simple question for the WTC collapse

[Days]

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]

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]

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]

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.....

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]

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]

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]

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.....

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Days]

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]

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

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

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......

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]

At 439 ft. tall Hudson’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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Interesting.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o

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

No explanation?

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

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.