simple question for the WTC collapse

[Days]

I understand the entire design and a lot more that you obviously don't realize exists, let alone understand. I never bothered to answer this clueless post because it made no sense. You debunkers never answer anything, you just fire away with whatever idiocy that comes to mind, no matter how disconnected it is from the conversation. You are incapable of making use of the threads, which, BTW, can be used to hold a conversation (something intelligent people do).

So, the tops were blown to bits and therefore never acted as a weight to crush those connections of yours, where ever they might have been. By the way, the floor joists hung on thick bar steel in sheer with the wall, NIST never said they were crushed, they tried to get around them by saying the walls bent outward... which the walls did; from the explosives... not the fire. But you seem to think that steel holding up the floors in sheer with the curtain wall was weak. Those connections had 100% the strength of the curtain wall (by design - duh). To think otherwise is to scream, "I don't know the first thing about structural design". Which you did a bang up job of screaming throughout the thread.

The top post pointed at an obvious Lie in the structural failure abalysis of the lower floors. Over and over in this thread I kept explaining that the core columns run from top to bottom and are seamless; you have to somehow collapse the core columns also, and there was a lot of them... scores of them... and each one of them failed; how? You seem to think they would just fall with the floors; wrong, they don't. NIST never answered that, either. I added that the cores snapped at the onset of collapse; meaning ALL the core columns snapped in half; which they plainly did and it is highly visible for both tower collapses. What could have snapped all the core columns in half BEFORE the towers collapsed? Other than explosives?

answer: nothing, even a 9.0 earthquake would not have snapped those cores, they were the strongest cores ever built and designed to bend like a tree, which makes them that much harder to snap in half. That's why I kept pointing it out, but you dimwits are soooooooooooooo stupid, I might as well be singing opera to cows.

 

[Derideo_Te]

ANOTHER EMPTY STATEMENT BACKED BY NOTHING.

How ironic coming from someone who has utterly failed to substantiate every single one of his conspiracy allegations.

You are in fact the one that can not substantiate their conspiracy theory

Kindly refrain from accusing others of your own shortcomings.

 

[eots]

How ironic coming from someone who has utterly failed to substantiate every single one of his conspiracy allegations.

You are in fact the one that can not substantiate their conspiracy theory

Kindly refrain from accusing others of your own shortcomings.

Sorry, but you completely failed in proving the official 9/11 conspiracy theory

 

[Derideo_Te]

NIST failed to explain the collapses with their fire theory..your assumptions of what technologies could be utilized to bring down a building and your imagined obstacles do not change the fact that the most rational explanation for buildings collapsing as they did three times on sept 11th is some form of controlled demolition

There is nothing rational about imagining that there was a "controlled demolition" when there is zero evidence of any explosions when the buildings collapsed. Whereas the evidence caused by 140 ton aircraft traveling at 400+ mph is visible to the naked eye as are the raging fires and the well known facts about engineering principles and strengths of materials.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You are in fact the one that can not substantiate their conspiracy theory

Kindly refrain from accusing others of your own shortcomings.

Sorry, but you completely failed in proving the official 9/11 conspiracy theory

I never set out to prove your imaginary 'official 9/11 conspiracy theory". I simply took the available facts and provided a plausible scenario using well documented and proven facts regarding strengths of materials and engineering principles. The math doesn't lie and it fits within all of the known facts regarding the events.

Your allegations require imaginary outside intervention, impossible feats and lack any shred of hard evidence. Your accusations ring hollow given your own lack of substantiation.

 

[eots]

Kindly refrain from accusing others of your own shortcomings.

Sorry, but you completely failed in proving the official 9/11 conspiracy theory

I never set out to prove your imaginary 'official 9/11 conspiracy theory". I simply took the available facts and provided a plausible scenario using well documented and proven facts regarding strengths of materials and engineering principles. The math doesn't lie and it fits within all of the known facts regarding the events.

Your allegations require imaginary outside intervention, impossible feats and lack any shred of hard evidence. Your accusations ring hollow given your own lack of substantiation.

