A question for the official theory believers

I've posed this question many times now and still haven't recieved any answers from the official theory believers. That is why I started this thread. All I'm getting is runaround. Here's the question.

Many people have stated that controlled demolition takes many man hours to study and execute. It takes buku amounts of charges and so forth. Which is quite true.

Now, how can these same people believe that one story failing from plane damage and fires can demolish the trade center 1, 2 and 7? I mean, it either takes buku amounts of explosives or it only takes the failing of one floor to bring buildings down. Why the double standard?

Also, if it only takes a floor at the top 20% of a building failing, why don't demolitions experts use this method now? We've all seen that it works. Not only one time but three times. Wouldn't this cost so much less for the demolitions companies? I mean you don't have to study the structure any more just pick a floor and blast out the supports. Then the building will come down in on itself while pulverising concrete, steel, all building materials and office equipment with no resistance.

Demolitions companies have to be very precise in what they do. So one story failing could not and should not bring buildings down on themselves following chaos theory, finite structural analysis and other known engineering theories. It not only happened once (which is something like one in a trillion chance, from Jones's report, I haven't done the statistical math myself) but happened three times in one day? I think I'm going to start a demolitions company and have this method as my method of demolition. Do you think anyone will hire me? All I have to do is point to what happened on 9-11 and say see there you go, how simple.

Wow. No responses? I thought that was a very valid question too. I guess noone has a valid answer then? Too bad.

Originally posted by Griff
I mean, it either takes buku amounts of explosives or it only takes the failing of one floor to bring buildings down. Why the double standard?

Well, Griff, this isn’t a double standard. It is two separate standards entirely.

The difference being a matter of precision. When a demolition company wants to bring down a building using explosives, they don’t want parts of said building flying all over and causing damage to the surrounding structures.

A runaway collapse due to a structural failure can cause exactly that to happen. All of the buildings surrounding the WTC towers suffered severe damage. Several of them, suffered from varying amounts of structural collapse.

Originally posted by Griff
Also, if it only takes a floor at the top 20% of a building failing, why don't demolitions experts use this method now?

I think that is exactly what they do. The trick is to get the debris into a nice little pile and not all over the neighbor’s lawn, so to speak.

Originally posted by Griff
Demolitions companies have to be very precise in what they do. [I agree – H.R.] So one story failing could not and should not bring buildings down on themselves following chaos theory, finite structural analysis and other known engineering theories.

Please elaborate on how “chaos theory, finite structural analysis and other known engineering theories” support your contention. I don’t quite understand how you think these apply to your theory, and honestly, I am not sure that you understand that either. So if you can explain in your own words, how these support your position, maybe we can figure this out. You can use formulas, math, whatever.

Originally posted by Griff
It not only happened once (which is something like one in a trillion chance, from Jones's report, I haven't done the statistical math myself) but happened three times in one day? I think I'm going to start a demolitions company and have this method as my method of demolition.

Won’t it get kind of expensive buying those airplanes and flying them into buildings?

I too am still looking for an answer that the official story believers haven't delivered. I might change sides if someone did.

I picture of a building that fell on its own footprint like WTC7 for any reason other than demolition.

Originally posted by godservant
I picture of a building that fell on its own footprint like WTC7 for any reason other than demolition.

L’Ambiance plaza


Here is a building that collapsed when a construction of a rail tunnel under undermined the foundations.






[edit on 3-2-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Please elaborate on how “chaos theory, finite structural analysis and other known engineering theories” support your contention. I don’t quite understand how you think these apply to your theory, and honestly, I am not sure that you understand that either. So if you can explain in your own words, how these support your position, maybe we can figure this out. You can use formulas, math, whatever.

I kind of resent those remarks being as I'm a Civil Engineer who has studied finite element analysis, structural analysis (both determinate and indeterminate), steel design, concrete design and timber design. Have you Howard?

And no, I'm not going to do a structural analysis which is impossible without the construction drawings.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 3-2-2006 by Griff]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Won’t it get kind of expensive buying those airplanes and flying them into buildings?

No need. All you have to do is set charges on one floor. Think of all the money my clients will save compared to other demolitions guys.

