts about the official story of 9/11 - calling it &#8216;the dog that doesn't hunt.&#8217;  &#8216;I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that's accurate,&#8217; he said."

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVoOxRniZ-w]Former FBI chief knows 911 was an inside job - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

*Official Account of 9/11 a &#8220;Joke&#8221; and a &#8220;Cover-up&#8221;*

September 23, 2007 &#8211; Seven CIA veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and have called for a new investigation. &#8220;I think at simplest terms, there&#8217;s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke,&#8221; said *Raymond McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates during the seventies. *&#8220;There are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they&#8217;re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions,&#8221; he said. McGovern, who is also the founder of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), is one of many signers of a petition to reinvestigate 9/11.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070922_seven_cia_veterans_c.htm


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 18, 2013)

Days said:


> It will be a cold day in hell when I need to learn how to direct my posts in a thread from you.  I have over ten years experience doing that and my posts are placed exactly where they belong... yours, on OTOH, and consistently misplaced and tossed about nilly-willy in the thread.  All you are doing is making as big a mess of the thread as you possibly could.  That's not brand new to me, Ollie, I've been watching hucksters post like that for over a decade.  It's called disinformation, at least it is one more part of posting disinformation.... attempting to cloud the issue and confuse the reader.  I've never seen anyone more blatant about making their droppings than you.  You must be proud.



Actually I almost always quote the idiot I'm referring back to.

Now please provide your proof of freefall speed in all three buildings. Fact is that the only thing to fall at freefall speeds were those parts ejected away from the mass of the buildings and the facade of building 7. And the facade only held the speed for 2.25 seconds.

Do try again.......


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> *Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret)  Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart). * Appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 - 1994), and on the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.  Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C. 1990 - 1994.
> Article 7/1/06: "The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and Colonel has gone on the record to voice his doubts about the official story of 9/11 - calling it the dog that doesn't hunt.  I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that's accurate, he said."
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report



No doubt you could get a dozen people to remain silent by appealing to patriotism, religion or duty or their pocket book, but the number of people that would have to be involved in a cover-up of this magnitude is staggering. No way could you keep that many people silent.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 18, 2013)

More opinion eots?

You know all about Opinions, don't you?

Try cold hard physical fact and proof sometime instead of opinion...And I don't give a rats ass who the opinion is coming from, they are still just opinion...And opinion from people who did not have access to the investigations.


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> More opinion eots?
> 
> You know all about Opinions, don't you?
> 
> Try cold hard physical fact and proof sometime instead of opinion...And I don't give a rats ass who the opinion is coming from, they are still just opinion...And opinion from people who did not have access to the investigations.



please do try physics...I would love to see the_ hard physical fact and proof _of your collapse theory


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret)  Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart). * Appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 - 1994), and on the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.  Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C. 1990 - 1994.
> ...



well thats one non-professionals opinion...


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

*are you arguing with NIST again ollie ?*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C15KxDhqxNc]9/11 Debunked; World Trade Center- no Free-Fall speeds? Let's ask Shyam Sunder.. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > More opinion eots?
> ...



As I have admitted before, I am not a physicist....... And the Official investigation is my proof.... I have seen no hard evidence that it is wrong on any major points.....


----------



## whitehall (Aug 18, 2013)

We saw the planes hit the buildings. A sinister government plot to destroy the Towers is impossible unless you want to indict the Clinton administration. What's left?


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

whitehall said:


> We saw the planes hit the buildings. A sinister government plot to destroy the Towers is impossible unless you want to indict the Clinton administration. What's left?



You can not implode a building without Bill Clinton ? ..


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 18, 2013)

I don't claim to be a civil engineer. I rely on experts for that, but I do know people.
Sure it is possible to crash a plane and kill a Cabinet secretary, maybe even kill a sitting President and blame it on a stooge, but bringing down a building, killing 2,500 people and causing hundreds of billions in property damage and economical chaos is beyond the scope of any conspiracy ever perpetrated.

Covering up something of this magnitude defies logic. Even you should see that.


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Good then like NIST you conced free-fall of the three buildings in question


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> I don't claim to be a civil engineer. I rely on experts for that, but I do know people.
> Sure it is possible to crash a plane and kill a Cabinet secretary, maybe even kill a sitting President and blame it on a stooge, but bringing down a building, killing 2,500 people and causing hundreds of billions in property damage and economical chaos is beyond the scope of any conspiracy ever perpetrated.
> 
> Covering up something of this magnitude defies logic. Even you should see that.



No not at all...I see both now and historically that government  will cause the death of thousands of innocents even its so called own and that with control of the media most anything can be silenced or contained


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

Daniel Ellsberg: &#8220;Secrets &#8230; Can Be Kept Reliably &#8230; For Decades &#8230; Even Though They Are Known to THOUSANDS of Insiders&#8221;
Posted on May 25, 2011 by WashingtonsBlog

It is a commonplace that &#8220;you can&#8217;t keep secrets in Washington&#8221; or &#8220;in a democracy, no matter how sensitive the secret, you&#8217;re likely to read it the next day in the New York Times.&#8221; These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn&#8217;t in a fully totalitarian society. But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders.


Daniel Ellsberg: ?Secrets ? Can Be Kept Reliably ? For Decades ? Even Though They Are Known to THOUSANDS of Insiders? | Washington's Blog


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > I don't claim to be a civil engineer. I rely on experts for that, but I do know people.
> ...



Explain how and why.

How did the masterminds of the WTC collapse and the damage done to the Pentagon silence a thousand people?

Then, if you will, explain why, if the level of skill required to pull off this monumental conspiracy has so far been successful in covering it up, (so far) the 3rd attack culminated in a plane crashing in a field in Pennsylvania.

 Please be detailed in your explanation. Refrain from deflection and the opinions of "former" CIA and military "experts".


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



thousands of people is your estimate


----------



## KissMy (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> wouldint a collapse of this nature leave the core intact ..and take longer than secs ?..



None of the WTC buildings fell any where near free fall speed. The roof truss transferred the exterior weight to the damaged & heat weakened core.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > We saw the planes hit the buildings. A sinister government plot to destroy the Towers is impossible unless you want to indict the Clinton administration. What's left?
> ...




If it's alleged to be a government plot it has to involve the administration that was in power from the first attempt to the destruction about seven months after the administration left office. Let's hear it. What did Bill and Hill know and when did they know it.


----------



## Days (Aug 18, 2013)

feel free to post Lies, you have plenty of company in this thread.  It isn't as if the roof lines have not been timed and compared to free fall acceleration a million times by now.  They fell at free fall.  WTC7 fell at exact free fall ... both towers hesitated while the demolition wave got out ahead of them and then they fell at free fall.  Everyone knows what happened and that's what happened.  Argue semantics and split hairs over a couple of seconds but it won't change what happened, you can't alter history with Lies, history will be recovered and reviewed by the angels at the end of this age, all your Lying will be tossed in that fire, your brief life on this planet was wasted telling lies that will be exposed once your lives have ended.  You kid yourselves mightily thinking that you have covered up the truth.  The truth shines through your darkness, you haven't stopped the truth... darkness will never be able to snuff out the light, no matter how thick you lay it on.  Everyone posting this lie that the buildings didn't fall at free fall speed knows they are lying and obviously i know you are lying, yet you keep trying to push your lies.


----------



## KissMy (Aug 18, 2013)

Days said:


> It isn't as if the roof lines have not been timed and compared to free fall acceleration a million times by now. They fell at free fall.  WTC7 fell at exact free fall...



Your OP is a total lie. Neither you or father are engineers if you believe that free fall BS. So further discussion with an idiot like you is a complete waste of time.


----------



## Days (Aug 18, 2013)

fact is, you post exactly the way i described.  Now please review how many posts you have made in this thread and then locate a single one that actually replied to the simple question i asked in the OP.  Fact is, you spread disinformation.  You don't discuss the subject at all.


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > wouldint a collapse of this nature leave the core intact ..and take longer than secs ?..
> ...



So then you disagree with NIST ?


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

whitehall said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



It was the same CIA AND FBI Regardless of which half of "the party' was playing president at the time


----------



## KissMy (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



In the collapse videos notice that debris are falling at twice the rate of the collapse. How is that possible if the building fell at "free fall speed"


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



twice the rate ? ..don't be ridiculous NIST concedes "essentially free fall"


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Essentially free fall for the entire collapse, or just for one portion of it?


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju3AxVZs31g]9/11 Indisputable Truth: Buildings crashed to ground zero @ free fall speed - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



After admiring free- fall..NIST did a bit of a spin and claimed during the portions not visible in film or obscured by dust  that the collapse was slightly less than free fall but where forced to fully admit 3 secs of free fall


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA]WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## KissMy (Aug 18, 2013)

What was the distance the building fell? Remember the rubble pile was 50 feet high & the collapse started at the 78th floor impact area.

The time it took to collapse did not end when the building disappeared behind other 500 foot tall buildings.

Debris fell to the ground much much faster than the building did.

The fact that you retards can't comprehend physical facts makes any discussion with you a complete waste of time.


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

KissMy said:


> What was the distance the building fell? Remember the rubble pile was 50 feet high & the collapse started at the 78th floor impact area.
> 
> The time it took to collapse did not end when the building disappeared behind other 500 foot tall buildings.
> 
> ...




Ya.. thats right us retards that can not understand "physical facts"...lol


*Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng  Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.*  Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden. * Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award *in the Senior Executive Service (1988).  Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986).  Included in *"Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000. * Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career.

Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
*"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center*]."  World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? | AE911Truth


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I've repeatedly said hundreds if not a thousand. Are you going to answer the question or not?

Deflection is not an answer.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 18, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't as if the roof lines have not been timed and compared to free fall acceleration a million times by now. They fell at free fall.  WTC7 fell at exact free fall...
> ...



I'm done with him and eots too if he will not answer my question.

Arguing with idiots is fruitless.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 18, 2013)

Days said:


> fact is, you post exactly the way i described.  Now please review how many posts you have made in this thread and then locate a single one that actually replied to the simple question i asked in the OP.  Fact is, you spread disinformation.  You don't discuss the subject at all.



It would help if you used the quote function so we knew who you were lying at.


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Days said:
> ...



Run along now and dont let the door hit yer ass on the way out...


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



I do not buy into your premise that even a hundred people were required to have first hand knowledge.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 19, 2013)

Days said:


> fact is, you post exactly the way i described.  Now please review how many posts you have made in this thread and then locate a single one that actually replied to the simple question i asked in the OP.  Fact is, you spread disinformation.  You don't discuss the subject at all.





That's a good one. You've been shown all your incorrect information yet still maintain it's "us" that's spreading disinformation.

Love how that works.

Are you going to answer to your bogus claim about one story worth of debris in the footprints?  What about your 30 stories claim, when it should be 12 and 28 stories?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



WRONG!

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation



> *11. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?*
> NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5A).
> As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
> The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
> ...



Why do you continue to post lies eots?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



*sigh*

You don't get it do you?

Let's take this REAL slow.

If the debris seen falling in all the videos and pictures is falling AHEAD of the collapse of the building proper, how could the collapse be at free fall?

Take your time eots...


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > What was the distance the building fell? Remember the rubble pile was 50 feet high & the collapse started at the 78th floor impact area.
> ...



They should burn that guy's degrees as he doesn't deserve them.

Pyroclastic clouds?



You mean volcanoes were involved?! Holy crap! 

Massive structural members being hurled HORIZONTALLY?! I have asked for evidence of this HORIZONTAL trajectory and nobody has been able to provide it. I wonder why...


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> my first statement..



Your first statement chronologically was that Mythbusters said thermite does not melt steel.  Are you now saying essentially "I was against it before I was for it"?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



NIST never conceded that the buildings fell at free fall speed, only the facade of Building 7 for a whole 2.25 seconds.

Unless I've missed something......


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 19, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



^^^ This.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



It's like pulling teeth. Alright, the allegations are that the FBI and the CIA are responsible for destroying the Twin Towers. Sometimes people watch too much T.V. and give too much credit to the CIA. They haven't been in front of a single important issue since WW2. Indications are that they couldn't blow their noses without a ton of paperwork much less the Twin Towers. Together the CIA and the FBI didn't have the brains to follow up an information that Russian born terrorists were planning to bomb the Boston Marathon. The agencies just aren't that smart. The FBI is part of the Justice Dept. If they were plotting a massive incident of sabotage during the Clinton administration surely the Clinton administration bears some responsibility and/or they were involved in a coverup.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > fact is, you post exactly the way i described.  Now please review how many posts you have made in this thread and then locate a single one that actually replied to the simple question i asked in the OP.  Fact is, you spread disinformation.  You don't discuss the subject at all.
> ...



I already told him that...Seems he not only knows more about 911 than anyone else but he knows more about the internet and message boards than any one else also.....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 19, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



And no evidence of the explosions that would have had to be used to hurl anything horizontally....


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> Ya.. thats right us retards that can not understand "physical facts"...lol
> 
> 
> *Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng &#8211; Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.*  Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden. * Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award *in the Senior Executive Service (1988).  Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986).  Included in *"Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000. * Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career.



Dwain Deets explains the collapse as caused by the following  possible scenarios:

1.) Ray beams from space; or,
2.) Mini nukes.

Dwain Deets Goes Full Retard: Pushes ?Ray Beams from Space? and ?Mini-Nukes? | American Everyman

COOL!!! More proof of:

*SHAPE SHIFTING REPTILAIN ALIENS FROM THE CONSTELLATION DRACO!!*


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


*ask shyam*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C15KxDhqxNc]9/11 Debunked; World Trade Center- no Free-Fall speeds? Let's ask Shyam Sunder.. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I'm done. You refuse to answer a simple question and continue to deflect.


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Ya.. thats right us retards that can not understand "physical facts"...lol
> ...



ad hominem attacks from a blogger lol...does that mean he is debwunked ?


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



not buying into your estimates is deflection ?...besides, I thought you were leaving


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



essentially at free fall was shyams statement


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



*A pyroclastic flow (also known scientifically as a pyroclastic density current[1]) is a fast-moving current of hot gas and rock *

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroclastic_flow


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

pyroclastic - Science Definition
Composed chiefly of rock fragments of* explosive origin*, especially those associated with explosive volcanic eruptions

pyroclastic - Definition of pyroclastic


----------



## KissMy (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > What was the distance the building fell? Remember the rubble pile was 50 feet high & the collapse started at the 78th floor impact area.
> ...



^^^ True retard story!  ^^^  Plus you failed to answer the "What was the distance the building fell?" question. 

Next question - How can debris fall faster than a free falling building?


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


debris experiencing slightly less wind resistance than the main mass fell slightly faster..this would be why Shyam used the term "essentially at free fall"


----------



## KissMy (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



So the building experienced more resistance than the debris that only experienced wind resistance, therefore the building did not fall at free fall speed.

Next question - How long was the building falling? Not how long until it disappeared behind other 500 foot tall buildings.


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> ad hominem attacks from a blogger lol...does that mean he is debwunked ?



The link I provided you provides a link to Dwain Deets 1 hour speech in San Diego where he discusses the "rays from outer space theory" as well as the "mini nuke theory"  You can watch it here:

The Puzzling WTC 7 Destruction on Vimeo

Now why do you assume that he is debunked merely for asserting that "rays from outer space" brought down WTC7?  You think there are no such thing as *SHAPE SHIFTING REPTILIAN ALIENS FROM THE CONSTELLATION DRACO!!* 

One of the prime movers and shakers behind the 9/11 truthers is none other than David Icke who is the source of the  *SHAPE SHIFTING REPTILIAN ALIENS FROM THE CONSTELLATION DRACO!!* theory, which is the mother of all conspiracy theories.  See, Icke's book "The Biggest Secret" revealed that the biggest secret is that the human race is being controlled by

*SHAPE SHIFTING REPTILIAN ALIENS FROM THE CONSTELLATION DRACO!!*

His website devotes a lot of attention to 9/11 ... here is one that has a video: 





> Dr Judy Wood - Where Did the Towers Go? The energy weapon that brought down the towers.



The 9/11 Inside Job Conspiracy: Names, Connections And Details Exposed - David Icke Website

Obviously proof positive of Icke's revelations concerning *SHAPE SHIFTING REPTILIAN ALIENS FROM THE CONSTELLATION DRACO!!*

Of course anyone worth his conspiracy theory boots knows that Bush and Obama are *SHAPE SHIFTING REPTILIAN ALIENS FROM THE CONSTELLATION DRACO!!*


But did you know that, and according to Icke, Box Car Willie was a *SHAPE SHIFTING REPTILIAN ALIEN FROM THE CONSTELLATION DRACO!!*

Et Tu Box Car?? 

Bet you did not know that, according to Icke, Queen Elizabeth is the head Lizard and likes to eat little children for snacks?   Yep... Lizze the Lizard.  It must be true, because he wrote a book!! Lots of books in fact!!  Here is a sampeling:


The Biggest Secret: The Book That Will Change the World. Bridge of Love Publications, 1999. 

 Children of the Matrix. Bridge of Love Publications, 2001. 

Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster. Bridge of Love Publications, 2002. 

 Tales from the Time Loop. Bridge of Love Publications, 2003. 

 Infinite Love Is the Only Truth: Everything Else Is Illusion. Bridge of Love Publications, 2005

 The David Icke Guide to the Global Conspiracy (and how to end it). David Icke Books Ltd, 2007. 

 Human Race Get Off Your Knees: The Lion Sleeps No More. David Icke Books Ltd, 2010.


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



WTC 7 was in full free fall for 2.5 secs according to NIST..the collapse of the towers was described by shyam sunder of NIST as "at near free-fall" and  "essentially at free fall"


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Funny you left out the part about the temperatures present AND that it's moving away from a volcano.

There was no "pyroclastic flow" as the temperatures and volcano criteria that define a pyroclastic flow were both missing. Try again.


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ad hominem attacks from a blogger lol...does that mean he is debwunked ?
> ...



The fact you have to resort to large bold red all caps and strawmen is a clear sign you have lost the debate


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Essentially you exaggerated. Free fall was said to have occurred for 2.25 seconds of WTC7's collapse ONLY. Not for the entire WTC1, WTC2, or WTC7 collapse durations like you want people to think.


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> debris experiencing slightly less wind resistance than the main mass fell slightly faster..this would be why Shyam used the term "essentially at free fall"



WOW, a whole new world of physics proven to be wrong by 9/11 Truthers...  You folks should inform this educational science web page

Elephant and Feather - Air Resistance




> Suppose that an elephant and a feather are dropped off a very tall building from the same height at the same time. We will assume the realistic situation that both feather and elephant encounter air resistance. Which object - the elephant or the feather - will hit the ground first?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Can you point me to the part of the video were Shyam says WTC1 and WTC2 COMPLETELY collapsed at free fall times? Can you point me to the part of the video where Shyam says that WTC7 COMPLETELY collapsed at free fall time?


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

Deets credentials and career are impeccable and you completely misrepresent his speech


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> debris experiencing slightly less wind resistance than the main mass fell slightly faster..





Put the weed down and think that through again.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



give it up...shyam sunder of NIST  without question descibed the towers collapse as at near free-fall and essentially at free fall


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> The fact you have to resort to large bold red all caps and strawmen is a clear sign you have lost the debate



The fact that you wish to disclaim the theories espoused by the very  people you employ to buttress your position is a clear sign you have lost the debate.


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> Deets credentials and career are impeccable and you completely misrepresent his speech



Deets believes that possible explanations for the collapse of WTC onclude "rays from outer space" and "mini nukes" 

Live with it.


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Deets credentials and career are impeccable and you completely misrepresent his speech
> ...






> Presentation to San Diegans for 9/11 Truth. In San Diego, August 14, 2011. Suggests a method for including all serious hypothesis by independent 9/11 investigators. This includes a range from somewhat conventional controlled demolition, to directed energy and nuclear devices.




you put rays from outer space in quotes...yet he never once used the words rays from outer space so why are you lying and trying to make false qoutes


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > The fact you have to resort to large bold red all caps and strawmen is a clear sign you have lost the debate
> ...



I have not claimed or disclaimed anything other than you misqoute and misrepresent and like to use strawmen


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


----------



## KissMy (Aug 19, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



*This is what you thought you saw.*






*This is what really happened according to truthers.*


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## Stashman (Aug 19, 2013)

Why is it that so called experts who refute the inside job scenario ignore over 1500 engineers and architects that say it is impossible for the buildings to have collapsed the way the NIST report says it did? As pointed out in earlier post these guys are the very tops in their field. 

1. How can you explain the molten metal witnessed by many over a month later at ground zero?

2 Why did 3 skyscrapers fall due to fire on 9/11, when not 1 skyscraper had done so in the history of mankind? Hasn't happened since either.

3. Why was the bulk of evidence from the towers shipped as scrap to China and India almost immediately following the tragedy?

4. Why has the FBI not released video from numerous locations near the Pentagon that would show a plane hitting the building?

5. How can passengers on planes used on 9/11 make a call to love ones while 30,000 feet in the air when that technology did not exist in 2001?

If you want to taken seriously as a debunker first you must answer these basic questions with proof or some kind of evidence to back up your claims.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 19, 2013)

Stashman said:


> Why is it that so called experts who refute the inside job scenario ignore over 1500 engineers and architects that say it is impossible for the buildings to have collapsed the way the NIST report says it did? As pointed out in earlier post these guys are the very tops in their field.
> 
> 1. How can you explain the molten metal witnessed by many over a month later at ground zero?
> 
> ...



1. What was the molten metal? Where is it now, who removed it and where did they take it to. No previously molten metal showed up at fresh kills that could have been described as such.......

2. Because they were slammed into by a fully loaded plane at full speed...and one had a 110 floor building fall on it...

3. Scrap had to go somewhere, Much of it became the USS  New York....

4. FBI has released other videos, which truthers swore would show the plane...they were all at the wrong angles for it. Others they are not free to release as they don't own them...
Others, who knows, why are the Kennedy files still classified? Same reason....

5. You sure about that? I could do it from a helicopter in 1991.... Why not a plane in 2001?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 19, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Stashman said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it that so called experts who refute the inside job scenario ignore over 1500 engineers and architects that say it is impossible for the buildings to have collapsed the way the NIST report says it did? As pointed out in earlier post these guys are the very tops in their field.
> ...



1. The aluminum from the plane would have become molten since it melts at relatively low temperatures. It was probably shipped directly to a recycling center if the did find any.

2. You are correct that the planes created the fatal damage. The buildings would have had to be condemned if they had remained upright because of the structural damage to the core could not have been repaired. Building 7 was damaged by the collapse of the towers and then the fire weakened the bridge structure over the burning substation.

5. The phone calls from the planes went to voice mail.


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

kissmy said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



your inane pictures only hi-lite the weakness of your argument


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

SFC Ollie


> 1. What was the molten metal? Where is it now, who removed it and where did they take it to. No previously molten metal showed up at fresh kills that could have been described as such.......



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__4P00BsPBI]9/11 : Ground Zero Molten metal...evidence and testimony. - YouTube[/ame]



> 2. Because they were slammed into by a fully loaded plane at full speed...and one had a 110 floor building fall on it...



There you go contradicting NIST again..wtc7 did not have a 110 story building fall on it it had damage to the facade from falling debris and according to NIST collapsed due to the failure of a single column due to fire




> 3. Scrap had to go somewhere, Much of it became the USS  New York....



scrap should not of gone overseas until the NIST began its investigation and report and stop with your crazy story about much of it going to the liberty already...they used 1 column


> 4. FBI has released other videos, which truthers swore would show the plane..


.

no one swore any such thing..they attempted to get all surveillance videos released but the only one they would release was completely non-conclusive




> they were all at the wrong angles for it. Others they are not free to release as *they don't own them*...



total bullshit...you just made that up...


Others, who knows, why are the Kennedy files still classified? Same reason....


> 5. You sure about that? I could do it from a helicopter in 1991.... Why not a plane in 2001?



helicopters don't fly at high altitude ollie


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Stashman said:
> ...



stop with your substation bullshit..you are in contradiction with the NIST report


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Stashman (Aug 19, 2013)

In regards to molten metal, I am adding a link to a PDF document from Dr. Stephen Jones which contain both photographic and video evidence. Unlike debunkers, I will always provide evidence to back up my claims. Read'em and weep!

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



The FACTS about WTC 7 are not in dispute.

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The original 7 World Trade Center was 47 stories tall, clad in red exterior masonry, and occupied a trapezoidal footprint. An elevated walkway connected the building to the World Trade Center plaza.* The building was situated above a Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints. *When the building opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants. In 1988, Salomon Brothers signed a long-term lease, and became the main tenants of the building. *On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building.* The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 510 pm.[2] *The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure throughout,* which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 533 pm.



Image showing "bridge style" construction over the substation.





NIST Explanation for the collapse.



> In November 2008, NIST released its final report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center.[9] This followed NIST's August 21, 2008, draft report which included a period for public comments.[36] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[45] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). *But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled  pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. *The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[9]



The fire that burned out of control caused the floors to expand and and push a key girder out of alignment. The loss of support resulted in a buckling and that was the trigger that brought down the entire building. 

That scenario is entirely consistent with the plausible one that I have provided for the towers themselves.

Perhaps you might try enrolling in a basic applied mathematics course at your local community college.


----------



## Stashman (Aug 19, 2013)

WOW! Your sticking by this are you? How can you explain the WTC 7 owner saying they decided to "Pull it", a common building demolition term.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnO3B0LCwUo]Larry Silverstein Says He Suggested Pulling The Building - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2013)

Stashman said:


> WOW! Your sticking by this are you? How can you explain the WTC 7 owner saying they decided to "Pull it", a common building demolition term.
> 
> Larry Silverstein Says He Suggested Pulling The Building - YouTube



Pull the fire fighters out of the area.
It's a common term when you want to get people out of an area.