Nonsense, you took a scenario and ignored all facts that did not support it..even NIST coincides ultimately it can not explain the collapse but now you claim to have...NIST simply ignores the question..perhaps you should send them your math so they can finally claim to "explain" the collapse beyond initiation and give the full collapse sequence...Sorry your collapse scenario is highly questionably ,does not fit the available facts and I would be generous in saying has a very low probabilty

 

[Derideo_Te]

Sorry, but you completely failed in proving the official 9/11 conspiracy theory

I never set out to prove your imaginary 'official 9/11 conspiracy theory". I simply took the available facts and provided a plausible scenario using well documented and proven facts regarding strengths of materials and engineering principles. The math doesn't lie and it fits within all of the known facts regarding the events.

Your allegations require imaginary outside intervention, impossible feats and lack any shred of hard evidence. Your accusations ring hollow given your own lack of substantiation.

Nonsense, you took a scenario and ignored all facts that did not support it..even NIST coincides ultimately it can not explain the collapse but now you claim to have...NIST simply ignores the question..perhaps you should send them your math so they can finally claim to "explain" the collapse beyond initiation and give the full collapse sequence...Sorry your collapse scenario is highly questionably ,does not fit the available facts and I would be generous in saying has a very low probabilty

Once again you spew allegations without substantiation. So now you have an even greater onus to prove your position. No one is holding their breath since you have consistently failed to do so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I understand the entire design and a lot more that you obviously don't realize exists, let alone understand. I never bothered to answer this clueless post because it made no sense. You debunkers never answer anything, you just fire away with whatever idiocy that comes to mind, no matter how disconnected it is from the conversation. You are incapable of making use of the threads, which, BTW, can be used to hold a conversation (something intelligent people do).

So, the tops were blown to bits and therefore never acted as a weight to crush those connections of yours, where ever they might have been. By the way, the floor joists hung on thick bar steel in sheer with the wall, NIST never said they were crushed, they tried to get around them by saying the walls bent outward... which the walls did; from the explosives... not the fire. But you seem to think that steel holding up the floors in sheer with the curtain wall was weak. Those connections had 100% the strength of the curtain wall (by design - duh). To think otherwise is to scream, "I don't know the first thing about structural design". Which you did a bang up job of screaming throughout the thread.

The top post pointed at an obvious Lie in the structural failure abalysis of the lower floors. Over and over in this thread I kept explaining that the core columns run from top to bottom and are seamless; you have to somehow collapse the core columns also, and there was a lot of them... scores of them... and each one of them failed; how? You seem to think they would just fall with the floors; wrong, they don't. NIST never answered that, either. I added that the cores snapped at the onset of collapse; meaning ALL the core columns snapped in half; which they plainly did and it is highly visible for both tower collapses. What could have snapped all the core columns in half BEFORE the towers collapsed? Other than explosives?

answer: nothing, even a 9.0 earthquake would not have snapped those cores, they were the strongest cores ever built and designed to bend like a tree, which makes them that much harder to snap in half. That's why I kept pointing it out, but you dimwits are soooooooooooooo stupid, I might as well be singing opera to cows.

So, the tops were blown to bits and therefore never acted as a weight to crush those connections of yours

Wrong.

 

[daws101]

NIST failed to explain the collapses with their fire theory..your assumptions of what technologies could be utilized to bring down a building and your imagined obstacles do not change the fact that the most rational explanation for buildings collapsing as they did three times on sept 11th is some form of controlled demolition

It's wishful thinking swallowed only by people who can't think rationally.

 

[daws101]

She is an expert in scientific method and fully qualified to comment on NIST lack of it

you wish....she has no experience in the necessary fields ...her opinion is is no better than non experienced nonscientists.

Not I wish ..she has been singled out and honored by her esteemed peers in science as being among the very best

at what? nothing in the needed disciplines..

 

[daws101]

I understand the entire design and a lot more that you obviously don't realize exists, let alone understand. I never bothered to answer this clueless post because it made no sense. You debunkers never answer anything, you just fire away with whatever idiocy that comes to mind, no matter how disconnected it is from the conversation. You are incapable of making use of the threads, which, BTW, can be used to hold a conversation (something intelligent people do).

