one question for truthers?

I wonder of another question to ask;

Why are explosives used in structural demolitions? My guess is to get the job done faster. And at the same time, to minimize damages to adjacent buildings- by controlling what part of the structure falls where and how. These two factors in my opinion prevail other debatable points.

Checkout Boons thread here;

FOIA

reply to post by dino1989


Do you know ?

Used Silent explosives which have no sound and leave no trace.........

reply to post by dino1989


I don't consider myself a "truther", "skeptic" or any of the words given to those in this debate. But WTC 7 was heavily damaged during the collaspe of the twin towers. The trick is that most of those who propagate conspiracy theorys only post the photos of one side of the building. The badly damaged side was covered by smoke, dust flying through the air and no one wanted to venture in that direction. Thats why the most cited photos of WTC 7 show hardly any damage.....Simply because its an angle based argument if you will that does not show the actual heavy damage to the building. Many have made good money off of this snake oil argument saying that WTC 7 was not damaged at all. In reality thats just a lie.

There were no explosions planted by terrorists that day that brought down the WTC 7. However, I do agree that Silverstien's comment that "they wanted to pull it" is for sure more than suspect that it was brought down on purpose. How? With what? I do not know.

911 was a series of events that have multiple incidents and scenarios going on in which were strange and unexplainable even after all of the scruitny to this very day. And I doubt anyone who was involved or had intel has a black book with it all written down that one day will be discovered.

If those who say they want to get to the truth would actually stick to the truth within their arguments, then we might actually learn the truth.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Doesn't that kind of explain why the North wall is on top of the pile in your photo ?

No because there are all four walls, not just the north wall, visible on top of the debris pile.

IF the building fell to the south then the south wall would have been covered in debris, the only wall that could possibly on top is the north wall, but even then that is IF the building was able to collapse that way from fire, which I don't believe it could. Nonetheless all four walls landed on top of the debris pile and there is no spill in any direction that indicated the building fell in only one direction.

The leaning you claim to see is the one wall you can see simply falling inwards, as evidenced by the post collapse pics. There was no leaning of the whole building.

All you have to do is study the pictures...

All four walls visible and marked for you so you can't miss them...



No damage to buildings right next to WTC7, other than WTC buildings with huge holes in them, and again you can see the outer walls...



Close up showing outer wall folded inwards on top of the rest of the collapsed building...



Why did the walls not fall outwards as they should have according to known physics? How can all four walls end up on top of the debris, that should have fall down and out as should have the walls?

reply to post by ANOK

Why did the walls not fall outwards as they should have according to known physics?

Were the walls held together from the inside or the outside? You know, like the flying buttresses on a Gothic cathedral? If it was from the inside and you remove the inside supports then I would think the walls would fall into what was holding them. Why should they fall out if you compromise what is inside the walls. Just applying known physics.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

Why did the walls not fall outwards as they should have according to known physics?

Were the walls held together from the inside or the outside? You know, like the flying buttresses on a Gothic cathedral? If it was from the inside and you remove the inside supports then I would think the walls would fall into what was holding them. Why should they fall out if you compromise what is inside the walls. Just applying known physics.

Because as the center drops it would push the walls out, because there is nothing outside the walls to stop them falling to the path of least resistance.

The reason they fall inwards in an implosion demolition is because of the timing, placement of 'explosives', and speed of the collapse, which has to be exact for it to work. Any mistake and it doesn't work.

If you had ANY idea how implosion demolitions work you would understand this.

BTW have you re-evaluated your position any now you know for a FACT that the columns in the WTC towers tapered? You should also apologize to psikeyhackr for making erroneous claims. It's also against T&C to post anything you know to be untrue.

reply to post by ANOK

Because as the center drops it would push the walls out, because there is nothing outside the walls to stop them falling to the path of least resistance.

So as the thing that is holding up the walls falls in then the walls fall OUT? Sorry, not how it works.

The reason they fall inwards in an implosion demolition is because of the timing, placement of 'explosives', and speed of the collapse, which has to be exact for it to work. Any mistake and it doesn't work.

The reason they fall in is because explosives are used to destroy the interior supports, just like the fires in Saloman Building.

If you had ANY idea how implosion demolitions work you would understand this.

If you had a clue you'd realize there is no such thing as an implosion in demolition.

BTW have you re-evaluated your position any now you know for a FACT that the columns in the WTC towers tapered? You should also apologize to psikeyhackr for making erroneous claims. It's also against T&C to post anything you know to be untrue.

Sorry, but your little diagrams are not relevant to psikeyhackr's argument. He is postualing that each floor has to be stonger and therefore heavier than the floor above it. Have you found anything to support that idea, except, of course the design of the Great Pyramids at Giza?

reply to post by Logical one

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

More likely he thought,

"Sh%t, the bastards brought down the other two, this one is next.."

