WTC Collapse, It's not adding up (2 Viewers)

[Quag]

Buildings that were not the WTC and were not damaged in the way that the WTC was damaged (necessarily so, being different) did not collapse, therefore the damage that uniquely happened to the unique WTC towers did not cause them to fall?

You are dealing with someone so disconnected from reality he actually believes in multiple mutually exclusive 911 Cts

 

[Quag]

"You can't see something outside the visible spectrum" isn't nonsense.

Xrays, by definition, aren't visible. Don't speculate on photon weapons when you aren't even familiar with the electromagnetic spectrum.

He speculates on everything,
Typical CTer tactic. No no I m not saying it was the space vamps I'm just speculating that it might have been......

 

[Mr Person]

What happened at WTC was very much unprecedented

It could not have happened because nothing happens for the first time!

 

[mike2810]

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.

I might agree with you T72 regarding fire in a modern high rise. However, WTC1,2 was hit and damaged, then the fires. WTC7 was damaged from falling debris from the towers.
So your last statement is totally unfounded. Your comparing two different fire events and saying the results would be the same. One event the buildings were damaged in the others you state were not damaged. You even admit that.

 

[gerrycan]

I might agree with you T72 regarding fire in a modern high rise. However, WTC1,2 was hit and damaged, then the fires. WTC7 was damaged from falling debris from the towers.

NIST state clearly that the structural damage to WTC7 from the impact of the falling towers did not contribute to the collapse of the building.

 

[mike2810]

NIST state clearly that the structural damage to WTC7 from the impact of the falling towers did not contribute to the collapse of the building.

Some CD people believe that part of NIST, but not the part where fire is the most probable cause. Doesn't make my statement wrong. WTC7 was damaged by falling debris. If you noted, I did not place WTC7 in with the WTC1,2. Your post does nothing to show I was wrong in that T72 is trying to compare different fire events and trying to say they are the same. Even NIST stated WTC7 was unique.


If your a CD supporter, then please explain in detail with supporting documents it was CD. It is funny how all the discussion by Tony, et.al. has turned to WTC7 and away from WTC1,2.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation
4. What caused the fires in WTC 7?
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.


7. How did the collapse of WTC 7 differ from the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?
WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event—the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections—which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.
The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.


8. Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system (see the answer to Question 9).
Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

 

[Thoreau72]

Buildings that were not the WTC and were not damaged in the way that the WTC was damaged (necessarily so, being different) did not collapse, therefore the damage that uniquely happened to the unique WTC towers did not cause them to fall?

Robertson and others are on the record noting that the towers were designed to withstand a strike by a 707. They withstood the strikes of 2 aircraft, an unknown type in the North Tower, and a drone 767 in the South Tower. They reacted as designed. The damage inflicted by the aircraft was not fatal.

What was fatal was the demolition processes for which the buildings were prepared beforehand.

 

[Deuce]

Robertson and others are on the record noting that the towers were designed to withstand a strike by a 707. They withstood the strikes of 2 aircraft, an unknown type in the North Tower, and a drone 767 in the South Tower. They reacted as designed. The damage inflicted by the aircraft was not fatal.

What was fatal was the demolition processes for which the buildings were prepared beforehand.

A drone 767, but the Pentagon was a missile, right?

 

[Thoreau72]

A drone 767, but the Pentagon was a missile, right?

I don't know what it was that hit the Pentagon. Using the parking lot video as being factual, it's hard to tell what it actually was, but easy to tell it WAS NOT an airliner.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Cray, cray or not, this EuroPhys article makes some good points.

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf



Look for this title in the table of contents: 15 YEARS LATER:
ON THE PHYSICSOF HIGH-RISE BUILDING COLLAPSES

Sorry. By the time I managed to scroll all the way down to the looney tunes controlled demolition conspiracy theory article, I was too bored to read it.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

I don't know what it was that hit the Pentagon. Using the parking lot video as being factual, it's hard to tell what it actually was, but easy to tell it WAS NOT an airliner.

it certainly was an airliner as pieces of the airliner were pulled out of the debris on the inside and outside of the building.

 

[Thoreau72]

it certainly was an airliner as pieces of the airliner were pulled out of the debris on the inside and outside of the building.

In the case of the South Tower, I certainly agree with you that it was a Boeing 767.

The trouble is, if one checks the details, that the airplane that struck the South Tower WAS NOT UA175.

The Devil, you know, is in the details.

 

[calamity]

Sorry. By the time I managed to scroll all the way down to the looney tunes controlled demolition conspiracy theory article, I was too bored to read it.

Cray cray stuff reads like that.

 

[Mr Person]

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.

Buildings that were not the WTC and were not damaged in the way that the WTC was damaged (necessarily so, being different) did not collapse, therefore the damage that uniquely happened to the unique WTC towers did not cause them to fall?