So, the tops were blown to bits and therefore never acted as a weight to crush those connections of yours, where ever they might have been. By the way, the floor joists hung on thick bar steel in sheer with the wall, NIST never said they were crushed, they tried to get around them by saying the walls bent outward... which the walls did; from the explosives... not the fire. But you seem to think that steel holding up the floors in sheer with the curtain wall was weak. Those connections had 100% the strength of the curtain wall (by design - duh). To think otherwise is to scream, "I don't know the first thing about structural design". Which you did a bang up job of screaming throughout the thread.

The top post pointed at an obvious Lie in the structural failure abalysis of the lower floors. Over and over in this thread I kept explaining that the core columns run from top to bottom and are seamless; you have to somehow collapse the core columns also, and there was a lot of them... scores of them... and each one of them failed; how? You seem to think they would just fall with the floors; wrong, they don't. NIST never answered that, either. I added that the cores snapped at the onset of collapse; meaning ALL the core columns snapped in half; which they plainly did and it is highly visible for both tower collapses. What could have snapped all the core columns in half BEFORE the towers collapsed? Other than explosives?

answer: nothing, even a 9.0 earthquake would not have snapped those cores, they were the strongest cores ever built and designed to bend like a tree, which makes them that much harder to snap in half. That's why I kept pointing it out, but you dimwits are soooooooooooooo stupid, I might as well be singing opera to cows.

dude who are you addressing..learn to use the quote function...
btw every thing you've just mentioned has been ask and answered.

 

[MisterBeale]

So you think the monominded murderers and mechanical mavens who masterminded and sent engineers, scientists, and doctors to guide the planes to their doom were too stupid to know exactly where to place those hits in a way that would overburden the system that was not supposed to break down for any reason? Even a vertical house of cards can flatten if you remove the right middle card. The buildings were calculated to go down with attention to where the support of the building would be damaged the most.

They're brainwashed to think life on earth doesn't matter if you are killed or kill, and that if they kill enough infidels, they will get a double reward.

Saddam Hussein had hefty checks sent to each of the 19 homicidal maniac's families for their trouble. The reinforced the desire for local women to send out more of their own to commit atrocities.

They're smart people, Mr. Day. Very smart people.

Unsubstantiated CRAP, and a complete lie!

No where will you find any evidence Saddam Hussein had any links to 9/11. Put up or shut up. Wow are you ignorant!

Republicans, Democrats, even people that believe the official piece of shit line the government feeds us now know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. GO AWAY! I HATE LIARS!

 

[daws101]

So you think the monominded murderers and mechanical mavens who masterminded and sent engineers, scientists, and doctors to guide the planes to their doom were too stupid to know exactly where to place those hits in a way that would overburden the system that was not supposed to break down for any reason? Even a vertical house of cards can flatten if you remove the right middle card. The buildings were calculated to go down with attention to where the support of the building would be damaged the most.

They're brainwashed to think life on earth doesn't matter if you are killed or kill, and that if they kill enough infidels, they will get a double reward.

Saddam Hussein had hefty checks sent to each of the 19 homicidal maniac's families for their trouble. The reinforced the desire for local women to send out more of their own to commit atrocities.

They're smart people, Mr. Day. Very smart people.

Unsubstantiated CRAP, and a complete lie!

No where will you find any evidence Saddam Hussein had any links to 9/11. Put up or shut up. Wow are you ignorant!

Republicans, Democrats, even people that believe the official piece of shit line the government feeds us now know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. GO AWAY! I HATE LIARS!

then why do buy so many?

