The Undebunkable Video: Eliminate The Impossible

reply to post by curious_soul

Can a firefighter go into a multi-story high rise sky scraper constructed of steel beams and say it's going to collapse. HELL NO!

Partial collapse as I indicated, HELL YES! The entire building at near free fall...No, It has never occurred in this manner in history. That is exactly why the evidence presented by the OP speaks for itself.

So, FF's had the foresight concerning the collapse of WTC 7, but had no idea that WTC 1 & 2 would collapse?

WTC7 was evacuated. There was no good reason for firefighters to be in the building before it was "pulled".

reply to post by samkent


Here's the cleaner version. the unrated version was scrapped..




I'll take the moron comment back.



What I am saying is : a smaller mass can no way over power a massive mass. Twenty floors(+ the planes weight) cannot crush 90 plus floors of structurally sound tower (below the impact zone). .. That's what I am saying.


But no,,, you refuse to understand so you post pointless examples that have NOTHING to do with WTC collapse.

How does a piece of foam/shuttle relate to WTC? The foam fell off and aloud heat to enter the ship. Did the foam crush the space shuttle. Bad example

How does ice/jet have anything to do with WTC? Did the ice crush the jet liner ?

A torpedo is a bomb(Composition H-6 ,similar to C-4) that allowed water to enter the ship. The ship sinks because of the loss of buoyancy. How this relates to WTC is beyond me. ?

Again your theory entails a combination of: an impact from *757 jet plane,, *Weight from the plane ONLY 116 tons + (give or take) the weight of the upper floors(above the impact) and the *Fire from 11,500 gallons of jet fuel(which most of it burned off upon impact. ) You people actually think a pool of jet fuel was ponding burning below the 20 or so floors.

reply to post by niceguybob


Good question. But even with a bomb doesn't explain the rest of the buildings collapsing

reply to post by pshea38

Of course the Trade centre was demolished on 9/11, but images broadcast to us 'live' via television were computer generated virtual reality imaging, pre-prepared and designed to 'shock and awe' the viewer.

And what is your evidence of this?

The actual demolitions must have been a more orderly affair and not at all how the perpetrators would have us believe....

More orderly in what regard?

Would you be so kind as to describe what exactly you did see?

Did you see any airplanes?
The first tower was hit while I was in the shower. As for the second plane, I went down to my apartment to get my phone. I had left my TV on and saw an explosion. I ran back up to the roof. I asked what happened and was told that another plane flew into the building. I said "maybe it got lost in the smoke?" They said, "it came from the other direction" (where it was clear). It was then that we knew it was not an accident. These people had no reason to back up a story on TV that they had not even seen yet. My friend heard the first plane overhead (while in her apartment) and she heard it hit. She thought it hit the Brooklyn Bridge. She then saw it on TV and ran to the bathroom and vomited.

Did you see both tower collapses in full view?

I went down to my apartment again to get my dog when the first tower collapsed. I saw it on tv. I watched the second tower collapse with my own eyes. I could not see all the way to the ground (lots of tall buildings in NYC). I remember, well before questioning the official story, thinking how it seemed to me that the top of the building sort of hovered in the air as the rest of the building started to collapse. Then it followed.

Was the scene exactly as portrayed on t.v.?

I wouldn't know as I watched some of it on TV and some of it in person.

Did your phone and other electronics work o.k.?

Electronics worked fine. My phone worked but it was difficult to get through as all lines were so busy. I was able to speak to my parents.

Did you see 'jumpers'?

I did not because I was a mile away. Again, a friend of mine relayed her account to me. She was in a meeting a few buildings away and she did see people jumping.

Did you hear explosions before the tower demolitions?

Again, I was a mile away so I don't remember hearing much of anything other than the reactions of those around me. I did smell the acrid smoke for weeks (months?) after.

What was the weather like that day?

It was a beautiful sunny day

I also happen to be a VFX artist. I have worked on 10 major feature films. The idea that the events you saw on TV were made up on the fly is ridiculous. Sorry.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

How else would it fall except straight down,

The fire and debris damage was isolated to one side of the building, so based on the structural damage it should have fallen towards that area. Instead, it went straight down.

Look at the damage for the sides of the building: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ad6527f938ab.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/608e789dc4ba.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/65c0b16d96f1.jpg[/atsimg] The front and both sides are relatively intact, and the back side is where all the damage is at. Yet the building falls straight down.

and why is it impossible except with explosives?

Because it free-fell for 100ft, which would mean the underlying structure that it should have made contact with in order to destroy the building was already moving. You can't accelerate when the laws of physics say you should decelerate, the same goes for the twin towers as well.

reply to post by kro32


So was it really Bin Laden? What is your gut feeling?

reply to post by theplu


All massive events are staged. So Massive , the consequences would assure everyone will be affected. Every human.. PR agencies would kill to have that power. Which is why its never made up on a fly.


Not to the say the tv footage was fake on 911. But WTC attacks were staged and planned with ample time.


