A question for believers or 'OSers'....

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by ANOK

 

This is wildly illogical for so many reasons.

- Fire caused the structure to collapse. Because the fire didn't burn exactly evenly across all floors, etc, the building did not collapse evenly.

- This resulted in, in some places, the outside-in nature me the collapse.

- On top of all of that it doesn't even LOOK like a demo.

- And there are dozens of witnesses who said the whole building was on fire. And no one reported dozens of visible and audible timed explosions.

I waited to long to edit, so am quoting with the edits; hopefully this is more clear.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

Fire caused the structure to collapse. Because the fire didn't burn exactly evenly across all floors, etc, the building did not collapse evenly.

Wrong: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9fece666e47b.jpg[/atsimg]

On top of all of that ht doesn't even LOOK like a demo.

Wrong:

Characteristics of the collapse of WTC7 vs. controlled demolitions:
WTC7: Symmetrical collapse
Controlled Demolition: Symmetrical collapse (unless the building is rigged to fall into a parking lot or an empty space rather than straight down)
WTC7: Free-fall during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: Free-fall during the collapse
WTC7: Explosions heard before/during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: Explosions heard before/during the collapse
WTC7: A fault during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: A fault during the collapse (implosions)
WTC7: A neat pile of debris
Controlled Demolition: A neat pile of debris

And there are dozens of witnesses who said the whole building was on fire.

There were fires in the building, this is not news to anybody here, however "whole building" is a massive overstatement. Fires were scattered, not covering the "whole building". Would you like to see what a whole skyscraper on fire actually looks like?: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/69d34fba92e1.jpg[/atsimg] Compare that to WTC7: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/65c0b16d96f1.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/608e789dc4ba.jpg[/atsimg] Then there was lots of smoke on the South side. So, you are wrong about the whole building being on fire as well.

And no one reported dozens of visible and audible timed explosions.

Wrong again:





You were wrong about everything you just said, congratulations, you take "Fail" to a whole new level.

reply to post by TupacShakur

Characteristics of the collapse of WTC7 vs. controlled demolitions:

WTC7: Symmetrical collapse
Controlled Demolition: Symmetrical collapse (unless the building is rigged to fall into a parking lot or an empty space rather than straight down)
Who says it was symmetrical? By who's standards and measures?

WTC7: Free-fall during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: Free-fall during the collapse

And? So? Gravity is consistent regardless of cause.

WTC7: Explosions heard before/during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: Explosions heard before/during the collapse

Now, even you know this is wrong. During a controlled demolition the sounds are timed and consistent in volume and construction. No such thing was heard on 9/11. Loud sudden noises are not evidence of explosives.

WTC7: A fault during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: A fault during the collapse (implosions)

So all controlled demolitions result in a fault?

WTC7: A neat pile of debris
Controlled Demolition: A neat pile of debris

You forgot a few, here let me help:
WTC7: Happened during the day.
Controlled demolitions: Happen during the day.
WTC7: Happened on planet Earth.
Controlled Demolitions: Happen on planet Earth
WTC7: Involved a building
Controlled Demolitions: Involve buildings.
WCT7: The building fell down.
Controlled demolitions: The building falls down.

reply to post by TupacShakur


sigh... you really don't know what you're talking about.

Demo:

dozens, hundreds of visible and audible timed explosions

WTC7? Nope.

Demo: All floors essentially hit free-fall at the same time.

WTC7? Nope, it started higher up the building, and the collapse was not uniform.

Building are engineered to spread a load, so when part of the structure fails it can DRAMATICALLY impact on the rest of the structure. In other words, the chance of an entire building collapsing raises exponentially to the amount of the building damaged.

The WTCs did NOT look like demos. No dozens of precisely timed audible and visible explosions. No uniform free-fall from the point of the demo explosions to the ground.

reply to post by TupacShakur


I understand what collapsed into a footprint means. If a building does not fall over, ie topple, then it falls into its own footprint. You cannot argue this.

With the WTC, part of the building fell into its footprint but there were tons of material that did not. You know that pictures of the ejection of material? Not in its own footprint. Striking the other WTC complex buildings including 7, not collapsing in it own footprint. Do you see how this statement makes no sense.

This is not its own footprint...




This is not its own footprint, and it is from a truth site




See it titling and NOT falling into its own footprint...




All three of those pictures show WTC NOT falling into its own footprint. Why can you guys not see that.

reply to post by TupacShakur


So you know, this is what a demo looks like:



none of the WTCs look ANYTHING like that.