 

[MikeK]

Anybody ever watch a reality show where controlled demolitions bring down a building? There are literally weeks of preparation just to expose the areas so that the demolition engineers can see where to place the charges. Next there is another week or two while many, many holes are drilled in the concrete for the explosive charges. The incredible mass of wiring is carefully mapped out and attached to a computer for synchronized blasts. I guess the MTV generation who were raised in front of a TV set think that the CIA and/or the FBI or some rogue US government agency could pull it off right in front of some of the best security networks in the world and keep it a secret but it's a freaking pipe dream. Why didn't it happen when the jihad tried it with a truck of explosives in the first year of the Clinton administration? It certainly would have been easier to synchronize timed explosives with a freaking truck parked in the basement than coordinate with two crazy squads of suicide bombers in planes. Nothing makes sense except wishful thinking.

Well said. And irrefutably supported by the question of purpose. The only purpose of any controlled demolition is prevention of damage to the surrounding area. There is no other purpose. So the very notion of controlling the destruction of the Towers is wholly counterproductive to the intention of bringing them down.

Toppling the Towers, by blasting one side of their foundations with one truckful of Semtex properly positioned in each basement garage, would have been much easier and would have collapsed them horizontally onto a five block area of lower Manhattan, vastly increasing the level of damage caused by the vertical ("pancake") collapse.

So the notion of a controlled demolition is logically dismissed because it simply makes no sense.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Anybody ever watch a reality show where controlled demolitions bring down a building? There are literally weeks of preparation just to expose the areas so that the demolition engineers can see where to place the charges. Next there is another week or two while many, many holes are drilled in the concrete for the explosive charges. The incredible mass of wiring is carefully mapped out and attached to a computer for synchronized blasts. I guess the MTV generation who were raised in front of a TV set think that the CIA and/or the FBI or some rogue US government agency could pull it off right in front of some of the best security networks in the world and keep it a secret but it's a freaking pipe dream. Why didn't it happen when the jihad tried it with a truck of explosives in the first year of the Clinton administration? It certainly would have been easier to synchronize timed explosives with a freaking truck parked in the basement than coordinate with two crazy squads of suicide bombers in planes. Nothing makes sense except wishful thinking.

Well said. And irrefutably supported by the question of purpose. The only purpose of any controlled demolition is prevention of damage to the surrounding area. There is no other purpose. So the very notion of controlling the destruction of the Towers is wholly counterproductive to the intention of bringing them down.

Toppling the Towers, by blasting one side of their foundations with one truckful of Semtex properly positioned in each basement garage, would have been much easier and would have collapsed them horizontally onto a five block area of lower Manhattan, vastly increasing the level of damage caused by the vertical ("pancake") collapse.

So the notion of a controlled demolition is logically dismissed because it simply makes no sense.

None of the conspiracy theories make any sense. In some instances they are arguing against each other. One claims the upper floors were magically "vaporized" while another is claiming a "controlled demolition" using the upper floors to crush the lower floors. If they can't get their act together and come up with a single plausible scenario they will continue to have no credibility.

 

[eots]

Anybody ever watch a reality show where controlled demolitions bring down a building? There are literally weeks of preparation just to expose the areas so that the demolition engineers can see where to place the charges. Next there is another week or two while many, many holes are drilled in the concrete for the explosive charges. The incredible mass of wiring is carefully mapped out and attached to a computer for synchronized blasts. I guess the MTV generation who were raised in front of a TV set think that the CIA and/or the FBI or some rogue US government agency could pull it off right in front of some of the best security networks in the world and keep it a secret but it's a freaking pipe dream. Why didn't it happen when the jihad tried it with a truck of explosives in the first year of the Clinton administration? It certainly would have been easier to synchronize timed explosives with a freaking truck parked in the basement than coordinate with two crazy squads of suicide bombers in planes. Nothing makes sense except wishful thinking.

Well said. And irrefutably supported by the question of purpose. The only purpose of any controlled demolition is prevention of damage to the surrounding area. There is no other purpose. So the very notion of controlling the destruction of the Towers is wholly counterproductive to the intention of bringing them down.

Toppling the Towers, by blasting one side of their foundations with one truckful of Semtex properly positioned in each basement garage, would have been much easier and would have collapsed them horizontally onto a five block area of lower Manhattan, vastly increasing the level of damage caused by the vertical ("pancake") collapse.