Can't deny that

reply to post by dilly1

Not to the say the tv footage was fake on 911. But WTC attacks were staged and planned with ample time

Of course, but that is true regardless of whether or not Al Qaeda planned it or Dick Cheney himself. My post was in regard to the TV footage nonsense. But we've gotten way off of the OP's topic so I won't continue this thread of discussion.

reply to post by theplu


understood

Originally posted by curious_soul
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

I'm so sick of this tired excuse...

No offense to FF's, but they have no idea on wether a steel structure building would or could collapse or not, especially so, since there was no precedent before 911 of a full collapse of any steel stucture of this magnitude.

Really? So why do they teach fireifghters about the dangers of building collapse and what signs to look out for?

Why are there books about it?

Collapse of burning buildings: a guide to fireground safety By Vincent Dunn

Collaps e of burning buildings

Truss Danger
www.usfa.dhs.gov...


Building Collapse: Learn the Warning Signs
www.firerescue1.com...

Incident command should consider the following when determining collapse potential:

Structural inadequacy, poor construction, illegal or non engineered renovations
Fire size and location, and conditions on arrival
Age of building
Previous fire
Fire load to structural members
Backdraft or explosions
Engineered lumber, truss joists, nail plates
Load increase as a result of water load
Cutting structural members during venting operations
Cracks or bulges in wall
Water or smoke that pushes through what appears to be a solid masonry wall
Unusual noises coming from building or dwelling
Truck operations notice soft or spongy footing
Weather extremes

www.ehow.com...

I'd read up on this article closely if I were you:
The signs of impending building collapse

www.firefighterspot.com...

So dont give me this crap about FFs not knowing if a steel building is going to collapse. They know a lot more than you, and I'd rather trust their judgement, over your personal incredulity any day.

Originally posted by TupacShakur

It's not like the building was set to blow up at exactly 5:38PM or whatever, whoever is going to pull a building controls when it comes down.

So your answer is that yes, basically they were just incredibly lucky that the building looked like it was going to fall down. How amazingly convenient.

Also it means that your previous post suggesting that buildings like this just can't come down is wrong, doesn't it? Because if you're acknowledging that the firefighters were correct in their suspicion then they must be correct that buildings like this can collapse from the damage sustained and the fire.

I don't think firemen are qualified to judge whether or not a buildings structure is stable or not. I don't think they were in on it, they were just doing their job: fighting fires.

They seem to think they were. Have you got any evidence that their professional opinion about fire-stricken buildings is worthless? One might assume that that the likely fate of buildings that are on fire was within the purview of firemen. Why do you think it's not?

It fell at free-fall speed for 100ft. That means there was absolutely no resistance through the path of greatest resistance. That means the structure below that it should have contacted and destroyed wasn't there when it should have been, meaning that something took out the underlying supports, meaning a controlled demolition.

What if the fire damaged that part of the structure?

Now answer the questions I asked in the last post.

edit on 23-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post

I'll look at them and answer in a subsequent post. I'd point out that you haven't actually answered my questions.

Originally posted by ontarff
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

No one's ever adequately explained to me why the collapse is odd. The building was an unusual design and the firefighters thought it would fall. Only a tiny handful of engineers - most of whom seem to be kitchen designers and eco-consultants - have an issue with it. Real experts like the firefighters seem to agree with me.

All of the information posted in the OP has gone right over your head. You still don't get what was "odd". The information was explained "adequately" for educated people. It is prudent for the firefighter's to err on the side of safety when guessing if building collapse is possible. If a fire officer knows that a building has suffered a structural compromise due to support columns being taken out by a commercial aircraft, and trusses have been exposed to fire for an extended time, he could easily surmise that a structural collapse of some sort is indeed possible. It is best to err on the side of safety.

However, it was not known by the fire officers that WTC1 or 2 would in fact come down in the manner it did at near free fall. Silverstein's comment to "pull" the building excludes WTC7. If the fire officers knew this as a certainty, the firefighters would have been ordered to evacuate in a more timely manner. Again, this has nothing to do with the physics of the building collapse.

I'm not sure what "excludes WTC7" means. But you seem to be saying that the firefighters had good reason to think that the buildings would come down. And then they did comedown.

So why is the whole thing suspicious to you? It can't be both expected and odd.

After reading the posts on this subject to date.
( Many thanks to all posters on both sides of the argument.)
My personal opinion is that 9/11 is what it appears to be.
W.T.C's collapsing on themselves.
This type of incident was, as far as, I know, unprecedented,
and we had no prior experience to go on.
Whilst conspiracy theories fuel interest and chatter,
the truth is unfortunately, mundane.
Airliners impact W.T.C.'s - W.T.C.'s collapse.
Respect to all posters.

