Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


thats not what he ment. You know it. The firefighters were actually out of the building at that time. It just magically looks like a controlled demo then does it?

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

the dust and debris cloud being pushed out is due to some of the destruction of the lower floors below the impact zone, which can clearly be seen in this video:

I don't see how we can distinguish between debris from above or below the collapsing floors but even if you're correct it doesn't matter. Energy from the falling mass is pulverizing the concrete floors and expelling this debris out and away from the collapsing building therefore it is not going to contribute to the collapse sequence. Energy cannot be in two different places at the same time.

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
You just said that some destruction? of the lowers floors caused the building to collapse as you put it progressively.

What are you dumb, or was it like I replied some kind of magic?

Are you dumb? When did I say the lower floors caused the building to collapse, can people read around here? I said the weight of the top floors came crashing down, progressively causing the floors below the impact zone to collapse AND most of the content of those lower floors to be expelled as dust/debris. Jesus...

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


You could fly 50 planes into it it still wouldn't collapse like that.

Is there any real civil engineers or architects that can put this kid to bed?

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

You could fly 50 planes into it it still wouldn't collapse like that.

Is there any real civil engineers or architects that can put this kid to bed?

No there is not, because they all back me up.

Professor Steven E. Jones is one man who wrote a paper on this conspiracy and it got rejected quick.

"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering


D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU



Dr. Firmage in his letter.

"To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing."

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

can you read ok?

Yes I can read, I also understand basic physics.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

Are you dumb?...can people read around here?

Now who has resorted to name calling? If this upsets you then maybe we should take a break. I am attempting to have a discussion with you on this subject as I take it very seriously.

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

the dust and debris cloud being pushed out is due to some of the destruction of the lower floors below the impact zone, which can clearly be seen in this video:

I don't see how we can distinguish between debris from above or below the collapsing floors but even if you're correct it doesn't matter. Energy from the falling mass is pulverizing the concrete floors and expelling this debris out and away from the collapsing building therefore it is not going to contribute to the collapsing sequence. Energy cannot be in two places at the same time.

Ok you just said it again. "Pulverized" how does concrete floors pulverize other concrete, breaks welded and bracketed steel frames and like you said pulverized it all into dust in 9.3 seconds.

You know a progressive collapse you are trying to say happened would take longer than that. Really long, 80+ concrete floors take to land on each other and then do it to the next one. It would take way longer. That why your LOGIC is so wrong right now. Your going to get hammered on this thread.

free fall all the way to the floor. You know about the pools of molten right? The cut angled beams, the explosions felt and heard by others and sound equipment?

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

can you read ok?

Yes I can read, I also understand basic physics.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

Are you dumb?...can people read around here?

Now who has resorted to name calling? If this upsets you then maybe we should take a break. I am attempting to have a discussion with you on this subject as I take it very seriously.

He called me dumb so I called him dumb back, why don't you lecture him? Seems you're the one taking it serious with me lol And I cited physicists that support my claims if you want to talk physics, if you have any expert opinions to site than be my guest. Because trying to use something as simple as "common sense" (hence why it's called common) to explain something as complex as this, ironically shows lack of any common sense.

Originally posted by MasterAndrew

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

the dust and debris cloud being pushed out is due to some of the destruction of the lower floors below the impact zone, which can clearly be seen in this video:

I don't see how we can distinguish between debris from above or below the collapsing floors but even if you're correct it doesn't matter. Energy from the falling mass is pulverizing the concrete floors and expelling this debris out and away from the collapsing building therefore it is not going to contribute to the collapsing sequence. Energy cannot be in two places at the same time.

Ok you just said it again. "Pulverized" how does concrete floors pulverize other concrete, breaks welded and bracketed steel frames and like you said pulverized it all into dust in 9.3 seconds.

You know a progressive collapse you are trying to say happened would take longer than that. Really long, 80+ concrete floors take to land on each other and then do it to the next one. It would take way longer. That why your LOGIC is so wrong right now. Your going to get hammered on this thread.

free fall all the way to the floor. You know about the pools of molten right? The cut angled beams, the explosions felt and heard by others and sound equipment?

Look back at my original post, I mention in GREAT detail how the collapse was at least 14 - 18 seconds so quit spreading false information with this 9 second stuff.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

This is just my opinion so don't be bashing, but I made up a few pictures depicting why I think the WTC buildings collapsed (basically leaning to towards the "official" story as it's put lol).

I should say welcome as a newcomer however something tells me you’re not new here.

I have to disagree with you on your theory; no science can prove your theory true.
How can your theory work with the several seconds of free-fall that NIST was force to admit?
After watching all the News video of WTC 7 imploding in on its self, it was obvious it was demolition, especially when the entire 47 stories floor Joyce’s broke simultaneously even in sections that were not on fire.
Many parts of the OS have been proven false by the use of science; please do not insult it, or our intelligent by regurgitating the OS and all the excuses to why we should believe in the liars that told it.

The fact is WTC 7 was demolished by some kind of demolition and that is the only logical reasonable explanation that science can prove.
One would have to wonder why you are against demolition without discussion the scientific evidence that supports the science.

Yes are are dumb, its not name calling. That word is used to describe lack of intelligence.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

Sorry, I was assuming that you were above stooping to that level.

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
Yes are are dumb, its not name calling. That word is used to describe lack of intelligence.

Then how come I can site experts that agree with me while you can't? The irony of YOU calling ME stupid is hilarious.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


14-18 seconds.

Still spreading disinformation much?

reply to post by MasterAndrew

In all fairness I was the one who said "pulverized" in your quoted reply. Also I believe it took longer than 9.3 seconds for the two towers to fall. Still dangerously close to free fall speeds but more like 14 seconds.

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

14-18 seconds.

Still spreading disinformation much?

Well considering there was still 36% of the building left standing at 10 seconds into the collapse, it would be dis-information to assume otherwise.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


Yes ofcourse a website agrees with you and that makes you smart. Silly, how dumb of me.

Why don't you answer the cut beams question? Or pools of molten? Or the themite found on the beams?

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

Yes ofcourse a website agrees with you and that makes you smart. Silly, how dumb of me.

Why don't you answer the cut beams question? Or pools of molten? Or the themite found on the beams?

Maybe I posted it in another thread but I'l find it hold up.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

The main problem with timing how long it took for these two buildings to fall is due to the pulverized concrete and other debris that obscures our view. I happen to think that it was closer to 14 seconds but this doesn't matter, it is still far to fast given the official story.

It is this debris that I refer to when I say energy cannot be in two different places at the same time. There was a tremendous amount of mass that was expelled during collapse sequence that was also used to explain the pancake theory. This is in violation of conservation of energy and proves the official theory false.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


36% of the building left. BS much?

Keep it up. this is the type of disinformation that is spread that makes people not question the facts and science behind it. What agency do you work for?