You Can’t Handle the 9/11 Truth

reply to post by maxella1


Yeah and on WTC 7 the demolition is from the foundation -- so you can see as the sides collapse they remain completely intact because the destruction is happening at the foundation.

reply to post by maxella1


Or how about this

Delft (Netherlands) School of Technology, May 2008.

Wing of the School of Architecture collapse do to fire

The fire weakened the building supports causing a collapse

www.liveleak.com...

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by maxella1

 

Or how about this

Delft (Netherlands) School of Technology, May 2008.

Wing of the School of Architecture collapse do to fire

The fire weakened the building supports causing a collapse

www.liveleak.com...

Very cool video but what are you trying to say?
Are you saying this building suffered a total collapse like the WTC 7?

reply to post by maxella1

The FOA Building was a reinforced concrete structure that used mild (non-prestressed) steel reinforcement.

pdf analyzing the collapse of the Delft School of Architecture

So it's not a steel frame building.

reply to post by thedman


Since you're a firemen I will assume that you worked a structure collapse before, and you should know that the ONLY way a building come down like WTC 7 is if something weakens the support on the same level and across the entire length and width of the building at the same time... This did not happen to WTC 7 due to fire and/or damage from fallen debris. We can see a perfectly intact three sides suddenly collapsing symmetrically.

That is impossible.
Your video proves it. And my video proves that not all controlled demolitions start at the bottom and not all controlled demolitions must have visible and audible BOOMS.

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
reply to post by maxella1

 

The FOA Building was a reinforced concrete structure that used mild (non-prestressed) steel reinforcement.

pdf analyzing the collapse of the Delft School of Architecture

So it's not a steel frame building.

I know but it doesn't even matter because even if one corner of the building is intact it will not collapse at the same rate as the rest of the damaged building. It can eventually collapse piece by piece but not like WTC did.

reply to post by thedman


I see you still haven't learned that a partial collapse is not the same as a complete collapse into it's own footprint.



Or the difference between a building on fire and one that has been completely engulfed and burned out. Notice the only section to collapse was the burned out section? WTC7 was nowhere near that damaged.

reply to post by ANOK

I see you still haven't learned that a partial collapse is not the same as a complete collapse into it's own footprint.

yep we're still talking about the same thing. I don't even know why I bother anymore...

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by thedman

 

I see you still haven't learned that a partial collapse is not the same as a complete collapse into it's own footprint.



Or the difference between a building on fire and one that has been completely engulfed and burned out. Notice the only section to collapse was the burned out section? WTC7 was nowhere near that damaged.

How easy is it for a building that tall to only partially collapse? I'm genuinely interested in how you are working this out, because I can't see how the weight falling from above could possibly leave the bottom intact. Keep in mind that you can only ever see about half the building in any video. Dust covers it during its collapse or only about twenty stories are above the other buildings in the way.

reply to post by Varemia

How easy is it for a building that tall to only partially collapse?

Very easy if it's partially damaged.

I can't see how the weight falling from above could possibly leave the bottom intact.

Okay... Can you see the entire north side of the building which wasn't damaged at all left intact? Or at least some of it left standing for at least a little while before falling apart?

South side WTC 7


North side WTC 7


Then something happened to the north side on multiple floors in a straight line and at the same second...



Asymmetrical structural damage cause asymmetrical structural collapse. Not hard to understand.

reply to post by maxella1


Sometimes, beating your head against a brick wall until it learn calculus does more to harm you than it does to help the brick wall. See what I'm saying?

Everyone was griping about the 9/11 forums being closed because THE DISCUSSIONS NEVER GO ANYWHERE!!!! Look at the last 5 pages and show me where anyone backed down. There's so much ego and irritation, it's hard to turn sideways without stepping on ten peoples' toes. It's absolutely ridiculous.

I'm next to giving up on the whole thing. No one can have a civilized conversation anymore, because it's so easy to forget your monitor has a dozen people hidden behind it, talking to you, who have feelings just like you do.

Forget it. I quit. This is just...it's useless. There's no purpose to this forum. If we could have an intelligent conversation without getting stuck in circles because people have too big of an ego to admit they might be wrong, or perhaps because we're too busy blaming each other for being the student of a lesser teacher (not my fault if you're too thick to get it - try thinking once in a while) this is more of monkeys-in-suits rant section than it is an intelligent discussion forum.

Get your heads out of your rectal cavities and learn when to back down. Can we move this discussion forward, please? Since this building collapse thing CLEARLY isn't going anywhere. We're trying to find answers, not more reasons to pick at one another. This is no longer the 3rd grade.

Baboons, baboons everywhere...hitting each other with sticks and screaming to prove they're louder. Doesn't matter they're not saying anything, screaming is enough, apparently...No wonder we have no answers yet. I'm not here to give information, I'm here to learn because I don't know enough to say anything except I'm suspicious of the whole deal. See how easy it is to say, "I don't know?"

I'm tired of the egos. I will never look at the mods the same way again...they're appointed with this duty, and they have to deal with it EVERY DAY. My hats off to those guys.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


If we cannot agree on how the building collapsed, then how will we ever agree on anything? Beating the horse by continuously explaining how we see it will help us at least understand each-other's thoughts, so that we can try to explain it in new ways.

Maybe eventually we'll come to an understanding, but right now we are both making logic jumps somewhere.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Sometimes, beating your head against a brick wall until it learn calculus does more to harm you than it does to help the brick wall. See what I'm saying?

