Two New Yorkers who moved to my area saw explosions bring down World Trade Centers

[martybegan]

How would you characterize the critical thinking skills of those who believe two planes toppled three steel framed skyscrapers at nearly free-fall speeds?

George

First this has nothing to do with you.

Second I would describe someone's critical thinking skills who believes that a building could not fall because "that is not how it was designed" as moronic.

While I'm not exactly clear on what "that is not how it was designed" applies to, would you agree with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth that WTC 7 a 47 story high rise that was not struck by an airplane exhibited "all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives?"

Including:

"Rapid onset of 'collapse'"?
"Sounds of explosions at ground floor a second before the building's destruction"?
"Symmetrical 'structural failure' through the path of greatest resistance -- at free fall acceleration"?

Most of these can be explained by the building failing normally, i.e. a loss of structural integrity. "Explosions" can be beams or columns failing.

I think the big problem is most people have never seen a non controlled collapse of a building before. The only difference between a controlled collapse and a non controlled collapse is the initiation. In controlled demo you use explosives to weaken structural members to cause collapse. In a normal failure a structural member or members can fail leading to collapse. The explosives dont add anything to the speed of failure or collapse in any way.

So if both failures can be silimiar in order to prove controlled demo you need other verifiable evidence. Occams razor applies.

 

[Gamolon]

Here is one of the first accounts from William taken from this CNN site:
CNN.com - Transcripts

RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin.

So tell us again how he knew the explosion was first and THEN the planes hit? Sounds to me like the first "rumble" was the plane impact and the second "rumble" was the fuel exploding which burned the man's skin. Another thing. Explosives don't cause burns and make people's skin fall of.

 

[Gamolon]

Multi ton steel sections ejected laterally.

Are you taking their word for this or do have a photo or video showing this "ejected steel sections"? Link please.

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds.

You mean there were temperatures of 1000C in those dust clouds?

Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high rises.

Hmmm. There were many types of "metals" present in the towers. Which meltal are you speaking of? Aluminum? Steel?

Evidences of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples.

Link that shows FEMA found thermite incendiaries.

 

[GHook93]

I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.

They moved to a new area because of what they saw.

They say what they saw was definately explosives that brought down the World Trade Center buildings.

They seen and heard the explosives as far down as 30 floors below from where the top floors coming down.

2 randomn people from an internet troll! Now I heard enough, I convinced, I'm a truther now!

 

[georgephillip]

George

First this has nothing to do with you.

Second I would describe someone's critical thinking skills who believes that a building could not fall because "that is not how it was designed" as moronic.

While I'm not exactly clear on what "that is not how it was designed" applies to, would you agree with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth that WTC 7 a 47 story high rise that was not struck by an airplane exhibited "all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives?"

Including:

"Rapid onset of 'collapse'"?
"Sounds of explosions at ground floor a second before the building's destruction"?
"Symmetrical 'structural failure' through the path of greatest resistance -- at free fall acceleration"?

Most of these can be explained by the building failing normally, i.e. a loss of structural integrity. "Explosions" can be beams or columns failing.

I think the big problem is most people have never seen a non controlled collapse of a building before. The only difference between a controlled collapse and a non controlled collapse is the initiation. In controlled demo you use explosives to weaken structural members to cause collapse. In a normal failure a structural member or members can fail leading to collapse. The explosives dont add anything to the speed of failure or collapse in any way.

So if both failures can be silimiar in order to prove controlled demo you need other verifiable evidence. Occams razor applies.

Along with Newton's third law..."Mass always follows the path of least resistance." Wouldn't this mean the two towers struck by aircraft should have fallen to the sides damaged by the impacts of the planes?

Architect Richard Gage of AE 9/11Truth has a pretty simple question: "Why didn't the structure beneath the impact area offer any resistance at all to the much smaller structure above it?"

"The towers came down without interruption in free fall speed, smoothly and symmetrically, as if the lower 90 floors didn't even exist.

"The only way to accomplish that is by controlled demolition."

According to this source the government agency NIST, who did the inquiry into the collapses, didn't even consider the possibility of a controlled demolition.