----------



## Stashman (Aug 19, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Stashman said:
> 
> 
> > WOW! Your sticking by this are you? How can you explain the WTC 7 owner saying they decided to "Pull it", a common building demolition term.
> ...




He said, "We made the decision to pull it" not pull them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2013)

Stashman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Stashman said:
> ...



Pulled during a no-hitter


Its hard to imagine many situations in which a manager would pull a pitcher with a no-hitter going, but it has happened 14 times in New York Mets history.

Pulled during a no-hitter | Mets No-Hitters History at NoNoHitters.com


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 19, 2013)

Stashman said:


> WOW! Your sticking by this are you? How can you explain the WTC 7 owner saying they decided to "Pull it", a common building demolition term.
> 
> Larry Silverstein Says He Suggested Pulling The Building - YouTube



Now that's true Pull it would be a common demo term...Building 6 was pulled.... It involves steel cables being attached to certain parts of the building and the building pulled down....Is this what you think they did to Bldg 7?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2013)

Stashman said:


> WOW! Your sticking by this are you? How can you explain the WTC 7 owner saying they decided to "Pull it", a common building demolition term.
> 
> Larry Silverstein Says He Suggested Pulling The Building - YouTube



*Pull it", a common building demolition term.*

In what context?


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



That is WIKKI ..not the NIST report...what are you going to post next popular mechanics ?...NIST determined the substation was irrelevant to the collapse and the design of wtc 7 was never called into question ..engineers and physics professors with vastly more knowledge than your self find the NIST theory ludicrous are you suggesting they need to take a math class ?


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

*Lon J. Waters, PhD Mathematics &#8211; Former staff member of the Maui High Performance Computing Center, a U.S. Department of Defense funded high performance computing and research facility. * Former staff member of Sandia National Laboratories, a major research facility of the National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.  Member Advisory Editorial Board, Journal of 9/11 Studies.


Signatory of Petition of Solidarity to the Attorney General of New York for a new independent grand jury investigation of 9/11 11/19/04: "We the undersigned:  a) think that there is ample evidence and probable cause to believe that many grave and still unresolved crimes were committed by US officials prior to, during and after the events of 9/11;  b) observe that most of these apparent crimes, including but not limited to abetment of mass murder, criminal negligence, insider trading, and obstruction of justice fall well within the jurisdiction of New York's top law enforcement officials ..." Justice for 9/11 -- Solidarity Petition -- [www.Justicefor911.org]


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/1


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

*avid L. Griscom, PhD &#8211; Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service.*  Fellow of the American Physical Society.  Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997).  Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003).  Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).  Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. *Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers.  Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.*


Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True:  This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives.  [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.  However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."  Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.]

http://patriotsquestion911.com/


----------



## KissMy (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> 9/11 : Ground Zero Molten metal...evidence and testimony. - YouTube



 That debunked video is full of idiots & bullshit. Not one picture of molten steel. Maybe some red hot sheet metal or other substance, but no molten steel. That 9/11 cross was not molten steel fused during the collapse. Close up photos & documentation show it was factory made that way as a prefabricated part of the building structure.


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 : Ground Zero Molten metal...evidence and testimony. - YouTube
> ...



So these first responders and engineers are in in fact idiots and you debwunked them how exactly...?


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3Ot1JxNdE]Molten Steel At World Trade Center Site/Ground Zero after 9/11. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Stashman (Aug 19, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Stashman said:
> 
> 
> > WOW! Your sticking by this are you? How can you explain the WTC 7 owner saying they decided to "Pull it", a common building demolition term.
> ...



Why would firefighters on the scene say otherwise?

WTC 7 - Silverstein's 'Pull It' Explanation Examined


----------



## KissMy (Aug 19, 2013)

A 10-lb sledge hammer dropping 1 story or 10-ft creates a force of 10,000-lbs. That is 1,000 times the force the it took just to hold the hammer static in the air. The same goes for the building. The tower was built to hold less than 20 times its static downward force load at a given height. Now dropping a portion of the building 10-ft increased the downward force by 1,000 times. The aircraft took out 3 floors, So that initial collapse impact was likely after a 30 foot drop.

On top of that for every crushed floor the moving mass gained weight & mass. This kept on increasing the force as the building fell. So a building built to hold 20 times it's weight will give very little resistance to slow a force of 1,000 times it's weight.

A one pound hammer can sit on 60,000 psi steel for ever & never dent it. But when swung & strikes the 60,000 psi steel it dents it because it hits with a force greater than 60,000 psi.






A hammer is a force amplifier that works by converting mechanical work into kinetic energy and back.

In the swing that precedes each blow, a certain amount of kinetic energy gets stored in the hammer's head, equal to the length D of the swing times the force f produced by the muscles of the arm and by gravity. When the hammer strikes, the head gets stopped by an opposite force coming from the target; which is equal and opposite to the force applied by the head to the target. If the target is a hard and heavy object, or if it is resting on some sort of anvil, the head can travel only a very short distance d before stopping. Since the stopping force F times that distance must be equal to the head's kinetic energy, it follows that F will be much greater than the original driving force f &#8212; roughly, by a factor D/d. In this way, great strength is not needed to produce a force strong enough to bend steel, or crack the hardest stone.

Effect of the head's mass - The amount of energy delivered to the target by the hammer-blow is equivalent to one half the mass of the head times the square of the head's speed at the time of impact (E={mv^2 \over 2}). While the energy delivered to the target increases linearly with mass, it increases quadratically with the speed.


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

*I can not understand how anyone could listen to John Gross and not hear his dishonesty*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVFwkAMd2-k]9//11 NIST denies evidence of molten steel at the WTC Site (compilation) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

KissMy said:


> A 10-lb sledge hammer dropping 1 story or 10-ft creates a force of 10,000-lbs. That is 1,000 times the force the it took just to hold the hammer static in the air. The same goes for the building. The tower was built to hold less than 20 times its static downward force load at a given height. Now dropping a portion of the building 10-ft increased the downward force by 1,000 times. The aircraft took out 3 floors, So that initial collapse impact was likely after a 30 foot drop.
> 
> On top of that for every crushed floor the moving mass gained weight & mass. This kept on increasing the force as the building fell. So a building built to hold 20 times it's weight will give very little resistance to slow a force of 1,000 times it's weight.
> 
> ...



there was no pancaking the top half was already disintegrating as it fell and much of the debris and pulverized concrete was projected outward  so it could not have  gained weight & mass with every crushed floor. the moving mass there was met with a huge solid structure  that would of offered a lot of resistance


----------



## KissMy (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



This video has been debunked countless times just like free fall was debunked. Firemen are not engineers. The people in that video are clueless & show no evidence to back their claims. They confused molten metal with molten steel. They lied about the I-beam cross being 2 separate steel beams that were fused together during the collapse. You are an idiot for believing that crap.


----------



## KissMy (Aug 19, 2013)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > A 10-lb sledge hammer dropping 1 story or 10-ft creates a force of 10,000-lbs. That is 1,000 times the force the it took just to hold the hammer static in the air. The same goes for the building. The tower was built to hold less than 20 times its static downward force load at a given height. Now dropping a portion of the building 10-ft increased the downward force by 1,000 times. The aircraft took out 3 floors, So that initial collapse impact was likely after a 30 foot drop.
> ...



 This guy is deceiving you & you fell for it sucker. 1,000 x force resisted by a 20 x force will only slightly slow it's acceleration rate. The faster the fall, the more force is generated.


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



the preacher had no Idea what he was talking about that is true but I think an Iron worker knows a steel girder when he sees one and even more so when its multiple Iron workers and You are an idiot for discounting all of these eyewitnesses in favor of what John Gross tells you


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2013)

the wacky cross story was one perpetrated by the 9 /11 propaganda machine not those seriously questioning 9/11..its a "feel good "myth they still perpetrate to this day putting it in the 9/11 museum still claiming its two beams fused..when it clearly is not..it actually a perfect example of how little people think or question what they are told by the "official sources"
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvVMDAxhsgc]WTC Cross Added to 9/11 Museum (7.23.11) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## candycorn (Aug 19, 2013)

Has he gotten to the part where he blames the Jews yet?


----------



## eots (Aug 20, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Has he gotten to the part where he blames the Jews yet?



shouldn't you be off ranting about light post or something ?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



So you are gullible enough to believe people who had no actual role to play in the investigations but you deny the findings of the qualified experts from  the National Institute of Standards and Technology,  the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, the National Fire Protection Association, the American Institute of Steel Construction, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat and the Structural Engineers Association of New York?

At this point it is more than apparent that you lack the knowledge necessary to comprehend the contents of the original NIST report. Hardly surprising since it deals with engineering concepts that you have probably never even heard of let alone understand. 

Like the vast bulk of conspiracy theorists you base your position on questions that you are incapable of ever grasping the answers to. You have been supplied with plausible explanations based upon all of the known facts and yet you still prefer your own baseless paranoid version of events. There is no further point is trying to enlighten those that prefer the irrational and illogical over and above the hard factual evidence on hand. Have a nice day.


----------



## eots (Aug 20, 2013)

Oh I see ,So in your opinion _Einstein._.peer review should only be done by those directly involved in the work ?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > A 10-lb sledge hammer dropping 1 story or 10-ft creates a force of 10,000-lbs. That is 1,000 times the force the it took just to hold the hammer static in the air. The same goes for the building. The tower was built to hold less than 20 times its static downward force load at a given height. Now dropping a portion of the building 10-ft increased the downward force by 1,000 times. The aircraft took out 3 floors, So that initial collapse impact was likely after a 30 foot drop.
> ...



Concrete *DUST* was blown outwards but it did not come even remotely close to the weight of the steel floors that were collapsing onto each other.


----------



## eots (Aug 20, 2013)

pulverized concrete and large steel beams where projected outward


----------



## eots (Aug 20, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHnLlwqiu0A]High Speed Massive Projectiles from the WTC on 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 20, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIkLOMZnkwM]WTC SOUTH TOWER: 1) SMOKING GUNS; 2) SMOKING GUNS (FOLLOW-UP); 3) EXPLODING PROJECTILE - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> Oh I see ,So in your opinion _Einstein._.peer review should only be done by those directly involved in the work ?



Peer review only matters when it is done by *COMPETENT and QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL* peers.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> pulverized concrete and large steel beams where projected outward



What percentage of the steel and concrete was "projected outward"?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> WTC SOUTH TOWER: 1) SMOKING GUNS; 2) SMOKING GUNS (FOLLOW-UP); 3) EXPLODING PROJECTILE - YouTube



Obviously no one capable of critical thought has been allowed to critique the inane assumptions in that video. The objects at the bottom are accelerating under the force of gravity. The objects on the top of the building would have been AC units and water containers. Once they came loose they would have sprayed whatever liquids they contained out behind them. The sunlight reflections explain the "secondary explosions". The gravitational stresses on the upper portion of the tower plus whatever portions of the curtain wall were still attached are what caused it to disintegrate. You are only seeing what the narrator is telling you to see as opposed to what is actually happening.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> pulverized concrete and large steel beams where projected outward



Projected by what eots? Explosives?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> pulverized concrete and large steel beams where projected outward



Which steel beams eots? Perimeter sections, core columns, horizontal beams, or all three?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> High Speed Massive Projectiles from the WTC on 9/11 - YouTube



Whoo boy! 56 mph per a FREEFALLING perimeter section in a parabolic trajectory! There's a smoking gun!

You think some sort of "energy" was expelled for the perimeter section to reach that speed or do you think it could have reached that speed on it's due to gravity?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> there was no pancaking the top half was already disintegrating as it fell and much of the debris and pulverized concrete was projected outward  so it could not have  gained weight & mass with every crushed floor.



Wrong again.

Can you explain, if most of the debris was projected outward, why there was about a 56' high pile of debris in the footprints?



eots said:


> the moving mass there was met with a huge solid structure  that would of offered a lot of resistance



Instead of spouting garbage you THINK is true, how about show us. Explain how the descending mass should have been stopped by the lower structure? Show us some math eots. Please show how all the CONNECTIONS for the first floor impacted would have resisted the load.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 20, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > pulverized concrete and large steel beams where projected outward
> ...



How about wing sections, aircraft doors, water tanks, fire extinguishers, cubicle walls, door panels, window panes, desktops, etc, etc?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> pulverized concrete and large steel beams where projected outward



Yup. Nothing in the footprint...


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 20, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > High Speed Massive Projectiles from the WTC on 9/11 - YouTube
> ...



Of course there is no mention of the missing shock wave energy that accompanies every explosion.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 20, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



It's just sheer stupidity!


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 20, 2013)

I still want eots to explain the explosion-less demolition of the building I pointed in the video I posted.

According to truthers, there is s Factor of Safety built into every structure. Meaning they believe that you can remove  a percentage of structural components which reduces the Factor of Safety by the same percentage. They believe that as long as the Factor of Safety remains above one, the structure remains intact. No matter WHERE you remove components.

Truthers also believe that if the lower structure is able to support the upper structure, that means that if the upper structure falls upon the lower, it should resist. Why? Because it was able to support it previously.

So eots, Days, TakeAStepBack, please explain how you understanding of physics and FOS pertains to that building I asked you about at 3:22 in the previous video?

How did the upper section demolish the WHOLE structure by gravity alone?

According to you, that shouldn't be possible.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 20, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> I still want eots to explain the explosion-less demolition of the building I pointed in the video I posted.
> 
> According to truthers, there is s Factor of Safety built into every structure. Meaning they believe that you can remove  a percentage of structural components which reduces the Factor of Safety by the same percentage. They believe that as long as the Factor of Safety remains above one, the structure remains intact. No matter WHERE you remove components.
> 
> ...



Amazing how they pick up on terms that they simply don't understand. A FOS is calculated based upon static loads. The potential energy contained in the upper floors was converted into kinetic energy at the point of failure. They have no idea of the multiplying effects of kinetic energy over potential energy.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 20, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > I still want eots to explain the explosion-less demolition of the building I pointed in the video I posted.
> ...



I was debating Tony Szamboti in another forum (not sure if you know who he is) regarding  his FOS crap. As stated above, he believes that if you reduce the number of columns by a certain percentage, the FOS is reduced by that much much. As long as the FOS stays above 1, you're golden. So I asked him, in the following scenario, if he felt the structure would not collapse. The red lines and stars are removed components. The FOS of safety for the scenario below was just above 1.




Of course, he never answered.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 20, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Nice diagram as it illustrates how the load has shifted "out of balance" and you now have an offset fulcrum where the remaining curtain wall is now in tension rather than compression. It is pretty similar to the cantilever bridge arrangement in WTC 7 although the towers were never designed to hold up the load in that manner. I don't know Tony Szamboti but I suspect that any 1st year engineering student would be able to give you the answer to that pretty quickly.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 20, 2013)

Stashman said:


> Why is it that so called experts who refute the inside job scenario ignore over 1500 engineers and architects that say it is impossible for the buildings to have collapsed the way the NIST report says it did? As pointed out in earlier post these guys are the very tops in their field.
> 
> 1. How can you explain the molten metal witnessed by many over a month later at ground zero?



Two questions and a request.

1. Why is molten metal an important factor?
2. How can one VISUALLY distinguish between molten metal and molten aluminum.







Please provide any information of verified temperatures at the site capable of melting steel. 



Stashman said:


> 2 Why did 3 skyscrapers fall due to fire on 9/11, when not 1 skyscraper had done so in the history of mankind? Hasn't happened since either.



The historical argument eh? Ok, please show us similar skyscrapers that were hit by jets AND caught fir that remained standing.



Stashman said:


> 3. Why was the bulk of evidence from the towers shipped as scrap to China and India almost immediately following the tragedy?



The debris didn't go anywhere else first? Are you sure about this?



Stashman said:


> 4. Why has the FBI not released video from numerous locations near the Pentagon that would show a plane hitting the building?



Numerous locations? You have a list of the numerous locations that had cameras that were pointing in the direction of the crash? Obviously you do to make that assertion. Please provide this list.



Stashman said:


> 5. How can passengers on planes used on 9/11 make a call to love ones while 30,000 feet in the air when that technology did not exist in 2001?



What do you mean it didn't exist? Weren't some calls made from the seat back phones?
Also, at what altitude was the plane at when the calls were made?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> people made calculations and precise cuts to structural support removing these supports rapidly and in sequence then it appears as if the top HALF of the building crushes the bottom after it has been weakened and prepared...



So all this is calculated right?

So you believe that calculations and analysis can be done to significantly weaken a structure to a point that a "lower section" will support an "upper section" until that "upper section" is released and the gravity driven load/force of the "upper section" completely shears both the "upper and lower sections"?

Do I understand you correctly?

Perfect.

How about you replace the "precise cuts" with CONNECTIONS. 

The reason for the word CONTROLLED in CONTROLLED DEMOLITION is to control the destruction of the structure so as to maintain debris and possible damage to surrounding structures. 

The towers/skyscrapers that came down were FAR from controlled.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Seriously? What exactly did these "people" use to make these "precise cuts" to the structural supports and when did these "people" do it?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 20, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



I really want to know what he meant by "appears" to crush the bottom. 

If it wasn't the "upper section" that descended and sheared/demolished what remained of "lower section's" weakened structure, then what did? What sheared the "upper section" apart?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 20, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Speaking of which how does that reconcile with the allegation that the top was "pulverized and blown apart" first? Looks like Days and Eots need to get their stories straight first.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 20, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GNhEpHfgfI]Balzac Vitry demolition - Verinage technique - YouTube[/ame]

Look at those HOT pyroclastic clouds that were created!!!! Look at the debris being ejected AWAY from the footprint!!!! Look at the SQUIBS at the point of release!!!!

THERMITE?!

EXPLOSIVES?!

You be the judge...


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 20, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Eots, Days, TakeAStepBAck...

I'm dying to know. 

At 3:25 in the video above, the "upper section" is no more. What sheared the rest of the "lower section". C'mon now. Don't be shy. What turned the "upper section" into debris?

Let's see you apply your supposed understanding of physics.


----------



## eots (Aug 20, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Balzac Vitry demolition - Verinage technique - YouTube
> 
> Look at those HOT pyroclastic clouds that were created!!!! Look at the debris being ejected AWAY from the footprint!!!! Look at the SQUIBS at the point of release!!!!
> 
> ...



no comparison it looks like dust it does not travel..it does not rise upward


----------



## eots (Aug 20, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



you seem to hve a bit of problem with scale some of those projectiles are huge


----------



## eots (Aug 20, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> I still want eots to explain the explosion-less demolition of the building I pointed in the video I posted.
> 
> According to truthers, there is s Factor of Safety built into every structure. Meaning they believe that you can remove  a percentage of structural components which reduces the Factor of Safety by the same percentage. They believe that as long as the Factor of Safety remains above one, the structure remains intact. No matter WHERE you remove components.
> 
> ...



its called  controlled demolition  where the the supports of a building are removed in a very precise sequence..the section bellow would likely of had been striped and weakened by partially cutting suppports


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > I still want eots to explain the explosion-less demolition of the building I pointed in the video I posted.
> ...



I think the point is that if it's possible to have a building collapse in a very similar manner to the towers/bldg 7, falling into their own footprint when the upper section falls onto the lower, without the use of explosives, then it is also possible for the damage of the plane collisions and the fires to cause the same effect.

Not that it's likely, not that it should happen in buildings on a regular basis, but that it's at least possible that this unusual scenario caused a collapse without the use of any kind of controlled demolition.


----------



## eots (Aug 20, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > people made calculations and precise cuts to structural support removing these supports rapidly and in sequence then it appears as if the top HALF of the building crushes the bottom after it has been weakened and prepared...
> ...



but i thought everything fell in the foot print ?...you really cant make up your mind can you...


----------



## eots (Aug 20, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



3 times in one day


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I get the building 7 argument, but with the towers, how many other buildings had been hit with planes of this size and then had fires burn uncontrolled for an hour?

It's hard to compare to other buildings when the circumstances were so unique.

And again, I think the point is that if you admit it is possible for such a thing to be done in a controlled demolition, then you admit it is possible to happen given the right forces acting in an attack or accident.  Also, I think it pretty well contradicts the 'against the laws of physics' arguments so often used.  Clearly the laws of physics allow a collapse of a building into its own footprint without explosives, with the top section falling onto the lower section causing the collapse.


----------



## eots (Aug 20, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



If you precisely pre-cut supports and drop the upper HALF of the building on to the other..yes


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 20, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



We had 2 buildings with identical construction both being hit by identical planes with identical collapses. What would have been odd is if one of them stayed up while the other collapsed. Given the consistency of these outcomes the odds are that you would get the same result if you had a 3rd building with the same construction being hit by a 767 at 400+ mph.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 20, 2013)

> If you precisely pre-cut supports and drop the upper HALF of the building on to the other..yes



Why won't Eots tell us who made those "precise pre-cuts" of the support? Why won't he tell us how those "precise pre-cuts" were made without anyone knowing about them?


----------



## eots (Aug 20, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> > If you precisely pre-cut supports and drop the upper HALF of the building on to the other..yes
> 
> 
> 
> Why won't Eots tell us who made those "precise pre-cuts" of the support? Why won't he tell us how those "precise pre-cuts" were made without anyone knowing about them?



I am referring to the video of the gravity induced controlled demolition video posted by Gamolon where he trys to imply that its done by simply doping one half on to the other


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > I still want eots to explain the explosion-less demolition of the building I pointed in the video I posted.
> ...



You're not answering my question eots.

How did the upper section shear/tear apart the lower section? What caused this? According to you, Days, and TakeAStepBack, there isn't enough energy to do this.

So how did it happen in my video?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> I am referring to the video of the gravity induced controlled demolition video posted by Gamolon where he trys to imply that its done by simply *doping* one half on to the other



Isn't that appropriate for you eots!

Oh the irony!!!


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Why did you capitalize the word "half" above. Was the half of the building in my video dropped on the lower half? No, it was three floors.

Was it HALF of the north tower, 55 floors? No it was 12 floors. Was if HALF of the south tower, 55 floors? No, it was 28.

Get your shit straight.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



And you STILL don't get it.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > > If you precisely pre-cut supports and drop the upper HALF of the building on to the other..yes
> ...



Does this mean that you are no longer claiming that anyone did this to the WTC towers?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 20, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



What turned the "upper section" into debris eots?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Um, Nope. According to TakeAStepBack:



TakeAStepBack said:


> The issue at hand is that you're saying the upper section of the building sheered off into debris on its way down. Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both.



So I'll ask again. How could that structure in my video at 3:22 demolish itself WITHOUT explosives? Isn't that going against TakeAStepBack's "understanding" of physics? 

Please explain.


----------



## eots (Aug 20, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



WTC7 and the towers were carefully planned demolitions..the technologies used to bring down buildings 4 times the size of the largest buildings ever demoed would likely require technologies previously not utilized in building demos, so the exact method is unknown with out a real fact driven investigation with full disclosure of all remaining evidence...it will be interesting to see how the demolition of these super skyscrapers is handled in the future
as so far its never official been done...it could offer some very interesting clues as to how the twin towers were demoed


----------



## MikeK (Aug 20, 2013)

The only possible purpose of challenging the official explanation of the _pancake_ collapse of Towers 1 & 2 would be the suggestion of controlled demolition.  While I am academically incapable of discussing any of the technical aspects of this frequent debate I believe there is no need for any such discussion.  Because the very suggestion of controlled demolition of the World Trade Center towers is easily dismissed by citing the indisputable purpose of attacking the Towers, which was to cause massive damage. 

In view of that obvious and logical purpose, what would be the purpose of investing the extraordinarily difficult effort of reducing peripheral damage by effecting a controlled _(pancake)_ demolition instead of just toppling the Towers,  which would have been infinitely easier?  

Ramseh Yousef almost achieved exactly that purpose in 1993 by parking a van packed with explosives in the basement of Tower One.  The only reason his effort failed is he parked the van on the wrong side of a support column.  If he had parked it on the other side, Tower One would have toppled onto a five block area of lower Manhattan, causing massively greater damage than did the 9/11 "pancake" collapse of Towers One and Two.

Bottom line:  Controlled demolition of the towers is a logically pointless suggestion.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> WTC SOUTH TOWER: 1) SMOKING GUNS; 2) SMOKING GUNS (FOLLOW-UP); 3) EXPLODING PROJECTILE - YouTube



At 3:20 in eots' posted video above, the term "projectile is used with reference to late firing explosives propelling this object.

Sorry to say, but it looks like it was aluminum cladding that had fallen free of the perimeter columns that were falling sideways, and their "path" was changed do to the perimeter columns sucking the air behind them as they fell.

Check out this next video starting at 5:25. You can see the same "projectile"...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA]9/11: South Tower "Collapse" video compilation - YouTube[/ame]

"Rocket projectile...."

Jesus H. Christ.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 20, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



 Drowning in denial doesn't alter reality. You have been shown how the top section of a building falling just 10' is more than enough to flatten the rest of the building below it. You have been shown that this is possible without explosives. You have the evidence of massive structural damage done to the outside curtain walls of the towers. You have the evidence of what kind of damage the planes would have done to the central cores. You have evidence of huge fires burning out of control across the entire floor. You have evidence from the NIST report of how the heat from a sustained fire was enough to dislodge a single supporting truss and that brought down the entire WTC 7 building. 

With all of that evidence all it takes is for the already massively compromised floor holding up the wreckage of a 140 ton plane over a raging fire to slip off it's remaining supports and crash 10' down onto the floor below. That small trigger would bring down the entire edifice.

But instead you insist upon a conspiracy for which there is absolutely zero evidence whatsoever. The onus is on you to provide the hard evidence proving that these were carefully planned demolitions". Right now you haven't provided anything but some seriously flawed disinformation. You are going to have to do a whole lot a better than that.


----------



## KissMy (Aug 20, 2013)

If thermite was painted on the beams it would have trashed that side of the beam. Show me those beams. There would also be some that misfired, where are they?


