Printable View
You dont have to be to use your logical intuition.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
WTC7 Compared to Controlled Demolition
The point we need to realize is how many cutter charges are need to make a building behave that way - accelerating collapse, with all sides and corners remaining straight and even, with huge dust clouds and puffs of ejected material down the sides. For these things you need explosives placed on every column, and on many floors at regular intervals.
You do have to be an expert to take the debate as far as it can go. And I am still waiting for your counter to what I said about all of the absurdities that would have to be involved in a 9/11 inside job.Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
You can't compare the WTC to any other building because they were not built like any other building. They were one of a kind. Why do you just ignore this by comparing it to traditional steel structure buildings?Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
They were "special" and "extra weak buildings" :rolllaugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
The only absurdities are the official reports which have been disproved. We have shown you why. So when are you going to turn into an adult and learn to take information in properly.Quote:
I am still waiting for your counter to what I said about all of the absurdities that would have to be involved in a 9/11 inside job.
Are you going to look into it at all? I am not making this shit up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic7
start explaining.....or give me something. No information I know of that is true suggests this.
Suggests that the WTC was not a traditional steel structured building?!!!??!
How much have you really looked into this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC#Pla...d_construction
Oh, I've never addressed that topic before. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic7
Don't put words in my mouth. Suggests that it was a very unusually weak building. You say you can't compare it. but we can compare it if it's stronger than previous models. otherwise you are suggesting it was weaker. Not true.Quote:
Suggests that the WTC was not a traditional steel structured building?!!!??!
Do you get all your information from Wikipedia? Tell me how the building was weak enough to collapse and disintegrate. That article didn't explain any catastrophic design flaws.
As a matter of fact.
This short sentence suggest in one hit the building was obviously not structurally primitive to begin with. You should provide details why the building was weak enough to not be able to be compared to other buildings that did not disintegrate and collapse from fire and damage after burning for days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The building you posted like that was much shorter than the part of the WTC towers above the fires. I am talking about hundreds of feet of building. That is a great deal more pressure. I am not an expert on how all of that is supposed to work when, but I do know that you are overlooking a major difference factor. I explained that to you recently, and you did not counter my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic7
But more importantly, your point is that something seems funny about what the structures did because other structures didn't do it, and therefore... http://youtube.com/watch?v=XOEq-ImGWJ0
No, that you don't think the WTC was different than any other steel structured building the whole "A steel structure has never collapsed from a fire" argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic7
Just because it may have being a more improved design. Doesn't mean it can't be compared to other less effective steel designs. what are you crazy. Ofcourse no building is the same. Basic comparisons still can be made. If a fire disintegrates a building to the ground. That's one hell of a design flaw you need to explain that just doesn't exist. Planes going into the building does not do anything significant to the structure that causes it to collapse. That's why it exploded after an hour. Not straight away. And don't tell me the steel warped from the fire. Or that it pancaked down from damage and fire. All disproved theories.Quote:
the whole "A steel structure has never collapsed from a fire" argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WsjTYnLweo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnRP50bIv2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FlJeoiZxVk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70guOyx7IwI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiMiHMylSZo
If anything WTC7 and the twin towers were stronger than most steel-framed structures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic7
''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' NY Times article on (WTC7)...
Hmm, so a building that was so redundant in structural integrity that entire floors could be removed and more than half of its columns form one side, and yet still not collapse.
And none of these extremes even if reached, would make the building collapse so rapidly, symetrically, and with all the other signs we could ask for of a controlled demolition. Again, all the columns would have to be severed at teh same time to get such a perfect collapse.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
If you haven't seen this show, you should watch it. A lot of the things mentioned in this show answer lots of the things theorists use as evidence. For instance, I remember in a 9/11 documentary, they showed a clip from the original episode in 2002. In this remake, they say that they were wrong, and that the official story has changed a bit. Also, the towers walls were made out of very weak but fire proof material. So, the planes destroyed many of the main columns, and knock out 2 of the 3 stair cases(why there were so many deaths). The fireproofing material was also very very week, and would have been easily been knocked off by the impact of the planes, so the steel holding it together didn't melt, it lost its integrity. So, the reason they fell was because they did not build it out of the strongest materials, and its definitely not one of the strongest buildings in America. It was also not designed to with stand being hit by an Airplane (obviously), so of course it fell. Its also amazing that the buildings lasted as long as they did. Most other buildings would collapse immediately.
