Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

reply to post by ReptileRipper


You really think the nose popped out? I mean I know that's what it looked like but there's a pic on the web that shows that side of the tower where it popped out after it popped out - and there is no exit hole.

I know I know - what?! I know, but it's true.

Some say the "nose out" is a bad computer overlay of an incoming fake video plane that by mistake was allowed to extend past the visible edge of the building but I don't think that's what it is.

Over on the flash thread I explain why.


Cheers

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by septic

 

Do you actually think they erected the core and outer skin with no floors.

What is it that prompts people to hear "no floors", where I say "not all the floors"? There's a difference between installing all the trusses but not all the floors as well.

Incidentally, when those planes cut through the buildings without even slowing down; they behaved as if they were cutting through air, rather than encountering multiple concrete floors. Can you point to the aircraft or any floors in the below image? Looks pretty empty to me.

Remember all those surprised comments about the lack of building contents in the debris pile?...no phones, no desks, no computers, no bodies...nothing but dust.

Source

Over on the flash thread I was making the point that not only are there vertical members but there are floors and anything coming in on an angle would be sliced and shredded like a potato in one of those old chip making cutters, the square mesh ones with the handle etc.

Then I come over here and see a big gaping plane shaped hole with not a single plane part! I mean for me it's deja vu all over again because that plane shaped hole has as many 757 parts around and in it as the Pentagon lawn does.

I mean it's bad enough and suspect there's no plane parts visible but now I can't see the floors either! lol

As for the contents, there is one fireman who claimed to find only pieces, most no bigger than a phone keypad, and the "bodies" turned out to be mostly fragments of bone found on the roof of a neighboring building.

Now take your typical earthquake like that one in California where the overpass collapsed flat down on the lower road and literally crushed people in their cars. Now granted it only fell down 20 feet but still the cars weren't melted, people died, bones were probably broken though not made into many fragments and found on top of buildings near by.


Cheers

reply to post by NWOwned


I hear you...it doesn't make any sense unless one stops trying to fit the "official story" into the resulting damage. When thinking critically, it's absurd to consider people, office contents, planes and buildings turned to dust. If anything, it sheds more light on the character of the people who make such claims...not to mention the people who believe such things.

To avoid considering the buildings were empty and stripped in preparation for demolition, people will jump to all kinds of conclusions...pulverization, mini-nukes, space rays, rivers of molten steel, etc.

Check out this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by NWOwned

 

I hear you...it doesn't make any sense unless one stops trying to fit the "official story" into the resulting damage. When thinking critically, it's absurd to consider people, office contents, planes and buildings turned to dust. If anything, it sheds more light on the character of the people who make such claims...not to mention the people who believe such things.

To avoid considering the buildings were empty and stripped in preparation for demolition, people will jump to all kinds of conclusions...pulverization, mini-nukes, space rays, rivers of molten steel, etc.

Check out this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well there is evidence of 911 victim fakery ........... and i watched a video the other night that this dude made on 911 , he was inside the lobby of one of the towers talking to a secret service officer ... he had secret service wrote all over him and said he was the last one down did you see how many people were hanging out the windows ? he said his "rank" or how he is addressed is ....O.S.T ... now i dunno what that means in the "secret" service but looking at abreviations it could mean ... Operations Support Team .. or .. Office Of Security Transition .. or something like that..... which is odd

reply to post by ReptileRipper

Well there is evidence of 911 victim fakery ........... and i watched a video the other night that this dude made on 911 , he was inside the lobby of one of the towers talking to a secret service officer ... he had secret service wrote all over him and said he was the last one down did you see how many people were hanging out the windows ? he said his "rank" or how he is addressed is ....O.S.T ... now i dunno what that means in the "secret" service but looking at abreviations it could mean ... Operations Support Team .. or .. Office Of Security Transition .. or something like that..... which is odd

True enough, in fact there is evidence of fraudulent video and photographs, evidence of collusion between the PANYNJ, NYPD, FDNY, the media, CIA front companies, exaggerated and fraudulent business loss claims, and on, and on, and on...

When you have a couple dozen billion tax dollars in reparations to pay out, there's plenty of incentive for fraud. The perfect plan...stage a terrorist attack on yourself, eliminate a bunch of false ID's (and collect between 3-4 million apiece), and retire in the witness protection plan.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by ReptileRipper

 

Well there is evidence of 911 victim fakery ........... and i watched a video the other night that this dude made on 911 , he was inside the lobby of one of the towers talking to a secret service officer ... he had secret service wrote all over him and said he was the last one down did you see how many people were hanging out the windows ? he said his "rank" or how he is addressed is ....O.S.T ... now i dunno what that means in the "secret" service but looking at abreviations it could mean ... Operations Support Team .. or .. Office Of Security Transition .. or something like that..... which is odd

True enough, in fact there is evidence of fraudulent video and photographs, evidence of collusion between the PANYNJ, NYPD, FDNY, the media, CIA front companies, exaggerated and fraudulent business loss claims, and on, and on, and on...