----------



## Edgetho (Aug 20, 2013)

Tons of Jet Fuel burning at temperatures nearly hot enough to melt any kind of steel on Earth was fed by a literal Fire Storm....  Air being sucked in to feed the fire.

Ask the people of Dresden or Tokyo about those.

The Fire Storm acted as a Bellows






Which drove the temperature of the fire to a temperature well in excess of what was necessary to melt all the steel in the area of the fire.

The steel beams supporting the tower collapsed like wet strands of spaghetti and the Towers came tumbling down.

Any other explanation or theory is too stupid to consider


----------



## KissMy (Aug 20, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Tons of Jet Fuel burning at temperatures nearly hot enough to melt any kind of steel on Earth was fed by a literal Fire Storm....  Air being sucked in to feed the fire.
> 
> Ask the people of Dresden or Tokyo about those.
> 
> ...



The steel did not need to get hot enough to melt. It will lose 80% of it's strength well below 1000 degrees. 550°F is the ideal temp for bending the WTC steel without it cracking.

These temps were all from utilities, office & automotive fires.

Backdraft flame peak = 1,950°F
Natural Gas = 1,500°F
Candle flame = 1,400°F
Charcoal (draft) = 1,390°F
Methanol = 1,200°F
Gasoline = 1,030°F
Wood = 1,030°F

METALLURGICAL PROCESS OF BENDING STEEL TO DESIRED CURVATURE OR STRAIGHTNESS WHILE AVOIDING LOSSES IN STRENGTH


> United States Patent 3720087 A metallurgical process for bending steel bars or rods to the desired finished curvature or straightness without the normally expected losses in strength properties by bending the steel to straighten, etc., while at a temperature within the range of 300°-900° F. and *preferably 400°-700° F*. Steels which respond to such treatment are of the type which precipitation harden in response to such bending.


----------



## eots (Aug 20, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



so you think the pre-cut the steel and used hydraulics to bring down the towers ?


----------



## eots (Aug 20, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Tons of Jet Fuel burning at temperatures nearly hot enough to melt any kind of steel on Earth was fed by a literal Fire Storm....  Air being sucked in to feed the fire.
> 
> Ask the people of Dresden or Tokyo about those.
> 
> ...



there is no evidence of such temperatures ..fire fighters made it to just below the impact zone reporting only small fires...the fires and therefore the heating of steel was not uniform


----------



## eots (Aug 20, 2013)

MikeK said:


> The only possible purpose of challenging the official explanation of the _pancake_ collapse of Towers 1 & 2 would be the suggestion of controlled demolition.  While I am academically incapable of discussing any of the technical aspects of this frequent debate I believe there is no need for any such discussion.  Because the very suggestion of controlled demolition of the World Trade Center towers is easily dismissed by citing the indisputable purpose of attacking the Towers, which was to cause massive damage.
> 
> In view of that obvious and logical purpose, what would be the purpose of investing the extraordinarily difficult effort of reducing peripheral damage by effecting a controlled _(pancake)_ demolition instead of just toppling the Towers,  which would have been infinitely easier?
> 
> ...



where did you get this story that a van full of explosives could bring down the towers ? and if this where the case then why would the use of explosives in wtc 1 and 2 and wtc 7 investigated...you sound illogical


----------



## whitehall (Aug 20, 2013)

The most important part of a conspiracy theory is motivation. Why would Americans want to destroy the symbol of Capitalism in the world? That leads you to what faction of America would want to murder Americans with the total destruction of a skyscraper and an attack on the the Pentagon. What would the point be? There is no way that the invasion of Iraq would be on the agenda. One plane crashed into the Pentagon and the other plane that went down was no doubt headed for the White House or the Capital building. There was no coup or attempted coup or suggestion of a coup even in the days that Americans were stunned by the devistation. Controlled demolition? You gotta ask yourself what's the point.


----------



## eots (Aug 20, 2013)

whitehall said:


> The most important part of a conspiracy theory is motivation. Why would Americans want to destroy the symbol of Capitalism in the world? That leads you to what faction of America would want to murder Americans with the total destruction of a skyscraper and an attack on the the Pentagon. What would the point be? There is no way that the invasion of Iraq would be on the agenda. One plane crashed into the Pentagon and the other plane that went down was no doubt headed for the White House or the Capital building. There was no coup or attempted coup or suggestion of a coup even in the days that Americans were stunned by the devistation. Controlled demolition? You gotta ask yourself what's the point.



No you do not actually..either the towers and WTC 7 collapsed completely in secs Primarily due to fire as concluded by NIST or it was incendiaries or explosives


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > The most important part of a conspiracy theory is motivation. Why would Americans want to destroy the symbol of Capitalism in the world? That leads you to what faction of America would want to murder Americans with the total destruction of a skyscraper and an attack on the the Pentagon. What would the point be? There is no way that the invasion of Iraq would be on the agenda. One plane crashed into the Pentagon and the other plane that went down was no doubt headed for the White House or the Capital building. There was no coup or attempted coup or suggestion of a coup even in the days that Americans were stunned by the devistation. Controlled demolition? You gotta ask yourself what's the point.
> ...



After the videos posted of demolitions without the use of explosives or incendiaries, why are you so certain your choices are the only ones?


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



gravity induced collapses have never been done on a large building nothing even remotely close to the wtc 7 never mind the twin towers and they require extensive preparation ...but as I said it will be interesting in the future to what technologies may be utilized to bring this big buildings done as nothing of this size have ever been attempted offcially


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



get your shit straight chump..The supports from three floors in the middle of the building  were removed simultaneously allowing the top HALF to fall on to the bottom half that has been extensively weakened in advance with cutting torches


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

and would also have to question if this building is reinforced concrete building or a steel-framed building.


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooz8fXJMjNs]New 9/11 Footage 2012. "Go home, they're blowing up the buildings." "Subsequent Explosions" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Days (Aug 21, 2013)

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStJ5BgadPs"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStJ5BgadPs[/ame]

This is video about the Mossad agents that were arrested on 09/11.  But I am posting it because of the frame @ 5:55.  (5 minutes, 55 seconds)  Go there and look at the perfect view of the underside of the type of jets that struck the towers.  See the giant pod attached to the fuselage?  Of course the liars in this thread can't see it.  It's only twice as big as the engines under each wing.  That is an Air Force stock cargo jet and the pod can be used for various purposes, including it shoots white phosphorous.  The frame @ 5:55 makes a positive ID on the jet.

Neither of the two jets from Boston ever took off, there is no such thing of such an event happening without it being recorded at the airport.  Those two flights were scheduled for that morning but the international airport at Boston has no record that they left the ground... which means they didn't.  At least to a pilot who comes from a family of pilots, it does, but it won't mean anything to the intellectually dishonest.  It is amazing how many pilots and engineers have come forward, despite so many of them losing their jobs and disappearing after doing so, to expose the government conspiracy.  On 09/11 there is no record of a commercial airliner crashing anywhere.  There is no record of any of the FBI named terrorists boarding any commercial jets, not in any security cameras, not in any record of boarding passes, they neither purchased a single ticket, nor boarded any of the flights.  The two flights from Boston never left ground, and no jets crashed at the Pentagon or Shanksville, PA.  Not a single part of a commercial jet was recovered on 09/11, neither was a single passenger or crew member or listed terrorist recovered from any of the so-called crash sites.  There simply was no hi-jackings that took place on 09/11. 

No jets, and no bodies, except for the victims working in the towers or at the Pentagon.  All we have is government lies, fake cell phone calls, explosives, and a lot of shock and awe.  When you look into each crash site you learn things like the scar in the ground at Shanksville existed prior to 09/11, that it was as cheap as setting off an explosive in the middle of that scar so it appears like the jets of a wing created the scar.  But the whole deal is woefully undersized for a 767.  Or the row of windows at the Pentagon directly above the spot of impact do not contain a single crack.   A 757 disappeared into a 8 foot square double doors and didn't even crack the window panes on the 2nd floor windows directly above the doors.  The official explanation for that one is the entire jet and crew and passengers vaporized on contact with the building... yet the 757 still managed to punch that 8 foot diameter hole into three rings of reinforced Pentagon concrete walls, and leave behind some type of cruise missile parts, and hey, this happened three times from three different angles, leaving a total of nine holes penetrating the face of the Pentagon... and then the 60 ton jet managed to completely vanish along with all of the flight crew, passengers, and their baggage.  

No one really believes these lies.  Propagandists push the lies, just as they did for Hitler, just as they always have for political purposes down through the centuries.  Nero never admitted that he set the fires.  Governments are never going to come clean, its not their nature.  Especially when the crooks are the Bush family themselves...

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAztWC5sT8"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAztWC5sT8[/ame]


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Kindly refrain from imposing your own delusions on others. I have already supplied you with the plausible and rational explanations of how the sequence of events from the impacts to the fires to the collapses took place *WITHOUT* the need for any other factors being involved. The onus remains on you to *PROVE* your allegations.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 21, 2013)

Days said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStJ5BgadPs
> 
> This is video about the Mossad agents that were arrested on 09/11.  But I am posting it because of the frame @ 5:55.  (5 minutes, 55 seconds)  Go there and look at the perfect view of the underside of the type of jets that struck the towers.  See the giant pod attached to the fuselage?  Of course the liars in this thread can't see it.  It's only twice as big as the engines under each wing.  That is an Air Force stock cargo jet and the pod can be used for various purposes, including it shoots white phosphorous.  The frame @ 5:55 makes a positive ID on the jet.
> 
> ...



I knew he'd get around to blaming the Jews eventually he he he.  Good to know twoofers are still the same in this ever-changing world.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Are you, eots, suggesting that the laws of physics changed because the lower section of that building was weakened? Remember what TakeAStepBack says:


TakeAStepBack said:


> Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both. You would need an energy input for that to occur and we dont have one. Unless you know something we dont.



Even though the "lower section" was weakened, it's still somewhat intact and needs a force to finish the job and completely shear the "lower section". So based on what TakeAStepBack says above, this isn't possible. How did that "upper section" section in the video have enough energy to shear the rest of the "lower section" AND shear itself into debris?

Why do you keep avoiding this?

You're contradicting TakeAStepBack's "understanding" of the laws of physics. 

Also, what happened to the fact that buildings are designed to support MANY times their designed load capacity? Even though the "lower section" was weakened, it still supported the "upper section"just fine until that upper section was released. Why didn't the "lower section" stop the "upper section"?

What turned the "upper section" into debris?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 21, 2013)

Days said:


> yet the 757 still managed to punch that 8 foot diameter hole into three rings of reinforced Pentagon concrete walls,



Are you suggesting that the plane punched through 6 reinforced concrete walls? 2 reinforced walls for each ring?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> gravity induced collapses have never been done on a large building nothing even remotely close to the wtc 7 never mind the twin towers and they require extensive preparation ...



Oh really?

So based on your logic of "if it never happen in the past, then it couldn't have happened now", you don't think the towers were brought down by explosives right?

Am I right eots?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



This means that the engineers had to calculate how many and how much of each support component in the lower structure would succumb and fail due to the downward, gravity driven descent of the upper section.

Let that sink in. This means that there is a MAXIMUM level of stress a component can take before shearing. The MAXIMUM level of stress is reduced as the amount of the component is taken away.

CONNECTIONS are the weakest link. Think about the perimeter column floor trusses of the towers. There is a LIMIT as to what each floor and it's corresponding trusses around that floor can support. That's static and live loads.

How much more of a difference between the loads of what an individual floor was designed to handle on a day to day basis and the load generated from the upper section hitting said floor? 

Do you understand how loads work and are transferred through a structural system? Obviously not or you wouldn't be spouting such crap.

Loads "travel" through the various components, INCLUDING the connections, to the columns and down to the footers. If a component in the load transferring network cannot handle the load passing through it, it fails. Hence the following picture of how a structure transfers loads. People, desk, chairs, computers, etc. to the floor. The floor (and underlying trusses) TROUGH the connections to the columns to the columns themselves. The columns to the footers. The footers to the bedrock.




Which is why I always ask this. Were ALL of the floor truss connections of one floor (circled in red below), attached to the perimeter columns and core columns, designed for the load of day to day work on THAT floor...




...supposed to take the load generated by this falling onto it?




Tell you what "chump". 

Provide the math for how much one floor was designed to support and then provide the math for how much of a load was created by the 12 story and 28 story upper sections. Don't forget to add in the tons of elevator motors, the hat trusses, the elevator electrical panels, etc.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 21, 2013)

Days said:


> Go there and look at the perfect view of the underside of the type of jets that struck the towers.  See the giant pod attached to the fuselage?  Of course the liars in this thread can't see it.  It's only twice as big as the engines under each wing.  That is an Air Force stock cargo jet and the pod can be used for various purposes,



Really? Pods?


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



No you did not as this requires the mechanical removal of all supports simultaneously with hydraulics or cables and requires pre-cutting of the structure


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



why is there no link to this photo..


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

The nist report ends with collapse initiation no explanation on how the resistance of the massive structure beneath did not slow or stop the collapse


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

There was no giant block of building crashing through the rest..there was no pancaking..there was in secs nothing but a giant dust cloud be projected outward from the structure underneath  it as it crumbled, the collapses are filled with significant motion in the horizontal direction


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



What does not having a link have to do with answering my questions or refuting my logic? 

If you doubt any photos, go look them up for yourself. You will see many photos and drawings proving what the floor truss connections. You will see many photos and videos of the upper section descending. You can find many photos, and explanations on how loads are distributed in a structure.

What do you have a problem with?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> There was no giant block of building crashing through the rest..there was no pancaking..there was in secs nothing but a giant dust cloud be projected outward from the structure underneath  it as it crumbled



No shit dopey. It turned to a jumbling mass of debris due to impacting the lower section and being sheared/torn apart.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 21, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Better yet, address the above eots.

What are you afraid of?


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > there was no giant block of building crashing through the rest..there was no pancaking..there was in secs nothing but a giant dust cloud be projected outward from the structure underneath  it as it crumbled
> ...



yet lost no energy


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gamolon said:
> ...



why are you afraid the post the source of the picture ?





/


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



The onus remains on *YOU* to *PROVE* that this is a requirement. But we already know that you lack the skills and knowledge necessary to provide this proof. 

The math doesn't lie. The math says that when you exceed the FOS the structure will fail. The FOS was exceeded when the grossly overburdened floor carrying the excessive additional weight of the wreckage from the 140 ton 767 was heated to the point where it slipped off it's supports and crashed onto the floor below. This is entirely consistent with the NIST report on the WTC 7 failure when the heat from the substation fire caused one of the cantilever bridge supports to slip off it's support.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



The lower sections contained their own potential energy that was turned into kinetic energy with the impact of the tens of thousands of tons of debris impacting on it.


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

derideo_te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gamolon said:
> ...



how long did it take one floor to fall and completly destroy the floor below it ?...nist offers no numbers on this...I wonder why


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

*there was no debris ejection! It was all held nicely together as it "pancaked"! ..LOL*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLFmkGseZ-8]South tower collapse slow motion HD - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



And the building in my video I posted at 3:22 did?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> *there was no debris ejection! It was all held nicely together as it "pancaked"! ..LOL*
> 
> South tower collapse slow motion HD - YouTube



Yet there was 56' high debris pile in the footprints despite the fact you claim all the debris was ejected outwards.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You can find the pictures for yourself. They're all over the place. Too lazy to look obviously.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 21, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



C'mon eots. Explain please. Teach TakeAStepBack how to properly apply the "laws of physics".


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> derideo_te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



NIST was not required to provide those figures. But if you are interested in finding out for yourself you can find them in any Applied Mathematics 101 textbook. As far as the destruction of each floor is concerned you can try measuring how long it would take for you to squash an empty soda can with your boot if you jumped off a 10' wall.


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gamolon said:
> ...



it takes about 5 secs for this 15 story building to collapse..but 110 stories fell in 14 secs...you tell me


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

Even at the rate of 1 sec per floor it would take the tower 110 secs to collapse


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Why does an avalanche gain speed as it comes down a mountain?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> Even at the rate of 1 sec per floor it would take the tower 110 secs to collapse



Try milliseconds instead.


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

derideo_te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gamolon said:
> ...



why do avalanches stop half way down a steep incline


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Even at the rate of 1 sec per floor it would take the tower 110 secs to collapse
> ...



why did the gravity induced collapse video not descend and the rate of milliseconds per floor ?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> derideo_te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Deflection instead of an answer says volumes.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



It descended at an accelerating rate irrespective of the time measurement used until it could go no further. The time taken to collapse each floor was constantly reduced as the mass of the debris increased and accelerated under the force of gravity.


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

derideo_te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > derideo_te said:
> ...



so you are claiming the towers accelerated with each floor of the collapse


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

derideo_te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > derideo_te said:
> ...



deflection is bring up avalanches in an attempt to compare apples to oranges


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> derideo_te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Obviously I am wasting my time trying to explain gravitational acceleration to someone who refuses to maintain an open mind on this topic. Have a nice day.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> derideo_te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I recommend that you take the time to read up on gravitational acceleration for yourself.


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

derideo_te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > derideo_te said:
> ...



so in other words you are not going to answer the question?


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

NIST has joined the people that could not see how a total disintegration of 
the Twin Towers could be anything but a controlled demolition.
"NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable"

The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit
that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained
after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that
controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have
come down.

In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill
Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states,* "We are unable to provide a full
explanation of the total collapse."*

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse
initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a
WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed,
completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/161007_nist_admits.htm


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> NIST has joined the people that could not see how a total disintegration of
> the Twin Towers could be anything but a controlled demolition.
> "NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable"
> 
> ...



*In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill
Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full
explanation of the total collapse."*

Did their partial explanation include thermite or explosives?


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > NIST has joined the people that could not see how a total disintegration of
> ...



No...thats why they can only give a "partial explanation"


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> derideo_te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I have already answered the question.


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > derideo_te said:
> ...



it was a yes or no question ..you provided no such response


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



As professionals they will only provide explanations that they can prove. They have no obligation to address every random conspiracy theory.


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

derideo_te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



giving a full explanation  of a collapse is addressing conspiracy theories ?


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

They have an obligation to prove their theory fully


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Your comprehension of the answer is on a par with your comprehension of the NIST report and the engineering principles involved.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> They have an obligation to prove their theory fully



Your comprehension of the investigation process could also use work.


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

derideo_te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > derideo_te said:
> ...



This statement is  backed with nothing ..its just an empty statement ,you do not seem to understand..even nist admits it failed to explain the full collapse


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > They have an obligation to prove their theory fully
> ...



ANOTHER EMPTY STATEMENT BACKED BY NOTHING...NIST INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS WAS COMPLETELY LACKING..

Dr. Quintiere said he originally had high hopes that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. Theyre the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think its the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-GFBEX5bjY]Lynn Margulis (PhD - Scientist) - 9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts speak out (AE911TRUTH) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Aug 21, 2013)

alright, which one of you twofers resurrected this done to death thread?
couldn't come up with some new bullshit for the anniversary ?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


she was and is still unqualified to give evidence.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 21, 2013)

Anybody ever watch a reality show where controlled demolitions bring down a building? There are literally weeks of preparation just to expose the areas so that the demolition engineers can see where to place the charges. Next there is another week or two while many, many holes are drilled in the concrete for the explosive charges. The incredible mass of wiring is carefully mapped out and attached to a computer for synchronized blasts. I guess the MTV generation who were raised in front of a TV set think that the CIA and/or the FBI or some rogue US government agency could pull it off right in front of some of the best security networks in the world and keep it a secret but it's a freaking pipe dream. Why didn't it happen when the jihad tried it with a truck of explosives in the first year of the Clinton administration? It certainly would have been easier to synchronize timed explosives with a freaking truck parked in the basement than coordinate with two crazy squads of suicide bombers in planes. Nothing makes sense except wishful thinking.


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > derideo_te said:
> ...



She is an expert in scientific method and fully qualified to comment on NIST lack of it


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

whitehall said:


> anybody ever watch a reality show where controlled demolitions bring down a building? There are literally weeks of preparation just to expose the areas so that the demolition engineers can see where to place the charges. Next there is another week or two while many, many holes are drilled in the concrete for the explosive charges. The incredible mass of wiring is carefully mapped out and attached to a computer for synchronized blasts. I guess the mtv generation who were raised in front of a tv set think that the cia and/or the fbi or some rogue us government agency could pull it off right in front of some of the best security networks in the world and keep it a secret but it's a freaking pipe dream. Why didn't it happen when the jihad tried it with a truck of explosives in the first year of the clinton administration? It certainly would have been easier to synchronize timed explosives with a freaking truck parked in the basement than coordinate with two crazy squads of suicide bombers in planes. Nothing makes sense except wishful thinking.



there are people vastly more knowledgeable than you including engineers who worked at the wtc that do not see anywhere near the same degree of difficulty you do and they are without question not a part of the mtv generation


----------



## daws101 (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you wish....she has no experience in the necessary fields ...her opinion is  is no better than non experienced nonscientists.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 21, 2013)

eots said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > anybody ever watch a reality show where controlled demolitions bring down a building? There are literally weeks of preparation just to expose the areas so that the demolition engineers can see where to place the charges. Next there is another week or two while many, many holes are drilled in the concrete for the explosive charges. The incredible mass of wiring is carefully mapped out and attached to a computer for synchronized blasts. I guess the mtv generation who were raised in front of a tv set think that the cia and/or the fbi or some rogue us government agency could pull it off right in front of some of the best security networks in the world and keep it a secret but it's a freaking pipe dream. Why didn't it happen when the jihad tried it with a truck of explosives in the first year of the clinton administration? It certainly would have been easier to synchronize timed explosives with a freaking truck parked in the basement than coordinate with two crazy squads of suicide bombers in planes. Nothing makes sense except wishful thinking.
> ...



The burden is on the conspiracy theorists. I stated my opinion about the engineering difficulties of bringing down a building with controlled explosive and all I get is a you tube video.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 21, 2013)

whitehall said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


that's all his wife gets on their anniversary and christmas...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2013)

whitehall said:


> Anybody ever watch a reality show where controlled demolitions bring down a building? There are literally weeks of preparation just to expose the areas so that the demolition engineers can see where to place the charges. Next there is another week or two while many, many holes are drilled in the concrete for the explosive charges. The incredible mass of wiring is carefully mapped out and attached to a computer for synchronized blasts. I guess the MTV generation who were raised in front of a TV set think that the CIA and/or the FBI or some rogue US government agency could pull it off right in front of some of the best security networks in the world and keep it a secret but it's a freaking pipe dream. Why didn't it happen when the jihad tried it with a truck of explosives in the first year of the Clinton administration? It certainly would have been easier to synchronize timed explosives with a freaking truck parked in the basement than coordinate with two crazy squads of suicide bombers in planes. Nothing makes sense except wishful thinking.



Exactly!
None of the wires, detonators, explosives, thermite etc etc etc was disrupted by a jumbo jet full of fuel crashing into the buildings. None of the explosive rigs was left undetonated and later discovered in the debris.

No one involved in the task came forward to spill the beans.
Unless they were the 19 highjackers? 
Now it all makes sense.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody ever watch a reality show where controlled demolitions bring down a building? There are literally weeks of preparation just to expose the areas so that the demolition engineers can see where to place the charges. Next there is another week or two while many, many holes are drilled in the concrete for the explosive charges. The incredible mass of wiring is carefully mapped out and attached to a computer for synchronized blasts. I guess the MTV generation who were raised in front of a TV set think that the CIA and/or the FBI or some rogue US government agency could pull it off right in front of some of the best security networks in the world and keep it a secret but it's a freaking pipe dream. Why didn't it happen when the jihad tried it with a truck of explosives in the first year of the Clinton administration? It certainly would have been easier to synchronize timed explosives with a freaking truck parked in the basement than coordinate with two crazy squads of suicide bombers in planes. Nothing makes sense except wishful thinking.
> ...




It's interesting how the conspiracy theorists twist logic. The "expert" Richard Huminan is a qualified electrical engineer with many years experience. In the interview he tries to qualify himself as an explosive expert by citing "instruction" at Ft. Belvoir regarding explosives but he doesn't elaborate about the expertise he is relaying. Presumably the class on explosives  was during a two year hitch in the Army many years ago. As an electrical engineer Mr Huminan  had a unique responsibility for electrical maintenance in the WTT but he doesn't admit to being part of any plot nor does he state any instance where any one of the 60 employees he supervised thought something was wrong. He isn't qualified to an opinion about the preparation and effects of controlled demolition any more than anyone else who saw the video. It's wishful thinking swallowed only by people who can't think rationally.


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

NIST failed to explain the collapses with their fire theory..your assumptions of what technologies could be utilized to bring down a building and your imagined obstacles do not change the fact that the most rational explanation for buildings collapsing as they did three times on sept 11th is some form of controlled demolition


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

whitehall said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...




It's interesting how you  twist logic and refer to highly homered men and woman of science as conspiracy theorists and make references to MTV generations and act as if they do not posses simply logic or how their testimony is referred to as "youtube videos "


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Not I wish ..she has been singled out and honored by her esteemed peers in science as being among the very best


----------



## Days (Aug 21, 2013)

It's hard to believe you are a human, humans would make some semblance of sense, you are more likely to be some kind of posting software.  It's been around.


----------



## Days (Aug 21, 2013)

No


----------



## Days (Aug 21, 2013)

disinformation.  That's not frame 5:55.  That's your stupid picture tossed in to mock the video, which was taken on 09/11. So here you expose yourself as someone who is attacking the thread with propaganda, not an honest poster.


----------



## eots (Aug 21, 2013)




----------



## Montrovant (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



But the point, I think, is that being the best in one field does not make you the best in others.  The best neurosurgeon in the world isn't someone you go to for information on plastic surgery.  The top astrophysicist is not the best choice for explaining paleontology.

