simple question for the WTC collapse

[mamooth]

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 relatively small fires that were hot enough to melt aluminum, you mean?

Look at the Madrid/Windsor tower fire. That building was a steel frame around a concrete core. The steel frame part of the building collapsed within a couple hours of fire, despite not even being hit by a plane. The concrete part never collapsed, being that concrete doesn't weaken in fire.

There are many examples of large steel-frame structures collapsing in fire. The claim that it doesn't happen is just bullshit. The towers and WTC7 were steel framed, no concrete core. Sure, no tube-in-tube-framed skyscraper had collapsed from fire before ... because no tube-in-a-tube-framed skyscraper had ever caught fire before.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Well, just to be even handed; a lot of the time taken in demolition prep is removal of components that they can sell.

That having been said there is zero chance that the buildings could be wired for demolition with nobody noticing. Zero chance. Radio controlled demo wouldn't work. We know this because of the FDNY radios not working resulting in 343 deaths. Cables would have been seen easily. Not to mention the movement of furniture to place demolition charges, the cutting through pipe and utilities. All couldn't have happened. The suggestion is comical to be kind.

Next the "planning" that would go into something like this would not get past the smell test. The largest building ever demoed was something like 400 feet tall in Cleveland; prep took months. We're supposed to believe that the planners not only wired the 2 buildings (or 3 if you want to count in WTC 7) but would stake the plan hinging on covertly demoing 3 buildings larger than any other demo job ever done.

Anyone who thinks this is disqualified from being taken seriously; they should be disqualified from operating vehicles or procreating as well

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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...

I thought it was one 707, not multiples?
How much heavier is a fully loaded 767, in comparison?

 

[eots]

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...

I thought it was one 707, not multiples?
How much heavier is a fully loaded 767, in comparison?

no multiple air strikes..

 

[eots]

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 relatively small fires that were hot enough to melt aluminum, you mean?

Look at the Madrid/Windsor tower fire. That building was a steel frame around a concrete core. The steel frame part of the building collapsed within a couple hours of fire, despite not even being hit by a plane. The concrete part never collapsed, being that concrete doesn't weaken in fire.

There are many examples of large steel-frame structures collapsing in fire. The claim that it doesn't happen is just bullshit. The towers and WTC7 were steel framed, no concrete core. Sure, no tube-in-tube-framed skyscraper had collapsed from fire before ... because no tube-in-a-tube-framed skyscraper had ever caught fire before.

"This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building"

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse

and still the building remaied standing
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MjsVnasLA]The Windsor Tower in Madrid Spain - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

designed to withstand multiple impacts...

I thought it was one 707, not multiples?
How much heavier is a fully loaded 767, in comparison?

no multiple air strikes..

Show me.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS0JP2cJoQA]FOX5 Report On WTC Being Built To Withstand Airstrikes - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

I thought it was one 707, not multiples?
How much heavier is a fully loaded 767, in comparison?

no multiple air strikes..

Show me.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw79fai6svw]WTC PLANE CRASH 911? Twin Towers Plane Crash. Designed to withstand MULTIPLE Plane Crashes - YouTube[/ame]

0:30

 

[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.

MUCH LOWER ESTIMATES HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION EXPERTS

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.

Experts from the CIA ,FBI aid Military intelligence disagree with you and they are far from the MTV generation

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

YOU MEAN THE FIRST FALSE FLAG ON THE TRADE CENTER ?

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.

WHY ? MAYBE THE GOAL WAS TO BRING DOWN THOSE THREE BUILDING AND MINIMIZE THE DAMAGE TO SURROUNDING INFRASTRUCTURE

u]Toppling[/u] 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.

REALLY YOU WORK OUT A FORMULA FOR TOPPLING BUILDING WITH A TRUCK BOMB HAVE YOU ?..LOL..GIVE ME A BREAK

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

YOU ARE DISMISSED BECAUSE YOU MAKE NO SENSE

Well, just to be even handed; a lot of the time taken in demolition prep is removal of components that they can sell.

That having been said there is zero chance that the buildings could be wired for demolition with nobody noticing.

SAYS WHO ?

Zero chance. Radio controlled demo wouldn't work. We know this because of the FDNY radios not working resulting in 343 deaths. Cables would have been seen easily. Not to mention the movement of furniture to place demolition charges, the cutting through pipe and utilities. All couldn't have happened. The suggestion is comical to be kind.

