simple question for the WTC collapse

[Montrovant]

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

After the videos posted of demolitions without the use of explosives or incendiaries, why are you so certain your choices are the only ones?

 

[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

After the videos posted of demolitions without the use of explosives or incendiaries, why are you so certain your choices are the only ones?

gravity induced collapses have never been done on a large building nothing even remotely close to the wtc 7 never mind the twin towers and they require extensive preparation ...but as I said it will be interesting in the future to what technologies may be utilized to bring this big buildings done as nothing of this size have ever been attempted offcially

 

[eots]

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.

get your shit straight chump..The supports from three floors in the middle of the building were removed simultaneously allowing the top HALF to fall on to the bottom half that has been extensively weakened in advance with cutting torches

 

[eots]

and would also have to question if this building is reinforced concrete building or a steel-framed building.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooz8fXJMjNs]New 9/11 Footage 2012. "Go home, they're blowing up the buildings." "Subsequent Explosions" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Days]

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStJ5BgadPs"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStJ5BgadPs[/ame]

This is video about the Mossad agents that were arrested on 09/11. But I am posting it because of the frame @ 5:55. (5 minutes, 55 seconds) Go there and look at the perfect view of the underside of the type of jets that struck the towers. See the giant pod attached to the fuselage? Of course the liars in this thread can't see it. It's only twice as big as the engines under each wing. That is an Air Force stock cargo jet and the pod can be used for various purposes, including it shoots white phosphorous. The frame @ 5:55 makes a positive ID on the jet.

Neither of the two jets from Boston ever took off, there is no such thing of such an event happening without it being recorded at the airport. Those two flights were scheduled for that morning but the international airport at Boston has no record that they left the ground... which means they didn't. At least to a pilot who comes from a family of pilots, it does, but it won't mean anything to the intellectually dishonest. It is amazing how many pilots and engineers have come forward, despite so many of them losing their jobs and disappearing after doing so, to expose the government conspiracy. On 09/11 there is no record of a commercial airliner crashing anywhere. There is no record of any of the FBI named terrorists boarding any commercial jets, not in any security cameras, not in any record of boarding passes, they neither purchased a single ticket, nor boarded any of the flights. The two flights from Boston never left ground, and no jets crashed at the Pentagon or Shanksville, PA. Not a single part of a commercial jet was recovered on 09/11, neither was a single passenger or crew member or listed terrorist recovered from any of the so-called crash sites. There simply was no hi-jackings that took place on 09/11.

No jets, and no bodies, except for the victims working in the towers or at the Pentagon. All we have is government lies, fake cell phone calls, explosives, and a lot of shock and awe. When you look into each crash site you learn things like the scar in the ground at Shanksville existed prior to 09/11, that it was as cheap as setting off an explosive in the middle of that scar so it appears like the jets of a wing created the scar. But the whole deal is woefully undersized for a 767. Or the row of windows at the Pentagon directly above the spot of impact do not contain a single crack. A 757 disappeared into a 8 foot square double doors and didn't even crack the window panes on the 2nd floor windows directly above the doors. The official explanation for that one is the entire jet and crew and passengers vaporized on contact with the building... yet the 757 still managed to punch that 8 foot diameter hole into three rings of reinforced Pentagon concrete walls, and leave behind some type of cruise missile parts, and hey, this happened three times from three different angles, leaving a total of nine holes penetrating the face of the Pentagon... and then the 60 ton jet managed to completely vanish along with all of the flight crew, passengers, and their baggage.

No one really believes these lies. Propagandists push the lies, just as they did for Hitler, just as they always have for political purposes down through the centuries. Nero never admitted that he set the fires. Governments are never going to come clean, its not their nature. Especially when the crooks are the Bush family themselves...

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAztWC5sT8"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAztWC5sT8[/ame]

 

[Derideo_Te]

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 ?

Kindly refrain from imposing your own delusions on others. I have already supplied you with the plausible and rational explanations of how the sequence of events from the impacts to the fires to the collapses took place WITHOUT the need for any other factors being involved. The onus remains on you to PROVE your allegations.