So if the woman in discussion doesn't have any education or experience in relevant fields, her opinion shouldn't necessarily hold more weight than any other layman's.

Also, who are the peers who honored her and what was it for being the best at?  That was left vague.


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



She was honored  by peers in a wide feild of sceintific expertise specifically for her ability to reason and proper use of scientific method and that is exactly what she was critiquing in regards to NIST


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



That still seems pretty vague.  Ability to reason?  What does that really mean?

Proper use of the scientific method?  What, she's good at data gathering, communicating her findings, what?  Or was it more that she didn't cheat on any of her research?

Your description sounds like a lifetime achievement type of thing, not something to show expertise in an unrelated field.

Not to disparage the woman's intelligence, education or experience; she may be qualified to speak on the subject of 9/11 with authority.  I'm just saying your description doesn't really show that.


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



The reality is no level of expertise in any field will be recognized by those attempting to propagate the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.. a structural engineer of the highest caliber is not qualified because he is not a physicist...a physicist is not qualified because he is not a structural engineer.. presidents of the Air crash investigation board are not qualified because they were not part of the 9/11 investigation...in the official 9/11 conspiracy theorist mind there is no level of qualification and achievement that is qualifies  a person to question their theory


----------



## Days (Aug 22, 2013)

Days said:


> There are very simple answers to those questions.  But before I answer your questions, you should answer the question in the top post.  Can you see an intact 40 story structure bearing down on the lower floors in that picture?  I don't see any intact structure, there's nothing but debris.  What happened to 40 stories of vertical truss?  What blew that to bits?  In 5 seconds time?



No one answered the question.  Everyone who entered the thread only came here to debunk the thread.  Debunking is a really intelligent sounding term for acting an idiot and tossing tomatoes.  When I answered the questions, later in the thread, they were already into tossing out negative reputation garnished with cuss words and the like abuse. Somehow this coarse base behavior thinks it is accomplishing a political agenda for someone,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

When you play internet Spades, there's a bunch of little tykes who like to roam the hands bidding 13 or double nil, they don't know how to play the game, but they want to be involved.  When you come to message boards, you get the sewer equivalent from their parents.  Politics in America is very very close in nature to dog shit.  I don't have any posts in the political threads, I don't want this dog shit rubbed into my threads, but these dogs wander in here and do their duty.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 22, 2013)

> ANOTHER EMPTY STATEMENT BACKED BY NOTHING.



How ironic coming from someone who has utterly failed to substantiate every single one of his conspiracy allegations.


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> > ANOTHER EMPTY STATEMENT BACKED BY NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> How ironic coming from someone who has utterly failed to substantiate every single one of his conspiracy allegations.



You are in fact the one that can not substantiate their conspiracy theory


----------



## Days (Aug 22, 2013)

I understand the entire design and a lot more that you obviously don't realize exists, let alone understand.  I never bothered to answer this clueless post because it made no sense.  You debunkers never answer anything, you just fire away with whatever idiocy that comes to mind, no matter how disconnected it is from the conversation.  You are incapable of making use of the threads, which, BTW, can be used to hold a conversation (something intelligent people do).

So, the tops were blown to bits and therefore never acted as a weight to crush those connections of yours, where ever they might have been.  By the way, the floor joists hung on thick bar steel in sheer with the wall, NIST never said they were crushed, they tried to get around them by saying the walls bent outward... which the walls did; from the explosives... not the fire.  But you seem to think that steel holding up the floors in sheer with the curtain wall was weak.  Those connections had 100% the strength of the curtain wall (by design - duh).  To think otherwise is to scream, "I don't know the first thing about structural design".  Which you did a bang up job of screaming throughout the thread.

The top post pointed at an obvious Lie in the structural failure abalysis of the lower floors.  Over and over in this thread I kept explaining that the core columns run from top to bottom and are seamless; you have to somehow collapse the core columns also, and there was a lot of them... scores of them... and each one of them failed; how?  You seem to think they would just fall with the floors; wrong, they don't.  NIST never answered that, either.  I added that the cores snapped at the onset of collapse; meaning ALL the core columns snapped in half; which they plainly did and it is highly visible for both tower collapses.  What could have snapped all the core columns in half BEFORE the towers collapsed?  Other than explosives?  

answer: nothing, even a 9.0 earthquake would not have snapped those cores, they were the strongest cores ever built and designed to bend like a tree, which makes them that much harder to snap in half.  That's why I kept pointing it out, but you dimwits are soooooooooooooo stupid, I might as well be singing opera to cows.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > > ANOTHER EMPTY STATEMENT BACKED BY NOTHING.
> ...



Kindly refrain from accusing others of your own shortcomings.


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Sorry, but you completely failed in proving the official 9/11 conspiracy theory


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> NIST failed to explain the collapses with their fire theory..your assumptions of what technologies could be utilized to bring down a building and your imagined obstacles do not change the fact that the most rational explanation for buildings collapsing as they did three times on sept 11th is some form of controlled demolition



There is nothing rational about imagining that there was a "controlled demolition" when there is zero evidence of any explosions when the buildings collapsed. Whereas the evidence caused by 140 ton aircraft traveling at 400+ mph is visible to the naked eye as are the raging fires and the well known facts about engineering principles and strengths of materials.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I never set out to prove your imaginary 'official 9/11 conspiracy theory". I simply took the available facts and provided a plausible scenario using well documented and proven facts regarding strengths of materials and engineering principles. The math doesn't lie and it fits within all of the known facts regarding the events. 

Your allegations require imaginary outside intervention, impossible feats and lack any shred of hard evidence. Your accusations ring hollow given your own lack of substantiation.


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Nonsense, you took a scenario and ignored all facts that did not support it..even NIST coincides ultimately it can not explain the collapse but now you claim to have...NIST simply ignores the question..perhaps you should send them your _math_ so they can finally claim to "explain" the collapse beyond initiation and give the full collapse sequence...Sorry your collapse scenario is highly questionably ,does not fit the available facts and I would be generous in saying has a very low probabilty


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Once again you spew allegations without substantiation. So now you have an even greater onus to prove your position. No one is holding their breath since you have consistently failed to do so.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2013)

Days said:


> I understand the entire design and a lot more that you obviously don't realize exists, let alone understand.  I never bothered to answer this clueless post because it made no sense.  You debunkers never answer anything, you just fire away with whatever idiocy that comes to mind, no matter how disconnected it is from the conversation.  You are incapable of making use of the threads, which, BTW, can be used to hold a conversation (something intelligent people do).
> 
> So, the tops were blown to bits and therefore never acted as a weight to crush those connections of yours, where ever they might have been.  By the way, the floor joists hung on thick bar steel in sheer with the wall, NIST never said they were crushed, they tried to get around them by saying the walls bent outward... which the walls did; from the explosives... not the fire.  But you seem to think that steel holding up the floors in sheer with the curtain wall was weak.  Those connections had 100% the strength of the curtain wall (by design - duh).  To think otherwise is to scream, "I don't know the first thing about structural design".  Which you did a bang up job of screaming throughout the thread.
> 
> ...



*So, the tops were blown to bits and therefore never acted as a weight to crush those connections of yours*

Wrong.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> NIST failed to explain the collapses with their fire theory..your assumptions of what technologies could be utilized to bring down a building and your imagined obstacles do not change the fact that the most rational explanation for buildings collapsing as they did three times on sept 11th is some form of controlled demolition


It's wishful thinking swallowed only by people who can't think rationally.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


at what? nothing in the needed disciplines..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 22, 2013)

Days said:


> I understand the entire design and a lot more that you obviously don't realize exists, let alone understand.  I never bothered to answer this clueless post because it made no sense.  You debunkers never answer anything, you just fire away with whatever idiocy that comes to mind, no matter how disconnected it is from the conversation.  You are incapable of making use of the threads, which, BTW, can be used to hold a conversation (something intelligent people do).
> 
> So, the tops were blown to bits and therefore never acted as a weight to crush those connections of yours, where ever they might have been.  By the way, the floor joists hung on thick bar steel in sheer with the wall, NIST never said they were crushed, they tried to get around them by saying the walls bent outward... which the walls did; from the explosives... not the fire.  But you seem to think that steel holding up the floors in sheer with the curtain wall was weak.  Those connections had 100% the strength of the curtain wall (by design - duh).  To think otherwise is to scream, "I don't know the first thing about structural design".  Which you did a bang up job of screaming throughout the thread.
> 
> ...


dude who are you addressing..learn to use the quote function...
btw every thing you've just mentioned has been ask and answered.


----------



## MisterBeale (Aug 22, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> So you think the monominded murderers and mechanical mavens who masterminded and sent engineers, scientists, and doctors to guide the planes to their doom were too stupid to know exactly where to place those hits in a way that would overburden the system that was not supposed to break down for any reason? Even a vertical house of cards can flatten if you remove the right middle card. The buildings were calculated to go down with attention to where the support of the building would be damaged the most.
> 
> They're brainwashed to think life on earth doesn't matter if you are killed or kill, and that if they kill enough infidels, they will get a double reward.
> 
> ...


Unsubstantiated CRAP, and a complete lie!

No where will you find any evidence Saddam Hussein had any links to 9/11.  Put up or shut up.  Wow are you ignorant!

Republicans, Democrats, even people that believe the official piece of shit line the government feeds us now know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  GO AWAY!  I HATE LIARS!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 22, 2013)

MisterBeale said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > So you think the monominded murderers and mechanical mavens who masterminded and sent engineers, scientists, and doctors to guide the planes to their doom were too stupid to know exactly where to place those hits in a way that would overburden the system that was not supposed to break down for any reason? Even a vertical house of cards can flatten if you remove the right middle card. The buildings were calculated to go down with attention to where the support of the building would be damaged the most.
> ...


then why do buy so many?


----------



## MikeK (Aug 22, 2013)

whitehall said:


> Anybody ever watch a reality show where controlled demolitions bring down a building? There are literally weeks of preparation just to expose the areas so that the demolition engineers can see where to place the charges. Next there is another week or two while many, many holes are drilled in the concrete for the explosive charges. The incredible mass of wiring is carefully mapped out and attached to a computer for synchronized blasts. I guess the MTV generation who were raised in front of a TV set think that the CIA and/or the FBI or some rogue US government agency could pull it off right in front of some of the best security networks in the world and keep it a secret but it's a freaking pipe dream. Why didn't it happen when the jihad tried it with a truck of explosives in the first year of the Clinton administration? It certainly would have been easier to synchronize timed explosives with a freaking truck parked in the basement than coordinate with two crazy squads of suicide bombers in planes. Nothing makes sense except wishful thinking.


Well said.  And irrefutably supported by the question of _purpose._  The only purpose of any _controlled demolition_ is prevention of damage to the surrounding area.  There is no other purpose.  So the very notion of controlling the destruction of the Towers is wholly counterproductive to the intention of bringing them down.

Toppling the Towers, by blasting one side of their foundations with one truckful of Semtex properly positioned in each basement garage, would have been much easier and would have collapsed them horizontally onto a five block area of lower Manhattan, vastly increasing the level of damage caused by the vertical ("pancake") collapse.  

So the notion of a controlled demolition is logically dismissed because it simply makes no sense.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 22, 2013)

MikeK said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody ever watch a reality show where controlled demolitions bring down a building? There are literally weeks of preparation just to expose the areas so that the demolition engineers can see where to place the charges. Next there is another week or two while many, many holes are drilled in the concrete for the explosive charges. The incredible mass of wiring is carefully mapped out and attached to a computer for synchronized blasts. I guess the MTV generation who were raised in front of a TV set think that the CIA and/or the FBI or some rogue US government agency could pull it off right in front of some of the best security networks in the world and keep it a secret but it's a freaking pipe dream. Why didn't it happen when the jihad tried it with a truck of explosives in the first year of the Clinton administration? It certainly would have been easier to synchronize timed explosives with a freaking truck parked in the basement than coordinate with two crazy squads of suicide bombers in planes. Nothing makes sense except wishful thinking.
> ...



None of the conspiracy theories make any sense. In some instances they are arguing against each other. One claims the upper floors were magically "vaporized" while another is claiming a "controlled demolition" using the upper floors to crush the lower floors. If they can't get their act together and come up with a single plausible scenario they will continue to have no credibility.


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

MikeK said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody ever watch a reality show where controlled demolitions bring down a building? There are literally weeks of preparation just to expose the areas so that the demolition engineers can see where to place the charges. Next there is another week or two while many, many holes are drilled in the concrete for the explosive charges. The incredible mass of wiring is carefully mapped out and attached to a computer for synchronized blasts. I guess the MTV generation who were raised in front of a TV set think that the CIA and/or the FBI or some rogue US government agency could pull it off right in front of some of the best security networks in the world and keep it a secret but it's a freaking pipe dream. Why didn't it happen when the jihad tried it with a truck of explosives in the first year of the Clinton administration? It certainly would have been easier to synchronize timed explosives with a freaking truck parked in the basement than coordinate with two crazy squads of suicide bombers in planes. Nothing makes sense except wishful thinking.
> ...



motive is the last part of the investigation..a scientific investigation does not examine motive..NIST failed to determine the cause of the collapses and its fire induced collapse theory


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



can you show me the post were someone says the upper floors where magically vaporized or where anyone says it was a controlled demolition using the upper floors to crush the lower floors ???....I will be waitng


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



I suggest that you reread both the OP and your own posts.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 22, 2013)

MisterBeale said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > So you think the monominded murderers and mechanical mavens who masterminded and sent engineers, scientists, and doctors to guide the planes to their doom were too stupid to know exactly where to place those hits in a way that would overburden the system that was not supposed to break down for any reason? Even a vertical house of cards can flatten if you remove the right middle card. The buildings were calculated to go down with attention to where the support of the building would be damaged the most.
> ...


 
Sorry, it's a well-documented story that Sandy Berger stole original documents from the National Archive prior to his arrest for stealing documents to clear the Clinton Administration and dirty the 
Bush Admiistration, for which he received a rather substantial fine, as well as being barred from going back to the National Archive to rearrange and obfuscate "facts" some more.

You have been fooled by your own Democrat Party cheaters, Mr. Beale. Don't expect conservatives to be. As they besmirched Jennifer Flowers, the Clintonistas went after star Harvard Scholar Laurie Mylroie, whom the FBI praised but the liberal Democrats in the Clinton Administration made loud noises and complaints about her findings that Saddam Hussein was linked to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as a player that he was. He was also linked to the attempted assassination of President George H.W.Bush and wrote $25,000 checks out to the families of the 9/11 bombers.

Keep kicking and screaming.

Saddam Hussein was up to his eyeballs in 9/11, whooping it up when the news was confirmed that the hijackers had successfully hit the WTC by shooting his AK-47 into the air above the massive audience he had before the Republican Guard's victory dance after the news broke. The Democrats, still reeling from the Bush election to the White House, did everything in their power to stifle the news stories of the dancing in the streets done in Baghdad that day, but I recollect it well, as reports weren't being stifled yet, until about the time evil Hillary held up the sign at the WTC that said "Bush Gnu." All that crap, and the DNC line was 'Bush is using this as a campaign start for re-election!" (Huh? In 2001? Oh, brother!!!)

I was online that day when someone said "turn your tv on, the World Trade Center in New York City has been hit by a jetliner." By the time I got to the TV set, I watched in horror as the second plane hit a couple of minutes later. I thought, "Unlike Flight 800 to France, which crashed July 17, 1996, they can't deny that these consecutive crashes today are the work of terrorists." 

Not to worry, Beale. Idiots will believe your screaming-sized purple bullshit.



> I HATE LIARS![/


 
No you don't. You should have heard the "poor guy" schtick about Sandy Berger before and after his conviction of stealing from the National Archives. He raided the national archives to ensure that Bush and not the Clinton administration paid the price for Clinton's State Department notes augmented by the Clinton White House papers.

For ever more. Berger even had papers stuffed in his shoes. 

Shame on the Demmies for stealing papers to make themselves look good so they could scream "liar!" to anyone like me who read and remembered stuff from Clinton's negligence-filled administration, including Saddam Hussein's involvement in the WTC that would make Jimmy Carter look like a liar and Bush look like a hero.

Naughty, naughty, naughty.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Repeat a canard often enough and you can convince yourself that it is true.


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



NIST admitted it could not explain the collapse beyond intiation


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> misterbeale said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



the bush  administration said it was of no importance who the financier of 9/11 was on sept 10th the Pakistan government wired 100.000 $ to Mohamed Atta.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I would suggest that's a dodge because once again you can not substantiate your claims and can provide no such post


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



*So, there was no upper tower portion left bearing down upon the lower portions of the tower. Which is why I scratched my head in disbelief at all those explanations that relied on this nonexistent weight to do all this crushing downward against the vertical core. The upper portions would have been pathetically incapable of performing that crushing had they existed to do so. But they didn't exist to do so. They were already gone by the halfway point of the demolition wave in the lower portions.*

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...uestion-for-the-wtc-collapse.html#post7688251


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I do not see the part thats says the top section was _magically vaporized _or that or that where it was _controlled demolition using the upper floors to crush the lower floors._..thanks for confirming this


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Now you are changing your story from;

"NIST failed to determine* the cause *of the collapses"

to;

"explain the collapse *beyond intiation*"

One of the ways cops always know when someone is lying is when their story keeps on changing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



*there was no upper tower portion left *

*But they didn't exist to do so. They were already gone*

If he didn't mean they were vaporized or levitated away, what could he mean by, "they didn't exist"?


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Seems you just changed your story...mine however remains unchanged..you can not claim to have explained the collapse if all you have done is tweaked perimeters  in a computer model and get a floor to fall on another ..this is all that NIST achieved and why they admit they can not fully explain the collapse secnario...partial explanation is a word game..if you can not give a full explanation then you have not given an explanation ..its that simple


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


See it now? While your buddy days didn't mention magic, he IS on record as saying the "top section" was not there.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



From the OP;



> I can't see any top portion of tower doing this herculean crushing of the entire structure below it. That's because the demolition wave began at points of impact and went in both directions; down and up, and since the towers were struck in the upper portions, *the tops were blown to pieces *by the time the bottoms were still only half blown to pieces. So, there was no upper tower portion left bearing down upon the lower portions of the tower.



Posted by Eots on 08-20-2013, 03:30 PM;



> WTC7 and the towers were *carefully planned demolitions*



Posted by Eots on 08-20-2013, 01:54 PM;



> its called *controlled demolition* where the the supports of a building are removed in a very precise sequence..the section bellow would likely of had been striped and weakened by partially cutting suppports



Fully substantiated using both the OP and *YOUR* posts!


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Kindly refrain from accusing me of your own semantic shortcomings!


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The only person using the words vaporized or levitated is you..it is clear in the video that a sec after collpase imitation much of the top section is reduced to pulverized concrete and outside the perimeter of the building...I see nothing in this statement that would imply there was anything magical about this fact


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



You are completely guilty along with NIST of semantic shortcomings!  a partial explanation is not a explanation.. its semantics for..we do not have an explanation ..we have a hypothesis


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Let me repeat for the umpteenth time, the *ONUS* remains on *YOU* to *PROVE* these allegations of yours with *CREDIBLE SUBSTANTIATION*.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




*much of the top section is reduced to pulverized concrete *

Tens of thousands of tons worth. Not gone.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


wouldn't a CD preclude the need to use airliners.
if the idea was to terrorize the public ,it seems a demo of the towers with no other cause would scare the shit out of people, then the more plausible crash scenario.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


what's a "  collpase imitation "
an imitation colonoscopy ?


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Actually the onuses on  NIST to prove their hypothesis and they failed to do so


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



assumption and imaginings are not a determination of the cause of the collapses..your scenario  has nothing to do with physiscs


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



news flash ..buildings are designed to hold a lot of weight and be very resistant to fire..obviously much of the debris in the foot print would be from the bulk of building below the impact zone


----------



## daws101 (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


wrong nist did their job...just not to your satisfaction..you'll never be satisfied.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


that's funny! you know jack shit about physics (you can't even spell it )so any claim you make about "THE physics of 911 is false.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Please provide the exact wording of NIST's alleged "hypothesis"!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


he'll find a site that quotes it but not the actual nist report.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



1. Buildings are designed to support static weight not kinetic weight.

2. The floors were not designed to hold the additional weight of the wreckage from the 140 ton 767.

3. The floors were not designed to withstand an hour of heating from intense fires.

4. The furnishings inside the building were not designed to be "very resistant to fire".


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



*buildings are designed to hold a lot of weight and be very resistant to fire*

And not so much to withstand jumbo jets at high velocity slamming into them initiating huge fires. I'm surprised they stood as long as they did.


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



designed to withstand multiple impacts...


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

*NIST "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."*

http://ocio.os.doc.gov/s/groups/public/@doc/@os/@ocio/@oitpp/documents/content/prod01_004108.pdf


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)




----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

And then of course building 7 had no plane run into it and  other than the initiation of the fires was not compromised by falling debris..but still it fell in secs from office fires


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



But not designed to withstand the effects of the fire on the steel damaged by the impacts.


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> And then of course building 7 had no plane run into it and  other than the initiation of the fires was not compromised by falling debris..but still it fell in secs from office fires



More evidence that you did not read and/or comprehend the NIST report on WTC 7.


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > And then of course building 7 had no plane run into it and  other than the initiation of the fires was not compromised by falling debris..but still it fell in secs from office fires
> ...



LOL..more evidence you make empty statements you back with nothing..if you want to challenge my statement do it with facts and the NIST report..instead of your meaningless shit-ass comments


----------



## MikeK (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


Who said anything about motive?  _Motive_ is not the same as _purpose._  The purpose of attacking the Towers was to cause damage.  The motive for doing it is not relevant to this discussion.  

So, if the purpose of attacking the Towers was to cause damage the best and easiest way to do that is by toppling them -- not by effecting a controlled demolition, which would have been virtually impossible to accomplish to begin with.


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

MikeK said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> but it did not build in the structural integrity to withstand 1 hour of relatively small fires compared to other historical building fires that all remained standing ? ?



The relatively small fires that were hot enough to melt aluminum, you mean?

Look at the Madrid/Windsor tower fire. That building was a steel frame around a concrete core. The steel frame part of the building collapsed within a couple hours of fire, despite not even being hit by a plane. The concrete part never collapsed, being that concrete doesn't weaken in fire.

There are many examples of large steel-frame structures collapsing in fire. The claim that it doesn't happen is just bullshit. The towers and WTC7 were steel framed, no concrete core. Sure, no tube-in-tube-framed skyscraper had collapsed from fire before ... because no tube-in-a-tube-framed skyscraper had ever caught fire before.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 22, 2013)

MikeK said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody ever watch a reality show where controlled demolitions bring down a building? There are literally weeks of preparation just to expose the areas so that the demolition engineers can see where to place the charges. Next there is another week or two while many, many holes are drilled in the concrete for the explosive charges. The incredible mass of wiring is carefully mapped out and attached to a computer for synchronized blasts. I guess the MTV generation who were raised in front of a TV set think that the CIA and/or the FBI or some rogue US government agency could pull it off right in front of some of the best security networks in the world and keep it a secret but it's a freaking pipe dream. Why didn't it happen when the jihad tried it with a truck of explosives in the first year of the Clinton administration? It certainly would have been easier to synchronize timed explosives with a freaking truck parked in the basement than coordinate with two crazy squads of suicide bombers in planes. Nothing makes sense except wishful thinking.
> ...



Well, just to be even handed; a lot of the time taken in demolition prep is removal of components that they can sell.  

That having been said there is zero chance that the buildings could be wired for demolition with nobody noticing.  Zero chance.  Radio controlled demo wouldn't work.  We know this because of the FDNY radios not working resulting in 343 deaths.  Cables would have been seen easily.  Not to mention the movement of furniture to place demolition charges, the cutting through pipe and utilities.  All couldn't have happened.  The suggestion is comical to be kind.

Next the "planning" that would go into something like this would not get past the smell test.  The largest building ever demoed was something like 400 feet tall in Cleveland; prep took months. We're supposed to believe that the planners not only wired the 2 buildings (or 3 if you want to count in WTC 7) but would stake the plan hinging  on covertly demoing 3 buildings larger than any other demo job ever done.

Anyone who thinks this is disqualified from being taken seriously; they should be disqualified from operating vehicles or procreating as well


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I thought it was one 707, not multiples?
How much heavier is a fully loaded 767, in comparison?


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



no multiple air strikes..


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > but it did not build in the structural integrity to withstand 1 hour of relatively small fires compared to other historical building fires that all remained standing ? ?
> ...



*"This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building"*

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse

*and still the building remaied standing*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MjsVnasLA]The Windsor Tower in Madrid Spain - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Show me.


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS0JP2cJoQA]FOX5 Report On WTC Being Built To Withstand Airstrikes - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw79fai6svw]WTC PLANE CRASH 911? Twin Towers Plane Crash. Designed to withstand MULTIPLE Plane Crashes - YouTube[/ame]

*0:30*


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I have spelled physics many times..your jumping on a typo only further hi-lites the weakness of your hypothesis...and its not the physics of 9/11 that is false..it is NIST physics that is false


----------



## konradv (Aug 22, 2013)

I think it was all an effort by the Illuminati to destroy Obama's real birth certificate and college transcrpits.


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

konradv said:


> I think it was all an effort by the Illuminati to destroy Obama's real birth certificate and college transcrpits.



That most likely because you have no clue what your talking about


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



That actually says it was designed for a single 707, but the speaker believes it could survive multiple impacts.


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The speaker was one of the designers..


----------



## KissMy (Aug 22, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The designers were way wrong or was thinking of a slower moving & smaller plane than the Boeing 757 hitting at over 500/mph. It was much more than a pencil hole in a screen netting or possibly knocking out a column. Those aircraft tore out an entire side & half the central core.


