Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No.... controlled demolitions would not have been bouncing debris off of neighboring buildings. Thanks for playing.... next...
nano Thermite found in all 911 dust samples
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
No.... controlled demolitions would not have been bouncing debris off of neighboring buildings. Thanks for playing.... next...
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
I don't even understand why people would think the government would go out of their way to make a controlled demolition. What sense does that make?
Not to mention, why would anyone bother trucking in tons of thermite which isn't even used to take down buildings.
None of this craziness makes any sense at all.
Not to mention, why would anyone bother trucking in tons of thermite which isn't even used to take down buildings.
None of this craziness makes any sense at all.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
But why were pilots told to stand down and allow this to happen?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
But giant buildings collapsing at free fall speed from localized weakness that defies all science .. that makes sense to you?
... amazing, truly amazing
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Because space aliens were coming and we didn't want them shot down so we could steal their technology/
I'm betting this will sound every bit as logical as any answer you may get from the fairy-tale believers .. IF you get an answer.
BAC, the buildings did not collapse at free fall. That would be impossible even in a controlled demolition. You tried to say earlier that I denied physics, but in reality, this statement is definitely a denial of physics.
In every single photo of the buildings, the debris that was falling outside the building (not in the "footprint", you know the debris that hit surrounding buildings, much like you wouldn't see in a controlled demolition, the same debris that damaged WTC 7's South side), you can see columns and other debris falling faster than the towers.
Every picture...
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
And much of this has to do with static vs. dynamic transfer:
http://www.burtonsys.com/staticvdyn/
The dynamic transfer of energy effects the rate of collapse. The idea that the building could hold the same level of weight that was in active dynamic transfer that it could statically seems to be the most major issue for theorists who cannot understand physics.
They hear somebody say, "It defies the laws of physics!" and repeat it as a mantra, but do not understand how the laws of physics actually apply. You'll hear them say, "The structure was designed to hold up those floors, so why would it collapse under their weight?"
The answer is in the difference between dynamic vs. static energy transfer. The towers were designed to hold the weight of the upper floors at static levels of energy transfer, not dynamic.
In every single photo of the buildings, the debris that was falling outside the building (not in the "footprint", you know the debris that hit surrounding buildings, much like you wouldn't see in a controlled demolition, the same debris that damaged WTC 7's South side), you can see columns and other debris falling faster than the towers.
Every picture...
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
And much of this has to do with static vs. dynamic transfer:
http://www.burtonsys.com/staticvdyn/
The dynamic transfer of energy effects the rate of collapse. The idea that the building could hold the same level of weight that was in active dynamic transfer that it could statically seems to be the most major issue for theorists who cannot understand physics.
They hear somebody say, "It defies the laws of physics!" and repeat it as a mantra, but do not understand how the laws of physics actually apply. You'll hear them say, "The structure was designed to hold up those floors, so why would it collapse under their weight?"
The answer is in the difference between dynamic vs. static energy transfer. The towers were designed to hold the weight of the upper floors at static levels of energy transfer, not dynamic.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I want to give you a very clear example of your "corrections"
The towers were built to withstand the impact of a 707 ON TAKEOFF AND FULLY LOADED WITH FUEL BECAUSE THEY EXIST NEAR AIRPORTS
AND ..
The above graphic from Chapter 1 of FEMA's Report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. 1 Flight 11 and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity.
property ---------- Boeing 707-320 --------- Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity ------ 23,000 gallons ---------- 23,980 gallons
max takeoff ------- weight 328,060 lbs ------ 395,000 lbs
empty weight ----- 137,562 lbs ------------- 179,080 lbs
wingspan ---------- 145.75 ft --------------- 156.08 ft
wing area ---------- 3010 ft^2 -------------- 3050 ft^2
length ------------- 152.92 ft --------------- 159.17 ft
cruise speed ------- 607 mph ---------------- 530 mph
Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." .. ie; the Second Law of Thermodynamics .. which neither you or any other fairy-tale believer seem to know nothing about.
On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE.
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
So much for your stupid ass unlearned, unresearched "correction."