 

[candycorn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStJ5BgadPs

This is video about the Mossad agents that were arrested on 09/11. But I am posting it because of the frame @ 5:55. (5 minutes, 55 seconds) Go there and look at the perfect view of the underside of the type of jets that struck the towers. See the giant pod attached to the fuselage? Of course the liars in this thread can't see it. It's only twice as big as the engines under each wing. That is an Air Force stock cargo jet and the pod can be used for various purposes, including it shoots white phosphorous. The frame @ 5:55 makes a positive ID on the jet.

Neither of the two jets from Boston ever took off, there is no such thing of such an event happening without it being recorded at the airport. Those two flights were scheduled for that morning but the international airport at Boston has no record that they left the ground... which means they didn't. At least to a pilot who comes from a family of pilots, it does, but it won't mean anything to the intellectually dishonest. It is amazing how many pilots and engineers have come forward, despite so many of them losing their jobs and disappearing after doing so, to expose the government conspiracy. On 09/11 there is no record of a commercial airliner crashing anywhere. There is no record of any of the FBI named terrorists boarding any commercial jets, not in any security cameras, not in any record of boarding passes, they neither purchased a single ticket, nor boarded any of the flights. The two flights from Boston never left ground, and no jets crashed at the Pentagon or Shanksville, PA. Not a single part of a commercial jet was recovered on 09/11, neither was a single passenger or crew member or listed terrorist recovered from any of the so-called crash sites. There simply was no hi-jackings that took place on 09/11.

No jets, and no bodies, except for the victims working in the towers or at the Pentagon. All we have is government lies, fake cell phone calls, explosives, and a lot of shock and awe. When you look into each crash site you learn things like the scar in the ground at Shanksville existed prior to 09/11, that it was as cheap as setting off an explosive in the middle of that scar so it appears like the jets of a wing created the scar. But the whole deal is woefully undersized for a 767. Or the row of windows at the Pentagon directly above the spot of impact do not contain a single crack. A 757 disappeared into a 8 foot square double doors and didn't even crack the window panes on the 2nd floor windows directly above the doors. The official explanation for that one is the entire jet and crew and passengers vaporized on contact with the building... yet the 757 still managed to punch that 8 foot diameter hole into three rings of reinforced Pentagon concrete walls, and leave behind some type of cruise missile parts, and hey, this happened three times from three different angles, leaving a total of nine holes penetrating the face of the Pentagon... and then the 60 ton jet managed to completely vanish along with all of the flight crew, passengers, and their baggage.

No one really believes these lies. Propagandists push the lies, just as they did for Hitler, just as they always have for political purposes down through the centuries. Nero never admitted that he set the fires. Governments are never going to come clean, its not their nature. Especially when the crooks are the Bush family themselves...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAztWC5sT8

I knew he'd get around to blaming the Jews eventually he he he. Good to know twoofers are still the same in this ever-changing world.

 

[Gamolon]

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.

get your shit straight chump..The supports from three floors in the middle of the building were removed simultaneously allowing the top HALF to fall on to the bottom half that has been extensively weakened in advance with cutting torches

Are you, eots, suggesting that the laws of physics changed because the lower section of that building was weakened? Remember what TakeAStepBack says:

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.

Even though the "lower section" was weakened, it's still somewhat intact and needs a force to finish the job and completely shear the "lower section". So based on what TakeAStepBack says above, this isn't possible. How did that "upper section" section in the video have enough energy to shear the rest of the "lower section" AND shear itself into debris?

Why do you keep avoiding this?

You're contradicting TakeAStepBack's "understanding" of the laws of physics.

Also, what happened to the fact that buildings are designed to support MANY times their designed load capacity? Even though the "lower section" was weakened, it still supported the "upper section"just fine until that upper section was released. Why didn't the "lower section" stop the "upper section"?

What turned the "upper section" into debris?

 

[Gamolon]

yet the 757 still managed to punch that 8 foot diameter hole into three rings of reinforced Pentagon concrete walls,

Are you suggesting that the plane punched through 6 reinforced concrete walls? 2 reinforced walls for each ring?