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



a 747 can not fly at 500 mph at sea level


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtL-DzdBBSo]Impossible Plane Speed with Boeing - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## whitehall (Aug 22, 2013)

The tin foil hat's best (only) expert witness Richard Humenn would be the first person to be interviewed about complicity in a crazy plot to destroy the World Trade Center if there was the slightest indication of an inside job. Strangely enough the old respected electrical engineer offers no insight about the 60 employees he supervised or his role in making sure the WTC was up and running every day. Did he even suspect that one of his people was an agent of the jihad? Did the interview even ask him? Alas the poor old guy was a stooge of the left wing and his legitimate anger and outrage about the destruction was translated for consumption by the usual ignorant left wingers to a rant about explosive devices. It's a shame but nothing is sacred to the radicals and the tin foil hats.


----------



## Smilebong (Aug 22, 2013)

Days said:


> And you've clearly still not told me about it.



What are your questions implying? That the government made those towers collapse, because your "window washer" sourced building strength theory doesn't explain it?


----------



## MikeK (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> how do you propose this easy way to "topple" the towers?


Ramseh Yousef almost succeeded in toppling Tower One in 1993 by parking a van packed with Semtex alongside a support column in the basement garage.  He failed because he parked the van on the wrong side of the column.  But in spite of that error, if he had used a larger van with a more powerful explosive, such as ANFO, it would have created a big enough crater to topple the Tower onto five blocks of lower Manhattan.  (ANFO is what Timothy McVeigh used in the OKC bombing.)



> and why do you assume that creating the most damage possible was the goal?


Are you suggesting that the purpose for a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center would be anything other than creating as much damage as possible?  If so, please explain what that purpose might be.


----------



## KissMy (Aug 22, 2013)

Watch the camera shutter as this Boeing 757 does a high speed pass 40 feet of the ground. Then it goes completely vertical like a rocket-ship up into the clouds.

[YouTube]Uiv6UvYnf3s[/YouTube] [YouTube]cKRUGIjnEJI[/YouTube] [YouTube]AdTiDNALmyU[/YouTube] [YouTube]EcpSTOwl66w[/YouTube]


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Watch the camera shutter as this Boeing 757 does a high speed pass 40 feet of the ground. Then it goes completely vertical like a rocket-ship up into the clouds.
> 
> [YouTube]Uiv6UvYnf3s[/YouTube]



lol are you claiming its going 500 mph..are you claiming Boeing is wrong on its flight specs ?...its a video of a plane flying big deal


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Which means you have one of the designers saying it was designed to survive the impact of a single plane.  If it could survive the impact of more than one, apparently that was not part of the design but rather a fortuitous side-effect of the design, not one intentionally put in.


----------



## KissMy (Aug 22, 2013)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Watch the camera shutter as this Boeing 757 does a high speed pass 40 feet of the ground. Then it goes completely vertical like a rocket-ship up into the clouds.
> ...



That 757 is exceeding 400/mph 40ft above the ground because I can see vapor above & coming off it's wings when it turns up. Planes go faster than engines will push them after descending. There are everyday use design specs & then what a plane can actually do. You can dive a plane well beyond it's air-frame design capacity until it explodes in mid-air.


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Right you can tell the Air speed from a video


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2013)

A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow

The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn&#8217;t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won&#8217;t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?

NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2013)

eots said:


> A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
> Dwain Deets
> NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
> AIAA Associate Fellow
> ...



*Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots.*

Operating velocity. Obviously you couldn't fly a plane faster than the maximum operating velocity for a minute or two because.......well......it's easier to wire tons of explosives or thermite into a building without detection.

EgyptAir 990 broke the sound barrier for a brief time before it crashed and still lasted a few more minutes.


----------



## eots (Aug 23, 2013)

toddsterpatriot said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > a responsibility to explain an aeronautical improbability
> ...



it was not in a straight down uncontrolled dive it was making near impossible flight maneuvers...


----------



## eots (Aug 23, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hTq0vlhF3M]9 11 pilots say NO WAY ! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 23, 2013)

toddsterpatriot said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > a responsibility to explain an aeronautical improbability
> ...



ya boeing and the flight director of nasa must be mistaken..todtheparrot said so..


----------



## KissMy (Aug 23, 2013)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Note the vapor fog above the wings of this B1-B when it turns after it makes a 500/mph pass. It takes high speeds to separate the air like that & create vapor.

[YouTube]13JGsr95wFo[/YouTube]


----------



## eots (Aug 23, 2013)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



I guess decorated fighter pilots that went on to fly 757 commercially and NASA flight directors have never heard of your vapor maybe you should educate them..send them an e-mail ..lol


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2013)

eots said:


> 9 11 pilots say NO WAY ! - YouTube



Alleged? So called?


----------



## KissMy (Aug 23, 2013)

eots said:


> toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I don't see how it would be uncontrollable until it approached mach-1. Egypt Air Flight 990 was a B-767 that exceeded 740/mph before it made hard turn into a climb with no engines & then stalled & crashed. COPA Air flight 201 which was a B-737 that has a weaker older slower 544/mph max airframe speed broke up well under 10k-ft going well over 560/mph for 75 seconds. So my estimate is 590/mph at 800-ft in a B-767 might break it up.  510 knots / 586/mph was what they said  Flight 175 hit when it crashed into WTC2.

[YouTube]AzB7Gg9BhSA[/YouTube]


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 23, 2013)

eots said:


> nonsense they did not build a building that could not withstand one floor falling onto another..you think building engineers never thought of this ?



Are you telling me you think that structural engineers analyzed and calculated this scenario? Besides, was it ONE floor's mass that impacted the first floor below?





eots said:


> actually they were designed to take multiple air craft strikes
> .



Link?



eots said:


> link?..you are claiming they built a building of this magnitude but it did not build in the structural integrity to withstand 1 hour of relatively small fires compared to other historical building fires that all remained standing ? ?



Damn you are stupid. Have you ever structurally designed anything or spoken to a structural engineer regarding your asinine statement above? What the hell do you think fireproofing is for? If engineers could successfully design a structure to be 100% impervious to fire, they wouldn't need fireproofing.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 23, 2013)

eots said:


> Yes, exactlly..this is why the building is built to withstand fire Einstien



Tell you what eots.

Please explain how an engineer would design a building to withstand a fire. You made the statement, now back it up.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 23, 2013)

eots said:


> The only person using the words vaporized or levitated is you..it is clear in the video that a sec after collpase imitation much of the top section is reduced to pulverized concrete and outside the perimeter of the building...I see nothing in this statement that would imply there was anything magical about this fact



Pulverized concrete? You can tell that from the videos??

Wow.

Can you tell me how you can discern, from videos and pictures, which portions are concrete, which are crushed ceiling tiles, or which are gypsum planking? How about point out the core columns? Elevator motors? Anything?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 23, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Still waiting eots...


----------



## PredFan (Aug 23, 2013)

Days said:


> My father was the largest permanent installation window washing manufacturer in the nation.  We actually did work for the architect that designed the World Trade Center.  My father described the man as an absolute genius in his field.  One of the biggest concerns when manufacturing equipment that will hold men's lives is structural failure.  As a rigger and installer, I understood breaking strengths for the materials I worked with and things like torque and sheer and how to analyze the forces acting upon my rigging.  So, when I listened to the government explanation of how and why the WTC towers collapsed, I had to scratch my head in disbelief.  Mostly, the only explanation put forth was the pancake theory... but when it was pointed out that pancaked floors would have left behind the core, the official story went blurry and sort of settled in this idea that the core was somehow pulverized by the weight of the tops bearing down upon them... as if the weight of the tops weren't always bearing down upon them, as if that isn't exactly what the core holds up.
> 
> Mostly, it is a taboo subject with the government, mostly they just don't want to talk about it.  They put out contracts with NIST for them to work up some kind of explanation, actually paying for it with our taxes.  The NIST contractors that won the contracts did their best to toss out real engineering studies that were somehow concluding what the government wanted to hear, without bothering to make any logical sense, but that wasn't the true goal as everyone involved understood it, a cover up doesn't need to make sense it just papers over the crime and walks away.  So it was mission accomplished by NIST, and still we have no clear explanation of structural failure, no congruent story that shows exactly what happened, and yes, that's exactly what engineers normally provide.
> 
> ...



Not a school child, but even a school child could answer this.

The big heavy object is the rubble of the floors above.

You're welcome.


----------



## PredFan (Aug 23, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


>



Awesomeness.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 23, 2013)

Days said:


> Okay school children,  Could you please point out the big heavy object that is crushing the floors below it?



If there was nothing within the footprint to fall upon the lower floors and core due to it all being ejected, please explain the 56' high debris pile in the footprint shown below.

Was all the debris ejected and then magically sucked back into the footprint?


----------



## eots (Aug 23, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Days said:
> 
> 
> > Okay school children,  Could you please point out the big heavy object that is crushing the floors below it?
> ...



that would be the floors below the impact zone...


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 23, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Days said:
> ...



So you think that the every single component of either upper section was ejected outside the footprint? That includes core columns and beams, concrete, elevator doors, cubicles, computers, printers, elevator motors, elevator electrical control panels, the hat truss, etc. 

Interesting.

Can you show me a video of any of the debris above being ejected? Particularly the core columns?

Can you explain why, if the upper section's components were ejected from explosions during the demolition, the lower section wasn't subjected to the same ejections?

Can you explain how much explosives are needed to eject a core columns SIDEWAYS at 50 MPH?

So far you have NOTHING to prove what you are saying.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 23, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Still waiting for you to address this eots...


----------



## numan (Aug 23, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> If there was nothing within the footprint to fall upon the lower floors and core due to it all being ejected, please explain the 56' high debris pile in the footprint shown below.
> 
> Was all the debris ejected and then magically sucked back into the footprint?


15 to 20 metres of debris is miniscule compared to the mass of a WTC building.

.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 23, 2013)

numan said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > If there was nothing within the footprint to fall upon the lower floors and core due to it all being ejected, please explain the 56' high debris pile in the footprint shown below.
> ...



Is it?

Care to do some math? If the 4" thick concrete floors landed on top of one another and didn't break apart, you'd get a height of about 36'. Wanna keep going?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 23, 2013)

numan said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > If there was nothing within the footprint to fall upon the lower floors and core due to it all being ejected, please explain the 56' high debris pile in the footprint shown below.
> ...



The towers were about 95% air. Or can you refute that?


----------



## MisterBeale (Aug 23, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



Again, all unsubstaintiated lies.  Propaganda YOU made up.  Nobody of any intelligence will fall for this crap.  C'mon.  Go get a life.  Really?!?



> Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Jump to: navigation, search
> This article is about issues concerning allegations of pre-invasion links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. For the al-Qaeda presence involved in the Iraqi insurgency, see Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

Sorry, your claims are just that, claims, not substantiated by reality.  You have picked up on a kernel of cognitive biased propaganda which supports your partisan world view.

I am sorry you view me as a partisan.  I'm not.  I know all "parties" are controlled and seek only one thing, power and the massaging of weak egos and soft brains, minds incapable of independent thought, a lack of critical reasoning, and an  unwillingness to do research into the facts of REALITY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations_timeline

If you want to prove something other than "your say so," provide a link.  I'm willing to be educated.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 23, 2013)

Let's see. The towers were about 95% air.

208' x 208' x 1360' = 58,839,040 cubic feet.

58,839,040 cubic feet x .95 = 55,897,088 cubic feet

58,839,040 cubic feet - 55,897,088 cubic feet = 2,941,952 cubic feet.

Let's put that 2,942,952 cubic feet into a 208' x 208' container. How high would it be?

That would be about 68' high.


----------



## eots (Aug 23, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



it would appear to some form of explosives


----------



## eots (Aug 23, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



They were air..no I do not think so..the towers were concrete and steel no air was used in the construction of the towers


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 23, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



WRONG!

There were no explosives used in the verinage demolition video I posted.

Try again.

What turned the upper section of that building into debris?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 23, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



eots. Try and keep up.

How much of the 208' x 208' x 1360' area of the towers was taken up by PHYSICAL OBJECTS?

Are you smart enough to do the math and figure this out?


----------



## eots (Aug 23, 2013)

*more than 1 million tons of dust enveloped lower Manhattan*

The dust "was unlike any dust and smoke mixture I had ever seen before," Lioy said. The fluffy, pink and gray powder "was basically a complex mixture of everything that makes up our workplaces and lives." Six million sq ft of masonry, 5 million sq ft of painted surfaces, 7 million sq ft of flooring, 600,000 sq ft of window glass, 200 elevators, and everything inside came down as dust, said Greg Meeker of USGS. The only thing that didn't get pulverized was the WTC towers' 200,000 tons of structural steel. That was just bent, Meeker said.

C&EN: COVER STORY - CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF A DISASTER


----------



## eots (Aug 23, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



I was not referring to your verinage video


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 23, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...





Well, now that we got that cleared up. Explain TakeAStepBack's understanding of physics and how it explains what happened in the verinage demolition. According to him, that couldn't have happened to ANY of those buildings.


----------



## eots (Aug 23, 2013)

are you using an example of controlled demolition in order to refute the controlled demolition theory??


----------



## eots (Aug 23, 2013)

was this building steel framed or reinforced concrete ?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 23, 2013)

eots said:


> *more than 1 million tons of dust enveloped lower Manhattan*
> 
> The dust "was unlike any dust and smoke mixture I had ever seen before," Lioy said. The fluffy, pink and gray powder "was basically a complex mixture of everything that makes up our workplaces and lives." Six million sq ft of masonry, 5 million sq ft of painted surfaces, 7 million sq ft of flooring, 600,000 sq ft of window glass, 200 elevators, and everything inside came down as dust, said Greg Meeker of USGS. The only thing that didn't get pulverized was the WTC towers' 200,000 tons of structural steel. That was just bent, Meeker said.
> 
> C&EN: COVER STORY - CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF A DISASTER



And what does weight have to do with figuring out how much SPACE something occupies?

Wow.

You and numan both...


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 23, 2013)

eots said:


> was this building steel framed or reinforced concrete ?



How does that change the LAWS OF PHYSICS according to TakeAStepBack's understanding?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 23, 2013)

eots said:


> are you using an example of controlled demolition in order to refute the controlled demolition theory??



Oh Jesus...

You, TakeAStepBack, and others think that the upper section of the tower could not shear/demolish the lower section of the tower with gravity alone. This is based on:



TakeAStepBack said:


> Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both. You would need an energy input for that to occur and we dont have one. Unless you know something we dont.



So I asked that you explain, based on TakeAStepBack's explanation above, how the building in the verinage video I posted goes against TakeAStepBack's "understanding" of the laws of physics.


----------



## eots (Aug 23, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *more than 1 million tons of dust enveloped lower Manhattan*
> ...



because much of your alleged weight was spreads over a very wide area starting with the collpase initiation on down


----------



## eots (Aug 23, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > are you using an example of controlled demolition in order to refute the controlled demolition theory??
> ...



in your video the top section is not blown into a dust cloud..the instant collapse initiation starts


----------



## eots (Aug 23, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=samGjZ8nKgk]WTC 1 - Slow Motion (Lightened) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Aug 23, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


the typo was just the icing on the cake the meat of the statement was you don't know jack shit about physics ..typo or not.
 I have no hypothesis I have facts 
you have specious conjecture not a hypothesis or facts..    
so any claim you make about "THE physics of 911 is false.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 23, 2013)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


yes you can.   http://physics.info/velocity/


----------



## daws101 (Aug 23, 2013)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


handy hint: when eot's is getting his ass handed to him, he says shit like the above.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 23, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...


so shithead you're saying that the TT's were SOLID CONCRETE AND STEEL?
is that the case then why did they collapse?
also if that was an attempt at sarcasm..it also collapsed


----------



## eots (Aug 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



that requires measurements its not done with "vapors"


----------



## daws101 (Aug 23, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


wrong the vapors can only be created at a certain speed .
the measuring( meaning math) is calculated (on video or film) by how fast an object moves past a given point. 

give it up dude! you're wrong!


----------



## eots (Aug 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



afraid not, I have Boeing and highly experienced pilots telling me these speeds are not possible at sea level..and "I am not giving that up" because some buffoon on the internet tells me vapor stories...lol


----------



## eots (Aug 23, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOb92R34jxo]New 911 Truth Video Can Not Be Debunked - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 24, 2013)

eots said:


> New 911 Truth Video Can Not Be Debunked - YouTube



There is no thermite evidence.

The Problem with Microspheres - Evidence based research

No one can tell the difference between molten aluminum and molten steel just be looking at them but given that there wasn't sufficient heat to melt the steel it was actually aluminum. (Melting point is half that of steel.)

In order to "pre cut" the steel beams in the WTC buildings there would have to be access to them, heavy equipment to do the cutting, people involved knowing exactly where to make the cuts (selecting floors 82 and 98 ), ventilation to clear the smoke, disarming of the fire alarm system, no one noticing the "burning smell" from the cutting and a forensics clean up crew to remove all "evidence" followed by a crew to repair and repaint the walls that were removed/damaged to get access to the structure. What is more is that given the nature of the curtain walls these "pre cuts" would have been necessary on every single one of the vertical steel members. 

Even with all of that immense effort being done "in secret" there is still the problem of the concrete core. That cannot be "pre cut". That requires explosives to shatter the concrete. So now Eots has to arrange for another highly specialized team of demolition experts to get their explosive charges into the building (past the bomb detecting security) and into place with the same "stealth" and forensics and clean up crews sworn to "secrecy". 

While all of is happening the normal maintenance crew somehow remains completely unaware of what is happening. No one notices anything at all unusual in buildings that have been previously targeted and attacked by terrorists with a bomb. No one sees something out of the ordinary. No smells, no question as to why the fire alarms are disabled, no security triggers set off, no strange wiring. Nothing at all.

But this is what conspiracy theorists like Eots expect us to believe was possible in the middle of some of the busiest buildings in the center of world's largest financial center. They babble on about doing "science" but don't apply it to their own conspiracy scenarios. Basically what Eots want us to believe is that somehow it was possible to prepare some of the largest and most secure buildings in lower Manhatten for total demolition over a period of months with a large crew of specialists who where sworn to total "secrecy". That level of "faith" would make saints envious if it wasn't more akin to paranoia rather than faith itself. The reality is that what Eots is proposing simply doesn't pass the LOL test as far as feasibility is concerned.


----------



## numan (Aug 24, 2013)

daws101 said:


> ...you don't know jack shit about physics ..typo or not.
> I have no hypothesis I have facts
> you have specious conjecture not a hypothesis or facts..
> so any claim you make about "THE physics of 911 is false.


How quaint, Daws, that you should write that, considering that you are not troubled by the free-fall collapse of the towers -- a basic violation of the laws of Newtonian Mechanics, unless the resistance to movement of the lower stories had been eliminated !!




.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 24, 2013)

numan said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > ...you don't know jack shit about physics ..typo or not.
> ...



They were not free fall.

Show me a video of the complete collapse that happened in about 9 seconds.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 24, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You're full of shit.

Start at 1:10 of this next video. How come i can see the roof line descend until about 1:15?

I thought the upper section was "blown into dust the instant the collapse initiation starts"?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2VcxDzWk4]NIST FOIA: WTC2 Collapse (Dean Riviere) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 24, 2013)

You guys have no clue.

I suggest you look a femr2's video analysis. His work shows movement of WTC1 9 seconds prior to "release" AND shows that the acceleration was not smooth, indicating a non-freefall descent.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 24, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > New 911 Truth Video Can Not Be Debunked - YouTube
> ...



the newest government disinformation agent to penetrate this site.man what a troll.if you were a serious reseacher,you would know that you can do demolitions now because as Eots has shown MANY times in the past with pics and videos,you CAN do them without wiring now. oh and the CIA has plants in government agencys and did that day with the cleanup crew obviously.The CIA had plants disguised as workers planting those explosives.

the president at the time WAS the son of a former CIA director you know? an organization that brought in nazi criminals to carry out tasks for them after world war two ended. oh and your also ignorant to the fact that Bushs Brother and cousin were head of the security leading up to 9/11.Bushs brother wasnt there all the way up till 9/11,but his cousin was.

congrats showing you have done NO RESEARCH into this at all.you shot your  credibility right here big time below.

 No one sees something out of the ordinary.  

if you had done any research,you would know that many employees said they saw MANY unusual things out of the ordinary happen in the prior weeks leading up to 9/11. many said they heard very unusual activity and very unusual construction going on in the prior weeks.

for the first time in history,thay had power outages where they were evacuated,one of just MANY things they found to be extremely odd and unusual,

the normal maintenance crew wasnt allowed to go into certain areas.this fact always goes ignored by you OCTA'S so its a waste of time to post it but any serious researcher knows they had signs that said -keep out,construction under way. workers try and go in there,they get arrested. not only that.they used service elevaters that the regular workers did not have access to.

 oh and you ignore how the evidence was illegally removed and destroyed as well. not to mention many witnesses heard explosions in the basements below.suppressed videos show that as well with black smoke rising from the base of the towers.

the fire alarms and triggers were disabled by the CIA agents  installing the bombs obviously Einstein. Ever think of that possibility?

"YOU" are the conspiracy THEORIST.Eots is a conspiracy REALIST. your reality of ignoring witness testimonys of explosions in the basment and the laws of physics that buildings dont come STRAIGHT DOWN in freefall time IN 12 seconds is what doesnt pass feasability. ignoring that many witnesses that heard explosiosn were firefighters experienced in the sounds of explosives and detonations of buildings.

oh and using DEBUNKER links where they can type in ANYTHING they want on the net doesnt debunk his videos.sorry charlie.miserable fail.

oh and those specialists that pulled it off,you think they arent going to keep quiet after being paid off HUGE sums if money,they pay their specialists well in the CIA. and your obviously not aware that many witnesses who gave conflicting versions different than the governments,wound up dying in very mysterious deaths. that there was one lady who came on alex jones radio show and talked about hearing explosives go off in the towers in the basments,and she said on the program,if she does anytime soon,ot not believe the official story the newspapers tell,that she would never take her own life.

well she was found later on hanging from the ceiling of her home and ruled a suicide.guess she changed her mind about killing herself and nobody in the government murdered her? yeah right,and Im going to be the next president of the united states as well.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 24, 2013)

numan said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > ...you don't know jack shit about physics ..typo or not.
> ...



Dawgshit as we know,skipped through junior high school science classes.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 24, 2013)

the handlers of these trolls are sure getting worried this information is getting out.Notice how quickly they sent agent Gamolan here?


----------



## eots (Aug 24, 2013)

gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gamolon said:
> ...



yes  ,the roof is the last part to go within  the collapse starts the mass above starts to turn to dust in 3-4 secs it gone completely there is no block of building left ,its a dust cloud pulverized long before it even reaches the ground with the bulk of it ejecteced outside of the perimeter of the building ,your mass crushing the floors beneath does not exsist


----------



## eots (Aug 24, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> You guys have no clue.
> 
> I suggest you look a femr2's video analysis. His work shows movement of WTC1 9 seconds prior to "release" AND shows that the acceleration was not smooth, indicating a non-freefall descent.



Is this the clown that makes the claim the towers slow by a millseconed each time it hits a floor so therefore its not  smooth and not free -fall ?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 24, 2013)

eots said:


> New 911 Truth Video Can Not Be Debunked - YouTube



Not one new fact in the whole thing..... Still nothing there but opinion and still most of the videos they show do not include the collapse of the first penthouse.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 24, 2013)

at 2:23 pm today someone farted in here.


----------



## KissMy (Aug 24, 2013)

I know for a fact that a house fire can exceed 1600 degrees. My brothers house burnt a couple years ago. He had a large set of Blue Pyrex cookware in kitchen cabinets, shelves, on stove top & inside oven. The softening temperature of Pyrex cookware is 1510 degrees. All of his melted away, some ran down concrete foundation & out the stove. That means it went beyond the 1510 degree softening temp.


----------



## eots (Aug 24, 2013)

KissMy said:


> I know for a fact that a house fire can exceed 1600 degrees. My brothers house burnt a couple years ago. He had a large set of Blue Pyrex cookware in kitchen cabinets, shelves, on stove top & inside oven. The softening temperature of Pyrex cookware is 1510 degrees. All of his melted away, some ran down concrete foundation & out the stove. That means it went beyond the 1510 degree softening temp.



what more evidence do we need ..fuck science ..we have your pyrex story..most house or office fire do not exceed 900-1000 degrees under ideal circumstances it might reach 1400 no way it will exceed 1500 ..but the fires in the towers and wtc 7 did not a normal office fire temperatures appear to be anything beyond


----------



## eots (Aug 25, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c]Demolition Goes Wrong - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 25, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiNrzmbdC1Q]Building demolition goes wrong - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 25, 2013)

*someone should tell these guys all they need is to light few office fires*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkl6XzdlS5E]China appears to be in need of the 911 Controlled Demolition Contractors? - YouTube[/ame]

light a couple fires let it burn of a few hours as we all know temperatures will soon be over 1600 f..and down she goes presto ...these dummies the fight these skyscraper fires only to have to demo the building once the fires out..we all know if they just let the fires "rage uncontrolled"(even small ones) the building will completely collapse in a matter of secs...it worked three times in one day without a hitch on buildings larger than anything that has ever been attempted in history..this fire demo method seems to be the way to go with these giant skyscrapers


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 25, 2013)

Gee demolitions can go wrong? Yet we are to believe that the three largest ever attempted were prepared in secret and went off without a hitch even after planes slammed into two of them....

Got it......


----------



## numan (Aug 25, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


I can do better than that. You get a stopwatch and a video of the collapse of either building, and then time it. The collapse is over in 15 seconds, tops.

If the lower portions of the building had been crunched and then accelerated in free fall, it should have taken 30 seconds to a minute.

Therefore, the Law of Conservation of Momentum was violated -- unless the resistance of the lower portions of the building had been removed *by some means*.
.