So the notion of a controlled demolition is logically dismissed because it simply makes no sense.

motive is the last part of the investigation..a scientific investigation does not examine motive..NIST failed to determine the cause of the collapses and its fire induced collapse theory

 

[eots]

Anybody ever watch a reality show where controlled demolitions bring down a building? There are literally weeks of preparation just to expose the areas so that the demolition engineers can see where to place the charges. Next there is another week or two while many, many holes are drilled in the concrete for the explosive charges. The incredible mass of wiring is carefully mapped out and attached to a computer for synchronized blasts. I guess the MTV generation who were raised in front of a TV set think that the CIA and/or the FBI or some rogue US government agency could pull it off right in front of some of the best security networks in the world and keep it a secret but it's a freaking pipe dream. Why didn't it happen when the jihad tried it with a truck of explosives in the first year of the Clinton administration? It certainly would have been easier to synchronize timed explosives with a freaking truck parked in the basement than coordinate with two crazy squads of suicide bombers in planes. Nothing makes sense except wishful thinking.

Well said. And irrefutably supported by the question of purpose. The only purpose of any controlled demolition is prevention of damage to the surrounding area. There is no other purpose. So the very notion of controlling the destruction of the Towers is wholly counterproductive to the intention of bringing them down.

Toppling the Towers, by blasting one side of their foundations with one truckful of Semtex properly positioned in each basement garage, would have been much easier and would have collapsed them horizontally onto a five block area of lower Manhattan, vastly increasing the level of damage caused by the vertical ("pancake") collapse.

So the notion of a controlled demolition is logically dismissed because it simply makes no sense.

None of the conspiracy theories make any sense. In some instances they are arguing against each other. One claims the upper floors were magically "vaporized" while another is claiming a "controlled demolition" using the upper floors to crush the lower floors. If they can't get their act together and come up with a single plausible scenario they will continue to have no credibility.

can you show me the post were someone says the upper floors where magically vaporized or where anyone says it was a controlled demolition using the upper floors to crush the lower floors ???....I will be waitng

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well said. And irrefutably supported by the question of purpose. The only purpose of any controlled demolition is prevention of damage to the surrounding area. There is no other purpose. So the very notion of controlling the destruction of the Towers is wholly counterproductive to the intention of bringing them down.

Toppling the Towers, by blasting one side of their foundations with one truckful of Semtex properly positioned in each basement garage, would have been much easier and would have collapsed them horizontally onto a five block area of lower Manhattan, vastly increasing the level of damage caused by the vertical ("pancake") collapse.

So the notion of a controlled demolition is logically dismissed because it simply makes no sense.

None of the conspiracy theories make any sense. In some instances they are arguing against each other. One claims the upper floors were magically "vaporized" while another is claiming a "controlled demolition" using the upper floors to crush the lower floors. If they can't get their act together and come up with a single plausible scenario they will continue to have no credibility.

can you show me the post were someone says the upper floors where magically vaporized or where anyone says it was a controlled demolition using the upper floors to crush the lower floors ???....I will be waitng

I suggest that you reread both the OP and your own posts.

 

[freedombecki]

So you think the monominded murderers and mechanical mavens who masterminded and sent engineers, scientists, and doctors to guide the planes to their doom were too stupid to know exactly where to place those hits in a way that would overburden the system that was not supposed to break down for any reason? Even a vertical house of cards can flatten if you remove the right middle card. The buildings were calculated to go down with attention to where the support of the building would be damaged the most.

They're brainwashed to think life on earth doesn't matter if you are killed or kill, and that if they kill enough infidels, they will get a double reward.

Saddam Hussein had hefty checks sent to each of the 19 homicidal maniac's families for their trouble. The reinforced the desire for local women to send out more of their own to commit atrocities.

They're smart people, Mr. Day. Very smart people.

Unsubstantiated CRAP, and a complete lie!

No where will you find any evidence Saddam Hussein had any links to 9/11. Put up or shut up. Wow are you ignorant!

Republicans, Democrats, even people that believe the official piece of shit line the government feeds us now know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. GO AWAY! I HATE LIARS!

