simple question for the WTC collapse

[eots]

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.

NIST admitted it could not explain the collapse beyond intiation

 

[eots]

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.

the bush administration said it was of no importance who the financier of 9/11 was on sept 10th the Pakistan government wired 100.000 $ to Mohamed Atta.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html

 

[eots]

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.

I would suggest that's a dodge because once again you can not substantiate your claims and can provide no such post

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

So, there was no upper tower portion left bearing down upon the lower portions of the tower. Which is why I scratched my head in disbelief at all those explanations that relied on this nonexistent weight to do all this crushing downward against the vertical core. The upper portions would have been pathetically incapable of performing that crushing had they existed to do so. But they didn't exist to do so. They were already gone by the halfway point of the demolition wave in the lower portions.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...uestion-for-the-wtc-collapse.html#post7688251

 

[eots]

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

So, there was no upper tower portion left bearing down upon the lower portions of the tower. Which is why I scratched my head in disbelief at all those explanations that relied on this nonexistent weight to do all this crushing downward against the vertical core. The upper portions would have been pathetically incapable of performing that crushing had they existed to do so. But they didn't exist to do so. They were already gone by the halfway point of the demolition wave in the lower portions.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...uestion-for-the-wtc-collapse.html#post7688251

I do not see the part thats says the top section was magically vaporized or that or that where it was controlled demolition using the upper floors to crush the lower floors...thanks for confirming this

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

NIST admitted it could not explain the collapse beyond intiation

Now you are changing your story from;

"NIST failed to determine the cause of the collapses"

to;

"explain the collapse beyond intiation"

One of the ways cops always know when someone is lying is when their story keeps on changing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

So, there was no upper tower portion left bearing down upon the lower portions of the tower. Which is why I scratched my head in disbelief at all those explanations that relied on this nonexistent weight to do all this crushing downward against the vertical core. The upper portions would have been pathetically incapable of performing that crushing had they existed to do so. But they didn't exist to do so. They were already gone by the halfway point of the demolition wave in the lower portions.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...uestion-for-the-wtc-collapse.html#post7688251

I do not see the part thats says the top section was magically vaporized or that or that where it was controlled demolition using the upper floors to crush the lower floors...thanks for confirming this

there was no upper tower portion left

But they didn't exist to do so. They were already gone

If he didn't mean they were vaporized or levitated away, what could he mean by, "they didn't exist"?

 

[eots]

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

NIST admitted it could not explain the collapse beyond intiation

Now you are changing your story from;

"NIST failed to determine the cause of the collapses"

to;

"explain the collapse beyond intiation"

One of the ways cops always know when someone is lying is when their story keeps on changing.

Seems you just changed your story...mine however remains unchanged..you can not claim to have explained the collapse if all you have done is tweaked perimeters in a computer model and get a floor to fall on another ..this is all that NIST achieved and why they admit they can not fully explain the collapse secnario...partial explanation is a word game..if you can not give a full explanation then you have not given an explanation ..its that simple

 

[Ernie S.]

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

So, there was no upper tower portion left bearing down upon the lower portions of the tower. Which is why I scratched my head in disbelief at all those explanations that relied on this nonexistent weight to do all this crushing downward against the vertical core. The upper portions would have been pathetically incapable of performing that crushing had they existed to do so. But they didn't exist to do so. They were already gone by the halfway point of the demolition wave in the lower portions.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...uestion-for-the-wtc-collapse.html#post7688251

I do not see the part thats says the top section was magically vaporized or that or that where it was controlled demolition using the upper floors to crush the lower floors...thanks for confirming this

See it now? While your buddy days didn't mention magic, he IS on record as saying the "top section" was not there.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

I would suggest that's a dodge because once again you can not substantiate your claims and can provide no such post

From the OP;

I can't see any top portion of tower doing this herculean crushing of the entire structure below it. That's because the demolition wave began at points of impact and went in both directions; down and up, and since the towers were struck in the upper portions, the tops were blown to pieces by the time the bottoms were still only half blown to pieces. So, there was no upper tower portion left bearing down upon the lower portions of the tower.

Posted by Eots on 08-20-2013, 03:30 PM;

WTC7 and the towers were carefully planned demolitions

Posted by Eots on 08-20-2013, 01:54 PM;

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

Fully substantiated using both the OP and YOUR posts!

 

[Derideo_Te]

NIST admitted it could not explain the collapse beyond intiation

Now you are changing your story from;

"NIST failed to determine the cause of the collapses"

to;

"explain the collapse beyond intiation"

One of the ways cops always know when someone is lying is when their story keeps on changing.

Seems you just changed your story...mine however remains unchanged..you can not claim to have explained the collapse if all you have done is tweaked perimeters in a computer model and get a floor to fall on another ..this is all that NIST achieved and why they admit they can not fully explain the collapse secnario...partial explanation is a word game..if you can not give a full explanation then you have not given an explanation ..its that simple

Kindly refrain from accusing me of your own semantic shortcomings!