So, if they want to spend more money, they could possibly make buildings to withstand being hit by airplanes. But that doesn't happen very often(of course), and would be a waste of money. The only things that I think they should have done was, is add more staircases, and make them wider. It was the staircases fault for so many deaths (besides the terrorists, but you know what I mean).
The WTC were basically hollow. They did this to remove those big heavy beams you see in most buildings, the big heavy beams that keep them up in extreme fires.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic7
The WTC architects actually designed to have the building be hit by a plane, but never a direct intentional hit, full of a cross country supply of gasoline. The steel didn't warp, the suspension on the floors weakened, causing floors to fall on floors until the sheer weight tore each suspended floor down. The floors were HANGING IN THE BUILDING that is why it collapsed. This is what made it so different than any other building. Seriously this argument is going nowhere unless you study the design of lets say the empire state building and then the WTC.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o...uction1505.jpg
See? See the gigantic floors suspended by the outer steel frame? They collapsed because the frame holding the floors bent and was weakened, thus letting the entire top of the building collapse onto the lower floors.
I couln't find a good picture of the empire state building construction but the sears tower will do.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsapp/BT/..._F/sears-1.jpg
Notice the difference? If a plane hit the Empire State Building, or the sears building, the grid of steel bars would not allow it to collapse, because that is impossible to collapse without controlled demolition, it is possible, and it effing happened with the WTC. They were HUGE suspended floors, held up by a thin steel frame, the windows were very small because of this, because the outer steel frame couldn't be so spread out like in traditional steel "grid" constructions. And this is just common sense.
Example?
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...Eagar/fig5.gif
http://www.european911citizensjury.c...nstruction.jpg
Oh! And here is a photo of the upper floors collapsing onto the lowers, but those suspended lower floors can surely handle the weight! That's why they had to use explosive demolition!
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc-southtower.jpg
did the US government kill 3,000 people in the WTC? Thats debatable but its a fact the events after 9-11 we're 10 fold worse. over a million peolple people have died after that and the patriot act has eleminated all our freedom.
Just keep in mind that history repeats itself. Hittler bombed his own building and blamed it on comunist terrorist. Then he eleminated German democracy by passing the enabling act.
"HERE's YOUR FUCKING PATRIOT ACT!"-Some guy screaming in agony while being tortured at UCLA library for refusing identifcation and being tazered
Well youre right there. Except I dont think the patriot act has eliminated all of our freedoms just yet. And I dont think many believe the U.S govt as a whole was responsible for 9/11, only a small criminal element that is apparently very protected. see Sibel Edmonds (who claims the terrorists had help from top officials in the FBI), and Riggs bank (owned by Bush's uncle and recently found guilty of laundering money to terrorists).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamer4Life89
Operation Northwoods : This was the would-be 9/11 of the 60s. If most Americans knew that the govt back then was planning fake terrorists attacks they wouldnt be so surprised about 9/11 being a real false flag.
__________________________________________________ __________
WTC7 ................. Compared to a Controlled Demolition
Is anyone going to discuss what I posted? No? Okay.
You must have said something they can't argue with. Join the club. :cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
Oh, I don't doubt they can argue with it, just wishing they would.
The problem with us is we go in circles and I just get exhausted.
Don't hold your breath.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
Universal Mind. I respect your ability to use philosophy intelligently. I condemn your choice to back the most damaging and delusional paradigm in the process.
911 was an inside job
I've already beaten you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FlJeoiZxVk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcYsUNva0CA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL9fvuKALjI
http://www.qfgpublishing.com/images/...etruth_2ed.jpg