WTC Collapse, It's not adding up (1 Viewer)

[Quag]

You do need to also consider the substantial damage done to the building's structure caused by a large aircraft crashing through it. Right?

The damage and fires were as Deuce said, unprecedented so the collapses being unprecedented means diddly and or squat.
Not that it matters to a CTer anything and everything they think they can use as propoganda they will.

 

[jeffchap]

Here's a good read for you...



http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf



TLDR - 67,000 kgs of molten aluminum from the aircraft can do a lot of damage.

 

[calamity]

The damage and fires were as Deuce said, unprecedented so the collapses being unprecedented means diddly and or squat.
Not that it matters to a CTer anything and everything they think they can use as propoganda they will.

A huge jetliner slams into a building and starts a massive fire that cannot be put out....I would have been surprised if it did not collapse.

 

[Deuce]

Narrow the discussion? I'm using accurate terms to describe what the WTC towers were--modern steel and concrete high rise structures. If that is too precise and descriptive for you, thank you for acknowledging the pathetic weakness of the absurd "argument" to choose to advance.

The collapse of such structures supposedly from fire is unprecedented, meaning it has never happened before. The damage observed, including large pieces hurled hundreds of feet laterally is also unprecedented, meaning it has never happened before.

If you can show that any of that has happened before, have at it.

The damage was unprecedented, so an unprecedented outcome is to be expected. This supports my case, not yours.

Since you insist on only looking at equivalent buildings, you need to show me an equivalent building, undergoing equivalent damage, but staying upright. The reason you can't do that is no building has ever withstood an equivalent level of damage. It would be unprecedented to remain standing under such conditions.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

I'm not sure what you mean, and I never memorized all the places it's happened over the world, even here in the US. In several, the buildings were fully or substantially in flame, and one of them burned for almost 24 hours I think.

None of them were struck by airplanes, but all were very engaged in fire. None collapsed. Many were put back into service.

The notion that the fires alone at WTC would cause what was finally observed, is preposterous.

Which is probably why that notion has never been put forth. It has always been fires in conjunction with the massive structural damaged caused by the impacts.

Implying that it was fires alone is completely dishonest.

 

[Quag]

A huge jetliner slams into a building and starts a massive fire that cannot be put out....I would have been surprised if it did not collapse.

Logic and reason are not part of a Cters makeup

 

[Thoreau72]

Nope, just physics.

Physics from the Twilight Zone. :lol:

 

[Deuce]

Physics from the Twilight Zone. :lol:

More dissonance.

Still can't provide an example of a building with equivalent damage?

 

[Thoreau72]

Which is probably why that notion has never been put forth. It has always been fires in conjunction with the massive structural damaged caused by the impacts.

Implying that it was fires alone is completely dishonest.

Everybody understands and accepts that there was damage caused by the airplane strikes. At least I certainly do, and always have. People differ on whether that damage was "massive" or not. Considering it affected only about 10 floors out of 110, the word "massive" is exaggeration, all the way.

And a little bad news for you: in case you have not paid attention to the NIST report, it said that in addition to whatever damage was caused by the airplane strikes, the cause of the "collapse" was burning office furnishings.

And of course NIST did not mention the explosions in the basement described by Willy Rodriguez and others present in the North Tower BEFORE the airplane strike there.

Yes Fabulous Jack, your boys at NIST said that burning office furnishings were what caused the "collapse". Not only did your boys at NIST fail to address the significance of the basement explosions, it failed to address the lateral ejection of large structural pieces hundreds of feet horizontally.

The reason it did not address those things are several. First, NIST report was a political coverup, and was conducted in large part by one of George Bush's "very best friends". Secondly, it was only window dressing, meant to satisfy gullible members of the public like yourself, while protecting the guilty parties that were responsible for those explosions in the basement and those lateral ejections of large structural pieces.

It's really quite simple Jack, but one MUST be curious, and one MUST open one's eyes.

 

[Deuce]

Everybody understands and accepts that there was damage caused by the airplane strikes. At least I certainly do, and always have. People differ on whether that damage was "massive" or not. Considering it affected only about 10 floors out of 110, the word "massive" is exaggeration, all the way.

And a little bad news for you: in case you have not paid attention to the NIST report, it said that in addition to whatever damage was caused by the airplane strikes, the cause of the "collapse" was burning office furnishings.

And of course NIST did not mention the explosions in the basement described by Willy Rodriguez and others present in the North Tower BEFORE the airplane strike there.

