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

Originally posted by conar
how can debris from the WTC towers scoop out 25% of WTC 7, located 350 feet from the WTC towers?
These youtube debunkers speculate more than the truthers, they present theories that is not seen in the official reports, wtf.......
youtube debunkers make up theories behind their computers, lol

Wow...well perhaps if you actually CHECKED before you CLAIMED people are making things up you wouldn't look like you just swallowed both your feet?...

"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately ten stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out," Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology"

www.alternet.org...

www.debunking911.com...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Please provide a photo of the so called damage to WTC 7 before it collapsed.

You claim that debris from the towers "scooped out" 25% of the building. Please provide some evidence to back up this claim.

I actually did better... I provided a link to a website which has several photos of what could be seen of the damage to WTC7, as well as the report that 25% of the tower was scooped out by the falling debris...

www.debunking911.com...

pseudo-science ElectricUniverse
en.wikipedia.org...

these theories, like 25% scooped out in WTC 7, are not in the NIST report, or the FEMA report, or the 911 comission report.
Why do you believe these pseudo-science websites theories without documentation?

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by JPhish

...
A plane is not a projectile weapon. Comparing it to a bullet is utterly retarded. The parts of the plane with the most penetrating potential are the engines and they are on the wings. The fuselage would have crumbled like an accordion the moment it impacted the steel structure of the building. The wings themselves would have sheered off. The only thing that would have been able to penetrate the buildings effectively are the engines.

These are facts, that are relevant.

Try it.

Not really...

Scientists actually made a simulation of the damage more or less the planes would have done to each tower

Here it is again.

And btw, did you forget the videos of that day where we can actually see at least part of the holes made by the planes?



The entire "simulation video" is a fallacy of presumption.

Basically it is saying . . .

The plane crashes into the building and does this type of damage in the simulation, because the plane crashed into the building and did this type of damage. The plane crashed into the building and did this type of damage, because the plane crashes into the building and does this type of damage in the simulation.

A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true.

Classic circular reasoning.

The holes were likely made by some type of explosion, not a plane. Even in the videos it is clear the the CGI planes did not create the holes, they only appear AFTER the explosion. Watch the videos yourself if you don't believe me.

The only place that day where they conclusively used a plane for the black op was at the pentagon. Even then, it didn't crash into the pentagon, it flew over it.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

You claim that debris from the towers "scooped out" 25% of the building. Please provide some evidence to back up this claim.
I actually did better... I provided a link to a website which has several photos of what could be seen of the damage to WTC7, as well as the report that 25% of the tower was scooped out by the falling debris...

www.debunking911.com...

Nothing but smoke and shadows, the fact is the website didn’t prove anything only speculation and opinions nothing more.

reply to post by impressme


hi impressme, i've been away for awhile, nice to see you're still on here.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Well, while my head is quite hard the ratio of brick weight to cranial resistance is not indicative of collapsing tower weight to undamaged lower floor resistance.

I am not claiming they were in complete free fall. That would be impossible, because there was in fact, undamaged levels below the collapse sight. I am claiming that the falling floors would be deviated from the path that they in fact fell in.

In order for the building to fall into it's footprint, there would have to be little to no resistance from the undamaged floors beneath the collapse start point.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

Please provide a photo of the so called damage to WTC 7 before it collapsed

There is no such photo. However there is make believe photos that show no gash but plenty of smoke and shadows. There is no evidence.

Don't show these goons the photos. They can find then by searching Google images. I just found some myself. The corner if the building is severely damaged to the point where the whole side is tilting. Good night!

Originally posted by impressme
If anyone wants to learn the truth about the demolition of the WTC can read all the scientific technical papers written by experts on the topic.
www.ae911truth.org...

I went to your link. I did not find any "scientific technical papers written by experts on the topic". Can you tell me where they are located on the page. The "Ban DMHO" group has more scientific technical papers on the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide than Gage has for Controlled Demolition.

For those who don't know Dihydrogen Monoxide Is the major chemical component found in Chemtrails.

Originally posted by conar

pseudo-science ElectricUniverse
en.wikipedia.org...

these theories, like 25% scooped out in WTC 7, are not in the NIST report, or the FEMA report, or the 911 comission report.
Why do you believe these pseudo-science websites theories without documentation?

edit on 28-9-2011 by conar because: (no reason given)

Did you even take a look at the website?... Of course not.. BTW, you shouldn't be quoting wikipedia on this topic...because like other topics such as Global Warming wikipedia is VERY BIASED and has been found to edit information, and post false information...

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by impressme
If anyone wants to learn the truth about the demolition of the WTC can read all the scientific technical papers written by experts on the topic.
www.ae911truth.org...

I went to your link. I did not find any "scientific technical papers written by experts on the topic". Can you tell me where they are located on the page. The "Ban DMHO" group has more scientific technical papers on the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide than Gage has for Controlled Demolition.

For those who don't know Dihydrogen Monoxide Is the major chemical component found in Chemtrails.

The pope is an expert on Catholicism, he must be right about Christianity.

right???

Oh riiight . . . being an expert means absolutely nothing, especially when there is a conflict of interest.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by conar
how can debris from the WTC towers scoop out 25% of WTC 7, located 350 feet from the WTC towers?
These youtube debunkers speculate more than the truthers, they present theories that is not seen in the official reports, wtf.......
youtube debunkers make up theories behind their computers, lol

Wow...well perhaps if you actually CHECKED before you CLAIMED people are making things up you wouldn't look like you just swallowed both your feet?...

