1 Chop, 2 Chop & ALL 3 Fall Down

Just as the title of this thread suggests...
all very simple right? or is the devil in the details?

Take a long careful look at this animated gif...


(an accurate animation created for the Weidlinger-led study that was commissioned by Silverstein Properties Inc., (the NYC-based leaseholder of the WTC), to help support Larry Silverstein's $7-billion insurance claim)

As you can see, approximately half the trusseses where rendered vulnerable to fire...

so how is it that the WHOLE initial floor
(that started the domino chain reaction)
could give way at the same time?

Why didn't these towers fall like trees?

Keep in mind as you formulate your own hypothesis the number of trusses and layout in floor plan, as FEMA illustrated in their report... image as follows:



ok... now lets look at the 3rd tower to collapse
here's NIST illustration of WTC7 floor plan damage

and ask yourself the same 2 questions highlighted above... now without parroting the elaborate OS bull... apply occam's razor in sharing "your own" conclusions based on what you learned in your high school or college level physics class... and share your own thoughts.



[edit on 4-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
J

Why didn't these towers fall like trees?

Dr Bazant tells you here:

www-math.mit.edu...

The pivoting of the upper part must have started by an asymmetric failure of the columns
on one side of building, but already at this very small angle the dynamic horizontal reaction
at the base of the upper part must have reduced the vertical load capacity of the remaining
columns of the critical floor (even if those were not heated). That must have started the
downward motion of the top part of the South Tower, and afterwards its motion must have
become predominantly vertical. Hence, a vertical impact of the upper part onto the lower
part must have been the dominant mechanism.

As does Greening:
www.911myths.com...

and Kausel:
web.mit.edu...

and a nice explanation that is friendlier to laymen:
forums.randi.org...

Originally posted by The All Seeing I

and share your own thoughts.

Really?

You're woefully uninformed.

Why compare 2 different building types and try to draw something from it?

Why compare the towers' collapses, which were a combo of impact damage, fireproofing removal, and fire weakening..... to 7, where NO fireproofing was removed, the impact damage was inconsequential, and had far longer lasting fires.....

The situations were radically different, and yet, you think there is something to be learned?

(Kyle) REALLY?

now without parroting the elaborate OS bull... apply occam's razor in sharing "your own" conclusions based on what you learned in your high school or college level physics class... and share your own thoughts.

I know this is hard for some to do, think for yourself... but this is what i am asking for you to do... it's the only way to decipher between the bull and the truth.

I read these explanations made by "experts" and they sound all logical and straight forward but then so do con-artists... the only way to determine if you are being conned is to go on the intellectual quest yourself... instead of taking other people's word for it... no matter how decorated they are.

Take a step back and really think about these elaborate explanations that are given... that don't adequately explain the results... that contradict common sense and basic laws of science.



[edit on 3-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Why twist my OP & intentions?

...are you incapable of addressing the inquiry head on as i had proposed?

Originally posted by The All Seeing I

Take a step back and really think about these elaborate explanations that are given... that don't adequately explain the results... that contradict common sense and basic laws of science.

Again, you're woefully uninformed if you think this.

There's just no way around that.

Common sense is useless.

Basic laws of science are useless when given a complex question.

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
Why twist my OP & intentions?

...are you incapable of addressing the inquiry head on as i had proposed?

Your OP asserts, without evidence, that the "OS" is wrong.

Given that unsubstantiated assertion, there is no way to proceed without devolving into a discussion of ALL evidence, a discussion about why all these elaborate explanations - peer reviwed and published, btw - are wrong..... and into infinity.

Such a broad based discussion leads to nothing.

No thanks....

Again more twists and misrepresentations...
much like the OS and all the bull that it's propped up on.

Sorry i can't accommodate those who deal in dishonesty or make no effort to discern.

The OP does not present a "complex question" and basic science is more then sufficient to explain.

Handing over your ability to think for your self to others is just being intellectually lazy... a common trait among sheeple.

reply to post by The All Seeing I


I believe it is imposable that’s my opinion I can’t believe the insurance Co fell for that!
Logic tell me it is imposable, and I am not an engineer, however, building 7 diagram, that shows the damage is not enough to bring the building down or in 8 sec. Star and Flag good post!




[edit on 1/3/2009 by cashlink]

[edit on 1/3/2009 by cashlink]

posted by Seymour Butz

Common sense is useless.

Basic laws of science are useless

Is using our brains useless also?

Why am I not surprised? You fanatically support the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY.

What is left?

FAITH? You must BELIEVE.

Send us your tithes and offerings and we will send you a Prayer Shawl.

Then you will BELIEVE. Your FAITH shall set you free.

Signed,

The Lunatic Fringe of the Religious Right.

(Faithful Bush/Cheney supporters until Hell freezes over)

SP beautifully put... kudos dear sir

In terms of theories backed by science and/or faith.

Science is used to support the OS as well as the prevailing CT,
but where they fundamentally divert is where faith is introduced.

Those who have faith in the government embrace the OS
and dogmatically parrot it's nonsensical claims
versus
those who don't have faith in the government do their own research
and as a result find scientific explanations that make sense.

...and thus, built on this premise, this thread should give zero room for parrots to parade.

[edit on 3-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by SPreston

Why am I not surprised? You fanatically support the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY.

Oh really?

I'm on record saying that the 9/11 CR was a whitewash for imcompetence. How does that make me a supporter of all things "official"?