Yes Fabulous Jack, your boys at NIST said that burning office furnishings were what caused the "collapse". Not only did your boys at NIST fail to address the significance of the basement explosions, it failed to address the lateral ejection of large structural pieces hundreds of feet horizontally.

The reason it did not address those things are several. First, NIST report was a political coverup, and was conducted in large part by one of George Bush's "very best friends". Secondly, it was only window dressing, meant to satisfy gullible members of the public like yourself, while protecting the guilty parties that were responsible for those explosions in the basement and those lateral ejections of large structural pieces.

It's really quite simple Jack, but one MUST be curious, and one MUST open one's eyes.

You can't substantiate any "explosions."

 

[Thoreau72]

You can't substantiate any "explosions."

Not to a man in denial, that's true. To a man in denial of facts, all that matters is what's inside his tortured mind.

 

[Deuce]

Not to a man in denial, that's true. To a man in denial of facts, all that matters is what's inside his tortured mind.

You're in denial of the facts. Neener neener. :roll:

Show me proof of explosions.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Not to a man in denial, that's true. To a man in denial of facts, all that matters is what's inside his tortured mind.

That's an odd statement, for a man who agrees and then tacitly denies that the towers are still standing.

Nothing happened on 9/11.

They're all still there.

 

[Thoreau72]

That's an odd statement, for a man who agrees and then tacitly denies that the towers are still standing.

Nothing happened on 9/11.

They're all still there.

Tann

You're crazier than a junkyard dog with the silly statements you've posted. You're not on ignore because your posts frequently amuse.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Tann

You're crazier than a junkyard dog with the silly statements you've posted. You're not on ignore because your posts frequently amuse.

You may have just destroyed the Irony Meter of The Gods.

 

[Quag]

More dissonance.

Still can't provide an example of a building with equivalent damage?

Still counts if you say it now drink up!

 

[Quag]

Physics from the Twilight Zone. :lol:

Says the guy who claims the towers were brought down by radioactive non exploding mini-nukes that exploded and emitted no radiation

 

[Quag]

Not to a man in denial, that's true. To a man in denial of facts, all that matters is what's inside his tortured mind.

It is amazing that you so often give such good descriptions of yourself. About the only time you ever make sense

 

[zyzygy]

Says the guy who claims the towers were brought down by radioactive non exploding mini-nukes that exploded and emitted no radiation

Or X ray laser cannonballs and drones with no mention of the passengers who vanished on that day.

 

[Quag]

You're in denial of the facts. Neener neener. :roll:

Show me proof of explosions.

HD dont need no stinking proof he has his fear and mistrust of the ebil US govt and thats all he needs!

 

[Quag]

Or X ray laser cannonballs and drones with no mention of the passengers who vanished on that day.

I thought they were infrared laser cannon balls?
But yeah I forgot them and the tons and tons of nano thermite

 

[zyzygy]

I thought they were infrared laser cannon balls?
But yeah I forgot them and the tons and tons of nano thermite

Or any other deluded theory. Anything except the truth.

 

[Quag]

Or any other deluded theory. Anything except the truth.

Truthers hate the truth

 

[calamity]

Everybody understands and accepts that there was damage caused by the airplane strikes. At least I certainly do, and always have. People differ on whether that damage was "massive" or not. Considering it affected only about 10 floors out of 110, the word "massive" is exaggeration, all the way.

And a little bad news for you: in case you have not paid attention to the NIST report, it said that in addition to whatever damage was caused by the airplane strikes, the cause of the "collapse" was burning office furnishings.

And of course NIST did not mention the explosions in the basement described by Willy Rodriguez and others present in the North Tower BEFORE the airplane strike there.

Yes Fabulous Jack, your boys at NIST said that burning office furnishings were what caused the "collapse". Not only did your boys at NIST fail to address the significance of the basement explosions, it failed to address the lateral ejection of large structural pieces hundreds of feet horizontally.

The reason it did not address those things are several. First, NIST report was a political coverup, and was conducted in large part by one of George Bush's "very best friends". Secondly, it was only window dressing, meant to satisfy gullible members of the public like yourself, while protecting the guilty parties that were responsible for those explosions in the basement and those lateral ejections of large structural pieces.

It's really quite simple Jack, but one MUST be curious, and one MUST open one's eyes.

When those 10 floors happen to be sandwiched in between the top and bottom of the building, they matter quite a bit. :roll:

 

[Deuce]

Physics from the Twilight Zone. :lol:

Says the dude who believes in subsonic, visible x-rays and nuclear reactions that don't involve radiation.