"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately ten stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out," Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology"

www.alternet.org...

www.debunking911.com...

edit on 28-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

NIST actually said the damage from the debris had no impact on the collapse, the building would have tipped in the direction of the damage in the SW corner.

www.nist.gov...

Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?

The debris caused structural damage to the southwest region of the building-severing seven exterior columns-but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.
Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?

Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.

fire, and fire alone brought WTC 7 down.

reply to post by esteay812


No, as each floor fell, they became like a grinder and quickly turned to dust and rubble on the way down. As the building collapsed, the floor, hitting the floor below it, likely turned to rubble because it stoped suddenly for a fraction of a second etc... When I was a kid, I used to throw dried clay into the air and watch it smack the ground. When it did, it did the same thing.

reply to post by JPhish


So if you are ignoring experts, what exactly are you basing your opinion on?

reply to post by esteay812


Apparently they're three out of three if I'm to believe the story? lol.

I believe that three buildings could have pancaked or toppled over from two airplanes and extreme fires.

I however, do not believe, that TWO planes can cause THREE buildings such catastrophic structural failure that every single point of the three structures fail instantaneously THREE times in one day causing collapses and not pancakes. And the two are very different scenarios. They just look similar.

Now, I'm not the person to ask really, but that's just my view.

And the media is telling us, if you pay attention to their code words, that they know it didn't pancake. So, take that for what it's worth.

Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

Well, while my head is quite hard the ratio of brick weight to cranial resistance is not indicative of collapsing tower weight to undamaged lower floor resistance.

The ratio I provided is very similar to that of the towers and the weight that collapsed to the floors below. The towers had thousands of tons of debris from the point of impact fall upon the floor below, and the one below, into a pankake effect.

Originally posted by esteay812
I am not claiming they were in complete free fall. That would be impossible, because there was in fact, undamaged levels below the collapse sight. I am claiming that the falling floors would be deviated from the path that they in fact fell in.

In order for the building to fall into it's footprint, there would have to be little to no resistance from the undamaged floors beneath the collapse start point.

That's not so, first the amount of debris falling on the floors below was much greater than any resistance provided by each of the floors below. Second, the towers were made to SWAY with the wind, they were not rigid, which once the collapse started would have facilitated the collapse straight down, and btw, it wasn't exactly straight down.

I find it telling that some members claim "the towers couldn't have collapsed on its own footprint", and then others say "it is not possible for so much debris to have fallen so far away from the towers"...

Which is which?...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

You and the investigator of your OS report are extremely exaggerating the amount of damage to wtc 7 before it's collapse.

Here is a map of the WTC complex


Here is a picture of the damage to WTC 7


If this damage was as severe as you claim it was. The building would not have fallen in the manner it did. It would have collapsed at the corner first which would tilt the building before collapse.

The building fell straight down. There was no lean as the building fell. The only thing the quote you provided proves is that there are people involved in the investigation that are actually part of the cover-up.

www.nist.gov...
Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.

even without the structural damage. So put your 25% scoop somewhere the sun dont shine.

reply to post by malachi777

Don't show these goons the photos. They can find then by searching Google images. I just found some myself. The corner if the building is severely damaged to the point where the whole side is tilting. Good night!

If you had the proof you would have posted it, you see what you want to see.
The fact is there is no clear or close up photo of this alleged damage on WTC 7.
Funny how there is a close up photo on the Bank building across the street from WTC 1&2 that had a 5 or 6 story gash in it, yet it never fell.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


*Why couldn't it fall nearly straight down? The top of WTC 1 began falling at an angle until the rest of the building began to give way below it by the sudden jolt of the break.

Let's examine WTC 3.

The building was much closer to both towersthat collapsed than WTC 7 was. It was crushed by debris from both towers.

9-11 Investigation Research WTC 3

WTC 3 was also known as the World Trade Center Hotel, the New York Marriott Hotel, and the Vista Hotel. It was almost completely destroyed in the 9/11/01 attack. Like all of the World Trade Center buildings, it was a steel-framed building. It had 22 stories above grade and six stories below grade. It stood immediately south of the North Tower and west of the South Tower.


Rubble from the South Tower rains on WTC 3. See photographs.
Evacuation

Evacuation of WTC 3 began shortly after the 8:46 jetliner collision with the North Tower, which apparently ignited fires on the hotel's roof. Building occupants were first directed to the hotel lobby, then instructed to evacuate the building. According to FEMA's Report, all of the guests were evacuated but two members of the hotel management team who had re-entered the building to check for occupants were killed when the South Tower collapsed.

Damage

WTC 3 was first partially crushed by the steel skeleton fragments from the South Tower and then further crushed by those from the North Tower. In each case the rubble, falling from as much as 1300 feet, collapsed regions spanning several floors but was arrested by the building's steel structure. This behavior contrasts with the officially accepted story that progressive collapse entirely destroyed each Tower.

Fires

There is not much evidence of fires in WTC 3. That contrasts with WTC 4, 5, and 6, each of which had severe fires.

Destruction

The remainder of WTC 3 was demolished and removed as part of the clean-up of Ground Zero.

This building received much more damage than that of WTC 7. Yet the steel reinforced structure did not collapse.