FDYN RADIOS NOT WORKING IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO A WIRELESS DETONATION SYSTEMS

Next the "planning" that would go into something like this would not get past the smell test. The largest building ever demoed was something like 400 feet tall in Cleveland; prep took months. We're supposed to believe that the planners not only wired the 2 buildings (or 3 if you want to count in WTC 7) but would stake the plan hinging on covertly demoing 3 buildings larger than any other demo job ever done.

YES,SO THEY VERY WELL MAY HAVE USED NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY UTILIZED IN BUILDING DEMO

Anyone who thinks this is disqualified from being taken seriously; they should be disqualified from operating vehicles or procreating as well

AN EXAMINATION OF THOSE WHO HAVE SIGNED OF THE 9/11 PETITION AND THE CALIBER OF PEOPLE INVOLVED MAKES YOUR STATEMENT RIDICULOUS

 

[eots]

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.

I have spelled physics many times..your jumping on a typo only further hi-lites the weakness of your hypothesis...and its not the physics of 9/11 that is false..it is NIST physics that is false

 

[konradv]

I think it was all an effort by the Illuminati to destroy Obama's real birth certificate and college transcrpits.

 

[eots]

I think it was all an effort by the Illuminati to destroy Obama's real birth certificate and college transcrpits.

That most likely because you have no clue what your talking about

 

[Montrovant]

no multiple air strikes..

Show me.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw79fai6svw]WTC PLANE CRASH 911? Twin Towers Plane Crash. Designed to withstand MULTIPLE Plane Crashes - YouTube[/ame]

0:30

That actually says it was designed for a single 707, but the speaker believes it could survive multiple impacts.

 

[eots]

Show me.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw79fai6svw]WTC PLANE CRASH 911? Twin Towers Plane Crash. Designed to withstand MULTIPLE Plane Crashes - YouTube[/ame]

0:30

That actually says it was designed for a single 707, but the speaker believes it could survive multiple impacts.

The speaker was one of the designers..

 

[KissMy]

Show me.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw79fai6svw]WTC PLANE CRASH 911? Twin Towers Plane Crash. Designed to withstand MULTIPLE Plane Crashes - YouTube[/ame]

0:30

That actually says it was designed for a single 707, but the speaker believes it could survive multiple impacts.

The designers were way wrong or was thinking of a slower moving & smaller plane than the Boeing 757 hitting at over 500/mph. It was much more than a pencil hole in a screen netting or possibly knocking out a column. Those aircraft tore out an entire side & half the central core.

 

[eots]

WTC PLANE CRASH 911? Twin Towers Plane Crash. Designed to withstand MULTIPLE Plane Crashes - YouTube

0:30

That actually says it was designed for a single 707, but the speaker believes it could survive multiple impacts.

The designers were way wrong or was thinking of a slower moving & smaller plane than the Boeing 757 hitting at over 500/mph. It was much more than a pencil hole in a screen netting or possibly knocking out a column. Those aircraft tore out an entire side & half the central core.

a 747 can not fly at 500 mph at sea level

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtL-DzdBBSo]Impossible Plane Speed with Boeing - YouTube[/ame]

 

[whitehall]

The tin foil hat's best (only) expert witness Richard Humenn would be the first person to be interviewed about complicity in a crazy plot to destroy the World Trade Center if there was the slightest indication of an inside job. Strangely enough the old respected electrical engineer offers no insight about the 60 employees he supervised or his role in making sure the WTC was up and running every day. Did he even suspect that one of his people was an agent of the jihad? Did the interview even ask him? Alas the poor old guy was a stooge of the left wing and his legitimate anger and outrage about the destruction was translated for consumption by the usual ignorant left wingers to a rant about explosive devices. It's a shame but nothing is sacred to the radicals and the tin foil hats.

 

[Smilebong]

And you've clearly still not told me about it.

What are your questions implying? That the government made those towers collapse, because your "window washer" sourced building strength theory doesn't explain it?

 

[MikeK]

how do you propose this easy way to "topple" the towers?

Ramseh Yousef almost succeeded in toppling Tower One in 1993 by parking a van packed with Semtex alongside a support column in the basement garage. He failed because he parked the van on the wrong side of the column. But in spite of that error, if he had used a larger van with a more powerful explosive, such as ANFO, it would have created a big enough crater to topple the Tower onto five blocks of lower Manhattan. (ANFO is what Timothy McVeigh used in the OKC bombing.)

and why do you assume that creating the most damage possible was the goal?

Are you suggesting that the purpose for a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center would be anything other than creating as much damage as possible? If so, please explain what that purpose might be.