Robertson and others are on the record noting that the towers were designed to withstand a strike by a 707. They withstood the strikes of 2 aircraft, an unknown type in the North Tower, and a drone 767 in the South Tower. They reacted as designed. The damage inflicted by the aircraft was not fatal.

What was fatal was the demolition processes for which the buildings were prepared beforehand.

This is why I usually avoid this kind of forum.

Notice how the conspiracist is well-trained to twist the subject at every turn. You said that other buildings hit by other planes didn't collapse. I pointed out the absurdly massive failure in logic you perpetrated by asserting that this means we can simply conclude that no plane could have caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

Recognizing the absurdity of what you said, you try to pretend we were speaking about something else. You now tap-dance over to a position having to do with how the Twin Towers were designed. You simply ignore the fact that you based your claim on something completely different - other towers being hit by other planes, not design of these towers.

Defend the position I was responding to.




Then, there might be a slight chance I'd be willing to explain to you various things like (1) how designs aren't always accurate, (2) that we know exactly which flights were flown into the towers (an "unknown type"? LOL!), (3) the hilarious lie about a "drone" being involved, (4) tired claims of demolition that have never been established by anything remotely approaching evidence.....

.....and that's just for starters.



Or maybe not. If you're willing to spit out all these insane lies in order to dishonestly twist the conversation away from your complete inability to defend a different insane proposition, it probably isn't a conversation worth having.

I used to go back and forth with some guy who called himself "GrimFandango" on another forum. Same damn pattern. Every time his lies were shot down, he'd start talking about something else as if that had been the subject all along, and of course, the "something else" was more insane nonsense. And on and on and on and on it went.

This kind of thing only flies when you're heavily involved in the conspiracy community, and nobody questions the self-referential loop of unsupported claims that gives it the veneer of "evidence."

 

[Quag]

In the case of the South Tower, I certainly agree with you that it was a Boeing 767.

The trouble is, if one checks the details, that the airplane that struck the South Tower WAS NOT UA175.

The Devil, you know, is in the details.

Actually if one checks the details they were ALL airliners.

 

[Deuce]

I don't know what it was that hit the Pentagon. Using the parking lot video as being factual, it's hard to tell what it actually was, but easy to tell it WAS NOT an airliner.

If you have access to drone airliners, and plan to tell everyone the Pentagon was hit by an airliner, why not use another drone airliner?

Why are these alleged conspirators going out of their way to make their conspiracy easier to discover?

 

[Thoreau72]

This is why I usually avoid this kind of forum.

Notice how the conspiracist is well-trained to twist the subject at every turn. You said that other buildings hit by other planes didn't collapse. I pointed out the absurdly massive failure in logic you perpetrated by asserting that this means we can simply conclude that no plane could have caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

Recognizing the absurdity of what you said, you try to pretend we were speaking about something else. You now tap-dance over to a position having to do with how the Twin Towers were designed. You simply ignore the fact that you based your claim on something completely different - other towers being hit by other planes, not design of these towers.

Defend the position I was responding to.




Then, there might be a slight chance I'd be willing to explain to you various things like (1) how designs aren't always accurate, (2) that we know exactly which flights were flown into the towers (an "unknown type"? LOL!), (3) the hilarious lie about a "drone" being involved, (4) tired claims of demolition that have never been established by anything remotely approaching evidence.....

.....and that's just for starters.



Or maybe not. If you're willing to spit out all these insane lies in order to dishonestly twist the conversation away from your complete inability to defend a different insane proposition, it probably isn't a conversation worth having.

I used to go back and forth with some guy who called himself "GrimFandango" on another forum. Same damn pattern. Every time his lies were shot down, he'd start talking about something else as if that had been the subject all along, and of course, the "something else" was more insane nonsense. And on and on and on and on it went.

This kind of thing only flies when you're heavily involved in the conspiracy community, and nobody questions the self-referential loop of unsupported claims that gives it the veneer of "evidence."

I hope I'm wrong in thinking you are an attorney. I pity any person that would pay good money to retain one with such an apparent case of constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth.

If you are capable of forming a relevant and concise question, I would be happy to answer it. What position, exactly, do you want me to defend?

 

[Thoreau72]

If you have access to drone airliners, and plan to tell everyone the Pentagon was hit by an airliner, why not use another drone airliner?

Why are these alleged conspirators going out of their way to make their conspiracy easier to discover?

You'll have to ask them Deuce. I wasn't involved in the planning or execution.

 

[Deuce]

You'll have to ask them Deuce. I wasn't involved in the planning or execution.

The real answer is that they didn't do what you claim at all. Your thinking requires them to be diabolical geniuses pulling off the biggest coverup in history while also being monumentally stupid. It's inherently contradictory.

 

[Thoreau72]

The real answer is that they didn't do what you claim at all. Your thinking requires them to be diabolical geniuses pulling off the biggest coverup in history while also being monumentally stupid. It's inherently contradictory.

