Mathematician to Refute Official Theory of WTC Destruction at Upcoming Conference

[HereWeGoAgain]

Exactly how does a plane crashing into a building end up looking like a controlled demolition?

That's rather odd, IMO.

How is the top of the building supposed to fall?

In the direction of the most damage. IE: where the planes actually hit.

No explosives needed.

They would be to make the building fall into its own footprint....especially three buildings.
Common sense tells you the structure will fall towards the area most damaged.

Common sense says gravity works.

Yeah...towards the area of most damage.
I'll use a simplistic example for you.
It you chop down a tree what direction is it most likely fall?

 

[Marion Morrison]

I still like dat Barney Miller intro.

Sounds like George Benson.



Executive Producer: Danny Arnold

Baby!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Vertical steel I-beams collapse when there is nothing to hold them vertical. Take that Jenga tower and place four rulers on each corner. When the interior collapses, what happens to the rulers?

The design of the inner-support structure would not have allowed either twin to go straight down.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Newton's Third Law

Momentum Conservation Principle

The design of the inner-support structure would not have allowed either twin to go straight down.

How far off of "straight down" did they go?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It probably isn't when it has steel fortified beams.
And I-beam infrastructure.
A little jet fuel on fire isn't going to melt things like that.

The building collapsed because the floors pancaked downward, just like a controlled demolition does.

They would be to make the building fall into its own footprint....especially three buildings.
Common sense tells you the structure will fall towards the area most damaged.

Common sense says gravity works.

Common sense says huge vertical steel I-beams just don't collapse with dropping concrete flors.

Vertical steel I-beams collapse when there is nothing to hold them vertical. Take that Jenga tower and place four rulers on each corner. When the interior collapses, what happens to the rulers?

Like there weren't any cross-I-beams on every floor.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

Marion, when and where did you get your engineering degree? You need to need to sue for a refund because you don't understand plain English much less any engineering.

Here is a good source to explain why you are wrong.

What caused the World Trade Center towers to collapse on 9/11?

Dismissed.....

"We will never know for sure exactly what structural stresses and failures caused the World Trade Center towers to collapse."

Ad the fact that structural engineers disagree with the 9-11 report.....

 

[the other mike]

I still like dat Barney Miller intro.

My favorites are Wall Street and the Crocodile Dundee 2 opening scene.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I can't wait until it's revealed that first responders have been getting cancer from the nanothermite particles they were breathing in. How will NIST explain that away ?

Nanothermite? What are the ingredients for that?

Finely ground aluminum and ammonium nitrate, next!

If you're using ammonium nitrate in your thermite, you're doing it wrong.
Seriously wrong.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Exactly how does a plane crashing into a building end up looking like a controlled demolition?

That's rather odd, IMO.

How is the top of the building supposed to fall?

In the direction of the most damage. IE: where the planes actually hit.

No explosives needed.

They would be to make the building fall into its own footprint....especially three buildings.
Common sense tells you the structure will fall towards the area most damaged.

You don't think it fell properly?

Sure...if it was a controlled demolition.

 

[Yarddog]

It wasn't gravity?

Exactly how does a plane crashing into a building end up looking like a controlled demolition?

That's rather odd, IMO.

How is the top of the building supposed to fall?

It probably isn't when it has steel fortified beams.
And I-beam infrastructure.
A little jet fuel on fire isn't going to melt things like that.

well do we know if the plane itself struck any of the core columns?? that could be a factor. And how were the floor trusses connected to the columns? could there have been a weak link there? It appeared that the building came straight down, one floor giving way along with everything above it of course following and the inertia of all that weight probably unstoppable. Would steel have to be completely melted or just softened enough to shift the balance of the building? and you have to calculate in the effects of building sway increasing stresses.

Towers' Wind-Force Design Questioned

"For 7 to 10 minutes before the towers fell, the photographs show exterior columns bowing inward, almost like pieces of cooked spaghetti, a sign that they are about to give way.

Even so, the institute investigators have not pinpointed why the two towers collapsed after they were able to withstand the initial impacts by the Boeing 767 planes. But two primary theories have been identified.

• You have 5 free articles remaining.

Subscribe to The Times

As the fires ignited by the planes burned out of control, the exterior steel columns in the towers, designed primarily to resist wind, might have given way. Alternatively, the innovative lightweight floors that connected the exterior of the towers to their cores might have sagged, pulling the exterior columns inward and starting the collapse, the interim report says, adding that it might have been a combination of both factors."

 

[Marion Morrison]

I can't wait until it's revealed that first responders have been getting cancer from the nanothermite particles they were breathing in. How will NIST explain that away ?

Nanothermite? What are the ingredients for that?

Finely ground aluminum and ammonium nitrate, next!

If you're using ammonium nitrate in your thermite, you're doing it wrong.
Seriously wrong.

I'll let you tell it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nanothermite? What are the ingredients for that?

Same as thermite with smaller atomic particles through
nanotechnology. Don't you ever watch Jeopardy dude ?