Let me be as clear as I can about the free fall thing:

In a demo, like the Landmark, floor 5 and floor 25 both start moving down at the same time. All of the support on all of the floors blows simultaneously. so the floors fall down. All of them do, at pretty much the same time... watch the Landmark vid, you'll see that.

Now watch any of the WTCs. they collapse down, yes, that's gravity for you, but when floor 80 is collapsing floor 40 isn't.

If it was a demo, all 100 stories would collapse down at the same time. In fact, look at the landmark, it looks like someone has opened a hole in the earth and the mostly intact building is falling in...

... do you see that?

The visible part of the building (everything but the bottom) looks intact as it races toward the ground at freefall.

Don't even try to tell me that the WTCs look ANYTHING like that...

Click here to learn more about this warning.

it did look similar to that

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

So you know, this is what a demo looks like:

Can you explain the difference, and why, because it didn't look exactly like a vid you found on teh net, you think the WTC buildings were not controlled?

Have you looked at any other evidence, like the outer walls being on top of the collapsed WTC 7 building in a neat pile in its own footprint? Can you explain how that happens from an uncontrolled collapse, using real physics principles, not just your imagination? Do you know the point of an 'implosion demolition'?

Do you realise a building pulled down with hammers is still a controlled demolition?

reply to post by esdad71


The WTC towers 1 & 2 did not land in their footprints, the debris was ejected in a 360d arc.

That point alone debunks 'pancake collapse'.

If debris is being ejected then mass is being lost, post collapse pics show most of the debris was ejected, meaning most of the mass was lost during the collapse. That is in accordance with physics. What is not in accordance with physics is the collapse continuing in spite of the loss of mass, the loss of ke.

I hope you realise that esdad.

WTC 7 did land mostly in its own footprint, evidenced by the outer walls being on top of the rest of the collapsed building, proving it was an 'implosion demolition'.

Different building structures, different methods of collapse. You guys are always getting this confused.

I agree with this.

Me, I like invoking the Sesame Street Visual Forensic Investigation Technique, you know:

"One of these things is not like the others, two of these things are kind of the same..."

The Towers were 'blown out' top to bottom because no one knew beforehand what crashing a plane into them would do (if bring them down etc.) nor how much explosive would be needed (unique design etc.) and what type. Imagine not using enough! No, can't have that. (Explosives had to be used because no one knew beforehand if merely the planes would do it, and couldn't just bet on them being nearly enough.)

So, I know, let's figure out what it will really take to do it (not just planes but explosives too) and add 50% to that! Oh sure it will look funny and messy and EXPLOSIVE (don't tell me the videos don't look 'explosive') and all, but hey, we got to be sure they come down right? Well we'll just have to make sure then won't we?

Well, THEY DID.

WTC 7 was taken out from the bottom and that's why you never see any video of the base. Right? Think about it. They knew it was unstable, ordered eveyone out, had all day to get cameras trained on it and then no video of the thing coming down. Sure, ok.

Cheers

reply to post by patternfinder


You're either blind or dishonest.

They looked completely different.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by patternfinder

 

You're either blind or dishonest.

They looked completely different.

In what way do they look completely different, and what makes those differences indicate that the WTC buildings were not also controlled demolitions?

Can you explain please?

reply to post by ANOK


As I have said, on this very thread:

In a controlled demo all the floors start moving at once. So, if you look at the Landmark implosion you can see floor 10 starts moving at the same time as floor 30.

If you look at the towers (it's VERY easy to see this on the towers) and even on WTC7 you don't see that... what you see, in the case of the towers are building that have one section collapsing, the top, and the rest of the building is standing still. That is NOT a demo.

As for WTC7, it does get a bit harder to see, but if you look closely you can see bits of the roof collapse in first and the facade of the building start to sag. Again, that looks like a slow collapse started by a fire.

But, even if you don't believe that stuff, go back and look at the landmark, what do you see and hear?

Well, you see and hear a HUGE explosion at the base, FOLLOWED BY dozens of VISIBLE and AUDIBLE TIMED explosions. A demo works by removing all the load bearing support for the floors, simultaneously. So, the explosions have to be precisely timed, to make it pancake (and not fall over and damage other buildings).

NONE of the WTC buildings had a visible and audible series of dozens of explosions seconds before the collapse.