"The curious justification: controlled demolitions usually start at the basement of a building."

Which brings us back to William Rodriguez.

 

[martybegan]

While I'm not exactly clear on what "that is not how it was designed" applies to, would you agree with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth that WTC 7 a 47 story high rise that was not struck by an airplane exhibited "all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives?"

Including:

"Rapid onset of 'collapse'"?
"Sounds of explosions at ground floor a second before the building's destruction"?
"Symmetrical 'structural failure' through the path of greatest resistance -- at free fall acceleration"?

Most of these can be explained by the building failing normally, i.e. a loss of structural integrity. "Explosions" can be beams or columns failing.

I think the big problem is most people have never seen a non controlled collapse of a building before. The only difference between a controlled collapse and a non controlled collapse is the initiation. In controlled demo you use explosives to weaken structural members to cause collapse. In a normal failure a structural member or members can fail leading to collapse. The explosives dont add anything to the speed of failure or collapse in any way.

So if both failures can be silimiar in order to prove controlled demo you need other verifiable evidence. Occams razor applies.

Along with Newton's third law..."Mass always follows the path of least resistance." Wouldn't this mean the two towers struck by aircraft should have fallen to the sides damaged by the impacts of the planes?

Architect Richard Gage of AE 9/11Truth has a pretty simple question: "Why didn't the structure beneath the impact area offer any resistance at all to the much smaller structure above it?"

"The towers came down without interruption in free fall speed, smoothly and symmetrically, as if the lower 90 floors didn't even exist.

"The only way to accomplish that is by controlled demolition."

According to this source the government agency NIST, who did the inquiry into the collapses, didn't even consider the possibility of a controlled demolition.

"The curious justification: controlled demolitions usually start at the basement of a building."

Which brings us back to William Rodriguez.

Bullshit. Once you get 2-3 of the floors falling as a single mass (less ejected materials) the studs holding the floors to the structure would fail instantanously. The result was the free standing, momentarily outer columns. which then failed as they no longer had lateral bracing. This whole free fall concept is quite idiotic.

and referencing an architect on a structural matter loses you points to start with.

 

[georgephillip]

Most of these can be explained by the building failing normally, i.e. a loss of structural integrity. "Explosions" can be beams or columns failing.

I think the big problem is most people have never seen a non controlled collapse of a building before. The only difference between a controlled collapse and a non controlled collapse is the initiation. In controlled demo you use explosives to weaken structural members to cause collapse. In a normal failure a structural member or members can fail leading to collapse. The explosives dont add anything to the speed of failure or collapse in any way.

So if both failures can be silimiar in order to prove controlled demo you need other verifiable evidence. Occams razor applies.

Along with Newton's third law..."Mass always follows the path of least resistance." Wouldn't this mean the two towers struck by aircraft should have fallen to the sides damaged by the impacts of the planes?

Architect Richard Gage of AE 9/11Truth has a pretty simple question: "Why didn't the structure beneath the impact area offer any resistance at all to the much smaller structure above it?"

"The towers came down without interruption in free fall speed, smoothly and symmetrically, as if the lower 90 floors didn't even exist.

"The only way to accomplish that is by controlled demolition."

According to this source the government agency NIST, who did the inquiry into the collapses, didn't even consider the possibility of a controlled demolition.

"The curious justification: controlled demolitions usually start at the basement of a building."

Which brings us back to William Rodriguez.

Bullshit. Once you get 2-3 of the floors falling as a single mass (less ejected materials) the studs holding the floors to the structure would fail instantanously. The result was the free standing, momentarily outer columns. which then failed as they no longer had lateral bracing. This whole free fall concept is quite idiotic.

and referencing an architect on a structural matter loses you points to start with.

Isaac Newton was not an architect.

 

[DiveCon]

Along with Newton's third law..."Mass always follows the path of least resistance." Wouldn't this mean the two towers struck by aircraft should have fallen to the sides damaged by the impacts of the planes?

Architect Richard Gage of AE 9/11Truth has a pretty simple question: "Why didn't the structure beneath the impact area offer any resistance at all to the much smaller structure above it?"

