Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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
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
Seriously? What exactly did these "people" use to make these "precise cuts" to the structural supports and when did these "people" do it?
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
Seriously? What exactly did these "people" use to make these "precise cuts" to the structural supports and when did these "people" do it?
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?
Explain why, using the laws stated above, you think the lower structure should have halted or stopped the upper section.
This should be interesting.
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.
Interesting.
Please explain how the building at 3:22 of this video completely collapsed.
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!!!!
THERMITE?!
EXPLOSIVES?!
You be the judge...
pulverized concrete and large steel beams where projected outward
Which steel beams eots? Perimeter sections, core columns, horizontal beams, or all three?
How about wing sections, aircraft doors, water tanks, fire extinguishers, cubicle walls, door panels, window panes, desktops, etc, etc?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
3 times in one day
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.
3 times in one day
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.
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.
3 times in one day
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.
If you precisely pre-cut supports and drop the upper HALF of the building on to the other..yes