Originally posted by Griff
Think of all the money my clients will save compared to other demolitions guys.

Not after they have to pay out all of the damage settelments to the neighbors, they won't.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Not after they have to pay out all of the damage settelments to the neighbors, they won't.

Even if the WTC towers were demoed they'd of had pieces flying everywhere onto the neighbors. You can't demo something that big and not get into the neighbor's yard.

How about WTC7? It fell pretty nicely into it's own footprint. Yeah a piece of wall went the wrong way and fell into the Verizon building but that can happen in controlled demo also.

So what?

The distribution of the debris from the building collapses does not prove anything other than the buildings collapsed.

It is just your opinion that it proves something.

Actually, I don't have an opinion as of yet. Are you implying that I believe they were demoed? I lean towards that conclusion but not fully. I can see logic in both sides. What I do see is one big huge cover up from our government. If there is no need for a conspriracy, then why hide everything? It just makes them look suspicious at the least and cold hard murders in the most.

HowardRoark, I am glad someone came up with some photos. However, the last photo doesn't look like a full collapse.

Do you have more info on the first photo, though. It looks like it was not finished being built, but I don't know enough about what is being viewed there to make an opinion.

Just to show you that engineers are not always informed of things and you shouldn't just take someone who has credentials' word for it. That includes me.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Read what a bunch of engineers had to say on Thursday September 13, 2001 and have a good laugh. Practically everything that is stated by these engineers has been either debunked, found untrue or just plain wrong.

My favorite is the diagram showing the core columns encased in concrete.

Edit: I mean you as in a general you, not anyone in particular.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
I've posed this question many times now and still haven't recieved any answers from the official theory believers. That is why I started this thread. All I'm getting is runaround. Here's the question.

Many people have stated that controlled demolition takes many man hours to study and execute. It takes buku amounts of charges and so forth. Which is quite true.

Now, how can these same people believe that one story failing from plane damage and fires can demolish the trade center 1, 2 and 7? I mean, it either takes buku amounts of explosives or it only takes the failing of one floor to bring buildings down. Why the double standard?

I don't think many buildings have been demolished where there was the opportunity to drop a dozen or more floors on top of the rest of the structure, to see what would happen. But it doesn't take a huge leap of faith to believe that it would cause the building to fall down, and I don't see where the double standard is?

WTC 7 didn't seem to have much visible damage and fell in very much the same manner as a controlled demolition, so I'm sceptical about that one.

Yeah, I’ve seen that BBC article before.

It also (along with other sites) elevates Hyman Brown to the position of “Construction Manager.” While I have no doubt that he was one of many project engineers on the site, I don’t think that a kid, just 5 years out of school would have been the construction manager for the entire project.
www.colorado.edu...

Originally posted by godservant
HowardRoark, I am glad someone came up with some photos. However, the last photo doesn't look like a full collapse.

And none of them look like skyscraper collapses. That's a big difference.

Skyscrapers are major hazards if they're built very sloppily, and thus their constructions are vastly different from your average, 2 or 3 story concrete/wood/what-have-you buildings.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Not after they have to pay out all of the damage settelments to the neighbors, they won't.

Even if the WTC towers were demoed they'd of had pieces flying everywhere onto the neighbors. You can't demo something that big and not get into the neighbor's yard.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So what?

The distribution of the debris from the building collapses does not prove anything other than the buildings collapsed.

I'm going to pretend that it was an accident, Howard, but you totally deviated from the train of logic here.

It was:

Howard: The collapse was sloppy; doesn't make for a demo.
Griff: It would have been sloppy either way; no way to avoid that.
Howard: So what? That doesn't prove demolition.

When it should have went:

Howard: The collapse was sloppy; doesn't make for a demo.
Griff: It would have been sloppy either way; no way to avoid that.
Howard: True.

Because it is true: those buildings couldn't have been demolished without doing that kind of damage to surroundings. That's why buildings of that size, in such crowded areas, are DECONSTRUCTED, not demolished.

But good job at derailing from the logic you guys had going on. Worked you into a corner, so you had to change the angle.