What Year Did You Stop Your Cognitive Dissonance Towards The 9/11 OS ?

Too many people get caught up in the "educated guess" made by NIST about the precise sequence of the collapse.

NIST stated their was very little chance the building could collapse the way they described. It was a steel frame building. If it was damaged it would topple over.

And if any of you don't think so. Show us an example of a large steel frame building falling almost in its foot print. For any reason other than controlled demolition. If you can't. Don't bother me with your BS, I don't want to think any lower about mankind than I already do.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

NIST stated their was very little chance the building could collapse the way they described. It was a steel frame building. If it was damaged it would topple over.

Show us where nist stated that.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

www.youtube.com...

This is a video of the Madrid Windsor Tower fire from 2005. It used to be a "darling" of the "truth" movement because it was an example of a steel framed tower that burned for hours without collapsing. One slight problem. Seventeen steel framed floors, collapsed straight down, into its footprint...from fire alone. No damage of any kind. No controlled demolition. Just a fire. The "truth" movement by and large stopped using the Windsor as an example...because it shows that a steel frame building can fail from just FIRE. Now, because I can already hear you saying that the entire building did not collapse......you are right. The investigators credit a massive concrete transfer slab on the 17th floor with stopping the entire building from collapsing.

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I told you not to disgust me with your responses if you have nothing. All the steel of the partial collapse Madrid Windsor building was still intact. With a crane on top.

Steel Versus Steel-Reinforced Concrete In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick. Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses.

LINK

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: snowspirit
My ex worked in demolition. It never made sense that 3 buildings would fall into their own footprint so well.
Setting up tall buildings to come down neatly takes a lot of planning.

Yes. That's always been the OS deal-breaker for me.

Well o can save you time they didn't. I lived there at the time and those buildings had parts 10 blocks away. The street had about a foot of ruble. They in no way fell in there own footprint.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I told you not to disgust me with your responses if you have nothing. All the steel of the partial collapse Madrid Windsor building was still intact. With a crane on top.

Steel Versus Steel-Reinforced Concrete In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick. Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses.

LINK

They had a building collapse in Tehran caused by fire. Very similar even had firemen die in the collapse. If I remember it was 2015 I think. See fire is very distructive but it's not going to burn steel. But it doesn't have to all it has to do is cause joints to expand. Even 1 inch in the wrong direction can be fatal.

As for the Twin Towers it was a stup is design. The building's were poorly planned they created a furnace not allowing the heat to escape. Much like you can use coal in a furnace to melt steel. Coal doesn't get hot enough to melt steel unless it's in a furnace. The heat this building design maintained was redicilous.The problem there was no where for the heat to go. And in physics if you don't have a way to radiate heat it gets hotter.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Every building fire the truthers used as examples against what happened on 911 are flawed.

NO aircraft impact
NOT tube in tube design
REINFORCED CONCRETE & STEEL

Yet in everyone steel failed and what kept the buildings standing the reinforced concrete.

Same old sh9t. You have no pictures or examples. I win.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

You full of it will post the links later been shown on here MANY times.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Yes....the section of the building supporting the crane, was concrete reinforced steel. The part that collapsed, was just steel. And that steel, failed from fire alone and collapsed straight down. You also must have missed the point that they credit the concrete load transfer slab with arresting what would have been the entire building collapsing. Not sure why the truth disgusts you.......

a reply to: dragonridr

You're quite right--some debris, some of it massive structural pieces, were ejected laterally hundreds of feet. There is no way the official explanation is even close to accurate.

Inside job, all the way.

a reply to: Salander

Other than we have photographic evidence of it falling like a tree, and NOT being "ejected" by any other means other than gravity and potential energy being converted to kinetic energy.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Falling like a tree? By sheer happenstance I watched a crew of 3 men fell a tree just yesterday. The way that tree came down is nothing at all like what was seen at WTC.

Are you really so desperate? Egads man!

a reply to: Salander

Again, waving your hand at reality, does not change it. As for desperation, how does it feel to continue clinging to your beliefs in spite of all the evidence?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

Other than we have photographic evidence of it falling like a tree, and NOT being "ejected" by any other means other than gravity and potential energy being converted to kinetic energy.

Trees always fall through themselves collapsing straight down into their roots. With pieces of the tree exploding upward against gravity.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Nothing exploded upwards. There were no explosions of the kind that the "truth" movement thinks threw steel hundreds of feet into the air. I am sorry that you are unwilling to accept reality.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I guess a Newton's cradle that coverts potential energy to kinetic energy to cause upward swings must be a conspiracy too.

m.youtube.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

But don't you know....9/11 violated all of Physics.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Only if you don't understand the construction of the towers

9/11 brought me to ATS I watched loose change and ï believed in the conspiracy but now after reading the many threads on the subject I don't believe in the conspiracy angle anymore.