----------



## eots (Aug 25, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Gee demolitions can go wrong? Yet we are to believe that the three largest ever attempted were prepared in secret and went off without a hitch even after planes slammed into two of them....
> 
> Got it......



but why did the dynamic load not crush the rest of the building ollie ?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 25, 2013)

haven't a clue, I'm not a demolitions expert, or those buildings would have dropped perfectly....I don't screw jobs up...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 25, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


telling you? are you on line with them or are they having a few beers at your place?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 25, 2013)

numan said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > ...you don't know jack shit about physics ..typo or not.
> ...


I'm not bothered as the towers did not free fall!
Did the Twin Towers fall at "free fall" speed as "conspiracy theorists" allege?

The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.

 Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

 When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
 d = 1/2at^2
 so
 t = (2d/a)^1/2
 a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
 d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
 so 
 t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
 OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough, 
 v = at
 v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
 So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.


 Let's see:
 KE = 1/2mv^2
 The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be 
 208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
 50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
 additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be 
 450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
 so the total mass would be
 4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
 Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
 90.4m/s
 so our 
 KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
 So, divide by 2 and we get
 10,362,544,260J
 OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
 t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
 v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
 KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
 Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
 110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
 = 1,139,879,868,600J
 OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
 1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

 Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

 Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. - Schneibster edited by Debunking 911

 Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn't say that's the fall time. That was not its purpose. It's only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn't at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.
Did the Twin Towers fall at "free fall" speed as "conspiracy theorists" allege? - Yahoo! Answers


----------



## numan (Aug 25, 2013)

'
I know, Daws, that it is beneath the dignity of your god-like mind to use a stop-watch and actually time the collapse of the towers.

What room for obfuscation and red herrings would that give you? · · 

.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 25, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> I know, Daws, that it is beneath the dignity of your god-like mind to use a stop-watch and actually time the collapse of the towers.
> 
> What room for obfuscation and red herrings would that give you? · ·
> ...


another false assumption...you can time the collapse by just watching the haNDY CLOCK  PROVIDED ON EVERY VIDEO ON YOUTUBE.. 


[ame=http://youtu.be/qLShZOvxVe4]9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed - YouTube[/ame]


NUFF SAID!


----------



## eots (Aug 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



but your gloriouse leader Shyam Sunder of NIST said it was 9 secs and 11 secs


----------



## daws101 (Aug 25, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...


as always you're misquoting to bolster your bullshit.
actual sunder quote:" The first fragments of the outer walls of the collapsed North Tower struck the ground 11 seconds after the collapse started, and parts of the South Tower after 9 seconds. The lower portions of both buildings' cores (60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) remained standing for up to 25 seconds after the start of the initial collapse before they too collapsed.

key phrases : The first fragments of the outer walls .

and parts of the South Tower after 9 seconds. 
as always you're making ass noises and claiming they're  facts!


----------



## numan (Aug 25, 2013)

'

You keep beating about the bush, Daws, but you can't hide the fact that they collapsed too fast.

.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 25, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> 
> You keep beating about the bush, Daws, but you can't hide the fact that they collapsed too fast.
> 
> .


right!


----------



## eots (Aug 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



you are adding 16 secs that it took for a very small portion of the core to collapse while ignoring the the other 99% of the building


----------



## numan (Aug 25, 2013)

eots said:


> you are adding 16 secs that it took for a very small portion of the core to collapse while ignoring the other 99% of the building.


So typical of those who are determined not to see the truth, isn't it?

.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 25, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


bullshit...until the dust settled the collapses were not complete.
so again you're talking shit..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 25, 2013)

numan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > you are adding 16 secs that it took for a very small portion of the core to collapse while ignoring the other 99% of the building.
> ...


since you have present no truth there is nothing to see.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 25, 2013)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peer reviewed papers and articles on how the towers collapsed..


Engineers Explain WTC Collapse
ArchitectureWeek - News - Engineers Explain WTC Collapse - 2002.0529 

Report Ties WTC Collapses to Column Failures
McGraw-Hill Construction | ENR - Research May Never Pinpoint Sequence of Events on 9/11 


IT WAS THE FIRE, CAUSED THE TWIN TOWER COLLAPSE - icivilengineer.com 
Civil Engineering News | iCivilEngineer 

Simulation for the collapse of WTC after aeroplane impact - Lu XZ., Yang N., Jiang JJ. Structure Engineer, 66(sup.). 2003, 18-22

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y. 
 "Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis"  (pdf) 
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.  

Brannigan, F.L. 
 "WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings" 
 Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.  

Clifton, Charles G.  
 Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers 
 HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.  

"Construction and Collapse Factors" 
 Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.  

Corbett, G.P. 
 "Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster" 
 Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.  

"Dissecting the Collapses" 
 Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.  

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C. 
 "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" 
 JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.  

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor. 
 World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations 
 (also available on-line)  

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.  
 "Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center" 
 The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.  

Glover, N.J. 
 "Collapse Lessons" 
 Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103  

Marechaux, T.G. 
 "TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" 
 JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.  

Monahan, B. 
 "World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations" 
 Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.  

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D. 
 "Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?" 
 Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.  

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs 
  Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center 
 Statement of  Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.   

Pinsker, Lisa, M. 
 "Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site" 
 Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001). 
The print copy has 3-D images.  

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) 
 Why the Towers Fell:   A Companion Website to the Television Documentary. 
 NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)   

Post, N.M. 
 "No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report" 
 ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.  

Post, N.M. 
 "Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing" 
 ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.  

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering  
 World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects 
 A resource site.  

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives" 
 ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

The Towers Lost and Beyond
The Towers Lost and Beyond 
 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
 Eduardo Kausel, John E. Fernandez, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Liang Xue, Meg Hendry-Brogan, Ahmed F. Ghoniem, Oral Buyukozturk, Franz-Josef Ulm, Yossi Sheffi


----------



## eots (Aug 25, 2013)

these are magazine articles


----------



## daws101 (Aug 25, 2013)

eots said:


> these are magazine articles


and ....your point.?
lets see some actual peer reviewed test results from asshole and eunuchs for twoff!


----------



## eots (Aug 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Peer reviewed papers and articles on how the towers collapsed..
> 
> ...



all of these links are from years before NIST  finished its report


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 26, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Gee demolitions can go wrong? Yet we are to believe that the three largest ever attempted were prepared in secret and went off without a hitch even after planes slammed into two of them....
> ...



What is Eots referring to now?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 26, 2013)

> oh and those specialists that pulled it off,you think they arent going to keep quiet after being paid off HUGE sums if money,they pay their specialists well in the CIA



Too bad the Conspiracy Theorists are incapable of applying "science" or even just a little logic to their own scenarios. The CIA is not allowed to operate within the USA. That is the FBI's jurisdiction. Then there is the problem of why would the CIA do something like this? Do the CT'ers believe that there isn't a single American patriot in the CIA who wouldn't blow the whistle if they knew anything about this alleged atrocity? Then we come back to the issue of "pre cutting" the steel and preparing the concrete core for demolition. Anyone who has ever worked with steel knows that there are lots of sparks and high temperatures involved which is why you don't have any flammable materials around. But somehow the CT'ers believe is was possible to do this without setting anything on fire. Drilling holes in concrete is loud noisy work. Furthermore there is no evidence that the foundations were damaged by explosives.

None of the CT'ers can provide a coherent, feasible alternative that doesn't rely upon things fro which there is zero evidence.


----------



## eots (Aug 26, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> > oh and those specialists that pulled it off,you think they arent going to keep quiet after being paid off HUGE sums if money,they pay their specialists well in the CIA
> 
> 
> 
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWkEbYgUk6c]Former FBI chief Ted Gundersen says 9 11 was an inside job - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 26, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGAiyJ_l2a8]9/11 CONSPIRACY: FBI whistleblowers are obstructed, silenced - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 26, 2013)

*Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report*

OpEdNews - Article: Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## eots (Aug 26, 2013)

*Raymond L. McGovern &#8211; 27-year CIA veteran. Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates (NIE)*, the consensus reports of all U.S. intelligence agencies. According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, NIE's "are the Intelligence Community&#8217;s most authoritative written judgments on national security issues."* Responsible for preparing and presenting the President&#8217; Daily Brief (PDB) to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and for providing intelligence briefing to their Vice Presidents, *Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials.  Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIA&#8217;s Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then-President George H. W. Bush. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.
Endorsement of 9/11 and American Empire (Vol I) &#8211; Intellectuals Speak Out: 

"It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with compelling evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole 'war on terror' was based on a prior deception. This book hence confronts the American people---indeed the people of the world as a whole---with an issue second to none in importance and urgency. I give this book, which in no way can be dismissed as the ravings of &#8216;paranoid conspiracy theorists,&#8217; my highest possible recommendation

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## eots (Aug 26, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnbMjAN7Bws]CIA Insider Tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view, America! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Aug 26, 2013)

eots said:


> *Raymond L. McGovern  27-year CIA veteran. Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates (NIE)*, the consensus reports of all U.S. intelligence agencies. According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, NIE's "are the Intelligence Communitys most authoritative written judgments on national security issues."* Responsible for preparing and presenting the President Daily Brief (PDB) to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and for providing intelligence briefing to their Vice Presidents, *Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials.  Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIAs Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then-President George H. W. Bush. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.
> Endorsement of 9/11 and American Empire (Vol I)  Intellectuals Speak Out:
> 
> "It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with compelling evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole 'war on terror' was based on a prior deception. This book hence confronts the American people---indeed the people of the world as a whole---with an issue second to none in importance and urgency. I give this book, which in no way can be dismissed as the ravings of paranoid conspiracy theorists, my highest possible recommendation
> ...


how not surprising youtube clips.
any test results yet?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 26, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


and?


----------



## eots (Aug 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



they contain theories later rejected by NIST


----------



## eots (Aug 26, 2013)

*Research Supposedly Supporting the OCT
Studies often cited as "proof" for the Official Conspiracy Theory 
The "mountain" of research is actually a debunked molehill*

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/OCT/


----------



## daws101 (Aug 26, 2013)

eots said:


> *Research Supposedly Supporting the OCT
> Studies often cited as "proof" for the Official Conspiracy Theory
> The "mountain" of research is actually a debunked molehill*
> 
> http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/OCT/


aqsshole and eunuchs now that wat I call credible!
btw where are a&e's test results?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 26, 2013)




----------



## eots (Aug 26, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


>



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtU69oWVNJY]9/11 victim's families claiming "9/11 was an inside job" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Aug 26, 2013)

eots said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


an eot's classic half truth...
that should read:" a very small number 9/11 victim's families claiming "9/11 was an inside job".


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 26, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > > oh and those specialists that pulled it off,you think they arent going to keep quiet after being paid off HUGE sums if money,they pay their specialists well in the CIA
> ...



He was never the "FBI chief" and he retired more than 2 decades before 9/11/01. Another piece of the "conspiracy theory" falls apart before it even gets off the ground.


----------



## eots (Aug 26, 2013)

derideo_te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > derideo_te said:
> ...



i do not see why that matters but you also ignored the fbi and cia that were active during 9/11


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 26, 2013)

eots said:


> derideo_te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...





Alert the press, the "fbi and cia that were active during 9/11"!



Define "active" as being anything different to what their job description entails.


----------



## DaveB (Aug 26, 2013)

eots said:


> i do not see why that matters but you also ignored the fbi and cia that were active during 9/11



Of course it matters, the video misrepresents his importance and what he actually knows. I didn't actually hear him say it was an inside job, what time did he say that at? Thanks.

BTW, what status should the CIA and FBI be at for any given time frame?


----------



## DaveB (Aug 26, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Youtube:     *watch?v=9ZHqWJDu3eA*    The first one is a few hundred miles an hour easily.

Those speeds at sea level may not be good for the long term structural integrity of the plane, but I'm guessing they weren't bothered with that.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 26, 2013)

DaveB said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


you'd be right .the jackers never bothered learning to land either..


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 26, 2013)

eots said:


> Impossible Plane Speed with Boeing - YouTube



Once again Eots believes hearsay instead of facts.

The smallest available engines on the 767-200 produce 50,000 obs of thrust each. In a simulator it was more than possible to reach those air speeds and considerably greater speeds too. Pilots know that they planes have more power than they need because sometimes in a emergency they will use it climb out of danger. The planes are also built to withstand air pockets that place huge stresses on the airframe. These planes are build to safely fly for decades and millions of miles in all kinds of extreme weather conditions but Eots believes a phone call to someone at Boeing who admits that she is not an engineer.

Simulator Proves ?Impossible Speed? was ?probable? for Flt 11 and Flt 175 | 911Blogger.com



> How accurate are Full Flight Simulators and how does the 767-300 compare to the 200?
> 
> The flight simulator in which I carried out this test is considered to be an exact representation of the real aircraft. It takes into account all of the test data gathered during the initial flight testing of the 767-200/300 and ongoing data gathered from Flight Data Recorders and observed performance. The instrumentation is exactly the same as the actual aircraft and can be put into service in a real aircraft. The performance of the aircraft engines and the aircrafts structure are modelled so that a pilot can remain current without doing as many actual flight hours. Basically it is fair to say that what you can do in the simulator can be done in real life, especially as relates to thrust, lift and drag.
> 
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 26, 2013)

derideo_te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > impossible plane speed with boeing - youtube
> ...



i would consider this bloggers claims to be hersay


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 26, 2013)

eots said:


> derideo_te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



His facts happen to fit the evidence whereas yours don't.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Let's try this again.

You just admitted that the upper section in my video of the verinage demolition was NOT blown into dust. Meaning it was still intact as it fell. With the floors removed from beneath that upper section, it began to descend.

Now according to TakAStepBack's "understanding" of the laws of phyics:



TakeAStepBack said:


> The issue at hand is that you're saying the upper section of the building sheered off into debris on its way down. Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both. You would need an energy input for that to occur and we dont have one. Unless you know something we dont.



So explain how TakeAStepBack's explanation applies to my verinage video, in particular, the building at 3:22. 

The top half turned to debris on it's way down, thus, according to TakeAStepBack, expelled it's kinetic energy. How did the lower section get demolished?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > You guys have no clue.
> ...



You don't know what you're talking about do you?

There is a graph he created which shows the DECELERATION of the northwest corner in ft/s^2. What caused that deceleration if explosives were used to create your "no resistance" garbage?

Why did the towers not COMPLETELY collapse in about 9 seconds if there was "no resistance"?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > You guys have no clue.
> ...



What caused motion in WTC1 9 seconds PRIOR to the "release" of the upper section?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 28, 2013)

numan said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



WRONG! You can find photos and videos of the partial cores still standing.

From FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation



> *11. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?*
> 
> NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5A).
> As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
> ...





numan said:


> If the lower portions of the building had been crunched and then accelerated in free fall, it should have taken 30 seconds to a minute.



Where's your math numan? Can you provide me the math from any of the 2000+ engineers who show this? Can you show me the math where the floor below and it's connections should have resisted the descending mass from above? How much would that first floor being impacted have slowed the upper section before failing?

Don't have any math? I wonder why? 2000+ supposed engineers supporting your crap for almost 12 years and STILL no plausible explosive scenario OR math showing how the towers should have resisted.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Gee demolitions can go wrong? Yet we are to believe that the three largest ever attempted were prepared in secret and went off without a hitch even after planes slammed into two of them....
> ...



Why did your explosives in the core not demolish the remaining core? What caused the floors to shear from around the remaining core?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 28, 2013)

Here's another good one for you eots, numan, TakeAStepBack...


The antenna visibly starts to descend at 1:23 so obviously the explosives in the core have gone off. In the frame at 1:24 where are all the ejected column due to those explosions? According to Chandler and his crap, heavy columns were ejected sideways at 70 mph. That translates into 103 feet per second. In two seconds that's 206 feet. I see nothing being ejected at 1:25, two seconds after the antenna starts to visibly go down. What about 1:26? Still no columns being ejected. Now were up to 309 feet at 70 mph.

What's going on you guys?

I see no massive squibs either at 1:24. 

Screenshot of 1:25. Where are the ejected "heavy beams and columns" traveling at 70 mph? They sould have traveled 206 by at this point? I see no core columns crashing through the perimeter columns. I see no perimeter columns peeling away from the building.





Screenshot of video at 1:26. Core columns and perimeter columns should have traveled 309 at this point. Don't see them there either.


----------



## eots (Aug 28, 2013)

gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gamolon said:
> ...



you mean on that concrete building ?


----------



## eots (Aug 28, 2013)

gamolon said:


> here's another good one for you eots, numan, takeastepback...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ujquavbmjw
> 
> ...



yor still shot from photobucket means nothing


----------



## eots (Aug 28, 2013)

gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



your seconed photo is very questionable..as for the remaning slivers core it collapsed in secs straight down into itself as if it was melting


----------



## eots (Aug 28, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI]9/11 WTC North Tower Core, HAVE YOU SEEN IT? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > here's another good one for you eots, numan, takeastepback...
> ...



It's a screenshot of the video I linked at the top of the post dumbass!



Watch the video and pause it at the times I show. Take ANY video and pause it. You'll get the same results.

No ejected beams/concrete at the time the supposed explosives went off. This blows your ejected beams/columns/concrete crap out of the water.


----------



## eots (Aug 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



explosives


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Why were there ANY core columns? Supposedly the explosives got rid of the floors and every thing else. How did they miss the columns you show still standing? Were these "intelligent" explosions capable of choosing what components they would miss?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Where are the ejected beams/squibs/concrete for those?

Jesus! You make this too easy.

You're debwunking your own claims!


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Right.

Because it goes against what you believe. 

Got it.


----------



## eots (Aug 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gamolon said:
> ...



No ,they are non -intelligent explosives that can that did not cut or burn completely through in a small area allowing them to stand for a few secs longer than the rest


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



AHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

Priceless...


----------



## eots (Aug 28, 2013)

gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gamolon said:
> ...



No ,because i can not find it in video just your still shot ..as well there is nothing to show it going from this solid block to the slivers we see in the video when the dust clears


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Where are your ejected beams/core columns/perimeter columns 4 seconds after the collapse initiation eots?

Your hero Chandler says they were ejected at 60 to 70 mph?!


----------



## eots (Aug 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



do squids come from every single floor during the collapse ?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Are you smoking weed again? SQUIDS?!


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Easy cupcake. Air pressure as a result of the collapsing upper section.

Your explosives bullshit is shown to be CRAP!

I'll ask you again. Where are the ejected columns that are supposed to be traveling at 60 to 70 mph as a result of the explosives? The core is clearly failed yet no explosions!!!!

What's going on eots?


----------



## eots (Aug 28, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqLshHKKMFI]9/11 Survivors Report Explosions in Twin Towers. Engineers say squibs prove controlled demolition - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



no explosions ?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 28, 2013)

Still won't touch this eh eots? Chickenshit.



TakeAStepBack said:


> The issue at hand is that you're saying the upper section of the building sheered off into debris on its way down. Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both. You would need an energy input for that to occur and we dont have one. Unless you know something we dont.



Explain how TakeAStepBack's "understanding" of the laws of physics stated above pertains to the building at 3:22 in my verinage video.

How did the lower section get demolished if the upper section used all it's kinetic energy to demolish itself? 

I see TakeAStepBack ran away from this thread.

I wonder why?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Where are the ejected beams and columns traveling at 60 to 70 mph due to the explosives going off eots?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Wait... WHAT???

There were squids on every single floor of the Twin Towers???

Were they using the towers as giant aquariums???


----------



## eots (Aug 28, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


Jumping on a typo is proof of the weakness of your positon


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Not answering repeated questions is a sign that you have your head up your ass.


----------



## eots (Aug 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



the thickness of the steel in the core columns tapered from bottom to top.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Is that so?



eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



So it should have been EASIER to eject LIGHTER core columns and perimeter columns with explosives?

What a dumbass!


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



It just keeps getting better. Friggin' hypocrite.



eots said:


> PS learn how to fucking spell Einstein


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


only in your wettest 911 fantasy!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> 9/11 Survivors Report Explosions in Twin Towers. Engineers say squibs prove controlled demolition - YouTube


another eot's classic half truth..
nobody says there were no explosion...as you been told a billion times ..not everything that explodes or sounds like an explosion is an explosive.
a transformer exploding  sounds just like any plastic explosive you can name..
ear witness accounts are not evidence of explosives.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 28, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


well yea...where do you think they kept the giant squids?


----------



## eots (Aug 28, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



that was a response to daws jumping on a simple typo..and I was making the point he is no one to play he spot the typo game


----------



## eots (Aug 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...





> Originally Posted by daws101 View Post
> funny how every time somebody brings up homosexuality even in jest, eot's is johnny on the spot seems kinda gay to me!
> BTW this thread did not start as a discussion of wtc7 byou eot's pulled it that way and ther is no rule thar states it must remain that way.



right..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


what about grammar he spot the typo game ) is grammatically incorrect!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 28, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> 9/11 WTC North Tower Core, HAVE YOU SEEN IT? - YouTube



How does that video prove any of Eot's conspiracy theories? If that is the core then it shows exactly the opposite of what he is alleging. His imaginary "pre-cuts" would have been made to the core as well as the curtain walls. So it should have been part of the initial collapse but instead it continued to remain briefly "upright" as the rest of the building came down. What is even more revealing is that the core would have ended up on the top of the debris which means that any imaginary "pre-cuts" would have been clearly visible to both the inspection and clean up crews. Yet another glaring inconsistency in the conspiracy theory.


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 WTC North Tower Core, HAVE YOU SEEN IT? - YouTube
> ...



WHY DO YOU REFER TO A FEW SLIVERS  AS THE CORE ?


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51mUua8veUk&list=PL2CFDF5211D6ED8CF]Second tower collapse, spire, Main & Ballou 17.avi - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlNNKa9s3OE&list=PL2CFDF5211D6ED8CF&index=5]WTC South Tower Core Collapse -- Compilation - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Why do you persist in believing that there were "pre-cuts" when there is zero evidence for any at all? Let me reiterate my question, how does that video prove any of your conspiracy theories? Simply posting videos that don't support your allegations isn't getting you anywhere.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> WTC South Tower Core Collapse -- Compilation - YouTube



Nothing "vaporized"! There were 6 floors worth of basements in the WTC towers. Why do the conspiracy theorists ignore the fact that the basements were filled with debris?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You keep avoiding two questions that have been asked of you.

1. Where are the ejected heavy core/perimeter columns OUTSIDE of the footprint traveling at 60 to 70 mph due to explosives?

*2 Seconds after collapse initiation:*




*3 seconds after collapse initiation:*




The explosives in the core have supposedly all gone of to initiate the collapse therfore should have ejected columns/beams/concrete. Where is it all?

2. Please explain how TakeAStepBack's quote below pertains to the verinage demolition at 3:22 of the video I have posted previously.


TakeAStepBack said:


> Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both. You would need an energy input for that to occur and we dont have one. Unless you know something we dont.



The upper section (which was three floors) of the building in the verinage video I posted turn to debris. What caused the lower section to shear apart/collapse from the top down?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > trying to derail the thread with your homosexual obsessions again ? it s amazing how you can eventually bring any thread around to the topic of homosexuality..whats up with that ?
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > WTC South Tower Core Collapse -- Compilation - YouTube
> ...



I was turned to dust before it even hit the ground


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

fun fact: when eot's posts several youtube clips in a row he's failing!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> derideo_te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


so you turned to dust?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> fun fact: when eot's posts several youtube clips in a row he's failing!



Not to mention flailing! Seriously there is nothing in those clips that supports him. He has literally crashed and burned on "controlled demolition", 767 airspeed and now this imaginary "vaporization of the cores" or whatever straw he is grabbing at. 3 strikes is all it takes in baseball. How many strikes do they give conspiracy theorists?


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



The upper section was not three floors..it was three floors that were removed


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



"Removed"? By what exactly? And where did they go?


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

And it clearly slows as it hits each floor, if the towers feel like this they would of been much slower or would of stopped half way down


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



they were pulled out with hydralics


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > fun fact: when eot's posts several youtube clips in a row he's failing!
> ...


 It's been close to two years that I've been "debating"this topic with eot's and his band of CT'S.
so the answer is, when he dies or or his wife /girlfriend gets tired of the bullshit.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> And it clearly slows as it hits each floor, if the towers feel like this they would of been much slower or would of stopped half way down


the towers could feel?


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

verinage requires prep and all the supports to be pulled simultaneously to induce global failure, hence you just proved a demolition.timing is critical, the higher the building the more critical timing is. you need to show that fire can simultaneously remove the supports to create a straight down verinage.


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

and no steel core/framed building was ever shown to be demolished by verinage.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> verinage requires prep and all the supports to be pulled simultaneously to induce global failure, hence you just proved a demolition.timing is critical, the higher the building the more critical timing is. you need to show that fire can simultaneously remove the supports to create a straight down verinage.


 the Verinage technique conclusively disproves the assertion that such a thing is impossible without explosives, so "truther" claims based on that assertion are clearly invalid. WTC1 and 2 were similar to a Verinage, except there is no evidence to suggest that the occupied buildings were rigged with cables and giant hydraulic winches to yank out the support structure. Nor is any such thing necessary, given what we know about the initial damage from the planes and the subsequent effects of the fires. As Bazant demonstrated with quantitative analysis (which "truthers" have repeatedly failed to refute), after the collapses began, the buildings were doomed because they simply did not have the reserve capacity to absorb the energy released -- i.e. the exact reason that Verinage works. 