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

ESPECIALLY THE OS!!!

Originally posted by hooper
So as the thing that is holding up the walls falls in then the walls fall OUT? Sorry, not how it works.

Yes it is the way it works, sry...

The reason they fall in is because explosives are used to destroy the interior supports, just like the fires in Saloman Building.

LOL fires can not time themselves in the correct sequence. According to you demolition companies are doing more work than they need to if all they have to do is set fires.

If you had a clue you'd realize there is no such thing as an implosion in demolition.

LOL another lie from Hooper.

Implosion is where the demolition is centrally motivated to cause a building to collapse in on itself. Other techniques are progressive collapse, sequential collapse and toppling.

www.demolition.co.za...

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

science.howstuffworks.com...

You should be embarrassed hooper.

Sorry, but your little diagrams are not relevant to psikeyhackr's argument. He is postualing that each floor has to be stonger and therefore heavier than the floor above it. Have you found anything to support that idea, except, of course the design of the Great Pyramids at Giza?

They are not my little diagrams they are the columns information NIST used to model the twin towers collapse...

NIST CORE DATA....wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

You didn't even check the link, you just blew it off didn't you?

Psik was talking about the structure getting stronger towards the bottom and tapering towards the top. You were trying to spin some other nonsense just like you are now. What a joke!

reply to post by ANOK

LOL fires can not time themselves in the correct sequence. According to you demolition companies are doing more work than they need to if all they have to do is set fires.

Trust me, demolition contractors would love to do nothing more than to set fire to a building, let it burn and then come back and pick up the pieces. But, as I and everyone else in the world realizes, local authorities are a little nervous about that technique. Fire is one of the most destructive forces in nature, its a wonderful demolition partner but its a little unpredictable.

reply to post by ANOK

Psik was talking about the structure getting stronger towards the bottom and tapering towards the top. You were trying to spin some other nonsense just like you are now. What a joke!

No, psik was talking about each level being progressively heavier. Stronger does not equal heavier.

The reason why we can’t hear the demolition on WTC 7 is because all the videos were taking from a long distant away.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

Psik was talking about the structure getting stronger towards the bottom and tapering towards the top. You were trying to spin some other nonsense just like you are now. What a joke!

No, psik was talking about each level being progressively heavier. Stronger does not equal heavier.

More spin nonsense from hooper, while he ignores that what he claims is constantly found to be untrue.

LOL what would the point be of levels getting heavier but not stronger? Do you ever actually think about what you're saying?

Originally posted by impressme
The reason why we can’t hear the demolition on WTC 7 is because all the videos were taking from a long distant away.

Oh well, that explains it all and covers all the bases. Exactly what constitutes "long distant away"? What is the audible limits of the explosives?

reply to post by hooper

Oh well, that explains it all and covers all the bases. Exactly what constitutes "long distant away"? What is the audible limits of the explosives?

Don’t know, hooper why don’t you tell us?

Originally posted by hooper
Trust me, demolition contractors would love to do nothing more than to set fire to a building, let it burn and then come back and pick up the pieces. But, as I and everyone else in the world realizes, local authorities are a little nervous about that technique. Fire is one of the most destructive forces in nature, its a wonderful demolition partner but its a little unpredictable.

Again hooper refuses to read supplied links and continues on in his ignorance, why is that hooper?

You need to actually read this and learn something....

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

So the only reason that method is used is because city ordinances won't allow them to set it on fire? You need to stay away from what it is your smoking hooper.

He's not going to read that anok...he's too busy pointing out your spelling mistake.

Scraping the barrel these days I see hooper!!

reply to post by ANOK


Really? That's the limit of your expertise? Google "howstuffworks"? You know there is a real world out there. Implosion is a word used for public consumption. All explosives react outwards. That may cause the building to fall in but the explosives are not pushing the building into its center.

And yes, they would love to just set fire to buildings. You know how much it costs to handle demolition debris that has no secondary market value? Much cheaper to watch go up in smoke that to be paying to have it collected and hauled away. There's even a good market these days for demolition concrete, CMU and brick. Used as recycled flex base. And of course the metals. But of course the neighbors get a little nervous when you set fire to the building next door.

In the US in the early nineteenth century when a lot of Americans were moving west they would actually set fire to their cabins so they could collect the nails. Nails were very expensive before the advent of the wire nail and a very important commodity in construction.

Originally posted by benoni
He's not going to read that anok...he's too busy pointing out your spelling mistake.

Scraping the barrel these days I see hooper!!

Yeah, I'll say! These conspiracy theories are just getting weaker and weaker and weaker. And where did I correct spelling errors? Must have been one of yours. I generally don't as I am not the world's best speller but when it becomes serial I may occasionally point it out.