Skip to main content

I guess you're right Extra.  99% of us are wrong and you are right.  How could we be so misinformed.  Despite the differences in construction between the Empire State building, that skyscraper in Moscow and the Twin Towers, you're right.  Despite the fact that thermite is composed of aluminum and iron, both of which are found in aircraft and skyscrapers.  Despite the fact that at least 10,000 people would have to keep the conspiracy a secret.  Despite the fact that there is only anecdotal conjecture about any of the so-called evidence.  Despite the fact that you can't make up your mind whether you're discussing the Twin Towers of WTC-7.  Despite the fact that you're a lunatic conspiracy theorist, you're right and the rest of us are wrong. 

 

Have a nice day.

Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by Road Puppy:

Holy McCrap!  People are STILL "Loose Change-ing" over 9/11?

 

LMAO!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Do you ever have an original thought or do you stick your finger in the air, join the crowd and try to look intelligent?

_________________________

 

Were you BORN retarded or did ya hafta practice for a couple years before ya got good at it?

Extra started this thread with the statement that the Moscow high rise burned and didn’t collapse. The fire was on top of the building with only the items on the roof and a couple of floors burning. 

 

The Trade Towers were struck by a aircraft, weighing about 175 tons, traveling at full throttle, which injected about 23, 000 gallons of jet fuel into the building.  First, the core support of the building was damaged by the plane – stripping away fire protection from the girders, then the interior was set alight, which  added to the damaging the girder’s integrity.  Add, the weight of the floor above those on fire and you have a recipe for collapse.  I’ve shown even heating oil can cause a bridge to collapse.  Extra stated that bridge girders were unprotected.  After the impact of 175 tons into the building, so were those girders.  Can’t have it both ways. 

 

Video of the crash shows a burst of dust and debris from the towers shortly before collapse. Truthers interpret this as proof of an explosion.  Explosions rigged to down structures are set to explode inwardly, usually with plywood and sandbag buffers.  There would be no spewing of debris, before the explosion. 

 

Originally Posted by interventor1212:

Extra started this thread with the statement that the Moscow high rise burned and didn’t collapse. The fire was on top of the building with only the items on the roof and a couple of floors burning. 

 

The Trade Towers were struck by a aircraft, weighing about 175 tons, traveling at full throttle, which injected about 23, 000 gallons of jet fuel into the building.  First, the core support of the building was damaged by the plane – stripping away fire protection from the girders, then the interior was set alight, which  added to the damaging the girder’s integrity.  Add, the weight of the floor above those on fire and you have a recipe for collapse.  I’ve shown even heating oil can cause a bridge to collapse.  Extra stated that bridge girders were unprotected.  After the impact of 175 tons into the building, so were those girders.  Can’t have it both ways. 

 

Video of the crash shows a burst of dust and debris from the towers shortly before collapse. Truthers interpret this as proof of an explosion.  Explosions rigged to down structures are set to explode inwardly, usually with plywood and sandbag buffers.  There would be no spewing of debris, before the explosion. 

 ---------------------------------------------------------

 

 You get another F in reading comprehension. The tower in Moscow was over 90 stories tall, the fire was in the 61 st floor area. That means that over one third of the building was involved in this inferno.

 

 And no, it didn't fall.

 

 And as I pointed out, the statement by the engineer who designed and built the building. It was designed to withstand impact from a 707 aircraft and survive the ensuing fuel conflagration. According to the NIST, all the jet fuel was burned up the first 10 minutes. The building stood for over an hour after impact.

 

Extra, you also get an F for accuracy of facts.  The skyscraper in Moscow that caught fire is still under construction.  It will eventually be a 93 story building, but that won't be until its completion in 2013.  The fire did break out on the 65th floor, but that was the top of the current construction. 

 

http://articles.businessinside...shes-downtown-moscow

http://www.euronews.com/2012/0...hts-up-city-skyline/

Here is one.  A group of engineers, in the report of their study of the Twin Towers collapse in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics of October 2008, found  that:

 

"Several of the parameters of the present mathematical model have
a large range of uncertainty. However, the solution exhibits small
sensitivity to some of them, and the values of others can be fixed
on the basis of observations or physical analysis. One and the
same mathematical model, with one and the same set of parameters,
is shown to be capable of matching all of the observations,
including: (1) the video records of the first few seconds of motion
of both towers; (2) the seismic records for both towers; (3) the
mass and size distributions of the comminuted particles of concrete;
(4) the energy requirement for the comminution that occurred;
(5) the wide spread of the fine dust around the tower; (6)
the loud booms heard during collapse; (7) the fast expansion of
dust clouds during collapse; and (8) the dust content of the cloud
implied by its size. At the same time, the alternative allegations of
some kinds of controlled demolition are shown to be totally out of
range of the present mathematical model, even if the full range of
parameter uncertainties is considered.
These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition
to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to
gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire."

 

http://www.civil.northwestern....20WTC%20collapse.pdf

Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:

Unless it affects the cat, cat doesn't care.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Yiou found that link to a skyscraper that fell due to fire yet?

 Fire didn't bring down the towers.  When another incident of a 175 ton aircraft, with thousands of gallons of fuel, plows into a high rise stripping away fire protection on the girders, significantly damaging the girders in a part of the building with about 30 floors above the site, we shall.