( p.s. a STATIONARY airliner might weigh say, 150 tons.
But an airliner travelling at 200 - 300 m.p.h. would have a far greater impact weight.)
See my earlier post regarding the shock wave effect from the airliners impacting the
W.T.C's. Just a thought..)

reply to post by SavedOne


Some of you are so stupid I had to join this site just to tell you so. Debunk this:
1) Our government said we did not know the events of 911 were going to occur.
This is a lie.
We were told by
British intelligence
Israeli intelligence
in fact every intelligence agency in the world knew before hand except (Pause) U.S. Hmnnnnnn

2) "We had no way of imagining planes flying into buildings"
This was said by...
Former Secretary of Sate Condoleezza Rice
Former Vice President Cheney
Fomer President George Walker Bush
Donald Rumsfeld
This is also a lie

Peter Jennings (ABC) reported days later that two years before NORAD had practiced just that crashing planes into buildings including the World Trade Center.

It goes on and on and on from learning that half of the OFFICIAL (dead) hijackers are still alive to the astronomical odds of 1 (never before event) x1 (never before event) x1 (Never before event) all collapsing at free fall speed when not one had ever done it anywhere before, yet alone three in a row? Hmnnnnnn


Sir, based on the above I'd say something is wrong. Hmnnn how about our former cabinets officials statements
Is there a conspiracy? I think so.
Case Closed
Everybody go to sleep.


The truth is all around us, that is, for those of us who can still see.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

How else would it fall except straight down,

The fire and debris damage was isolated to one side of the building, so based on the structural damage it should have fallen towards that area.

Only if the remaining side was strong enough to make it do so, and was/remained connected while retaining that strength - and given the nature of the building, with the strength in the floor members, that simply wasn't so.

with the floor members not holding their load there is nothing making the building lever to any side at all.

reply to post by GenRadek


This arguement is borderline ignorant and either you can believe me or find out for yourself. I've worked within the engineering field for 2/3 of my life. I know what the hell i'm talking about.

#1 Engineers didn't even know that steel constructed high rises could collapse from fire, much less a firefighter.

#2 Engineering designs take damage or natural wear and tear all the time. They don't send firefighters out there to assess the structural integrity of a engineering design wether it be by fire or not. That is what building inspectors are for who either are PLE's or work under the direct supervision of a PLE.

#3 It would have taken a professional engineering company days even weeks to determine structural integrity of WTC 7 and there is no way in hell firefighters could do this in a matter of hours.

#4 Firefighters do have some knowledge concerning wood frame construction, fire damage and collapse, but detemining wether a high rise steel structure could collapse from fire is way above their knowledge or expertise.

reply to post by MrJohnSmith


Um? Last time I checked commercial air jets are hollow not some dense armor piercing bullet, and the plane's frame is made from aluminum (not steel). So where does your logic of shock wave come in to play?.




We all think a plane is a bullet or a middle when its not. A bullet is completely dense and missile is dense with a bomb compacted in it.... A plane, completely hollow , an aluminum frame when in contact with steel/concrete will crumble like tin foil,and flimsy wings filled to the brim with jet fuel. Come on!! Sorry no shock wave to weaken a structure built to withstand annual wind loads and an actual plane impact..


That's why the jet fuel theory is weak. There is no way a wing (with thin aluminum framing(not solid) can penetrate mild (very strong) steel column wall of the WTC and continue to position its fuel directly below the floors steel beams.. That's why you saw such a big explosion instantly upon impact , which was the wings (filled with fuel ) exploding violently.


Now below the center section of the fuselage is another tank that holds 5k to 6k gallons of jet fuel. So that's the only amount that could have been burning the steel beams above. Your theory is based on 6,000 gallons of jet fuel????

So let say the debunkers are right that burning fuel started to bend the mild steel(lol) and the section above started to sink down crushing the impacted floors. But once the upper section sunk to an area of the building that had no damage ,no heat, no fuel, NO NOTHING!! Some how that upper portion of the building just started to take out floor by floor. ????


We all forget 911 ,with just the plane exploding into the towers is enough of reason to go to war and hunt bin laden. There was no need for the building to completely collapse. There is so much more to this story , that none of it makes any sense.


Again,,,You debunkers are believing shock waves ,jet fuel melting 5inch steel beams and a one make witchcraft-like physics is the "elephant in the room". You are aware these three factors are only implied to 911 scenario. This voodoo physics is never seen anywhere else. How convenient.

reply to post by curious_soul

Can a firefighter go into a multi-story high rise sky scraper constructed of steel beams and say it's going to collapse. HELL NO!

If it's leaning and groaning, hell yea!

Let me ask you something.
If it WAS leaning and groaning and engulfed in fire would you have gone inside?

reply to post by dilly1

That's why the jet fuel theory is weak. There is no way a wing (with thin aluminum framing(not solid) can penetrate mild (very strong) steel column wall of the WTC and continue to position its fuel directly below the floors steel beams.. That's why you saw such a big explosion instantly upon impact , which was the wings (filled with fuel ) exploding violently.

Yes a wing can.

Thought experiment:

Take a full unopened cen of beer and smack it into your forehead. A sealed cylinder is very strong.

Experiment 2:

Paper straw through potato. Google it.

nuff said

reply to post by dilly1


So I'm guessing all those steel hulled warships didn't have holes in them from the aluminum airplanes flown by Japanese kamikazes in World War II. (and no, kamikazes weren't always carrying bombs)