In the case of the Towers it is obvious, even to the untrained eye, that the bottom floors are still standing still as the top floors collapse.

WTC looks MORE like a demo than the towers, but only if you aren't paying close attention.

But neither of them displayed any REAL evidence of demo. A few explosions in the basement doesn't cause a building to collapse from the site of plane impact down, while the lower floors stay immobile.

All those videos, where a few people heard a couple explosions, don't prove demo either. Two or three explosions wouldn't destroy the WTC towers, esp not from the top down.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by ANOK

 

As I have said, on this very thread:

In a controlled demo all the floors start moving at once. So, if you look at the Landmark implosion you can see floor 10 starts moving at the same time as floor 30.

But it doesn't have to be that way. This is the problem, you expect a set up that was supposed to fool people into thinking it was planes and fire to look exactly like a normally set up demolition.

Think outside of the box mate.

If you look at the towers (it's VERY easy to see this on the towers) and even on WTC7 you don't see that... what you see, in the case of the towers are building that have one section collapsing, the top, and the rest of the building is standing still. That is NOT a demo.

Again that is not evidence the collapses were not controlled demolitions.

As for WTC7, it does get a bit harder to see, but if you look closely you can see bits of the roof collapse in first and the facade of the building start to sag. Again, that looks like a slow collapse started by a fire.

That is the penthouse kink, sorry but that is also evidence of controlled demolition, if you payed attention to what people are saying here you would know that. If you knew how implosion demolitions work you would know that.

But, even if you don't believe that stuff, go back and look at the landmark, what do you see and hear?

Again not seeing or hearing explosives does not change the facts of the physics of the collapses.

In the case of the Towers it is obvious, even to the untrained eye, that the bottom floors are still standing still as the top floors collapse.

A collapse can be top down, and still be controlled.

But neither of them displayed any REAL evidence of demo. A few explosions in the basement doesn't cause a building to collapse from the site of plane impact down, while the lower floors stay immobile.

The fact that WTC 7 landed mostly in its own footprint proves controlled implosion demolition. The fact that the towers collapsed to the ground while also ejecting the mass needed to do the crushing of floors proves there was more energy involved than just gravity.

All those videos, where a few people heard a couple explosions, don't prove demo either. Two or three explosions wouldn't destroy the WTC towers, esp not from the top down.

I never said it did. The proof is not in videos, or what witnesses said, the proof is in the final outcome of the collapses themselves, which there is plenty of visual evidence of. You just have to quit denying it.

reply to post by ANOK


the problem with ALL of this is that you've said, basically, "ok it doesn't look like a demo, but it is..."

you claim as well to know something about the physics of collapse that proves they were demos... and again you're wrong...

A building landing "mostly" in it's own footprint doesn't prove demo btw. All it proves is that the it's load bearing structures gave up pretty uniformly across the building. In the case of 7, as soon as some of the damaged structures lost their ability to hold the buildings weight the most vulnerable non-damaged structures gave way. Those were the load bearing structures at the base of the building, as they held the most weight. once the bottom floors collapse the whole thing is coming straight down. You could pretty easily replicate that without demo.

You say, essentially, "just cause no one saw of heard the hundreds of timed explosions it would take to bring down three buildings doesn't mean anything.."

In fact, it means EVERYTHING.

This is where the insanity creeps in, and by insanity I mean faith.

You've taken an incorrect assumption: that a building has to be demo'd to fall straight down, and from that you've invented an imaginary means of blowing up skyscrapers that doesn't involved hundreds of visible, and audible, timed explosions. And when people call you on your faith based silliness you ask them to, not look at facts, but to use their imagination... imagine a world in which this could happen.

No thanks.

If you wanna see what really happened to the towers, watch this...



They pull out the support for one floor and the weight of the building above that floor crushes the building underneath.

in the case of the towers, it wasn't workmen with equipment, it was a plane and the resulting damage. Same principle exactly though.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
A building landing "mostly" in it's own footprint doesn't prove demo btw. All it proves is that the it's load bearing structures gave up pretty uniformly across the building.

Explain how fires can cause a uniform failure of the load bearing columns? But according to NIST it was failure of one column. So you need to take your argument to NIST not me.

In the case of 7, as soon as some of the damaged structures lost their ability to hold the buildings weight the most vulnerable non-damaged structures gave way. Those were the load bearing structures at the base of the building, as they held the most weight. once the bottom floors collapse the whole thing is coming straight down. You could pretty easily replicate that without demo.

