simple question for the WTC collapse

[eots]

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]

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]

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]

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......

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

 

[numan]

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

Thermite was used to cut up the steel debris afterwards.

thermite was not used to cut the debris.

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

.

 

[numan]

'
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]

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]

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]

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

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?

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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:

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.

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]

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

Mythbusters Toast 1/2 Ton of Thermite - YouTube

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?

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

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.

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

 

[eots]

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

 

[SFC Ollie]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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

 

[Days]

my bad, I should have used 30 stories.