 

[Gamolon]

gravity induced collapses have never been done on a large building nothing even remotely close to the wtc 7 never mind the twin towers and they require extensive preparation ...

Oh really?

So based on your logic of "if it never happen in the past, then it couldn't have happened now", you don't think the towers were brought down by explosives right?

Am I right eots?

 

[Gamolon]

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.

get your shit straight chump..The supports from three floors in the middle of the building were removed simultaneously allowing the top HALF to fall on to the bottom half that has been extensively weakened in advance with cutting torches

This means that the engineers had to calculate how many and how much of each support component in the lower structure would succumb and fail due to the downward, gravity driven descent of the upper section.

Let that sink in. This means that there is a MAXIMUM level of stress a component can take before shearing. The MAXIMUM level of stress is reduced as the amount of the component is taken away.

CONNECTIONS are the weakest link. Think about the perimeter column floor trusses of the towers. There is a LIMIT as to what each floor and it's corresponding trusses around that floor can support. That's static and live loads.

How much more of a difference between the loads of what an individual floor was designed to handle on a day to day basis and the load generated from the upper section hitting said floor?

Do you understand how loads work and are transferred through a structural system? Obviously not or you wouldn't be spouting such crap.

Loads "travel" through the various components, INCLUDING the connections, to the columns and down to the footers. If a component in the load transferring network cannot handle the load passing through it, it fails. Hence the following picture of how a structure transfers loads. People, desk, chairs, computers, etc. to the floor. The floor (and underlying trusses) TROUGH the connections to the columns to the columns themselves. The columns to the footers. The footers to the bedrock.


Which is why I always ask this. Were ALL of the floor truss connections of one floor (circled in red below), attached to the perimeter columns and core columns, designed for the load of day to day work on THAT floor...


...supposed to take the load generated by this falling onto it?


Tell you what "chump".

Provide the math for how much one floor was designed to support and then provide the math for how much of a load was created by the 12 story and 28 story upper sections. Don't forget to add in the tons of elevator motors, the hat trusses, the elevator electrical panels, etc.

 

[Gamolon]

Go there and look at the perfect view of the underside of the type of jets that struck the towers. See the giant pod attached to the fuselage? Of course the liars in this thread can't see it. It's only twice as big as the engines under each wing. That is an Air Force stock cargo jet and the pod can be used for various purposes,

Really? Pods?

 

[eots]

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 ?

Kindly refrain from imposing your own delusions on others. I have already supplied you with the plausible and rational explanations of how the sequence of events from the impacts to the fires to the collapses took place WITHOUT the need for any other factors being involved. The onus remains on you to PROVE your allegations.

No you did not as this requires the mechanical removal of all supports simultaneously with hydraulics or cables and requires pre-cutting of the structure

 

[eots]

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.

get your shit straight chump..The supports from three floors in the middle of the building were removed simultaneously allowing the top HALF to fall on to the bottom half that has been extensively weakened in advance with cutting torches

This means that the engineers had to calculate how many and how much of each support component in the lower structure would succumb and fail due to the downward, gravity driven descent of the upper section.

Let that sink in. This means that there is a MAXIMUM level of stress a component can take before shearing. The MAXIMUM level of stress is reduced as the amount of the component is taken away.

CONNECTIONS are the weakest link. Think about the perimeter column floor trusses of the towers. There is a LIMIT as to what each floor and it's corresponding trusses around that floor can support. That's static and live loads.

How much more of a difference between the loads of what an individual floor was designed to handle on a day to day basis and the load generated from the upper section hitting said floor?

Do you understand how loads work and are transferred through a structural system? Obviously not or you wouldn't be spouting such crap.

Loads "travel" through the various components, INCLUDING the connections, to the columns and down to the footers. If a component in the load transferring network cannot handle the load passing through it, it fails. Hence the following picture of how a structure transfers loads. People, desk, chairs, computers, etc. to the floor. The floor (and underlying trusses) TROUGH the connections to the columns to the columns themselves. The columns to the footers. The footers to the bedrock.


Which is why I always ask this. Were ALL of the floor truss connections of one floor (circled in red below), attached to the perimeter columns and core columns, designed for the load of day to day work on THAT floor...


