simple question for the WTC collapse

[eots]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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

And you STILL don't get it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

Does this mean that you are no longer claiming that anyone did this to the WTC towers?

 

[Gamolon]

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.

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.

What turned the "upper section" into debris eots?

 

[Gamolon]

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

Um, Nope. According to TakeAStepBack:

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]

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

Does this mean that you are no longer claiming that anyone did this to the WTC towers?

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]

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]

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]

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

Does this mean that you are no longer claiming that anyone did this to the WTC towers?

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

Does this mean that you are no longer claiming that anyone did this to the WTC towers?

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

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.

so you think the pre-cut the steel and used hydraulics to bring down the towers ?

 

[eots]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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