"The towers came down without interruption in free fall speed, smoothly and symmetrically, as if the lower 90 floors didn't even exist.

"The only way to accomplish that is by controlled demolition."

According to this source the government agency NIST, who did the inquiry into the collapses, didn't even consider the possibility of a controlled demolition.

"The curious justification: controlled demolitions usually start at the basement of a building."

Which brings us back to William Rodriguez.

Bullshit. Once you get 2-3 of the floors falling as a single mass (less ejected materials) the studs holding the floors to the structure would fail instantanously. The result was the free standing, momentarily outer columns. which then failed as they no longer had lateral bracing. This whole free fall concept is quite idiotic.

and referencing an architect on a structural matter loses you points to start with.

Isaac Newton was not an architect.

Gage is

 

[martybegan]

Along with Newton's third law..."Mass always follows the path of least resistance." Wouldn't this mean the two towers struck by aircraft should have fallen to the sides damaged by the impacts of the planes?

Architect Richard Gage of AE 9/11Truth has a pretty simple question: "Why didn't the structure beneath the impact area offer any resistance at all to the much smaller structure above it?"

"The towers came down without interruption in free fall speed, smoothly and symmetrically, as if the lower 90 floors didn't even exist.

"The only way to accomplish that is by controlled demolition."

According to this source the government agency NIST, who did the inquiry into the collapses, didn't even consider the possibility of a controlled demolition.

"The curious justification: controlled demolitions usually start at the basement of a building."

Which brings us back to William Rodriguez.

Bullshit. Once you get 2-3 of the floors falling as a single mass (less ejected materials) the studs holding the floors to the structure would fail instantanously. The result was the free standing, momentarily outer columns. which then failed as they no longer had lateral bracing. This whole free fall concept is quite idiotic.

and referencing an architect on a structural matter loses you points to start with.

Isaac Newton was not an architect.

Yes, he was a physicist, which is the basis of structural engineering.

 

[georgephillip]

So why didn't the two towers struck by aircraft fall to the sides damaged by the impacts of the planes?

 

[Gamolon]

So why didn't the two towers struck by aircraft fall to the sides damaged by the impacts of the planes?

You mean fall over sideways like trees being cut down?

 

[georgephillip]

Yes.

 

[martybegan]

So why didn't the two towers struck by aircraft fall to the sides damaged by the impacts of the planes?

Why do I have the feeling I am getting trolled here?

I am going to explain this very slowly, one last time, then I am probably getting out of this thread because I am not debating, I am responding to one liners and basically bad information.

The hole created in the outer structural columns was part of, but not the prime cause of the subsequent failure. The prime cause was the shock and fire damage to the connecting components of the floors to both the central core, and the outer columns. Once the initiating floors connections were sufficently weakened, they fell DOWN, the holes in the buildings not being large enough to impact the direction of failure. The initiating floor more than likely hit an already weakened floor, causing it to fail, adding to the mass and momentum of the failing body. Once a sufficient mass was achieved, even the unaffected supports could not stop the failure. Since gravity prefers things to go straight down, and the failure was in the floors, and not the outer columns or inner core at the start, the floors were directed to fall DOWN, with the now free standing and unbraced inner core and outer columns following them.

For your scenario to be effective the inital hit would have had to force less than the amount required to snap the towers in the direction of the hit, but sufficient force and surface area to damage the columns on the struck face in a way that those columns would be the primary source of failure. Some of the floor mass would than have likely "spilled" towards the lacking structural support, but in that case I am not sure all of the towers would have collapsed, or if the top section would have "slid" off the remaining structure.

I am going to deliver the "pepsi challenge" to you like have done to others. Give a plausible chain of events other than what actually happned (or the offical conspiracy to you truther nuts) that results in what we saw that day.

 

[Gamolon]

So why didn't the two towers struck by aircraft fall to the sides damaged by the impacts of the planes?

Let's think about this.

You seem to agree that by totally removing the structural steel via explosive demolition, you can achieve the "straight down collapse" that the towers experienced.