Sorry, it's a well-documented story that Sandy Berger stole original documents from the National Archive prior to his arrest for stealing documents to clear the Clinton Administration and dirty the
Bush Admiistration, for which he received a rather substantial fine, as well as being barred from going back to the National Archive to rearrange and obfuscate "facts" some more.

You have been fooled by your own Democrat Party cheaters, Mr. Beale. Don't expect conservatives to be. As they besmirched Jennifer Flowers, the Clintonistas went after star Harvard Scholar Laurie Mylroie, whom the FBI praised but the liberal Democrats in the Clinton Administration made loud noises and complaints about her findings that Saddam Hussein was linked to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as a player that he was. He was also linked to the attempted assassination of President George H.W.Bush and wrote $25,000 checks out to the families of the 9/11 bombers.

Keep kicking and screaming.

Saddam Hussein was up to his eyeballs in 9/11, whooping it up when the news was confirmed that the hijackers had successfully hit the WTC by shooting his AK-47 into the air above the massive audience he had before the Republican Guard's victory dance after the news broke. The Democrats, still reeling from the Bush election to the White House, did everything in their power to stifle the news stories of the dancing in the streets done in Baghdad that day, but I recollect it well, as reports weren't being stifled yet, until about the time evil Hillary held up the sign at the WTC that said "Bush Gnu." All that crap, and the DNC line was 'Bush is using this as a campaign start for re-election!" (Huh? In 2001? Oh, brother!!!)

I was online that day when someone said "turn your tv on, the World Trade Center in New York City has been hit by a jetliner." By the time I got to the TV set, I watched in horror as the second plane hit a couple of minutes later. I thought, "Unlike Flight 800 to France, which crashed July 17, 1996, they can't deny that these consecutive crashes today are the work of terrorists."

Not to worry, Beale. Idiots will believe your screaming-sized purple bullshit.

I HATE LIARS![/

No you don't. You should have heard the "poor guy" schtick about Sandy Berger before and after his conviction of stealing from the National Archives. He raided the national archives to ensure that Bush and not the Clinton administration paid the price for Clinton's State Department notes augmented by the Clinton White House papers.

For ever more. Berger even had papers stuffed in his shoes.

Shame on the Demmies for stealing papers to make themselves look good so they could scream "liar!" to anyone like me who read and remembered stuff from Clinton's negligence-filled administration, including Saddam Hussein's involvement in the WTC that would make Jimmy Carter look like a liar and Bush look like a hero.

Naughty, naughty, naughty.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Anybody ever watch a reality show where controlled demolitions bring down a building? There are literally weeks of preparation just to expose the areas so that the demolition engineers can see where to place the charges. Next there is another week or two while many, many holes are drilled in the concrete for the explosive charges. The incredible mass of wiring is carefully mapped out and attached to a computer for synchronized blasts. I guess the MTV generation who were raised in front of a TV set think that the CIA and/or the FBI or some rogue US government agency could pull it off right in front of some of the best security networks in the world and keep it a secret but it's a freaking pipe dream. Why didn't it happen when the jihad tried it with a truck of explosives in the first year of the Clinton administration? It certainly would have been easier to synchronize timed explosives with a freaking truck parked in the basement than coordinate with two crazy squads of suicide bombers in planes. Nothing makes sense except wishful thinking.

Well said. And irrefutably supported by the question of purpose. The only purpose of any controlled demolition is prevention of damage to the surrounding area. There is no other purpose. So the very notion of controlling the destruction of the Towers is wholly counterproductive to the intention of bringing them down.

Toppling the Towers, by blasting one side of their foundations with one truckful of Semtex properly positioned in each basement garage, would have been much easier and would have collapsed them horizontally onto a five block area of lower Manhattan, vastly increasing the level of damage caused by the vertical ("pancake") collapse.

So the notion of a controlled demolition is logically dismissed because it simply makes no sense.

motive is the last part of the investigation..a scientific investigation does not examine motive..NIST failed to determine the cause of the collapses and its fire induced collapse theory

Repeat a canard often enough and you can convince yourself that it is true.