Only for the morbidly naïve is it inherently contradictory. For those familiar with the behavior of humans in high places, it is quite normal. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[Deuce]

Only for the morbidly naïve is it inherently contradictory. For those familiar with the behavior of humans in high places, it is quite normal. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Being corrupt doesn't make you suicidal, or stupid. Making mistakes is one thing, but going out of your way to make something harder is quite another. A corrupt person takes the easier path to accomplish their goal, not the harder one.

 

[Mr Person]

I hope I'm wrong in thinking you are an attorney. I pity any person that would pay good money to retain one with such an apparent case of constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth.

If you are capable of forming a relevant and concise question, I would be happy to answer it. What position, exactly, do you want me to defend?

That was explained here:

This is why I usually avoid this kind of forum.

Notice how the conspiracist is well-trained to twist the subject at every turn. You said that other buildings hit by other planes didn't collapse. I pointed out the absurdly massive failure in logic you perpetrated by asserting that this means we can simply conclude that no plane could have caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

Recognizing the absurdity of what you said, you try to pretend we were speaking about something else. You now tap-dance over to a position having to do with how the Twin Towers were designed. You simply ignore the fact that you based your claim on something completely different - other towers being hit by other planes, not design of these towers.

Defend the position I was responding to.




Then, there might be a slight chance I'd be willing to explain to you various things like (1) how designs aren't always accurate, (2) that we know exactly which flights were flown into the towers (an "unknown type"? LOL!), (3) the hilarious lie about a "drone" being involved, (4) tired claims of demolition that have never been established by anything remotely approaching evidence.....

.....and that's just for starters.



Or maybe not. If you're willing to spit out all these insane lies in order to dishonestly twist the conversation away from your complete inability to defend a different insane proposition, it probably isn't a conversation worth having.

I used to go back and forth with some guy who called himself "GrimFandango" on another forum. Same damn pattern. Every time his lies were shot down, he'd start talking about something else as if that had been the subject all along, and of course, the "something else" was more insane nonsense. And on and on and on and on it went.

This kind of thing only flies when you're heavily involved in the conspiracy community, and nobody questions the self-referential loop of unsupported claims that gives it the veneer of "evidence."

Follow the link, because in that post I also quote the posts YOU made that I was criticizing.

Or, you could try to troll me again by ignoring everything wrong with your claims, making a personal attack, and then asking what I was talking about (a question resolved by reading what I posted, which was about everything wrong with your claims).

 

[mike2810]

In the case of the South Tower, I certainly agree with you that it was a Boeing 767.

The trouble is, if one checks the details, that the airplane that struck the South Tower WAS NOT UA175.

The Devil, you know, is in the details.

Yes the Devil is in the details.

Funny how you and other CD supports fail to provide any regarding controlled demolition. You and other CD supporters cannot even agree on what was used. Tony does not accept your "nuke" explanation as the explosives used.

Here is a thought. You or Tony start a new thread explaining in detail the CD that occurred on 9/11. Provide all the details to show us why it was CD. We can rule out fire. Both you and Tony are on record as saying fire could not have brought the buildings down.

I won't hold my breath. This has been asked before and basically the response was to ignore. Each explanation should stand on its own merits.

 

[Mr Person]

it certainly was an airliner as pieces of the airliner were pulled out of the debris on the inside and outside of the building.

Well, clearly, they must have been planted as part of the conspiracy.




It's probably not worth bothering with. These people get sucked into a conspiracy community and all the self-referential "evidence" is accepted without question, meanwhile, lack of evidence or contradictory evidence is spoken of as just another part of the conspiracy. If there are inconsistencies, it is because the conspiracy so masterfully confused matters. Only those who are not "sheeple" can see through the complete lack of evidence to find positive proof in the lack.

And if they try to get out, the community turns on them much in the manner that Scientologists do. Seriously...try looking up some accounts from people who have successfully left a serious 9/11 truther (or other conspiracy) forum.

The real answer is that they didn't do what you claim at all. Your thinking requires them to be diabolical geniuses pulling off the biggest coverup in history while also being monumentally stupid. It's inherently contradictory.

AND the only people who can see through this all are the big brave geniuses chattering away on dark web conspiracy forums at 5 in the morning, brave defenders of freedom, prophets against the machine, etc. We're all just a bunch of dummies too stupid to ask whether or not a bunch of terrorists who are on record hating and attacking us actually did 9/11 despite the massive amount of evidence that they did and complete lack of evidence that they did not.

(Conspiracist response: all that evidence was planted and all those prior attacks were "false flags". The lack of tracks indicating a conspiracy is evidence of a conspiracy because of course a conspiracy would cover its tracks....AND THERE ARE NO TRACKS! Clever, you see).

 

[zyzygy]

You'll have to ask them Deuce. I wasn't involved in the planning or execution.

Nobody is accusing you of colluding with Bin laden and the 19 hijackers.