When you have a couple dozen billion tax dollars in reparations to pay out, there's plenty of incentive for fraud. The perfect plan...stage a terrorist attack on yourself, eliminate a bunch of false ID's (and collect between 3-4 million apiece), and retire in the witness protection plan.

......... here ... take a look at some of these .... theyre obvious, too obvious, ive seen better fakery on youtube and that`s saying something ..... one of them had a message in it saying "Can someone fix this photo , so there is no line running down his face" .............. imaginativeworlds.com... .............. ... hook , line , and stinker

reply to post by ReptileRipper


Congratulations.

By introducing the ridiculous notion of "faked" victims, "faked" or non-existent airplanes, and the like....this thread has been hijacked, and the OP's work subverted away from the original point, and goals.

Job well done, at continuing to destroy the credibility (what little remains) of the so-called "Truth Movement".

At the same time, this sort of nonsense diminishes the value of the actual victims, and their families. It dishonors their memories, and is a disgusting show of hubris and ignorance and disrespect.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ReptileRipper

 

Congratulations.

By introducing the ridiculous notion of "faked" victims, "faked" or non-existent airplanes, and the like....this thread has been hijacked, and the OP's work subverted away from the original point, and goals.

Job well done, at continuing to destroy the credibility (what little remains) of the so-called "Truth Movement".

At the same time, this sort of nonsense diminishes the value of the actual victims, and their families. It dishonors their memories, and is a disgusting show of hubris and ignorance and disrespect.

Actually your wrong ... again .
I brought it up as were ramblig on about different things ............ when have i disrespected the real victims ?
And im contributing to the discussion ..... not posting attacks on other posters , so please , less of the attitude.

reply to post by ANOK


You refuse to except the type and scale of forces generated by the falling mass,answer this do you think the falling mass in the North Tower could cause the floorslab that it landed on to fail YES or NO.

If NO give your reasons WHY!

If yes what do you think would happen when the that floor was imapcted with the falling mass and it failed what would then happen.

Lets see your logic on that!!!!

reply to post by ProudBird


thanks that needed to be said as succinctly as you did. I was building arguments to some of their specific comments but you saved me from getting my hands dirty by dealing with these types. Personally I believe the government ultimately benefited from this event but as far as the towers being brought down with explosives? that's a horse of a different color.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

You refuse to except the type and scale of forces generated by the falling mass,answer this do you think the falling mass in the North Tower could cause the floorslab that it landed on to fail YES or NO.

No I don't, you ignore the mass of the undamaged building. I keep trying to explain to you that the force of the falling mass is not the only thing you have to consider, you also have to consider the mass of the static floors being impacted. I have explained over and over how both the upper, and lower block, have to be considered so your claim about me is bogus.

The type and scale of forces of the falling top mean nothing if you don't consider the mass and forces of what they are falling on, and causing to collapse. You are not taking into account the amount of pressure the connection could take before failure, you don't even know anything about that do you?

Again, what weight could the connections hold, 200 Psf, 400 Psf? Unless you know that you can not claim the top, no matter what force it had, could cause those connection to fail. So, do you know the safety factor of the structural components in order to be able to include that in any calculations?

When are you going to explain the equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation, in context with the collapses? Can you do that, or can you only criticize other people for doing it?

When are you going to explain how, and why, the core collapsed before the floors started?

If NO give your reasons WHY!

Why what? Why you can't understand what I am saying and put it all together?

If yes what do you think would happen when the that floor was imapcted with the falling mass and it failed what would then happen.

IF it failed? You want to base this whole discussion on assumptions that can not be proven. I have already explained what would happen many times. You seem to manage to read enough to claim I am ignoring things, but you can not read enough to know what I have already said about this many many times?

Lets see your logic on that!!!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

You refuse to except the type and scale of forces generated by the falling mass,answer this do you think the falling mass in the North Tower could cause the floorslab that it landed on to fail YES or NO.

If NO give your reasons WHY!

If yes what do you think would happen when the that floor was imapcted with the falling mass and it failed what would then happen.

Lets see your logic on that!!!!

edit on 23-10-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

If anyone considers the upper floors one solid mass they are delusional. You have to determine what each individual piece of steel was also doing at the time of the collapse and that's impossible as far as I know. The upper section didn't land as one smooth object squarely across the lower section it went to pieces as it fell more akin to a shotgun blast shredding the lower section from top down. Still standing sections of the skin and core can be seen swaying and falling after the initial collapse. Anything like a floor slab, falling and hitting them would have been shredded but the remaining columns standing and swaying obviously didn't get crushed by some sort of one solid mass falling on another silly scenario. The sections left standing disprove the "crush down as a solid object" theory.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

You refuse to except the type and scale of forces generated by the falling mass,answer this do you think the falling mass in the North Tower could cause the floorslab that it landed on to fail YES or NO.