The reason that WTC7 looks much like a conventional demolition -- at least, the part of it that we can actually see in the videos, which is just the upper half falling -- is because for that upper part of the building, the same basic thing is going on as in a conventional demolition: When the lower structure is no longer supporting the upper structure, gravity takes over and destroys the entire thing. Just watching the upper half, it could hardly look any different regardless of the initiating events, but the thing that irrefutably makes it different from a conventional demolition is that if explosives had been used to initiate the collapse, the distinctive sound that much explosives would produce would have easily been heard miles away and the shock waves would have shattered windows for blocks around. And again, no such explanation is required, given what we know about the effects of fire (i.e. it causes steel to expand) and the design of the building (i.e. it wasn't designed to withstand thermal expansion during a 7-hour unfought fire or the progressive failures that occurred after the initial column failure). 

The absence of evidence of explosives in all three cases -- not in the quantity that would be required, anyway -- led frustrated but imaginative "truthers" to speculate that thermite was used instead. However, there is no credible evidence of thermite on the site, no credible evidence of thermite damage to the structures, and no credible evidence that such a demolition is even possible with current technology. 

So, "truthers" claim that instead of simply planting some big-assed truck bombs and blaiming it on terrorists, the "perps" concocted a ridiculously complicated and unnecessarily risky hoax involving fake hijackings and demolitions using an unproven technology, then somehow managed to coerce hundreds of people into assisting and covering up, and then somehow managed to not only leave no evidence of what "really" happened but not a single participant willing to ruin the whole thing and send them to a probable execution by squealing. When you propose something that is that outrageously implausible on its face, you need some damn good evidence, and it just ain't there. 

And that's all I intend to say on this thread, since the subject here is just the pathological epistemology of conspiracy theorists. If you want to continue the 9/11 argument, you know where that is supposed to happen. 
No, not "incidents of a controlled demolition method called Verinage" (Reply #43) - Democratic Underground


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> *And it clearly slows as it hits each floor, if the towers feel like this they would of been much slower or would of stopped half way down*



Do you understand the concept of acceleration? Do you understand that an object in free fall accelerates under the force of gravity? Do your understand the concept of momentum? Do you understand the concept of inertia? 

Those are all rhetorical questions because the answer to all of them is negative given your original allegation above.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > derideo_te said:
> ...



He must have been hit by Dr Tracy Blevins' hurricane powered 9/11 dustification ray.


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *And it clearly slows as it hits each floor, if the towers feel like this they would of been much slower or would of stopped half way down*
> ...



You did not even understand they used hydraulics to drop the building dumb-ass.. the building slowed as they hit  each floor .(each floor that was weakened by pre cutting) if this happened to the towers.. all supports would need to fail at the same time ..the bottom section would have to be pre-cut (especially as the towers get thicker from top to bottom).. the top _half _of the building would have to be dropped on the bottom half and it still would of slowed as it hit each floor below


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > verinage requires prep and all the supports to be pulled simultaneously to induce global failure, hence you just proved a demolition.timing is critical, the higher the building the more critical timing is. you need to show that fire can simultaneously remove the supports to create a straight down verinage.
> ...



nice blog cut and paste...meaningless


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



it was turned to dust before it even hit the ground...deal with it


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Can't count? Here, let me help you...




Now quit being such a chickenshit and answer the question. How come this event occurs even though TakeAStepBack and his understanding of the laws of physics says it can't?

How did the lower section get demolished with NO explosives?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Please explain exactly how you managed to turn steel into "dust" in mid air!


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> And it clearly slows as it hits each floor, if the towers feel like this they would of been much slower or would of stopped half way down



Then what demolished the lower section in the verinage video?

Why was there deceleration of the roofline of the towers?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



So you're a follower of Marijuana Barbie's dustification ray theory.

That explains a lot.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> verinage requires prep and all the supports to be pulled simultaneously to induce global failure, hence you just proved a demolition.timing is critical, the higher the building the more critical timing is. you need to show that fire can simultaneously remove the supports to create a straight down verinage.



What demolished the lower section of the building in the verinage video I posted?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



What demolished the lower section of the verinage building?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



That you are compelled to use derogatory terms indicates that you are incapable of defending your increasingly tenuous position. 

Did these imaginary "hydraulics" just "vaporize" too? How did they manage to sneak them into the buildings and put them onto exactly the same floors that the planes were going to hit? Why did no one ever see all of the sparks or hear any of the noise or smell any of the smoke from the "pre-cutting" of the supports? Why have you abandoned your "controlled demolition" scenario? Why have you never addressed the issue of the motivation or the funding for your conspiracy theory?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> You did not even understand they used hydraulics to drop the building dumb-ass.. the building slowed as they hit  each floor .(each floor that was weakened by pre cutting) if this happened to the towers.. all supports would need to fail at the same time ..the bottom section would have to be pre-cut (especially as the towers get thicker from top to bottom).. the top _half _of the building would have to be dropped on the bottom half and it still would of slowed as it hit each floor below



According to you and TakeAStepBAck, this is impossible!

You both think that the kinetic energy of the upper section can only be used for ONE thing. Either it used up it's energy to demolish itself or it used it's energy to demolish the lower section.

For the umpteenth time, if the above is true, how did the lower section of the verinage video building get demolished???


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> and no steel core/framed building was ever shown to be demolished by verinage.



Until 9/11/01 when the concept was established as not only feasible but probably would be highly effective too. However it was the damage from the 140 ton 767's hitting the buildings at 400+ mph and the subsequent fires that brought them down.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


guess the explosive ploy played out so you went to plan B.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


so it was an invisible untraceable verinage
you realise that that would be even more impossible to cover up then explosives or thermite..
have you been waiting to pull this one out of your ass?


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > verinage requires prep and all the supports to be pulled simultaneously to induce global failure, hence you just proved a demolition.timing is critical, the higher the building the more critical timing is. you need to show that fire can simultaneously remove the supports to create a straight down verinage.
> ...



The concrete steel reinforced building was demolished by controlled demolition..by careful preparation to the entire building ,very precisely pre-cutting all lower supports and removing all supports from multiple floors simultaneously with hydraulics...but somehow you think this can be achieved with random fires in a steel framed building and are in fact trying to use a controlled demolition to disprove  controlled demolition..its ludicrous if you actually think about it


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 29, 2013)

I think I have now heard it all.........

Hydraulics, really........


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



whatever are you babbling about now ?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



What is really ludicrous is that Eots cannot provide a single shred of evidence to support his conspiracy theory. He runs away from questions like what was the motive, who paid for this, how were the "pre-cuts" made without anyone ever noticing, how did they manage to guess exactly which floors the planes were going to hit?


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> I think I have now heard it all.........
> 
> Hydraulics, really........



lol...yes dumb-ass really

Verinage "Demolishing a building using only hydraulics and gravity"


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



I have no Idea what you babbling about


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



This is not the video you posted this is a photobucket still frame.. and you know it fuck face

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GNhEpHfgfI]Balzac Vitry demolition - Verinage technique - YouTube[/ame]

this is the video you posted


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

derideo_te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gamolon said:
> ...



Right ..look who running away now and trying to muddy the waters with his imaginings how hard it would be to hide or motive..I do not believe NIST addressed motive or did any test of wtc security


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> derideo_te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Ever tried to cut any steel yourself, Eots? Ever used a cutting torch? Or an angle grinder? How about just a hacksaw? You don't have a plausible scenario because you don't understand what is actually involved in what you are alleging. Structural steel requires heavy equipment and people who know exactly what they are doing. You are alleging that they made exact "pre-cuts" to 1600 linear feet of steel without anyone being aware of it and not a single sign of it turning up in the debris. You imagine that steel just "turned to dust". You imagine that massive hydraulic jacks were installed on exactly the floors that were going to be hit by the planes while you ignore the weight of those planes on the floors themselves. You deny the reality of the flames on 9/11 while pretending that the smoke and sparks involved in your "pre-cuts" would have been "invisible". Everything you propose requires money, motive, stealth, cover-ups, treachery, specialized skill sets, expensive equipment, perfect timing, expertise and above all, gullibility.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I think I have now heard it all.........
> ...



Sad to say but SFC Ollie put his own life on the line so that you could call him names, Eots.


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Wrong you fucking moron!!!! I posted that video once to make fun of your "pyroclastic cloud" horseshit.

AHAHAHAHA!!!!

Here is the video I posted! I even posted the time at which the building I was speaking of appeared. How many times was the 3:22 time stamp mentioned in subsequent posts!!! 



Gamolon said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Again here!


Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



YOU even knew that here!


eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



And here:


Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



And here:


Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Are you THAT fucking stupid?! The video you THOUGHT I was talking about doesn't even GO to 3:22! It's only 55 seconds long!!!


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You aren't aware that Dr Tracy, author of the popular "hurricane powered space ray gun turned the Twin Towers into dust" inside job theory, also goes by the name "Marijuana Barbie"?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 29, 2013)

So Eots has given up on thermite nanothermite and explosives and has now switched to hydraulics....

That's just too funny....That has even less credibility than 911shitforbrains.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


what's ludicrous when you think about it, no evidence of your fantasy was found.
if the pre-cutting (an oxymoron ,when something is cut,
 it's cut there is no pre about it.)
if you're gonna sell this shit then partial cutting would be the best choice of phrase. 
if the partial cutting had been done, how did the cutters insure that the towers did not collapse ahead of schedule as the support columns and cross braces had to be severely compromised.?   

what's your answer to this:"the Verinage technique conclusively disproves the assertion that such a thing is impossible without explosives, so "truther" claims based on that assertion are clearly invalid. WTC1 and 2 were similar to a Verinage, except there is no evidence to suggest that the occupied buildings were rigged with cables and giant hydraulic winches to yank out the support structure."?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


see guys ...the ultra classic eot's dodge when you've got him by the balls!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 29, 2013)

The hydraulics was the beams drooping,  pulling in the sides of the buildings.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> The hydraulics was the beams drooping,  pulling in the sides of the buildings.


I've got it .they murdered spider man and used his web as cable and had the hulk yank it,he couldn't help it because he was being mind controlled by the decepticons ...


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gamolon said:
> ...



you are posting still shots and calling them videos idiot and that video you just posted does not have the top 3 floors fall on to the rest as you claim..it has the middle three floors taken out or cant you count ?


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

sfc ollie said:


> so eots has given up on thermite nanothermite and explosives and has now switched to hydraulics....
> 
> That's just too funny....that has even less credibility than 911shitforbrains.


Fuck Ollie I give you too much credit sometimes..the gravity induced demolitions known as verinage are done using hydraulics I never made any statement or suggestion this is what occured at the twin towers


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> The hydraulics was the beams drooping,  pulling in the sides of the buildings.



all 110 stories worth in secs ?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > so eots has given up on thermite nanothermite and explosives and has now switched to hydraulics....
> ...


bullshit!


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > derideo_te said:
> ...



I never claimed any one made  made exact "pre-cuts" or used hydraulics.. I am saying that is how Vérinage demolition is done...but you seem to think random fires will achieve the same result..and btw I spent many years working as a commercial diver logging thousasnds of hours doing underwater welding and cuttiing


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



bullshit what loser ?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


everything you post!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

and do be so lame as to just post ..bullshit...if you can find a post where I said anything about hydraulics being employed in the collapse of the wtc towers prove it or admit your mistake


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

eots said:


> and do be so lame as to just post ..bullshit...if you can find a post where I said anything about hydraulics being employed in the collapse of the wtc towers prove it or admit your mistake


nothing to admit.....the mistake is you own.
to anyone following this thread it appears you went to plan B. EXPLOSIVES TO HYDRAULICS
SO YOU DEAL WITH IT!


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > and do be so lame as to just post ..bullshit...if you can find a post where I said anything about hydraulics being employed in the collapse of the wtc towers prove it or admit your mistake
> ...



there is no way on earth you could provide a single post that indicates I said any such thing...if you could you would..but you cant...so you will babble nonsense instead


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 29, 2013)

We all know what I believe, not my problem that you can't accept it........


----------



## eots (Aug 29, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> We all know what I believe, not my problem that you can't accept it........



???...show me the post where I said anything about the towers being taken down with hydraulics as you claimed


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 30, 2013)

eots said:


> go back and read...Gamolon posted a a video of Verinage technique and asked What demolished the building.  so I explained the process...pre-cuts, hydraulics and gravity...but I guess its much easier for you all to debate an issue if you get to make up what the other is saying



You explained nothing moron.

Let's recap, yet again, so you can figure this out.

You, TakeAStepBack, and others seem to think you understand the laws of physics and that they were violated on 9/11. Hence, TakeAStepBack makes this idiotic post:


TakeAStepBack said:


> Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both. You would need an energy input for that to occur and we dont have one. Unless you know something we dont.



So, according to the above statement, an "upper section" has to use it's kinetic energy to EITHER destroy itself OR destroy the lower section, not BOTH.

Are you with me so far asshole?

Now, I posted this video...

...and told you to go to the 3:22 time stamp. At this part of the video I posted above (NOT the 55 second video I referenced ONCE. The fact that THAT video only went to 55 seconds meaning you couldn't even GO to 3:22 is a testament to your stupidity), they removed the middle two floors to release the UPPER three floors to descend upon the lower section. 

This screenshot...





...was taken from the video above when you started going off the deep end and couldn't follow what the hell we were talking about. It shows three floors (count them, 1, 2, 3. Marked by the red numbers) starting their descent downward toward the lower section after the two floors below are pulled by cables.

Am I going to fast for you or should I wait until you?

Now. if you watch the rest of the video I posted above starting at 3:22, you will see the upper section descend upon the lower section. The upper section becomes debris as it descends. When the collapse of this particular building completes, the entire section is DEBRIS.

So, I am asking you and any other truther who believes or thinks they understand the laws of physics to explain to me that if TakeAStepBack's explanation quotes above of how he "thinks" the laws of physics work is correct, what demolished the lower of the building at 3:22 in the video above?

According to TakeAStepBack, the kinetic energy of the upper section was used up to destroy itself and there was none left to demolish the lower section.

So my question to you is, how the fuck was the lower section demolished if TakeAStepBack's supposed "understanding" regarding the laws of physics quoted above is correct?

Please explain the deceleration of the roof line of the WTC tower as the upper section descended. What caused that?

Where are the ejected beams and columns that were supposed to be traveling at 60 to 70 mph HORIZONTALLY due to the explosives going off in the building. These screenshots are from 2 and 3 seconds AFTER the antenna starts to descend meaning the explosives went off already. Funny, no ejected beams or columns show up. Where are they? They should have been WELL outside the perimeter footprint right?


----------



## Gamolon (Aug 30, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > and do be so lame as to just post ..bullshit...if you can find a post where I said anything about hydraulics being employed in the collapse of the wtc towers prove it or admit your mistake
> ...



To be honest daws, I didn't think he meant they used hydraulics in the WTC towers.


----------



## eots (Aug 30, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > go back and read...Gamolon posted a a video of Verinage technique and asked What demolished the building.  so I explained the process...pre-cuts, hydraulics and gravity...but I guess its much easier for you all to debate an issue if you get to make up what the other is saying
> ...



I would suggest the tower design tapers from top to bottom therefore requiring less destructive force and less explosives or incendiaries to cause collapse of the top section than the middle or the bottom..


----------



## eots (Aug 30, 2013)

Like the perimeter columns -- and like steel columns in all tall buildings -- the thickness of the steel in the core columns tapered from bottom to top. Near the bottoms of the towers the steel was four inches thick, whereas near the tops it may have been as little as 1/4th inch thick
9-11 Research: The Core Structures


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 30, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



He did make it sound like it....gotta give him a hard time over it.....


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 30, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



And yet your posts do not reflect any knowledge of that alleged experience. You have claimed that "controlled demolition" was used to bring down the WTC buildings. Controlled demolition includes making "pre-cuts". Once again we see you backpedaling over statements that you made.


----------



## SAYIT (Aug 30, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > go back and read...Gamolon posted a a video of Verinage technique and asked What demolished the building.  so I explained the process...pre-cuts, hydraulics and gravity...but I guess its much easier for you all to debate an issue if you get to make up what the other is saying
> ...



Having read Gamolon's most recent destruction of TakeAStep and to a lesser degree (Id)eots, and the irrefutable fact that Gamolon does so with regularity and with seeming ease, I am forced to conclude that the "truthers" are either blinded by their need to believe their silliness or that they have a less-than-honest, perhaps even sinister agenda that has nothing to do with the truth. Thanks again Gamolon.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 30, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



There is nothing "sinister" about believing all kinds of silliness. But you are right about them being "blinded by their need to believe". It is readily apparent in their refusal to deal with reality and address the ludicrous aspects of their own "conspiracy theories".


----------



## eots (Aug 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



actually once agin its you that reflect any knowledge ..controlled demolition does not always included pre-cutting controlled demolition means just what it says..it was a controlled event..the theory of incendiaries like thermite being used would eliminate the need for pre-cutting supports

*controlled demolition  
Web definitions*
Demolition is the tearing-down of buildings and other structures, the opposite of construction. Demolition contrasts with deconstruction...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_demolition

dem&#8226;o&#8226;li&#8226;tion (&#716;d&#603;m &#601;&#712;l&#618;&#643; &#601;n, &#716;di m&#601;-) 

n.
1. an act or instance of demolishing.
2. the state of being demolished; destruction.
3. destruction or demolishment by explosives.
4. demolitions, explosives.


----------



## SAYIT (Aug 30, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Woo. For a seemingly bright guy you certainly have a rough time recognizing when you've had your ears pinned firmly to your skinhead. It's over, Princess ... step into the light.


----------



## eots (Aug 30, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



the building he showed and all buildings using "Verinage" are not steel framed buildings and the have been extensively prepared with precise cuts and hydraulics to simultaneously remove all supports and careful planning and calculations, they do not happen by accident...they do not happen by random fires...in fact the only time it occurs is in controlled demolition of concrete a reinforced buildings...you are drawing parallels to a controlled demolition then claiming that disproves controlled demolition..it makes no sense


----------



## eots (Aug 30, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



controlled demolition does not mean pre-cutting is required...he is again incorrect..and nothing in your empty response changes that fact


----------



## eots (Aug 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



ludicrous is pointing to a sophisticated controlled demolition technique and pretending it can happen by pure accident from random fires and damage in a steel framed building


----------



## eots (Aug 30, 2013)

The truth is this only strengthens the case for controlled demolition by hi-lighting all of preparation,calculation, equipment ,pre-cutting and precision timing required to create a gravity induced collapse on even a small concrete steel reinforced building


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 30, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Except for one thing, Eots. Thermite would never have survived the fires without causing explosions that would have been clearly visible before they did sufficient damage to demolish the building. "Controlling" thermite is far more difficult than it appears to conspiracy theorists.

Thermite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Thermite usage is hazardous due to the extremely high temperatures produced and the extreme difficulty in smothering a reaction once initiated. Small streams of molten iron released in the reaction can travel considerable distances and may melt through metal containers, igniting their contents (see images). Additionally, flammable metals with relatively low boiling points such as zinc (with a boiling point of 907 °C, which is about 1,370 °C below the temperature at which thermite burns) could potentially spray superheated boiling metal violently into the air if near a thermite reaction.[citation needed]
> Preheating of thermite before ignition can easily be done accidentally, for example by pouring a new pile of thermite over a hot, recently ignited pile of thermite slag. When ignited, preheated thermite can burn almost instantaneously, releasing light and heat energy at a much higher rate than normal and causing burns and eye damage at what would normally be a reasonably safe distance.[citation needed]
> The thermite reaction can take place accidentally in industrial locations where abrasive grinding and cutting wheels are used with ferrous metals. Using aluminium in this situation produces a mixture of oxides which is capable of a violent explosive reaction.[38]



In essence there would have been no way to "control" the "demolition" using thermite once the planes struck the building. It would have started going off randomly with explosions and resulted in a catastrophic collapse. Furthermore not all of the thermite would have been properly ignited meaning that parts of the steel would still have had a hazardous coating after the collapse. This would have endangered the clean up crews using cutting torches and caused explosions. If any of it ended up at a steel foundry it would have caused explosions there too. None of the "conspiracy theories" stand up to the reality of what actually happened.


----------



## eots (Aug 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 30, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 30, 2013)

If I remember right Eots mentioned that the beams near the base of the towers had to be about 4 inches thick.... That's an awful lot of thermite to burn through that much steel without anyone noticing....


----------



## eots (Aug 30, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> If I remember right Eots mentioned that the beams near the base of the towers had to be about 4 inches thick.... That's an awful lot of thermite to burn through that much steel without anyone noticing....



It is an awful of steel to fail when the fire and Impact happened over a thousand feet away...actually

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka8muGhlciA]Explosions in the WTC basement before the Plane struck the tower. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 30, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhGcBxONSvc]9/11 Absolute Evidence Of Massive Explosions in Basement of WTC Long Before Collapse MUST SEE!!!!!! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 30, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > If I remember right Eots mentioned that the beams near the base of the towers had to be about 4 inches thick.... That's an awful lot of thermite to burn through that much steel without anyone noticing....
> ...



i would think that hundreds of tons coming down from 1000 ft would have quite an impact.

And the explosions prior to the planes hitting have been debunked so many times....No register of any type of explosion on the seismographs. Do play another video....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 30, 2013)

eots said:


> 9/11 Absolute Evidence Of Massive Explosions in Basement of WTC Long Before Collapse MUST SEE!!!!!! - YouTube




Secondary explosions....I'm sure we have talked about those....


----------



## eots (Aug 30, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



July 16, 2007:  Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement
Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11
PDF Version      Article on OpEdNews

Summary: J. Marx Ayres, MS, former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council and former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission called for a new investigation of 9/11, "Steven Jones' call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that the WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fire, but through the use of pre-positioned 'cutter-charges' must be the rallying cry for all building design experts to speak out."

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070715_former_california_se.htm


----------



## eots (Aug 30, 2013)

New Seismic Data Refutes Official WTC Explanation
By Christopher Bollyn

Exclusive to American Free Press
9-5-2

Two unexplained "spikes" in the seismic record from Sept. 11 indicate huge bursts of energy shook the ground beneath the World Trade Center's twin towers immediately prior to the collapse.
American Free Press has learned of pools of "molten steel" found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse.


New Seismic Data Refutes Official WTC Explanation


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 30, 2013)

eots said:


> New Seismic Data Refutes Official WTC Explanation
> By Christopher Bollyn
> 
> Exclusive to American Free Press
> ...



"Prior to the collapse", your guy in the video claimed prior to the planes hitting....Which do you want us to believe?

So more conflicting testimony from eots and he wonders why people don't believe his theories.


----------



## eots (Aug 30, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > New Seismic Data Refutes Official WTC Explanation
> ...



its not my testimony.. it is the testimony of a 9/11 hero and both eyewitness accounts came from different people in different areas of the building so both could be accurate and not at all conflicting a bomb going off is not mean it is going give off Semitic readings reports are of smaller explosion going off in series and a large explosions prior to collapse


----------



## eots (Aug 30, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 Absolute Evidence Of Massive Explosions in Basement of WTC Long Before Collapse MUST SEE!!!!!! - YouTube
> ...



and trained firefighters that have heard items exploding before in fires said it did not sound like a "normal explosion" it sounded like bombs going off


----------



## eots (Aug 30, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr26kDE5xpg]9/11 Firefighters Reveal Bombs Destroyed WTC Lobby - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 30, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I6hLv0NfFk]Firefighters For 9-11 Truth Explosion Witness - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 30, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz_RCw0eFi4]9/11 FIREFIGHTERS 1ST RESPONDERS WITNESSED ACCOUNTS OF WTC EXPLOSIONS - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## DaveB (Aug 31, 2013)

eots said:


> and trained firefighters that have heard items exploding before in fires said it did not sound like a "normal explosion" it sounded like bombs going off




How many were trained in 1000ft buildings coming down with kinetic energy off the scale? I would be more amazed if the floors cracking didn't sound like explosions.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 31, 2013)

Eots has still not proven his case for a "controlled demolition". Ask any forensics person who deals with explosives and they will tell you that there is always residue that can be used to identify what was used. Eots wants us to believe that the FBI didn't look for any even though they identified exactly what was used in 1993. Given the amount that would have been needed to do what he alleged the residue must be all over the site and surrounding areas. There was no explosive residue because no explosives were used. The onus is on Eots to provide this evidence and he can't. There wasn't even any shock wave that occurs with every explosion even though there were cameras rolling the whole time.


----------



## eots (Aug 31, 2013)

DaveB said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > and trained firefighters that have heard items exploding before in fires said it did not sound like a "normal explosion" it sounded like bombs going off
> ...



these reports clearly came from firefighters able to make it out of the building before the collapse so there was no _1000ft buildings coming down with kinetic energy off the scale_  and many of the reports came from the lower floors and lobby and basement


----------



## eots (Aug 31, 2013)

> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Eots has still not proven his case for a "controlled demolition". Ask any forensics person who deals with explosives and they will tell you that there is always residue that can be used to identify what was used.
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 31, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG3EfPsnfRs]9/11 Crime Scene Evidence Was Destroyed - Firefighters For 9/11 Truth - YouTube[/ame]
*
.. NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.*

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation


----------



## Politico (Aug 31, 2013)

And the beat goes on......Sigh...........


----------



## eots (Aug 31, 2013)

Politico said:


> And the beat goes on......Sigh...........



dumb..


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 31, 2013)

eots said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > And the beat goes on......Sigh...........
> ...




Ironic!


----------



## Politico (Aug 31, 2013)

Ain't it though lol.


----------



## eots (Aug 31, 2013)

ya really ironic...how you actually waste your time on your meaningless three word post of nothingness


----------



## eots (Aug 31, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



how about you elaborate on all the testing for residue NIST and FBI  did instead and how they  would of found it in their testing if explosives had been used


----------



## Politico (Aug 31, 2013)

I'll tell you what. Forget all the decade old shit people keep copying from their grandma's basement. Show us the proof you collected on the ground during your interviews and scientific testing that shows there was a conspiracy and I wll pay you 10k.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 31, 2013)

eots said:


> > Derideo_Te said:
> >
> >
> > > Eots has still not proven his case for a "controlled demolition". Ask any forensics person who deals with explosives and they will tell you that there is always residue that can be used to identify what was used.
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 31, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > NIST conducted no forensic testing residue
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 31, 2013)

Politico said:


> I'll tell you what. Forget all the decade old shit people keep opying from their grandma's basement. Show us the proof you collected on the ground during your interviews and scientific testing that shows there was a comsnpiracy and I wll pay you 10k.



