simple question for the WTC collapse

[daws101]

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

wrong nist did their job...just not to your satisfaction..you'll never be satisfied.

 

[daws101]

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

that's funny! you know jack shit about physics (you can't even spell it )so any claim you make about "THE physics of 911 is false.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

Please provide the exact wording of NIST's alleged "hypothesis"!

 

[daws101]

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

Please provide the exact wording of NIST's alleged "hypothesis"!

he'll find a site that quotes it but not the actual nist report.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

1. Buildings are designed to support static weight not kinetic weight.

2. The floors were not designed to hold the additional weight of the wreckage from the 140 ton 767.

3. The floors were not designed to withstand an hour of heating from intense fires.

4. The furnishings inside the building were not designed to be "very resistant to fire".

 

[eots]

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

1. Buildings are designed to support static weight not kinetic weight.

nonsense they did not build a building that could not withstand one floor falling onto another..you think building engineers never thought of this ?

2. The floors were not designed to hold the additional weight of the wreckage from the 140 ton 767.

actually they were designed to take multiple air craft strikes

3. The floors were not designed to withstand an hour of heating from intense fires

.

link?..you are claiming they built a building of this magnitude but it did not build in the structural integrity to withstand 1 hour of relatively small fires compared to other historical building fires that all remained standing ? ?

The furnishings inside the building were not designed to be "very resistant to fire".

Yes, exactlly..this is why the building is built to withstand fire Einstien

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

buildings are designed to hold a lot of weight and be very resistant to fire

And not so much to withstand jumbo jets at high velocity slamming into them initiating huge fires. I'm surprised they stood as long as they did.

 

[eots]

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

buildings are designed to hold a lot of weight and be very resistant to fire

And not so much to withstand jumbo jets at high velocity slamming into them initiating huge fires. I'm surprised they stood as long as they did.

designed to withstand multiple impacts...

 

[eots]

NIST "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

http://ocio.os.doc.gov/s/groups/public/@doc/@os/@ocio/@oitpp/documents/content/prod01_004108.pdf

 

[eots]

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

nonsense they did not build a building that could not withstand one floor falling onto another..you think building engineers never thought of this ?

Your dearth of knowledge when it comes to engineering has already been established. How mush force does a 10 lb sledgehammer have after falling 10'? Now multiply that by the weight of the floor. Now add the weight of the plane wreckage. Building a floor capable of withstanding that impact is cost prohibitive.

2. The floors were not designed to hold the additional weight of the wreckage from the 140 ton 767.

actually they were designed to take multiple air craft strikes
.

Funny how you can't answer the question that was posed honestly.

3. The floors were not designed to withstand an hour of heating from intense fires

link?..you are claiming they built a building of this magnitude but it did not build in the structural integrity to withstand 1 hour of relatively small fires compared to other historical building fires that all remained standing ? ?

Yet again you find it necessary to lie about the fires in spite of the evidence of duration, intensity and magnitude of the fires.

The furnishings inside the building were not designed to be "very resistant to fire".

Yes, exactlly..this is why the building is built to withstand fire Einstien

If you had actually read the NIST report yourself you would have discovered detailed recommendations on ways that buildings can be improved to withstand exactly the kinds of fires that caused the steel to collapse.

 

[eots]

And then of course building 7 had no plane run into it and other than the initiation of the fires was not compromised by falling debris..but still it fell in secs from office fires

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

buildings are designed to hold a lot of weight and be very resistant to fire

And not so much to withstand jumbo jets at high velocity slamming into them initiating huge fires. I'm surprised they stood as long as they did.

designed to withstand multiple impacts...

But not designed to withstand the effects of the fire on the steel damaged by the impacts.

 

[eots]

nonsense they did not build a building that could not withstand one floor falling onto another..you think building engineers never thought of this ?

Your dearth of knowledge when it comes to engineering has already been established. How mush force does a 10 lb sledgehammer have after falling 10'? Now multiply that by the weight of the floor. Now add the weight of the plane wreckage. Building a floor capable of withstanding that impact is cost prohibitive. Funny how you can't answer the question that was posed honestly.
Yet again you find it necessary to lie about the fires in spite of the evidence of duration, intensity and magnitude of the fires.

Yes, exactlly..this is why the building is built to withstand fire Einstien

If you had actually read the NIST report yourself you would have discovered detailed recommendations on ways that buildings can be improved to withstand exactly the kinds of fires that caused the steel to collapse.

LOL...BY BETTER LIGHTING...WIDER STAIRWELLS WITH INCANDESCENT LINES PAINTED ON ETC..I HAVE INDEED READ IT HAVE YOU ?

 

[Derideo_Te]

And then of course building 7 had no plane run into it and other than the initiation of the fires was not compromised by falling debris..but still it fell in secs from office fires

More evidence that you did not read and/or comprehend the NIST report on WTC 7.

 

[eots]

And then of course building 7 had no plane run into it and other than the initiation of the fires was not compromised by falling debris..but still it fell in secs from office fires

More evidence that you did not read and/or comprehend the NIST report on WTC 7.

LOL..more evidence you make empty statements you back with nothing..if you want to challenge my statement do it with facts and the NIST report..instead of your meaningless shit-ass comments

 

[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.

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

Who said anything about motive? Motive is not the same as purpose. The purpose of attacking the Towers was to cause damage. The motive for doing it is not relevant to this discussion.

So, if the purpose of attacking the Towers was to cause damage the best and easiest way to do that is by toppling them -- not by effecting a controlled demolition, which would have been virtually impossible to accomplish to begin with.

 

[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

Who said anything about motive? Motive is not the same as purpose. The purpose of attacking the Towers was to cause damage. The motive for doing it is not relevant to this discussion.So, if the purpose of attacking the Towers was to cause damage the best and easiest way to do that is by toppling them --

how do you propose this easy way to "topple" the towers ? and why do you assume that creating the most damage possible was the goal ? and not to bring these three buildings down with the minimal amount of damage to surrounding infrastructure?

not by effecting a controlled demolition, which would have been virtually impossible to accomplish to begin with

it is virtually Impossible to blow up a building ?...since when ?

 

[daws101]

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

how do you propose this easy way to "topple" the towers ? and why do you assume that creating the most damage possible was the goal ? and not to bring these three buildings down with the minimal amount of damage to surrounding infrastructure?

not by effecting a controlled demolition, which would have been virtually impossible to accomplish to begin with

it is virtually Impossible to blow up a building ?...since when ?

major denial..
you know what he's talking about so why play stupid.
hint : setup..