No I don't, you ignore the mass of the undamaged building. I keep trying to explain to you that the force of the falling mass is not the only thing you have to consider, you also have to consider the mass of the static floors being impacted. I have explained over and over how both the upper, and lower block, have to be considered so your claim about me is bogus.

The type and scale of forces of the falling top mean nothing if you don't consider the mass and forces of what they are falling on, and causing to collapse. You are not taking into account the amount of pressure the connection could take before failure, you don't even know anything about that do you?

Again, what weight could the connections hold, 200 Psf, 400 Psf? Unless you know that you can not claim the top, no matter what force it had, could cause those connection to fail. So, do you know the safety factor of the structural components in order to be able to include that in any calculations?

When are you going to explain the equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation, in context with the collapses? Can you do that, or can you only criticize other people for doing it?

When are you going to explain how, and why, the core collapsed before the floors started?

If NO give your reasons WHY!

Why what? Why you can't understand what I am saying and put it all together?

If yes what do you think would happen when the that floor was imapcted with the falling mass and it failed what would then happen.

IF it failed? You want to base this whole discussion on assumptions that can not be proven. I have already explained what would happen many times. You seem to manage to read enough to claim I am ignoring things, but you can not read enough to know what I have already said about this many many times?

Lets see your logic on that!!!!

How much of the undamaged mass acted as resistance and how much acted as shredder? What impact did the swaying core/skin columns have on the falling mass? Explain how they are still standing clearly AFTER the upper mass was supposedly resisted by them? If they are still standing that shifts more of the upper mass on a smaller area to crush throwing your ideas out the window like I said at the beginning here.

reply to post by bottleslingguy


In WTC 1 the antenna dropped first , indicating the core was effected before the collapse.
2nd.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

You refuse to except the type and scale of forces generated by the falling mass,answer this do you think the falling mass in the North Tower could cause the floorslab that it landed on to fail YES or NO.

No I don't, you ignore the mass of the undamaged building. I keep trying to explain to you that the force of the falling mass is not the only thing you have to consider, you also have to consider the mass of the static floors being impacted. I have explained over and over how both the upper, and lower block, have to be considered so your claim about me is bogus.

The type and scale of forces of the falling top mean nothing if you don't consider the mass and forces of what they are falling on, and causing to collapse. You are not taking into account the amount of pressure the connection could take before failure, you don't even know anything about that do you?

Again, what weight could the connections hold, 200 Psf, 400 Psf? Unless you know that you can not claim the top, no matter what force it had, could cause those connection to fail. So, do you know the safety factor of the structural components in order to be able to include that in any calculations?

When are you going to explain the equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation, in context with the collapses? Can you do that, or can you only criticize other people for doing it?

When are you going to explain how, and why, the core collapsed before the floors started?

If you use a bit of common sense, you do not need to know any load capacity or safety factor. The floor connections were designed to hold 1 floor + some load + some safety. Its just silly to claim that those floor connections could also hold at least 12 floors + load from 12 floors + hat truss + antenna + etc.

Why what? Why you can't understand what I am saying and put it all together?

One question is how can the connections of a single floor hold the mass of at least 12 floors + load from 12 floors + hat truss + antenna + etc. Notice I haven't even spoken about dynamic load. We all know we will never see an explanation that makes sense from a truther for this

IF it failed? You want to base this whole discussion on assumptions that can not be proven. I have already explained what would happen many times. You seem to manage to read enough to claim I am ignoring things, but you can not read enough to know what I have already said about this many many times?

So according to you, it is impossible to prove that the weight of at least 12 floors + load from 12 floors + hat truss + antenna + etc. can not be held by the connections of a single floor? And you think it is impossible to determine the dynamic load?

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

In WTC 1 the antenna dropped first , indicating the core was effected before the collapse.
2nd.

Actually the South wall of WTC1 failed first. This transmitted its load to the core which failed next and the top of the building tilted towards the South. When viewed from the North this gives the illusion that the core failed first.

Sorry Truther but you are wrong again.

reply to post by ReptileRipper

In WTC 1 the antenna dropped first , indicating the core was effected before the collapse.

Agreed, if an oversimplification. Over-simplifying is sometimes necessary on describing what is a cascade effect, base on the thousands of individual components that must be considered, and the interactions they underwent.

To re-iterate, as others have pointed out (the example of a "shot gun" blast, and the inherent unpredictability of assigning a trajectory to each and every one of the shot pellets, in that analogy, was illustrative of the problem of complexity involved in the Towers' collapse).

reply to post by waypastvne


ho ho ho .... even if it failed last ......WHY DID IT FAIL brainiac ?

i suggest you all take a good look at the blueprints, youd be surprised to find just how strong the towers were.

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by waypastvne

 

ho ho ho .... even if it failed last ......WHY DID IT FAIL brainiac ?

i suggest you all take a good look at the blueprints, youd be surprised to find just how strong the towers were.

I have looked at how the towers were built and they were exactly this strong:


This is the part of your blueprints you should be looking at Truther.

reply to post by waypastvne


dude , dont waste my time
2nd