Why a “controlled demolition”

reply to post by WeRpeons

All three buildings fell into there own foot print, including building 7.

Thats a lie........

All the buildings around badly damaged

Marriott Hotel was crushed, first by South Tower than the North






Deutsche Bank (across street from South Tower) had side facing it slashed open




WTC 7 had south side facing North Tower ripped open for 20 stories

World Financial Center 3 had debris lodged in face

90 West St was set on fire by debris from South Tower - burned for 2 days

WTC 7 collapsed on 30 West Broadway across a highway from it






Maybe should read this - Study of damage suffered by the buildings around WTC

mceer.buffalo.edu...

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by WeRpeons

 

All three buildings fell into there own foot print, including building 7.

Thats a lie........

You're using cheap semantics to make accusations of intellectual dishonesty.... which exposes your own intellectual dishonesty.

All three buildings did indeed "fall into their own footprint" according to the industry standards. There is always debris that falls outside the actual footprint and there is sometimes collateral damage. When is the last time 110-story skyscrapers more than 1,400 feet tall were demolished? Never? Well then you have nothing to compare these demolitions to. Considering their sheer size, these CD's were quite impressive. There was clearly a different type of technology used on the main towers because of this.... they exploded and disintegrated from the top down like a fuse on a stick of dynamite....at very near free fall speed.

But as a natural collapse from fire? With only a few floors burning and ready to go out from oxygen starvation? Preposterous and absurd, just like every aspect of the OS.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by WeRpeons

 

All three buildings fell into there own foot print, including building 7.

Thats a lie........

All the buildings around badly damaged

Marriott Hotel was crushed, first by South Tower than the North






Deutsche Bank (across street from South Tower) had side facing it slashed open




WTC 7 had south side facing North Tower ripped open for 20 stories

World Financial Center 3 had debris lodged in face

90 West St was set on fire by debris from South Tower - burned for 2 days

WTC 7 collapsed on 30 West Broadway across a highway from it






Maybe should read this - Study of damage suffered by the buildings around WTC

mceer.buffalo.edu...

I don't think you know what "falling on its own footprint" means.

Did Marriott Hotel have total structual failure?

Did Deutsche Bank have total structural failure?

Did WFC3 have total structural failure?

Did 90west have total structural failure?

Note: I am assuming you know what "structural failure means"

There was no 20 story ripped hole by twin tower's debris. Key words "by twin tower's debris" . And the picture could have easily been photo shopped.


Weak OSer,,very weak.

Please excuse my last post. I totally misunderstood "thedman's" argument. My fault.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
. The air obviously escaped or evaporated(or contributed) once the gases of the explosion commenced(expanded); pick your assumption. And your point is what? You think that AIR in a plane became some solid dense object? Or enhanced the explosion?Let's say the plane was filled to the brim with petrol or better yet solid steel. Yes,There would have more damage on the top(catastrophic damage). And ?,,so what! You actually think I will assume the OS to be the truth(ever?,,,the pancake theory that is). If you want to really damage a building ,impact the lower floors not the top or install hundreds of charges.

You seem to have lost the plot.

We are talking about a passport.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
. The air obviously escaped or evaporated(or contributed) once the gases of the explosion commenced(expanded); pick your assumption. And your point is what? You think that AIR in a plane became some solid dense object? Or enhanced the explosion?Let's say the plane was filled to the brim with petrol or better yet solid steel. Yes,There would have more damage on the top(catastrophic damage). And ?,,so what! You actually think I will assume the OS to be the truth(ever?,,,the pancake theory that is). If you want to really damage a building ,impact the lower floors not the top or install hundreds of charges.

You seem to have lost the plot.

We are talking about a passport.

I haven't lost the plot . YOU ASKED ME A QUESTION BASED ON MY SIGNATURE!!.

HERE IT IS: "You still have never specified how big and how hard something has to be in order to destroy the towers. Your signature should include that. Would John Holmes be capable of destroying the towers ? "

Which I answered. I think you have a bit of Dementia.

reply to post by thedman


We're talking about the actual collapse not collateral damage. If you want to believe the OS story you can. The videos I've seen clearly show the foundation of all three buildings were compromised. No steel structure can collapse at free fall without the foundation being compromised. These building were hit by planes well above their foundations. Building 7 was on fire, which doesn't compromise a foundation. All three buildings were on fire, which again the fire wasn't hot enough to compromise the foundation nor weaken the concrete that the steel was set in.

I think I've had enough understanding of foundations and structures since I do teach mechanical, architectural and steel structures in CAD. I don't claim to be an architect, but I've taken courses on statics, and strength of material including metallurgy. So from my stand point and from what I've seen, it's really improbable for these buildings to fall the way they did. A pancake collapse would meet with some resistance from the bottom floors, because those support beams were not compromised. Add into the concrete elevator shaft, a good portions of that should have been left standing.