Is that the only way you can "remove structural supports" from a steel structure? What you fail to grasp is the fact that a steel structure is designed so that all members share the load. When you start removing members, then other members need to pick up the slack.

The other way to "remove structural support members" is to remove their strength by fire. Why do you think they fireproof steel? For looks?

Let's use an example. Let's say we have a cube of concrete weighing 1000 lbs. We'll put 5 people beneath it, one in the middle and one at each corner. Each person is standing, with their arms stretched out over their heads, holding up the block. All 5 people are helping to hold up that 1000 lb. load and the 1000 lbs is distributed between them. After 2 hours, the middle person's legs start to give out. the more they weaken, the more less weight the person can hold. That weight then has to be distributed somewhere else, which is the other four people. Then the middle person drops out all together. Now all 1000 lbs. are on the four people. At some point, another person will drop out leaving three people. There will come a point where the folks left cannot support that block.

Which way do you think the block will fall? It may tilt a bit depending where the remaining people are, but the block will still fall DOWNWARD due to gravity.

Now, replace the people with the structural columns of the towers. Remember that the structure is a latticework of beams all helping to support the weight. Now fires break out and start to weaken columns (I have yet to find that Robertson and his people did ANY study or analysis about the effects of fire on the structure after a plane crash, only the impact). The weight of the load above the fires DOES NOT change, yet you are weakening the columns below, just like the people's legs starting to weaken then eventually give out all together. Eventually the columns are going to reach a point that they cannot hold up the weight and the upper block will fall DOWN due to gravity.

The towers SURVIVED the initial impact on the planes. It was the damage the impact caused coupled with the fires that brought them down.

If I am wrong, someone please correct me.

 

[georgephillip]

Bullshit. Once you get 2-3 of the floors falling as a single mass (less ejected materials) the studs holding the floors to the structure would fail instantanously. The result was the free standing, momentarily outer columns. which then failed as they no longer had lateral bracing. This whole free fall concept is quite idiotic.

and referencing an architect on a structural matter loses you points to start with.

Isaac Newton was not an architect.

Gage is

Richard Gage is an architect just like David Weiss of Rescue One, Midtown Manhattan was a firefighter.

I say was in David's case because along with 342 other FDNY heroes and thousands of other human beings he was MURDERED on 9/11/2001.

Richard "the Architect" Gage and David's sister Michele want David's killers held accountable.

Do you?

 

[Gamolon]

Yes.

Ok. Can you explain why you think this? The towers were not top heavy like a tree nor did they have a "solid trunk" like a tree.

 

[DiveCon]

Isaac Newton was not an architect.

Gage is

Richard Gage is an architect just like David Weiss of Rescue One, Midtown Manhattan was a firefighter.

I say was in David's case because along with 342 other FDNY heroes and thousands of other human beings he was MURDERED on 9/11/2001.

Richard "the Architect" Gage and David's sister Michele want David's killers held accountable.

Do you?

yes, but clearly YOU dont
because you want to accuse someone that wasnt involved, yet you dont even name WHO
we already know WHO, it was 19 Al Qaeda terrorists

this is why so many people see you fucking moronic dipshits AS fucking moronic dipshits

 

[Nonelitist]

I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.

They moved to a new area because of what they saw.

They say what they saw was definately explosives that brought down the World Trade Center buildings.

They seen and heard the explosives as far down as 30 floors below from where the top floors coming down.

I have a cousin that saw a warning in her ham sandwich about 9/11. She snuck into the world trade centers the night before they came down and searched every inch of the building and didn't find any explosives.

How do we reconcile this?

 

[georgephillip]

Waterboard your cousin until she confesses?

 

[The Infidel]

I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.

They moved to a new area because of what they saw.

They say what they saw was definately explosives that brought down the World Trade Center buildings.

They seen and heard the explosives as far down as 30 floors below from where the top floors coming down.

I once talked to a guy who swore martians probed his ass.... he moved to San Fransicko b/c of what happened.



When are you idiots going to give up on this stupid "the gov't did it shit"?
Jet fuel + fire + metal girders + time = collapse