"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

Originally posted by ka119

WHY WERENT THEY HEARD?!
Oh wait.. they were.
Jesus christ, do some research.

I have done more than enough research regarding this issue...

And again PROVE that "hearing explosions" = to explosives...

Do you not understand that buildings of 110 or so floors have several janitor closets which have chemicals that would cause small explosions?...

Not to mention the backup generators would need gas/fuel which would have been in large containers?...

What do you think would happen to all of these? just dissapear silently?...

Originally posted by Drezden
If you dropped a quarter from the top of the WTC as it began to collapse.. the quarter and building would hit the ground within seconds of each other (single digit seconds). That defies the laws of physics. Even if the pancaking explanation were true.. it would not account for out absurdly fast the tower fell without being slowed by the tons and tons of steel framing below. The tower fell straight down which is the path of most resistance, yet it fell at nearly free fall speed.

Yet another moment of incredulity and bare assertion not backed by any maths at all.

Fail

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I am aware of femr and Major Tom but do not pretend I read most of the stuff they write.
psik

Have you read their documentation about ROOSD?

Cuz that reality pretty much destroys your Python probram's assumptions such as crushing and accelerating core and ext columns.

As does the visual evidence of the spires.

Only a maroon would include them...

You can CLAIM it destroys whatever you want. I am sick of memorizing acronyms.

The OOS is open office space I think but that is just another way of saying tube-in-tube. I don't try to remember what the rest stands for.

psik

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by JordanTwoDelta


I understand that. But before you said it was not visible due to clouds of dust. Which means if WE can't see it... you can't see it either - that is my point. Your argument could work both ways.

But you can hear the rest of the debris still collapsing and hit the ground.

edit on 27-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

What if it was an echo? What if it was a lie? What if it was the smoke monster? What if it was reverb from an alternate universe where the towers did collapse in more than 10 seconds? What if it was a mission of monkeys making all that racket behind the smoke?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
...
The precise number of seconds is an unimportant issue. How did most of it come down in less than 18 and all of it in less than 30 when it had to be strong enough to support all of that mass for 28 years? But then we have EXPERTS that don't want exact data on the distributions of steel and concrete.
...

Wow, so the time it took for the towers to collapse doesn't really matter but it still proves your point?...

BTW, the towers were standing for 28+- years BECAUSE IT WASN'T HIT BEFORE THAT TIME BY A PASSENGER PLANE AND WAS THEN ON FIRE... (btw, not yelling, but pointing out something which should be obvious...)

Originally posted by TheMatrixusesYou

There's no need to prove towers 1 and 2 if #7 is stinking. 7 came down with controlled demolition.

Another non sequiter and dodge.

What if the towers fell from the impacts and fire as NIST says, but 7 was in fact "blown" ?

Thisis why each case must be treated separately.

Fail

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

All I know is they went from top to bottom to within a mere few seconds of absolute free fall from the same height in nothing but air. Absent explosives, this violates the three laws of motion.

Yet another bare assertion, absent of any and all maths that might lend any credibility to your belief.

Fail

S&F Mate!
I know, there's lots of these threads, but in essence, you are right.
I am not a structual engineer or an architecht, i am a machine/electrical engineer, but i also have some 35 years experience in metal.
It takes LOTS of energy, FOR A LONG TIME to melt steel.
Even at 800 degrees C it is still quite strong, and a fire is mobile, it moves around, it would not have been in any one place long enough to melt steel.
I also have some experience with explosives, what i see & hear are explosives.
The demolition expert who spoke of this died suddenly in a car accident..
'Nuff said......

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
...
The precise number of seconds is an unimportant issue. How did most of it come down in less than 18 and all of it in less than 30 when it had to be strong enough to support all of that mass for 28 years? But then we have EXPERTS that don't want exact data on the distributions of steel and concrete.
...

Wow, so the time it took for the towers to collapse doesn't really matter but it still proves your point?...

BTW, the towers were standing for 28+- years BECAUSE IT WASN'T HIT BEFORE THAT TIME BY A PASSENGER PLANE AND WAS THEN ON FIRE... (btw, not yelling, but pointing out something which should be obvious...)

Lol...EXACTLY what I was thinking when I read that. But I was yelling it.

Originally posted by Dezero

Give up the ghost already. What are you doing here bro? What the hell are you doing here? How many bloody times do people need to go over the same old crap again and again.

If you have no answer then just say so.

fail

Originally posted by JordanTwoDelta

What if it was an echo? What if it was a lie? What if it was the smoke monster? What if it was reverb from an alternate universe where the towers did collapse in more than 10 seconds? What if it was a mission of monkeys making all that racket behind the smoke?