That's my opinion, you have yours. I'm not here to debate this thing, it's been debated on this site to death. We have structural engineers, physics professors, architects and pilots, who disagree with the collapse and the ability to control airplanes at that altitude.

With all the questions surrounding 911, don't you think our government deserves to give the public an unbiased
review of the collapse of these buildings. It's the most devastating attack on America's soil but the books on the investigation have been closed and questions are being ignored. The debris was quickly hauled away and melted down. There is no criminal case in history that would destroy evidence that quickly. Enough said.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

I haven't lost the plot . YOU ASKED ME A QUESTION BASED ON MY SIGNATURE!!.

No you have definatly lost the plot. you responded to a post dealing with the passport. Try and keep up.

Back to your signature.

signature:


2 ALUMINUM JETLINERS WEIGHING 392TONS(fuel included) CANNOT PULVERIZE 3 STEEL/CONCRETE TOWERS WEIGHING 1 200 000TONS...swallow that OSers

The 3 steel/concrete towers weighing 1,200,000 tons were pulverised because 3 steel/concrete towers weighing 1,200,000 tons fell on them. In other words they were destroyed by their own mass. The aircraft only started the chain reaction.


Now all you have to do is prove something weighing 1,200,000 Tons can not destroy something weighing 1'200,000 tons.

Good luck.

reply to post by WeRpeons


Seem to have problems with reading comprehension

You understand what "in its own footprint" means ......

It means the debris from the building collapse remains within the confines of the building area

WTC towers were 209 ft per side

Yet debris from North tower slashed open WTC 7 which was over 300 ft north of it

It also hit World Finance Center 3 which is over 400 ft

Thats some footprint.......

Marriott Hotel was completely crushed - guess the debris did not understand was not supposed to land on it

Same thing with Deutsche Bank (130 Liberty) and 90 West which were hit by the debris from South Tower

Also said that the concrete elevator would resist the collapse

If had done any research would have found the stairways and elevator shafts were lined with sheet rock

One of the reasons towers collapsed as they did - lightweight construction allowed aircraft to penetrate deep
inside and damge core columns/stairways/elevators

A T T E N T I O N

I think we ALL may have gone astray from the plot. Remember the topic? "Why a 'controlled demolition?"

That is the topic. Going forward from here, please keep your post on topic and not about each other.

Thank you.

reply to post by thedman


What case are you trying to make? How come the last sotries of a building that had 2 skyscrapers falling on it, are still standing and a building which took damage from some debries and fieres collapsed down to its last floor? Yeah the pictures are not helping your case.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

I haven't lost the plot . YOU ASKED ME A QUESTION BASED ON MY SIGNATURE!!.

No you have definatly lost the plot. you responded to a post dealing with the passport. Try and keep up.

Back to your signature.

signature:


2 ALUMINUM JETLINERS WEIGHING 392TONS(fuel included) CANNOT PULVERIZE 3 STEEL/CONCRETE TOWERS WEIGHING 1 200 000TONS...swallow that OSers

The 3 steel/concrete towers weighing 1,200,000 tons were pulverised because 3 steel/concrete towers weighing 1,200,000 tons fell on them. In other words they were destroyed by their own mass. The aircraft only started the chain reaction.


Now all you have to do is prove something weighing 1,200,000 Tons can not destroy something weighing 1'200,000 tons.

Good luck.

edit on 21-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

We are going in circles here buddy. I don't care about the passport issue,,,only the Demo-Topic. YOU question my signature and I responded.

As for the post for "thedman"? I clearly made a mistake and I excused my post with another post. Look for yourself.

I responded only to you questioning my signature!

And currently you are digging deeper to discredit my signature by inserting the OS at a fact(you are speculating). First you asked me "how heavy and big something has to be to destroy the weight of the 3 towers". Why you would ask that is beyond me. But I clearly explained the logical possibilities for total destruction of the twin towers. Keep in mind, the OS is not one of the logical possibilities.


And now you twist it further asking redundant questions to prove if two of the same-weight-objects can cancel each other out. Why would you ask that? Please explain

Keep in mind months(many threads) ago I dared you to debunk my signature and your rebuttal is always a question.


-There is no proof that the "pancake theory" is a fact. That rules out the fire. So,A small object made of weaker material cannot cause structural damage,especially when the impacted zone is on the upper floors of a structure roughly weighing 500,000tons. While the small flying structure only weighs 196tons. I am just using the figures of one plane and of one tower. Basically you believe the pancake theory can be easily demonstrated when a plane with fuel weighing 196tons impacts the upper floors of skyscraper weighing 500,000tons. And the plane is made from aluminum and the skyscraper is made from steel and concrete.


You see how stupid you look?


All of you


Note to the MODs: the OSers are the ones derailing everyone's posts.