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, you don't know science, you don't know structural engineering .. including Damo's friend, and most importantly, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
NONE OF YOU DO.
You're babies finding it hard to accept there is no Santa Claus.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Dude, Santa Clause ain't coming.
I've already posted a picture of WTC7 CLEARLY sitting in its own footprint .. which you did not, could not challenge.
Even using the estimate from your source .. which I do not accept .. even your source claims the towers fell in about 16 seconds .. which still defies all logic and science.
This refutes your source
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...e+at+free+fall+speed&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
And take a look at my prior post and go find something to refute what the ENGINEERS had to say.
Actually it doesn't. It makes false statments such as "The FEMA Report concludes that fire brought down WTC 7" which we have shown earlier to be false.
Your "source" just says whatever it feels it needs to in order to "buttress" their ideas, because they know people who want to believe will never actually research.
The fact is the preliminary report suggested less damage than was evident. Pictures of the South of the tower show significant damage to the structure, and considering the walls were load-bearing, there was significant damage from the debris that contributed to the collapse.
Here is what ENGINEERS had to say...
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5
They don't know the proportions... But it certainly did not state that just "fire" was the cause of the collapse. Severe Structural Damage.
I know it may seem strange to you, but when a nearby taller building rips off much of one of the load-bearing walls of a structure as it collapses, it causes severe structural damage and compromises the stability and longevity of a structure. Add to that the fact that nobody was fighting the fires as the main goal of firefighters was to get people out not water in....
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
And damo, your "scientists" paid by the military industrial complex in some capacity, will only say what they're told to say, because they know most fascist brainwash victims such as yourself are stupefied by credentials.
The engineers who studied this for Pop Mechanics were not paid for by your nemesis, AHZ. Nor was my friend.
You've missed the target entirely for a weak tangent that has no basis.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
So they don't work at corporations or universities or governments?
Your entire worldview is based on lies and ignorance.
LOL. If every person who ever worked for a company was compromised, then you can't trust yourself, AHZ. You've worked for a corporation! *gasp*
Better stop posting, you're compromised.
The reality is, they were not employed by the government, even though you really, really, really wanted them to be.
I appreciate BAC and his opposing views (to my views anyway) on this board but here is where I have to part way away from him. I can in no way give any credence to any of the conspiracy theories that claim that the US government is/was complicit in anything the likes of what happened on 9/11. I have researched it myself, read numerous reports and watched everything I could find to watch on the matter. I am satisfied with the findings.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
And in a professional capacity, I have lied.
So you eliminated one of the three I asked about. Do they work at corporations or universities?
Oh, and I usually lump AHZ in the same category as Ernest T. Bass. 
Everybody does.
This is the most disingenuous piece of trash you have brought forward. So did the "engineers" that are on Jones' site piling rubbish onto your mind. The government is probably telling them what to say right now.
The reality is, my friend had no agenda, not even a little one. He simply showed me what he saw, I was able to see it too. You can as well, if you actually look at the pictures.
I believe that the Jones and Pop mechanics people do, so among them I look at what they actually say, put it into application and come up with what is most likely right. You believe the Jones crowd, I do not. I think they spend more time directly lying (WTC Fell solely because of fire, for instance) than they do studying.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Everybody does.
This is the most disingenuous piece of trash you have brought forward. So did the "engineers" that are on Jones' site piling rubbish onto your mind. The government is probably telling them what to say right now.
The reality is, my friend had no agenda, not even a little one. He simply showed me what he saw, I was able to see it too. You can as well, if you actually look at the pictures.
All your statements are so disingenuous I stopped ranking them.
pwned.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
The rest of us have facts, common sense, and science. Damo has his friend.
And facts, science, studies, the same reports you see (actually read in context and shown NOT to say what the Jones crowd insists they say).
Again (from an earlier post) I believe that the Jones and Pop mechanics have an agenda, so among them I look at what they actually say, put it into application and come up with what is most likely right. You believe the Jones crowd, I do not. I think they spend more time directly lying (WTC Fell solely because of fire, for instance) than they do studying.
Each item brought up has been debunked by scientists, engineers, video, evidence, and common sense. Every one of them.