Good one, that one should be added to the "aliens hit the tower with some laser type weapon" or "silent mini-nukes" were use type of claims.

BTW, if there were echoes don't you think the echoes of the explosions from when the planes hit would have been heard as well?

we have explosions way below the "collapse line".



way, way, below "collapse line"

but the smoking gun is the symmetric way the 3 buildings collapsed. The damage was not 100% evenly distributed.

ok, smoking gun is building 7. It was not hit by a plane.

hmm no, smoking gun is that NIST admitted 2 seconds of freefall.

hmm no, the smoking gun must be.... etc etc etc 1000000 smoking guns

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Do you not understand that buildings of 110 or so floors have several janitor closets which have chemicals that would cause small explosions?...

Not to mention the backup generators would need gas/fuel which would have been in large containers?...

What do you think would happen to all of these? just dissapear silently?...

You are so right! I totally forgot that some chemicals kept in the janitors closet causes massive explosions heard over the demise and collapse of a 4,300,000 sq. ft building!

Since you are incapable to read the link i provided, ill provide a couple snippets.

As they were making there way up the floors, Firefighter Schroeder heard a huge explosion. “The elevators just blew right out. We couldn’t believe it. The plane hits 80 floors up but the elevators explode at least five minutes later?"

"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions." [Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]

'Just before the collapses, a series of deep, below ground explosions, then numerous explosions in the buildings upper floors ...We felt the same deep explosions before the second collapse."

Oh right, janitors closet chemicals. I forgot.

Try again.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Are we to believe that the top portion CRUSHED the remaining structure, in about 3 or 4 seconds, since that is the only alloted time within which all the breakage and crushing could have occured.

Nope.

You should believe in reality : falling stuff fell on the floors, and they broke loose.

Columns were not crushed. This is proven by the "spires" and visually checking for crushing of ext columns, and verifying that there's zero evidence of this.

Fail

Originally posted by JordanTwoDelta

Lol...EXACTLY what I was thinking when I read that. But I was yelling it.

People should really think over what they are going to write BEFORE they write it.

IF you TAKE YOUR TIME you can find most answers yourself if you TRY to look at it in a non-biased perspective.

Most members who still believe in the 9/11 conspiracy about "controlled demolition" can't think past their bias that "IT MUST have been a controlled demolition."

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by JordanTwoDelta

What if it was an echo? What if it was a lie? What if it was the smoke monster? What if it was reverb from an alternate universe where the towers did collapse in more than 10 seconds? What if it was a mission of monkeys making all that racket behind the smoke?

Good one, that one should be added to the "aliens hit the tower with some laser type weapon" or "silent mini-nukes" were use type of claims.

BTW, if there were echoes don't you think the echoes of the explosions from when the planes hit would have been heard as well?

You don't think any were? People woke up all over town from the sound of the first plane.

Originally posted by ka119
...

'Just before the collapses, a series of deep, below ground explosions, then numerous explosions in the buildings upper floors ...We felt the same deep explosions before the second collapse."

Oh right, janitors closet chemicals. I forgot.

Try again.

Can you actually show the SOURCES for these claims...

And yes, in case you didn't know... Janitors HAVE to clean even skyscrappers, and they HAVE janitor closets...

Unless you now want to claim "all these chemicals that you can find in janitor closets just dissapeared into a black hole."...

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Recently it seems to me that 9/11 Conspiracists have retreated to a point where they discuss only the "physics" of the collapse of the WTC towers. They brush aside the discussion of a grander conspiracy because the mechanics of the tower collapse are inherently suspisous. Any other argument is trumped by the fact that the towers cannot - simply cannot - have collapsed in the manner that they did.

So I would like to hear, in brief precis, why the collapse is impossible. Describe to me why, in simple terms, it cannot have happened without explosives.

Here dude read this then get back with me tell me what your argument is against it.
DEBUNK THIS


-Alien

Originally posted by sailiraq

If you measure the amount of time it took each brick to fall and the subtract and divide by a thousand (or a million, or the number of eggs the brick had to pass through) you'd have your answer.

That's correct. With some complex maths, one could figure out how much resistance the eggs SHOULD give, and then compare it how much they DID give.

Truthers never go that far.

Fail

Redundant thread. This ground has been covered in countless threads. Looks like a blatant attempt to waste time to me. I'm going to try and make this my last response to such threads. I suggest anyone opposed to the OS do likewise. Why gratify them? Keep researching annd keep questioning and let vaccuous threads be filled with tumbleweed and chirping crickets.

Don't take the bait.