It does no harm to me, I got thick skull...

I'm next to giving up on the whole thing. No one can have a civilized conversation anymore, because it's so easy to forget your monitor has a dozen people hidden behind it, talking to you, who have feelings just like you do.

Did I hurt your feelings? If I did I'm sorry I didn't mean to.

What civilized conversation can we have if people don't understand the difference between a partial and complete collapse?

We discussed every single thing here and it's the same people that always come back with the same nonsense, they forget a lot of things that they can't argue with. So they bring it up again and I remind them that they are wrong. None of them will ever admit to be wrong, That's just the way it is. This forum is pure entertainment now, you won't learn anything new unfortunately.

reply to post by maxella1


What sort of civilized conversation can you have if you don't recognize a dead horse, or can't move on until you've beaten other people into admitting that "Of course you're right, you're always right, you know exactly what killed this horse and you couldn't possibly be wrong".

Sometimes, for the sake of productivity, you have to move on to the bigger fish. Because obviously, you're not getting anywhere with this one. And if you're going to sacrifice all the other aspects of this discussion, all the other points to be made, just so you can prove that you're right on this point...?

I hope I made MY point. Because this forum is next to useless the way it's going. Anyway, I'm off topic. There's no use discussing this further. Either you guys will agree to disagree, or...I don't even know. All I know is that reading this discussion is painful because there's so much to talk about, and you choose one of the most boring and least helpful facets to latch onto. If you can't figure it out, then move on. End of story.

That's just my two cents. I want to learn, but I'm only getting headaches here.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Have you read the other threads here? Nearly every detail of 9/11 has it's own thread, but they all end up the same way. If they keep posting that FDNY expected for WTC 7 to collapse like it did, I will kepp reminding them that it is not true.

What would you like to discuss instead?

Originally posted by Varemia
How easy is it for a building that tall to only partially collapse? I'm genuinely interested in how you are working this out, because I can't see how the weight falling from above could possibly leave the bottom intact. Keep in mind that you can only ever see about half the building in any video. Dust covers it during its collapse or only about twenty stories are above the other buildings in the way.

Well the building that thedman posted did not collapse to the ground did it.

If the bottom is still sound it will resist the collapse, as that building did. How is that hard to understand?

Seeing as you can't see the bottom either then you are just assuming. But if you watch the vid and pay attention you can see the only section that collapses is the burned out section at the top, the bottom doesn't even move, and the rest of the building remains standing. It doesn't completely collapse and land mostly in it's own footprint, all that rubble would be on the outside of the footprint.

Originally posted by Varemia

If we cannot agree on how the building collapsed, then how will we ever agree on anything?

If you really think any natural collapse you can find compares to WTC 7, then you obviously have no idea what you're looking at.

We don't agree because you don't want to see reality. You will not find a natural collapse that landed mostly in it's own footprint as WTC 7 did.

If you can then I will declare you the 911 expert of experts, throw away 10 years of research, and join the OSers.

reply to post by maxella1

Since you're a firemen I will assume that you worked a structure collapse before, and you should know that the ONLY way a building come down like WTC 7 is if something weakens the support on the same level and across the entire length and width of the building at the same time... This did not happen to WTC 7 due to fire and/or damage from fallen debris. We can see a perfectly intact three sides suddenly collapsing symmetrically

Ever hear of a truss....?

Problem with a truss is that if a component part of a truss fails the entire truss will be compromised

An entire roof can fall do one small piece failing. Its called progressive collapse. As one piece fails stress is
transferred to surrounding parts of the structure If the stress is too great will fail and the loads are transmitted
across the structure cause more and more parts to fail until entire structure fails

This is what happened to WTC 7 - thermal expansion caused beam inside to fail, Loads were transmitted to
surrounding supports which in turn failed As each suceeding piece collapsed neighboring pieces were overloaded
and collapsed

WTC 7 collapsed from inside out until only outer shell remained and it then fell

Why do you think the collapse started with the roof penthouses falling into the building

Conspiracy types often omit this from their idiotic videos..... Ask yourself why do they remove the scenes
of the penthouses falling, then claim the building collapsed at free fall speed.....

reply to post by thedman

WTC 7 collapsed from inside out until only outer shell remained and it then fell

The outer shell fell straight down..How did that happen?

Why do you think the collapse started with the roof penthouses falling into the building Conspiracy types often omit this from their idiotic videos..... Ask yourself why do they remove the scenes of the penthouses falling, then claim the building collapsed at free fall speed.....

I don't know who removes that scene, If I'm not mistaken the clip with the penthouse was released later via FOIA requests. And the six seconds between the penthouse collapsing and the rest of the building collapsing don't change anything anyway.

Originally posted by thedman
WTC 7 collapsed from inside out until only outer shell remained and it then fell

That my friend is impossible. The outer walls and the inner structure were connected together. For what you claim to have happened all those beams that connect floors to the outer walls would have all had to fail at the same time.

The simple answer is the building was imploded. That is evidenced by all four outer walls being on top of the rubble pile post collapse, an impossibly for a natural collapse. A natural collapse would force the outer walls outwards, and they would end up underneath the rest of the rubble.

Why would anyone remove the penthouse collapse when that is more evidence of implosion demolition? You're still trying to sell the penthouse proves the OS nonsense again I see.

It won't be long before this forum is closed again.