The atoms are smaller? Got that from Jeopardy, did ya?

 

[the other mike]

I can't wait until it's revealed that first responders have been getting cancer from the nanothermite particles they were breathing in. How will NIST explain that away ?

Nanothermite? What are the ingredients for that?

Finely ground aluminum and ammonium nitrate, next!

If you're using ammonium nitrate in your thermite, you're doing it wrong.
Seriously wrong.

That's a different conspiracy from Oklahoma 1995.

 

[the other mike]

Nanothermite? What are the ingredients for that?

Same as thermite with smaller atomic particles through
nanotechnology. Don't you ever watch Jeopardy dude ?

The atoms are smaller? Got that from Jeopardy, did ya?

I missed that one but Alex Trebeck is my cousin and he texted it to me later after the show.

Nano-thermite or super-thermite is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 100 nanometers. ... Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How is the top of the building supposed to fall?

In the direction of the most damage. IE: where the planes actually hit.

No explosives needed.

They would be to make the building fall into its own footprint....especially three buildings.
Common sense tells you the structure will fall towards the area most damaged.

You don't think it fell properly?

Sure...if it was a controlled demolition.

How should they have fallen, without explosives?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It wasn't gravity?

Exactly how does a plane crashing into a building end up looking like a controlled demolition?

That's rather odd, IMO.

Whats even odder? ....that it happened three times in one day.

No, it didn't.

So did building 7 wait to fall the next day?
I could be off on the timeline but they all fell in their own footprint.

It didn't fall the next day. That's how building collapse when the guts are ripped out.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

In the direction of the most damage. IE: where the planes actually hit.

No explosives needed.

They would be to make the building fall into its own footprint....especially three buildings.
Common sense tells you the structure will fall towards the area most damaged.

You don't think it fell properly?

Sure...if it was a controlled demolition.

How should they have fallen, without explosives?

I've said it a dozon times on this board....towards the area where the most destruction occurred,which is obviously where the plane originally hit.
To have three building fall in their own footprint is suspect at the very least.....without a controlled demolition.
There are plenty of videos out there where a controlled demo failed,and guess what,it was everywhere but in their own footprint.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It wasn't gravity?

Exactly how does a plane crashing into a building end up looking like a controlled demolition?

That's rather odd, IMO.

Whats even odder? ....that it happened three times in one day.

No, it didn't.

So did building 7 wait to fall the next day?
I could be off on the timeline but they all fell in their own footprint.

It didn't fall the next day. That's how building collapse when the guts are ripped out.

So building 7 collapsed because a piece of landing gear hit it?

 

[Faun]

Try that with steel I-beams, derp! yeah, 4 steel I-beams running the height of the structure.

Derp!

It's common sense--3 skyscrapers each damaged in very different ways --do not all collapse straight down in the exact same way. You don't have to be an engineer to see that both twin towers should have collapsed in drastically different fashion and by the way -- why is it that most Americans still don't know a third tower collapsed that day ?

"It's common sense--3 skyscrapers each damaged in very different ways --do not all collapse straight down in the exact same way. "

They didn't all fall in the same way. The Twin towers fell from the top, down, from above the point above impact, pancaking as it came down. Building 7 fell from the inside first, then from the bottom, as the entire structure went down.

But I understand -- truthers have their own version of reality.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

How is the top of the building supposed to fall?

In the direction of the most damage. IE: where the planes actually hit.

No explosives needed.

They would be to make the building fall into its own footprint....especially three buildings.
Common sense tells you the structure will fall towards the area most damaged.

Common sense says gravity works.

Yeah...towards the area of most damage.
I'll use a simplistic example for you.
It you chop down a tree what direction is it most likely fall?

The damage was high on the structure and it did collapse in the direction of the damage, but only slightly off the vertical.

Imagine the WTC towers being aluminum cans. If you put a dent in the side, and then crush it from the top, it will only bend slightly towards the dent before flattening out vertically due to your hand pressing the can down. In the building's case, gravity forced it downward more than towards the damage.

 

[Marion Morrison]

It wasn't gravity?

Exactly how does a plane crashing into a building end up looking like a controlled demolition?

That's rather odd, IMO.

Whats even odder? ....that it happened three times in one day.

No, it didn't.

So did building 7 wait to fall the next day?
I could be off on the timeline but they all fell in their own footprint.

It didn't fall the next day. That's how building collapse when the guts are ripped out.

 

[the other mike]

In the direction of the most damage. IE: where the planes actually hit.

No explosives needed.

They would be to make the building fall into its own footprint....especially three buildings.
Common sense tells you the structure will fall towards the area most damaged.

You don't think it fell properly?

Sure...if it was a controlled demolition.

How should they have fallen, without explosives?

The planes hit from opposite directions so the structures collapses would have initiated the same way ( toward the impact face of each tower ) after that the laws of physics would apply, gravity and the varying weight of the above impact zones .