But really, your motivation for posting here has nothing to do with the OP. Rather it has everything to do with the fact that your lies about where April Gallup sat at the Pentagon were exposed, and now you feel the need to attack the one of the messengers that proved you were lying.

Originally posted by The All Seeing I

The OP does not present a "complex question" and basic science is more then sufficient to explain.

Handing over your ability to think for your self to others is just being intellectually lazy... a common trait among sheeple.

Ah, then you should have no problem showing why the science given in those links are wrong using basic science then.

What I find most interesting is the denouncement as others as sheeple, when you yourself have given no ioriginal nformation whatsoever, and instead are indeed parroting the junk that one can see on just about any CT site. So does this mean that are also a sheep?

No parroting of excessively elaborate explanations are required, for there are no lies to spin/sell.

You don't even need to crack open your old physic text book to see something is wrong and find the cause.

1 Chop, 2 Chop & ALL 3 Fall Down ... just basic math (common sense) tells you that something else is in the equation other then just minor structural damage and fire... to bring 3 buildings down with two planes.

Simple observation showed all 3 collapse just like they do in a controlled demolition... using Occam's Razor... we can cut through the bull to the most likely answer. If it walks and talks like a duck, it's most likely a duck... if it looks like a controlled demolition then it most likely is a controlled demolition.

Now when we look at the evidence/facts omitted and/or glossed over in our gov backed research institutions... we see this simple conclusion holds more water then the OS.

The crowd that finds the CT more convincing then the OS has considered all the information available and have double check most of the claims... those who find the OS more convincing then the CT haven't considered all the information available and have therefore have not double checked the OS claims for in the realm of OS research only information branded as OS is taken into account. CT researchers on the other hand have no blinders/bias, they bring all information into account and generally draw their own conclusions based on their collective world pool of resources... including what they see with their own two eyes... and have enough sense to recognize the fundamental fallacy in 1+1=3.

[edit on 4-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by The All Seeing I


Your failure to do as you have challenged others to do is a sure sign that you have no clue to how lame the whole OP is.

Why don't you do it then and show how correct you are?

Use your "basic science and common sense" to debunk the complex equations and conclusions given in the link.

Where have you been? I just did.

This is what i would imagine it would be like
to communicate with someone who is deaf and blind who can't read braille.

or maybe this is just another case of "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil"?


[edit on 4-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
Where have you been? I just did.

Really?

So where's the calcs from your "basic science" then, cuz all I see is a stament along the lines of "it looked like a cd, therefore it was." Is that common sense, or is it confirmation bias?

So I'll pose a question related to your OP.

You ask why didn't it topple. In order to topple, there needs to be a hinge point/plane. Show me a hinge point/plane that would be able to support the weight above while at the same time undergoing enough rotation to move the center of gravity outside the exterior walls, at which point it would indeed be expected to topple oof the lower part.

Cuz I see none.

This is a ridiculous thread.

Seymour Butz is 100% correct and for some reason this is being ignored and supplanted with rhetoric.

Rewinding building collapses, and in fact 99% of all accident reconstruction, are complex adventures in math, physics and metallurgy.

The devil is in the details. The truth is in the details.

To make such sweeping generalizations as the one proposed in the OP shows more the failure of the analytical faculties of the poster than it does in the analysis of the events of 9/11.

What's ridiculous is the OS.

This OP is on target.

The reason you guys don't like it, is because there isn't any room for the bull you swim and spin. I know this must be frustrating but don't take it out on the messenger, for not going along with your game of denial/ignorance.

Be upset with yourselves. You don't use your own eyes or ability to think for your self... let alone to recognize that 1+1 doesn't equal 3. There is nothing complicated about what happened on 911... it's all very straight forward, all that is complicated is the cover-up, that is what's required to explain the impossible.

Have you ever noticed how long a sales pitch is on a hard sell?... well, that's exactly what we have with the OS... and you guys have bought into it full line and sinker.

If you are looking for the Truth, you need to be open to all information available, not just the data/dogma you have been spoon feed... then cut through the crap with Occam's Razor.



[edit on 5-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Need i point out once again the obvious?

A total of 3 towers collapsed, wtc towers 1, 2 & 7 ... and "two huge jetliners" are not a legitimate destructive force and fires in aftermath to adequately explain why all 3 towers collapsed, as they did.

As for witnessing an "impact-point-down" controlled demolition,
i'm sure no one outside of the small controlled demolition niche of specialized businesses has ever witnessed this.

Now we have plenty of examples of larger fires burning much hotter and longer in steel framed buildings and even have plenty of examples of planes crashing into buildings, but none of them fell... not until 911 do we have such a phenomenon occur.

Which brings us to Occam's Razor and our 2 most prominent theories to date:
1. CT: a hybrid thermite controlled demolition
2. OS: 2 planes brought down 3 buildings due to key structural damage and fire

theory 1 is the simplest most sufficient explanation for why all 3 buildings falling as they did, into their own foot print.

theory 2 is a more complicated explanation, which doesn't adequately explain why all 3 buildings fell as they did, unless we were talking about a stack of cards that fell much like a strip of dominoes would... so rapid and complete.

To continually parrot a lie as truth shows a symptom of Doubespeak

...up is not down and in is not out nor is black white or white black...

A quotation from Orwell's novel, 1984, should help you understand your own proselytizing self-fulfilling-deception in a clearer light:

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed - if all records told the same tale -- then the lie passed into history and became truth... It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control', they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink.'... His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, & then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed."

... in summary my signature should ring a bell:


[edit on 6-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]