Prove your comsnpiracy theory ..


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 31, 2013)

All the debris was taken to fresh kills land fill where it was inspected for human remains and anything else that could be identified. They found everything from finger bones to house keys, But not one hint of a blasting cap or any other explosive device. 

Once again explosion does not equal explosives....


----------



## daws101 (Aug 31, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


that classic dodge again..
your own posts betray you...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 31, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


I know he didn't..but that's not the point...
eot's will say or post anything not to have to admit he's wrong or mistaken....showcasing that was the point ....


----------



## daws101 (Aug 31, 2013)

eots said:


> Like the perimeter columns -- and like steel columns in all tall buildings -- the thickness of the steel in the core columns tapered from bottom to top. Near the bottoms of the towers the steel was four inches thick, whereas near the tops it may have been as little as 1/4th inch thick
> 9-11 Research: The Core Structures


Who We Are

9-11 Research is a research consortium consisting of just a few individuals volunteering their time and resources to the effort. The principal contributors to the site are:

Jim Hoffman, Webmaster and Senior Editor
Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor
Jan Hoyer, Outreach Coordinator
Jim Hoffman created the website and wrote the vast majority of its original content. Hoffman has a background in software engineering, mechanical engineering, and scientific visualization. Hoffman also created the Web publishing system used to maintain the 9-11 Research website.

Gregg Roberts has been investigating the September 11 attack since December 2003 and has provided extensive editorial assistance to 911Research. He authored the essay Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?, and is working with Hoffman to produce a book based on the site. Roberts is a technical writer and business analyst with a bachelor's degree in psychology, master's-level study in social work, and earlier education in the "hard" sciences.

Jan Hoyer is a former founding board member and graphic designer for the National 9/11 Visibilty Project, 911Truth.org and the D.C Emergency Truth Convergence. Hoyer has a degree in graphic design and experience in online multimedia.


not one engineering degree between them or fire science or explosives ....etc..
a shocking lack of  the basic skill sets to make informed speculation on the events of 911.
an extreme bias is evident...
= ZERO CREDIBILITY...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 31, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> If I remember right Eots mentioned that the beams near the base of the towers had to be about 4 inches thick.... That's an awful lot of thermite to burn through that much steel without anyone noticing....


 Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn't make clean cuts. It's a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below.

Thermite VS Car Cool Video 

Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?


Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3

 2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


 2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
 1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g

 density of Al=2.64 g/cc
 density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc


 54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
 160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3

 Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.

 A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg

 For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh: 

 0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb

That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons.

Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact!   


How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:


 A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.

 2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


 One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g. 

 Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.

 That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.

 Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:

 Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.

 To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.


 Example:

 Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.

Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.

*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.

Density of metals

 The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.

Thermite and Sulfur- Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Aug 31, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> If I remember right Eots mentioned that the beams near the base of the towers had to be about 4 inches thick.... That's an awful lot of thermite to burn through that much steel without anyone noticing....



175 pounds of thermite couldn't burn through a 1/2 thick column, so I imagine it would take over 1,000,000,000 pounds to burn through a 4 inch thick beam.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhMBjxyH9eg]What National Geographic has to say about thermite and 9/11/2001 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Aug 31, 2013)

rat in the hat said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > if i remember right eots mentioned that the beams near the base of the towers had to be about 4 inches thick.... That's an awful lot of thermite to burn through that much steel without anyone noticing....
> ...


no !!!!!not that!


----------



## eots (Aug 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > If I remember right Eots mentioned that the beams near the base of the towers had to be about 4 inches thick.... That's an awful lot of thermite to burn through that much steel without anyone noticing....
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q]THERMITE CUTTING STEEL - VALIDATED - EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Like the perimeter columns -- and like steel columns in all tall buildings -- the thickness of the steel in the core columns tapered from bottom to top. Near the bottoms of the towers the steel was four inches thick, whereas near the tops it may have been as little as 1/4th inch thick
> ...



The king of cut and paste ?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 31, 2013)

eots said:


> DaveB said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



The shearing steel would have sounded like "explosions" to anyone untrained in strengths of materials testing. The sounds would also have traveled down the core and echoed back from the concrete walls of the basement. That is how sound works.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 31, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 31, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DaveB said:
> ...



before the collapse ?..while firefighters were still in the building ?...how did they make it out


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 31, 2013)

?????????


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 31, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Still no credible evidence of thermite found at the WTC site. The spheres are created whenever steel is either welded or cut with a torch. Nothing but conjecture since there is no evidence. Nice try though. BTW magnesium is used in the construction of large aircraft.


----------



## eots (Aug 31, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 31, 2013)

Fact: Planes hit the towers and Pentagon

Opinion: Someone found a way to hide tons of explosives/ thermite in the towers to blow them up.

Can we see the difference here?


----------



## eots (Aug 31, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Fact: Planes hit the towers and Pentagon
> 
> Opinion: Someone found a way to hide tons of explosives/ thermite in the towers to blow them up.
> 
> Can we see the difference here?



its called mistaking correlation with causation...so ollie did you hear about the FBI test for residue that they never did ?..maybe you should fill yer lil friend in on the official NIST spin  and excuse for their "gross dereliction of their sworn duty to have failed to follow SOP and use forensics for possible explosive residues"..so he can parrot it in future discussions


----------



## KissMy (Aug 31, 2013)

*Termites!*


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 31, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Fact: Planes hit the towers and Pentagon
> ...



Is it standard procedure for NIST to check for explosive residues after a plane crash?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 31, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Probably is if there is an obvious explosion. But when said plane crashes full speed into a building i think the already know why it isn't flying any more.......


----------



## eots (Aug 31, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



NIST was investigating 3 building collapses not a plane crash


----------



## eots (Aug 31, 2013)

*Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Former combat fighter pilot.  Aerospace engineer.*  Currently Captain at a major airline.  Combat experience includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch.  Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle and General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark fighter/bomber.  *Former President, U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board. * Also served as *Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review.*  Awarded Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals.  20-year Air Force career.

"I think that we Americans need to demand further investigation just to clarify the discrepancies that you've [Pilots for 9/11 Truth] found.  And I think that we need to be getting on the phone with our Congressmen and women and letting them know that we don't accept the excuses that we're hearing now, that we want true investigators to do a true investigation." Google Videos


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 1, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Is it standard procedure for NIST to check for explosive residues after a building collapse?

My point really being to question where you get your information on what SOP for NIST investigations is...


----------



## eots (Sep 1, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations (National Fire Protection Association).

http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/document-information-pages?mode=code&code=921

 "Once evidence is removed from the science it should be maintained and not destroyed or alerted until the investigation is complete"

19.924 exotic accelerants. 
"If on the scene you find melted steel or concrete you should consider the use of exotic 
 accelerants."

"Thermite mixtures can create exceedingly hot fires that can account for melted steel and concrete"


----------



## eots (Sep 1, 2013)

2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## eots (Sep 1, 2013)

Dr. Quintiere said he originally &#8220;had high hopes&#8221; that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. &#8220;They&#8217;re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it&#8217;s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.&#8221;


----------



## Politico (Sep 1, 2013)

And the beat goes on.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 1, 2013)

Summarizing where Eots stands with his "conspiracy theory" since he has failed to answer these questions, deal with the issues or flat out believes arrant nonsense;

1. The FBI abandoned standard operating procedures and not a single one of the 7,000 special agents has blown the whistle.

2. Boeing 767's are incapable of flying at 400+ mph into buildings even though the math doesn't lie.

3. Damaged steel structures that have been, twisted, heated and distorted are somehow capable of sustaining the weight of the wreckage from 140 ton aircraft even after 2 buildings actually collapsed under these circumstances.

4. Heating steel under extreme loads does not cause it to bend, buckle, shear or break.

5. It was possible for the people planting the imaginary "thermite" charges to know beforehand exactly which floors where going to be hit by the planes.

6. It was possible for untrained terrorists with a mere handful of hours in a simulator to actually hit those exact floors without any point of reference.

7. That "thermite" was used even though there is no actual physical or residual evidence.

8. That the people planting the "thermite" were able to do so under the noses of one of the most security aware buildings in NYC.

9. That the top floors "vaporized" and played no role in the destruction of the lower floors.

10. That notoriously unreliable "eye witnesses" are believable but the FBI and NIST are "lying".

11. That whomever was behind the destruction of the towers did so without any clear motivation but that they were willing to pay out huge sums of money to keep everyone quite afterwards.

12. That the conspiracy must involve all kinds of highly trained experts but that not one of them is willing to come forward and blow the whistle in exchange for immunity for their part in the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

Above all Eots believes that it is possible to commit a crime of this magnitude and get away with it even though there is no motive for anyone other than the terrorists for doing this.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 1, 2013)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > I know for a fact that a house fire can exceed 1600 degrees. My brothers house burnt a couple years ago. He had a large set of Blue Pyrex cookware in kitchen cabinets, shelves, on stove top & inside oven. The softening temperature of Pyrex cookware is 1510 degrees. All of his melted away, some ran down concrete foundation & out the stove. That means it went beyond the 1510 degree softening temp.
> ...



*This is the kitchen area of the fire that melted Pyrex baking dishes.*





*These are some of the blue Pyrex baking dishes that melted & ran like water.*


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 1, 2013)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



I hope that your brother was insured and no one was hurt. As far as fires are concerned what most people don't realize is the role played by air flow and how that can significantly increase the temperatures. In the old coal fired furnaces they used forced air induction to increase the temperatures and thus be able to melt steel. The fires in the WTC towers had the benefit of a 1000' "chimney" effect of air. (Hot air rises drawing in air from below, this results in a a convection flow that will cause the fires to burn hotter than normal.) Exactly how much hotter is unknown but heat causes steel to expand and soften. Under normal circumstances that would not be a problem. However when the infrastructure has already been compromised and was then under significantly higher stress loads it failed.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 1, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Are you really THAT stupid? That I have to explain this to you yet again?

It makes no difference whether the lower section of the building was steel framed or made of wood. It doesn't matter if the building was weakened.

The bottom line is that, according to TakeAStepBack, the upper section either expends it's kinetic energy in ONE of TWO ways.

1. The upper section either used up it's energy to destroy itself.

or

2. The upper section used it's energy to destroy the lower section below.

So I will ask you again. The verinage video I keep referencing shows the upper three floors becoming debris. What destroys the lower section? Supposedly the kinetic energy was used to destroy itself. What was left for the lower section?

Why can't you answer this honestly?

I think we ALL know why...


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 1, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > If I remember right Eots mentioned that the beams near the base of the towers had to be about 4 inches thick.... That's an awful lot of thermite to burn through that much steel without anyone noticing....
> ...



Not William!

Is this the same guy who first said the explosion sounded like someone "moving furniture", and the as time went on, embellished his story to say "the floor heaved up and cracked the floor/ceilings? That William?

The guy who disproves your explosives when he says he sees a man with his skin hanging off his body, badly burned? Evidence of being burned by jet fuel. Since when do explosions remove skin and cause burns?

Jesus eots. Come on already.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 1, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Is that way there was eyewitness accounts of the smell of "kerosene" all the way down throughout the towers?

I didn't know thermite and explosives used in demolition produces this smell.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 1, 2013)

eots said:


> Dr. Quintiere said he originally had high hopes that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. Theyre the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think its the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.



And yet he still thinks fire and plane damage was the cause of the collapse.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 1, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Jet fuel is kerosene. The seismic readings are consistent with the initial floor collapse being triggered by shearing steel (the spike) followed by the impacts of the floors below being crushed and compacted into the 70' basement holes. The sounds of "explosions" were the steel supports breaking and the "puffs of smoke" was the smoke filled air on the floors below being violently ejected under the pressure of the collapsing floors. Everything has a normal and rational explanation without the need for any magical thermite fairies.


----------



## eots (Sep 1, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



I am not speaking for takeastepback so get over it you loon..and why are you talking such nonsense ?  of course in a verinage the design and construction makes a difference and of course it makes a difference if the building is weakened


----------



## eots (Sep 1, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Quintiere said he originally had high hopes that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. Theyre the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think its the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.
> ...



yet he implores his peers to be conspiracy theorist...


----------



## eots (Sep 1, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



link to where he says it sounded like moving furniture and the are are other eyewittnesses that tell the same account


----------



## eots (Sep 1, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



there is zero physical evidence presented by NIST of any such temperatures existing in the towers...I guess there was no pyrex at the "freshkills" ...lol


----------



## eots (Sep 1, 2013)

bottom line is you are pointing to a controlled demolition technique not used on steel framed buildings that requires extensive preparation and precutting and the use of hydraulics in a very precise and calculated manner to create a reasonably symmetrical and complete building collapse in an attempt to disprove controlled demoliton..and you are trying to claim random damage and fire can create the same result twice in a row by fluke or magical Verinage fairies


----------



## eots (Sep 1, 2013)

No pictures of your melted pyrex ?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3151MqXu52s]Fire Weakens Steel but not Woman Waving in WTC North Tower - YouTube[/ame]

Hot enough to melt pyrex but not hot enough to not Ednia...R.I.P


----------



## KissMy (Sep 1, 2013)

The fire was over 6 years ago. I found the picture I posted in my camera file. When I get back that way I will look at the inside of the foundation wall to see if the blue Pyrex glass trail is still stuck on the concrete. If it is I will take a picture & post it.

Pouring temp of glass / Pyrex is 1700 degrees


----------



## eots (Sep 1, 2013)

*At its peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F) *

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg]CCTV/TVCC fire in Beijing (HD version) ???????? - close-up of fire explosion - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Sep 1, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFoPegdHhE0]NIST FOIA 09-42: R14-UC -- WCBS Dub3_01-04 (WTC1 on Fire/WTC2 Impact Explosion) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 1, 2013)

eots said:


> *At its peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F) *
> 
> CCTV/TVCC fire in Beijing (HD version) ???????? - close-up of fire explosion - YouTube



You hear all those explosions? What was all that?


----------



## KissMy (Sep 1, 2013)

eots said:


> *At its peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F) *



How do you know how hot that fire was?


----------



## eots (Sep 1, 2013)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *At its peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F) *
> ...



because that is what the forensic fire investigators determined..there are variety of methods they use one is the paint on the steel beams


----------



## eots (Sep 1, 2013)

Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, *although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.* Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 2, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



He can't, of course. He's afraid to face the loss of everything he so foolishly clings to.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 3, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Do you agree or disagree with TakeAStepBack's "understanding" of the laws of physics in this particular case?

It's real easy eots.

The fact that you are avoiding the actual content tells quite a bit.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 3, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



No problem.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQk3XXBot9c]William Rodriguez interview, CNN, 13:33, 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]

Start at :27 of the interview.


----------



## Gamolon (Sep 3, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



And he STILL thinks fire caused the collapse.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 3, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


ok shit head how'd they do that without being seen or questioned.?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Sep 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



They were very, very quiet. In fact, they tip-toed.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 3, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Who We Are

9-11 Research is a research consortium consisting of just a few individuals volunteering their time and resources to the effort. The principal contributors to the site are:

Jim Hoffman, Webmaster and Senior Editor
Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor
Jan Hoyer, Outreach Coordinator
Jim Hoffman created the website and wrote the vast majority of its original content. Hoffman has a background in software engineering, mechanical engineering, and scientific visualization. Hoffman also created the Web publishing system used to maintain the 9-11 Research website.

Gregg Roberts has been investigating the September 11 attack since December 2003 and has provided extensive editorial assistance to 911Research. He authored the essay Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?, and is working with Hoffman to produce a book based on the site. Roberts is a technical writer and business analyst with a bachelor's degree in psychology, master's-level study in social work, and earlier education in the "hard" sciences.

Jan Hoyer is a former founding board member and graphic designer for the National 9/11 Visibilty Project, 911Truth.org and the D.C Emergency Truth Convergence. Hoyer has a degree in graphic design and experience in online multimedia.


not one engineering degree between them or fire science or explosives ....etc..
a shocking lack of the basic skill sets to make informed speculation on the events of 911.
an extreme bias is evident...
= ZERO CREDIBILITY...


----------



## KissMy (Sep 4, 2013)

*Proof that open fire will burn 1600 degrees.*
[YouTube]flj_RRaB8wo[/YouTube]

*1230 degree controlled burn test section of steel framed office building.*


----------



## DaveB (Sep 4, 2013)

daws101 said:


> how'd they do that without being seen or questioned.?



More to the point, how many of these secret thermite contraptions would be needed and how come nobody found a single one after the event? Just a whole lot more people to keep quiet and be in on this mass murder. Yeah right


----------



## daws101 (Sep 4, 2013)

DaveB said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > how'd they do that without being seen or questioned.?
> ...


someone on another site (can't name it due to usmb rules) calculated it to be  6 per floor one for each corner and 2 for elevator shafts..
wonder why nobody thought of rigging the stairwells?
wasn't the whole idea a maximum body count.?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 4, 2013)

If it was body count they were after then why crash the first plane so high in the building....In fact why crash the planes at all, Blow both buildings at the same time and take out 60,000 or so at once....Show us that wild power they have over us......


----------



## daws101 (Sep 4, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> If it was body count they were after then why crash the first plane so high in the building....In fact why crash the planes at all, Blow both buildings at the same time and take out 60,000 or so at once....Show us that wild power they have over us......


I've always wondered that myself..
imagine the death and destruction if "they" had toppled the towers.
the planes were a dead (no pun intended ) giveaway that it was religious extremists ..


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 4, 2013)

KissMy said:


> *Proof that open fire will burn 1600 degrees.*
> [YouTube]flj_RRaB8wo[/YouTube]
> 
> *1230 degree controlled burn test section of steel framed office building.*



Those images clearly show the steel deforming under load when heat is applied. This is not some state secret. Heat has always been used to change the shape of metals. Why do the conspiracy theorists believe that steel would be magically different in the WTC fires?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 4, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > *Proof that open fire will burn 1600 degrees.*
> ...


they do.. TASB has posted some TT photos that show the exact same damage.
he claims it had to be mini nukes or the legendary dustification ray..


----------



## KissMy (Sep 17, 2013)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Watch the camera shutter as this Boeing 757 does a high speed pass 40 feet of the ground. Then it goes completely vertical like a rocket-ship up into the clouds.
> ...



Vapor is forming above the wings when that Boeing 757 turns up after it's high speed pass. That means it is hauling ass. The transonic sound wave shook the camera as the plane flew by. Below are pictures of planes breaking the 761/mph mach 1 sound barrier at ground level & a video of planes doing just that on high speed low passes.














[youtube]ia2OE2Amvj0[/youtube]
[youtube]-8gpQSgaG6c[/youtube]


----------



## KissMy (Sep 20, 2013)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Additional facts:

At Boeing testing, (see video below) the Boeing 767 structural design test failed at 154% of max airframe VMO or G-force exceeding their 150% goal. If you take the B-767 max low altitude airframe VMO speed of 360 knots times 150% of max airframe design goal it will fail above 540 knots or 622 mph in low altitude.

COPA Air flight 201 which was a B-737 that has a weaker older slower low altitude 340 knot VMO max airframe speed rating. So that low altitude max airframe 340kt/VMO times 150% is 510kt or 587mph. It was inverted & out of control & broke up in low altitude well under 10k-ft going well over 560/mph for 75 seconds. In that condition it flew at 143% of it's max low altitude 340kt/VMO airframe speed. If it's horizon attitude was properly functioning allowing the pilots to properly properly fly that plane it could have made that 150% of max low altitude speed mark of 587mph.

Even if you assume that COPA Air flight 201's 143% is the max speed before failure, take The B-767 low altitude max 360kt/VMO times 143% = 515 knot / 593mph breakup speed at low altitude. So the United Airline flight 175 speed of 586mph is still below COPA Air flight 201's 143% low altitude airframe breakup speed.

*Boeing 767 test at 154% design limit load.*
[youtube]WRf395ioJRY[/youtube]

Others have pointed out before that Egypt Air flight 990 exceed .99 Mach & recovered to climb thousands of feet from a negative 2G dive to a plus 3G climb. The only reason it went back out of control & broke-up at forces that we don't know was because of sabotage by pilot. The reason EA-990 Flight data recorders lost power before it pulled out of the negative G dive & recovered was not because it was breaking up before that, it was because the suicidal pilot pulled the RAT circuit breaker & shut the fuel to both engines prior to the dive. So as they recovered from the .99 mach dive, the engines finished their fuel & the RAT failed to deploy causing a total power loss to the flight recorders & flight controls. This made them lose control of the aircraft & gave us no record of the forces that eventually destroyed the aircraft.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 21, 2013)

15 "count them 15" farts in a row from the agent trolls.

thats got to be some kind of world record.

Their handlers are really getting desperate now sending them here in droves at one time.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Sep 21, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> 15 farts in a row from the agent trolls.



In the words of *FAMED* con man and snake oil salesman *DICKIE GAGE*...

*"Shut the Fuck up and send me $1000."*


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

Ok, one last time:

The Driver of the Kennedy limosene shot Kennedy, the bullet riocheted into outer space where it entered into orbit around the earth. The powers that be (which will be revealed shortly) needed that "Magic Bullet" so they sent an un-manned rocket into space to intercept it. In order to cover themselves, they faked the moon landing. Once they located the bullet they sent it on a trajectory to complete it's second mission. The bullet reentered the atmosphere an landed in a Hawaii hospital and destroyed a filing cabinet that held all of the birth certificates. A piece of shrapnel hit a muslim Nurse there and was lodged, unbeknownst to her, next to her heart. She was so shaken up by the experience that she went back to Afghanistan. The very next day she collapsed and died of the wound in a mosque. Word spread that this muslim woman died in a mosque after returning from the US and it was taken as a sign that Allah wanted a jihad by the faithful against the US. That woman's son was Osama Bin Laden.

Osama Bin Laden, known to have knowledge of the birth of one of the Democrats and George Soro's future stars; Barack Hussein Obama, had to be first discredited and then destroyed. They faked the planes, demolished the towers under controlled conditions, thus forcing Bush to get into a war that they could use to discredit the entire GOP with so that their star protege could be POTUS. Then their guy was able to kill Bin Laden

It was a brilliant plan, flawlessly executed. I hope i have answered all of your questions.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 21, 2013)

Please do not respond to the fart comments.

Eventually he will either go away or stop hiding.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 21, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Please do not respond to the fart comments.
> 
> Eventually he will either go away or stop hiding.



Really? You believe that that nutcase will ever go away? I seriously doubt it.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 21, 2013)

He'll go to where people give him the attention he so craves........If he doesn't get it here he'll go there.....Wherever there happens to be....


----------



## KissMy (Sep 24, 2013)

Melted Glass from house fires. Proof house fires exceed 1600 degree.


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2013)

a glass bottle melts at 1000 degrees


----------



## daws101 (Sep 26, 2013)

eots said:


> a glass bottle melts at 1000 degrees


steel doesn't need to melt to lose it's structural integrity...


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > a glass bottle melts at 1000 degrees
> ...



that is irrelevant to the melting point of a bottle


----------



## KissMy (Sep 26, 2013)

eots said:


> a glass bottle melts at 1000 degrees


----------



## daws101 (Sep 26, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


it's extremely relevant to this thread.
 KissMy handed you your ass... stop whining.


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2013)

Tech Specs
Technical Specifications for Glass

Softening Point - The temperature at which unsupported glass will begin to sag. If the temperature is reduced slightly, the glass will remain in the sagged shape. For soda-lime glass, this point is 726°C (1340°F).

When heat treating glass, the softening point should not be exceeded during heating to prevent roller wave or other shape distortion. Generally, heat treat processing equipment targets approximately 1180-1200°F maximum glass temperature during the glass heating phase.

Annealing Point - This is the temperature at which glass will relieve stresses (either compressive or tensile) in a matter of minutes. For soda-lime glass, the annealing point is 546°C (1015°F).

Specialty Glass Products, Inc


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2idRovWVRkI]Wine Bottle Melting - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Sep 26, 2013)

eots said:


> Tech Specs
> Technical Specifications for Glass
> 
> Softening Point - The temperature at which unsupported glass will begin to sag. If the temperature is reduced slightly, the glass will remain in the sagged shape. For soda-lime glass, this point is 726°C (1340°F).
> ...


that is irrelevant to the subject of this thread.


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vMGT4iltg4]Melting a Heineken bottle in a fire pit - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Rozman (Sep 26, 2013)

I still can't get my mind to accept the fact that some people are more willing to accept this huge conspiracy
concept over what actually happened.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 26, 2013)

Rozman said:


> I still can't get my mind to accept the fact that some people are more willing to accept this huge conspiracy
> concept over what actually happened.



Dude, accept it........


----------



## KissMy (Sep 26, 2013)

eots said:


> Tech Specs
> Technical Specifications for Glass
> 
> Softening Point - The temperature at which unsupported glass will begin to sag. If the temperature is reduced slightly, the glass will remain in the sagged shape. For soda-lime glass, this point is 726°C (1340°F).
> ...



 You are clueless dude.  Heat treating annealing temp is not the melting point. 

Glass does not change shape until it exceeds 1340°F. Pyrex does not change shape until it exceeds 1550°F. I have shown you proof that glass melts in ordinary house fires. I have also personally seen Pyrex melt & run down a foundation wall in a regular house fire. Some day I will make my way back to that 7 year old foundation & take a picture & post it here.


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2013)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Tech Specs
> ...



I just posted a wine bottle complete deforming in a backyard "camp fire"


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 27, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I guess no one should point out to Eots that molten glass looks just like molten steel.


----------