 

[eots]

So, there was no upper tower portion left bearing down upon the lower portions of the tower. Which is why I scratched my head in disbelief at all those explanations that relied on this nonexistent weight to do all this crushing downward against the vertical core. The upper portions would have been pathetically incapable of performing that crushing had they existed to do so. But they didn't exist to do so. They were already gone by the halfway point of the demolition wave in the lower portions.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...uestion-for-the-wtc-collapse.html#post7688251

I do not see the part thats says the top section was magically vaporized or that or that where it was controlled demolition using the upper floors to crush the lower floors...thanks for confirming this

there was no upper tower portion left

But they didn't exist to do so. They were already gone

If he didn't mean they were vaporized or levitated away, what could he mean by, "they didn't exist"?

The only person using the words vaporized or levitated is you..it is clear in the video that a sec after collpase imitation much of the top section is reduced to pulverized concrete and outside the perimeter of the building...I see nothing in this statement that would imply there was anything magical about this fact

 

[eots]

Now you are changing your story from;

"NIST failed to determine the cause of the collapses"

to;

"explain the collapse beyond intiation"

One of the ways cops always know when someone is lying is when their story keeps on changing.

Seems you just changed your story...mine however remains unchanged..you can not claim to have explained the collapse if all you have done is tweaked perimeters in a computer model and get a floor to fall on another ..this is all that NIST achieved and why they admit they can not fully explain the collapse secnario...partial explanation is a word game..if you can not give a full explanation then you have not given an explanation ..its that simple

Kindly refrain from accusing me of your own semantic shortcomings!

You are completely guilty along with NIST of semantic shortcomings! a partial explanation is not a explanation.. its semantics for..we do not have an explanation ..we have a hypothesis

 

[Derideo_Te]

Seems you just changed your story...mine however remains unchanged..you can not claim to have explained the collapse if all you have done is tweaked perimeters in a computer model and get a floor to fall on another ..this is all that NIST achieved and why they admit they can not fully explain the collapse secnario...partial explanation is a word game..if you can not give a full explanation then you have not given an explanation ..its that simple

Kindly refrain from accusing me of your own semantic shortcomings!

You are completely guilty along with NIST of semantic shortcomings! a partial explanation is not a explanation.. its semantics for..we do not have an explanation ..we have a hypothesis

Let me repeat for the umpteenth time, the ONUS remains on YOU to PROVE these allegations of yours with CREDIBLE SUBSTANTIATION.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I do not see the part thats says the top section was magically vaporized or that or that where it was controlled demolition using the upper floors to crush the lower floors...thanks for confirming this

there was no upper tower portion left

But they didn't exist to do so. They were already gone

If he didn't mean they were vaporized or levitated away, what could he mean by, "they didn't exist"?

The only person using the words vaporized or levitated is you..it is clear in the video that a sec after collpase imitation much of the top section is reduced to pulverized concrete and outside the perimeter of the building...I see nothing in this statement that would imply there was anything magical about this fact

much of the top section is reduced to pulverized concrete

Tens of thousands of tons worth. Not gone.

 

[daws101]

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.

wouldn't a CD preclude the need to use airliners.
if the idea was to terrorize the public ,it seems a demo of the towers with no other cause would scare the shit out of people, then the more plausible crash scenario.

 

[daws101]

I do not see the part thats says the top section was magically vaporized or that or that where it was controlled demolition using the upper floors to crush the lower floors...thanks for confirming this

there was no upper tower portion left

But they didn't exist to do so. They were already gone

If he didn't mean they were vaporized or levitated away, what could he mean by, "they didn't exist"?

The only person using the words vaporized or levitated is you..it is clear in the video that a sec after collpase imitation much of the top section is reduced to pulverized concrete and outside the perimeter of the building...I see nothing in this statement that would imply there was anything magical about this fact

what's a " collpase imitation "
an imitation colonoscopy ?

 

[eots]

Kindly refrain from accusing me of your own semantic shortcomings!

You are completely guilty along with NIST of semantic shortcomings! a partial explanation is not a explanation.. its semantics for..we do not have an explanation ..we have a hypothesis

Let me repeat for the umpteenth time, the ONUS remains on YOU to PROVE these allegations of yours with CREDIBLE SUBSTANTIATION.

Actually the onuses on NIST to prove their hypothesis and they failed to do so

 

[eots]

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.

wouldn't a CD preclude the need to use airliners.
if the idea was to terrorize the public ,it seems a demo of the towers with no other cause would scare the shit out of people, then the more plausible crash scenario.

assumption and imaginings are not a determination of the cause of the collapses..your scenario has nothing to do with physiscs

 

[eots]

there was no upper tower portion left

But they didn't exist to do so. They were already gone

If he didn't mean they were vaporized or levitated away, what could he mean by, "they didn't exist"?

The only person using the words vaporized or levitated is you..it is clear in the video that a sec after collpase imitation much of the top section is reduced to pulverized concrete and outside the perimeter of the building...I see nothing in this statement that would imply there was anything magical about this fact

much of the top section is reduced to pulverized concrete

Tens of thousands of tons worth. Not gone.

news flash ..buildings are designed to hold a lot of weight and be very resistant to fire..obviously much of the debris in the foot print would be from the bulk of building below the impact zone