 

Have you identified any of the dozens of men who carried hundreds of pounds of explosives, plywood and sand bags, plus tools.  Men who spent days strapping the explosive to the girders, forming plywood barriers backed by sand bags to ensure implosion. All without disturbing people working in the building -- office buildings are supposed to be quiet.  Men who presented security passes, but were forgotten by the security guards, men who are invisible to surveillance videos.  

 

If, thermite was used, instead of explosives, the workers would have to strip the fire resistant material away from the girders. Obviously, after the thermite, temperatures increased well above that produced by thermite as witnesses by the balls of melted concrete.  Thermite can cut thru concrete, but not melt it into balls.

 

This would be done in three buildings.  

 

Have you identified the mastermind capable of planning such a project -- only about a dozen probably have the expertise!  Especially since everything must be done theoretically as no modern high rise buildings have been demolished by controlled explosion or thermite.

Originally Posted by OldSalt:

Here is one.  A group of engineers, in the report of their study of the Twin Towers collapse in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics of October 2008, found  that:

 

"Several of the parameters of the present mathematical model have
a large range of uncertainty. However, the solution exhibits small
sensitivity to some of them, and the values of others can be fixed
on the basis of observations or physical analysis. One and the
same mathematical model, with one and the same set of parameters,
is shown to be capable of matching all of the observations,
including: (1) the video records of the first few seconds of motion
of both towers; (2) the seismic records for both towers; (3) the
mass and size distributions of the comminuted particles of concrete;
(4) the energy requirement for the comminution that occurred;
(5) the wide spread of the fine dust around the tower; (6)
the loud booms heard during collapse; (7) the fast expansion of
dust clouds during collapse; and (8) the dust content of the cloud
implied by its size. At the same time, the alternative allegations of
some kinds of controlled demolition are shown to be totally out of
range of the present mathematical model, even if the full range of
parameter uncertainties is considered.
These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition
to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to
gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire."

 

http://www.civil.northwestern....20WTC%20collapse.pdf

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Old salt,

 You and interventor are like a broken record. Look at the last line of your post: "gravity-driven collapse triggered by the effects of fire".

 Now once again. Fire does not cause these buildings to fall. You can make computer models do whatever you want. You cannot give me a specific example of a modern skyscraper falling and collapsing due to fire.

 

 That said, even if your model was right, you could not get the entire building structure to collapse on command at the same time as happened in WTC 7. The fire would have to be exactly evenly distributed throughout the building and burning at the exact same temperature at every joint. You and I both know that didn't happen,and yet the building free fell without any obstruction from the areas of the building untouched by fire.

For those who may have not seen it or forgotten. The collapse of WTC 7.     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsJQKpnkZ10&feature=related

 

 As you can see, the entire building collapses at the same moment without any structural restraint. Meaning, that if fire did produce the collapse of critical parts of the building, those areas would have collapsed and the areas untouched by fire would have tried to stay up, causing the building to fall irregular and would have caused it to fall away from itself in different directions. All those steel girders would have resisted the action of collapse slowing down the collapse. But this building free fell at the speed of gravity, and completely collapsed all across it's structure at the same time. For this to happen, the fire would have had to have been evenly distributed throughout the building and burning at the same temperate at every location. We all know that didn't happen.

 This building fell perfectly into it's own footprint, something impossible to do with random fires, but not impossible to do with controlled demolition.

This is a picture of the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City after the bombing.  While this is not exactly apples and oranges, you will see my point. Parts of the building pancacked from the blast, but the area of the building not compromised structurally, still stood.  So you see that a multi storied building, one designed to resist fire, and having small fires on just a few floors, would not suddenly, simultaneously collapse.

 

 

images

Attachments

Images (1)
  • images
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

"Next time we'll bring them *BOTH* down."

 

 Ramzi Yousef after his arrest.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 And according to Sibel Edmonds, and FBI linguistic analyst, they had help from inside this country.

Originally Posted by interventor1212:

The Murrah building suffered a controlled directed blast from OUTSIDE the building. Not, explosives set to each girder, surrounded by plywood and sand bags to cause an implosion.  Extra, you're knowledge of use of explosives is laughable.

 

Once more, evidence of personnel setting the explosives.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 No, you are the one good for a laugh. I specifically stated the OKC building was apples and oranges.

 BUT what the OKC bobming does show that the compromise of the structure in one place does not cause the entire structure to collapse simultaneously. That's the issue that your side cannot explain.

 

 BTW, did you watch the link with numerous media reports from the scene that numerous bombs were found in the Alfred P. Murrah building and were difused?

Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:

The Murrah building suffered a controlled directed blast from OUTSIDE the building. Not, explosives set to each girder, surrounded by plywood and sand bags to cause an implosion.  Extra, you're knowledge of use of explosives is laughable.

 

Once more, evidence of personnel setting the explosives.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 No, you are the one good for a laugh. I specifically stated the OKC building was apples and oranges.

 BUT what the OKC bobming does show that the compromise of the structure in one place does not cause the entire structure to collapse simultaneously. That's the issue that your side cannot explain.

 

 BTW, did you watch the link with numerous media reports from the scene that numerous bombs were found in the Alfred P. Murrah building and were difused?

 

There weren't thousands gallons of fuel to act as accelerant, nor were the fire resistant covering on the girders stripped away as the planes did at WTC.  The face of the Murrah building was blown away, not supporting beams.  Nor, were there 25 to 30 stories above to stress support.  

 

The bombs you mentioned, were plastic explosives used as examples by FBI  and BATF offices in the building.  None were fused with live fuses, only dummies.  

 

Like I said, you have no idea about explosives and their use. 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×