But you miss the point. If the building had collapsed as you explain the outer walls would not be sitting on top of the collapsed building. There is no way an uncontrolled collapse can defy physics by itself, it would be a chance so huge as to be impossible.

I can keep explaining why using known physics, but you will just continue to ignore it and stay with your layman understanding of things.

You say, essentially, "just cause no one saw of heard the hundreds of timed explosions it would take to bring down three buildings doesn't mean anything.."

In fact, it means EVERYTHING.

No it doesn't. It means nothing at all when the post collapse pics show evidence of controlled demolition. And you know very well explosives were heard so stop pretending they weren't. But regardless of that is doesn't matter. Not hearing or seeing explosives does not change the physics of the collapses.

This is where the insanity creeps in, and by insanity I mean faith.

No, it just shows your lack of understanding.

You've taken an incorrect assumption: that a building has to be demo'd to fall straight down, and from that you've invented an imaginary means of blowing up skyscrapers that doesn't involved hundreds of visible, and audible, timed explosions. And when people call you on your faith based silliness you ask them to, not look at facts, but to use their imagination... imagine a world in which this could happen.

Strawman, you know the argument isn't that the buildings just fell straight down, that is just ONE point of many that you have to look at together, instead of trying to debunk each one on its own merit. You have to look at the details, and then see how they work together to see the big picture.

They pull out the support for one floor and the weight of the building above that floor crushes the building underneath. in the case of the towers, it wasn't workmen with equipment, it was a plane and the resulting damage. Same principle exactly though.

Look at that vid again. You can't see the final outcome of the collapse can you? How do you know it all landed it in its footprint, how do you know the collapse was complete? Do you see outer walls folding in on top of the buildings mass? Do you see outer walls and concrete ejecting? You have no idea what pre-weakening was done beforehand. You are so far off the mark it's laughable.
You need to learn a lot before you will ever have enough experience to see the details of collapses, and the very obvious and telling differences.

reply to post by ANOK


You have again, taken a few random facts and rolled them into a nonsensical ball. What NIST says is that the collapse was trigger by the failure of one support. We all know this theory, "the straw that broke the elephant's back".

What NIST doesn't say is that only one Load bearing structure (LBS) failed, but instead that the widespread collapse of the building was triggered by the failure of one LBS.

Can you see the difference?

Listen, until you have PROOF of some sort of technology that can be used to destroy hundreds of load-bearing columns without making a sound or any visible light, and you have proof that that tech was used on the buildings, you're just imagining things.

You're belief that looking at the rubble can tell you that it was a demo is wildly inaccurate.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by esdad71

 

The WTC towers 1 & 2 did not land in their footprints, the debris was ejected in a 360d arc.

That point alone debunks 'pancake collapse'.

If debris is being ejected then mass is being lost, post collapse pics show most of the debris was ejected, meaning most of the mass was lost during the collapse. That is in accordance with physics. What is not in accordance with physics is the collapse continuing in spite of the loss of mass, the loss of ke.

I hope you realise that esdad.

WTC 7 did land mostly in its own footprint, evidenced by the outer walls being on top of the rest of the collapsed building, proving it was an 'implosion demolition'.

Different building structures, different methods of collapse. You guys are always getting this confused.

edit on 8/23/2011 by ANOK because: typo

Them ejecting material does not reject the fact it would collapse on top of each other or as you like to generalize and call it a pancake collapse. What It shows is that the two structures, WTC 1/2 and WTC 7 were built and designed completely different. The inside of the WTC started to collapsed and pulled the rest of structure down and was shearing the sides and it collapsed. This is evident in multiple videos and pictures.

Oh, I see. So it can lose mass if it ejects the mass but it cannot increase floor to floor as it does collapse because each time a floor is 'hit' there is a different amount of mass since it is collecting mass. According to not only your physics, this is impossible. You can say something is in accordance with physics but this does not make it true unless you can prove, physically, that something else was used. Also, what would explosives have accomplished since it was going to collapse based on the NIST findings and in accordance with grade school physics. Your contradicting statements are becoming humorous.

So, now, not only do we have demolitions involved but you have decided to state that there were 2 types since your previous arguments did not pan out. It was not two types of demos they were two types of buildings. Two completely different designs and construction. The WTC 1/2 had an outer 'shell' that was used to contain the floors and provide a place to attach and support where as the WTC 7 did not. It was a failure lower in the building also and not higher as in the WTC 1/2.