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

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

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."

Whoa, yet another person who can give advice but wont take it themselves.

The fact of the matter is, if you are to blind and ignorant to say "hmm, something seems fishy" then I just feel bad for you.
If you were to "look at this" from an un-biased perspective, your would come with an open mind and realize.. (prepare yourself.. its a revelation).. that perhaps we DONT know what happened and NEVER will!
I have failed to see where you prove that there was no explosions in the building, nor has anyone proved that there are. But unfortunately for you, there is more evidence on the explosion side then where your coming from. Oh wait, our government told you what happened!

Our government isn't the candy dispensing, rainbow sharing group you think they are.

Knowledge is power.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

And the firemen..?

Unfortunately, a lot of the firemen quotes are mined.

Many of them are talking about what the jumpers sounded like.

It is beyond despicable of whoever is responsible for this quotemining to offer this as proof as explosives.

Fail

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

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

Correct.

Now go educate yourself as to what those truthers have documented.

Then admit that your Python experiment is as bad as the paper loop experiment.

fail

reply to post by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Absolute free fall in nothing but air, for any freely dropped object from the height of the twin towers is just over 10 seconds, factoring in air resistence, 9.2 in a complete vacuum.

Actual destruction time, for both buildings - about 13, 14 seconds.

= a difference of about 3 or 4 seconds.

The North Tower was impacted around the 95th floor, of a 110 story building.

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.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4bb5b32abbe4.gif[/atsimg]

Something vs. nothing

Are you asking us to believe that "stuff falling" caused 94 floors to be crushed in about 3 seconds? One two three.

reply to post by Joey Canoli

It is beyond dispicable to defend the indefensible.

quote mined?

Originally posted by playswithmachines

The demolition expert who spoke of this died suddenly in a car accident..

Yes he did.

And what did he say about the towers again?

Oh yeah, that it definitely was not a CD.

reply to post by Gazmeister
Regardless, only a very tiny part of (2 of the 3) towers was affected by said impacts, which we designed for something very comparable in the first place, and even then did not behave as they should have given their construction, laws of physics, or the assymetrical damage they suffered.

Unless something damaged them equally across their footprint/floorplan, a symmetrical collapse - disregarding all other factors - should not have been the result. You would have had uneven weakening and toppling.

Heck, just look up ANY example of a failed CONTROLLED demolition you want, and you'll see plenty of examples of what kind of results we should have seen with uneven damage up top and more than enough ridiculously strong and intact support remaining below.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

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."...

Uhm perhaps its in my first post to you? But you were to busy in your fantasy world to read that.
Here, so you dont have to click that previous page button (thats difficult as well) Ill give you the source AGAIN.
And yes, I was aware that Janitors cleaned the world trade centers, as was I aware that they store there supplies. What I was not aware of was that these "plethora of chemicals" they seem to posses would create huge explosions, bringing down elevators.

Take a look at this.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Are you asking us to believe that "stuff falling" caused 94 floors to be crushed in about 3 seconds? One two three.

Were the spire columns crushed?

Obviously not.

Were the ext columns crushed?

Obviously not.

Floors weren't "crushed". They were stripped off the columns.

And I think about 5 seconds is more accurate

Originally posted by conar
quote mined?

Are you denying that many firemen quotes are in fact quotemined?

If you were unaware of this, then you haven't done much research.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


No, he said it was ABSOLUTELY a controlled demo, and he died less than 6 months later.......
ETA; Date check

Originally posted by Praetorius

Unless something damaged them equally across their footprint/floorplan, a symmetrical collapse - disregarding all other factors - should not have been the result. You would have had uneven weakening and toppling.

Bare assertion. Zero maths explaining the physics that back your claims.

Fail

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Are you asking us to believe that "stuff falling" caused 94 floors to be crushed in about 3 seconds? One two three.

Were the spire columns crushed?

Obviously not.

Were the ext columns crushed?

Obviously not.

Floors weren't "crushed". They were stripped off the columns.

And I think about 5 seconds is more accurate

And the buildings were not destroyed by mass falling from above. You just pointed out the evidence.

psik

Originally posted by playswithmachines

No, he said it was ABSOLUTELY a controlled demo, and he died less than a month later.......

Flush out your headgear.

What did he say about the towers?

I agree with you about what he said about 7.

But what about the towers?

Do you even know? Or has this response been swept into the dustbin of truther memory since it doesn't support their beliefs?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

And the buildings were not destroyed by mass falling from above. You just pointed out the evidence.

psik

If you agree with my points, then you necessarily agree with the point that your Python program has many flawed starting points.

Fail

Let's not forget...

To provide backup electrical power for emergency situations, five Waukesha V12 diesel generating units, each rated at 1200 kW, were installed during the construction of WTC. Later, a sixth unit was added. The engine generator units were located in sub-basement 6, the lowest level, on the west side of the tower one.
...
Of the six engines, three were declared unsalvageable and immediately scrapped.

www.wehs.net...

Humm, if there were DIESEL engines in the towers there MUST have been DIESEL containers... What could have happened to the DIESEL engine containers that were on FIRE?...


And BTW...

Aegis Ins. Ser., Inc. v. Port Authority of NY & NJ, 09-3603-cv
Before: Miner, Leval, Wesley, C.JJ.Other Decisions

U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
June 22, 2011

Port Authority May Be Held Liable for Installation of Fuel Tanks That Allegedly Contributed to Destruction of 7 World Trade Center...

www.newyorklawjournal.com...

If you do proper research you find a lot of interesting facts.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


No, he's right.
Shear & stress forces induced by taking out one corner of the building would mean that naturally, the building will collapse in that direction, it SHOULD have taken out 6 or 7 city blocks, but it didn't.
Did you know that several TONS of gold, silver, platinum and other rare metals are still unaccounted for?
Hows THAT for a motive.
Oh, yeah, to start a war in the middle east, that was the other one......

Originally posted by ka119
....
Uhm perhaps its in my first post to you? But you were to busy in your fantasy world to read that.
...

Fantasy world... look who is talking...

Just amazing...

reply to post by Joey Canoli
Show me a video or present me with any other example of any building of any sort, anywhere, at any time collapsing into its own footprint otherwise.

Until then, I'll consider my point inarguable as all other examples of unintentional collapse or mishaps during intentional demolition - that I'm aware of - agree with what I'm saying.