...supposed to take the load generated by this falling onto it?


Tell you what "chump".

Provide the math for how much one floor was designed to support and then provide the math for how much of a load was created by the 12 story and 28 story upper sections. Don't forget to add in the tons of elevator motors, the hat trusses, the elevator electrical panels, etc.

why is there no link to this photo..

 

[eots]

The nist report ends with collapse initiation no explanation on how the resistance of the massive structure beneath did not slow or stop the collapse

 

[eots]

There was no giant block of building crashing through the rest..there was no pancaking..there was in secs nothing but a giant dust cloud be projected outward from the structure underneath it as it crumbled, the collapses are filled with significant motion in the horizontal direction

 

[Gamolon]

get your shit straight chump..The supports from three floors in the middle of the building were removed simultaneously allowing the top HALF to fall on to the bottom half that has been extensively weakened in advance with cutting torches

This means that the engineers had to calculate how many and how much of each support component in the lower structure would succumb and fail due to the downward, gravity driven descent of the upper section.

Let that sink in. This means that there is a MAXIMUM level of stress a component can take before shearing. The MAXIMUM level of stress is reduced as the amount of the component is taken away.

CONNECTIONS are the weakest link. Think about the perimeter column floor trusses of the towers. There is a LIMIT as to what each floor and it's corresponding trusses around that floor can support. That's static and live loads.

How much more of a difference between the loads of what an individual floor was designed to handle on a day to day basis and the load generated from the upper section hitting said floor?

Do you understand how loads work and are transferred through a structural system? Obviously not or you wouldn't be spouting such crap.

Loads "travel" through the various components, INCLUDING the connections, to the columns and down to the footers. If a component in the load transferring network cannot handle the load passing through it, it fails. Hence the following picture of how a structure transfers loads. People, desk, chairs, computers, etc. to the floor. The floor (and underlying trusses) TROUGH the connections to the columns to the columns themselves. The columns to the footers. The footers to the bedrock.


Which is why I always ask this. Were ALL of the floor truss connections of one floor (circled in red below), attached to the perimeter columns and core columns, designed for the load of day to day work on THAT floor...


...supposed to take the load generated by this falling onto it?


Tell you what "chump".

Provide the math for how much one floor was designed to support and then provide the math for how much of a load was created by the 12 story and 28 story upper sections. Don't forget to add in the tons of elevator motors, the hat trusses, the elevator electrical panels, etc.

why is there no link to this photo..

What does not having a link have to do with answering my questions or refuting my logic?

If you doubt any photos, go look them up for yourself. You will see many photos and drawings proving what the floor truss connections. You will see many photos and videos of the upper section descending. You can find many photos, and explanations on how loads are distributed in a structure.

What do you have a problem with?

 

[Gamolon]

There was no giant block of building crashing through the rest..there was no pancaking..there was in secs nothing but a giant dust cloud be projected outward from the structure underneath it as it crumbled

No shit dopey. It turned to a jumbling mass of debris due to impacting the lower section and being sheared/torn apart.

 

[Gamolon]

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.

get your shit straight chump..The supports from three floors in the middle of the building were removed simultaneously allowing the top HALF to fall on to the bottom half that has been extensively weakened in advance with cutting torches

Are you, eots, suggesting that the laws of physics changed because the lower section of that building was weakened? Remember what TakeAStepBack says:

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.

Even though the "lower section" was weakened, it's still somewhat intact and needs a force to finish the job and completely shear the "lower section". So based on what TakeAStepBack says above, this isn't possible. How did that "upper section" section in the video have enough energy to shear the rest of the "lower section" AND shear itself into debris?

Why do you keep avoiding this?

You're contradicting TakeAStepBack's "understanding" of the laws of physics.

Also, what happened to the fact that buildings are designed to support MANY times their designed load capacity? Even though the "lower section" was weakened, it still supported the "upper section"just fine until that upper section was released. Why didn't the "lower section" stop the "upper section"?

What turned the "upper section" into debris?

Better yet, address the above eots.

What are you afraid of?