The IMPOSSIBLE didn't happen on 911

[wihosa]

Do some homework then tell us why they call this a punch out hole.... HINT: It's not because the nose of the plane hit it.

Why don't you enlighten us? What do you think made the hole?

That is the picture of the "c"ring wall. The wall that was punctured after the plane supposedly went through the exterior concrete and steel wall and all the interior support columns.

 

[wihosa]

world trade tower seven is very hard to accept as an accidental free fall drop.


I dont think about it much any more as we will likely never get the truth on it.


for it to fall into its own footprint in freefall time just by accident is alot to accept.


Especially when the people who ran the country at the time have been proven to have repetedly lied to the American people in matters of life and death.

so here's the deal. at the top of both trade centers there were huge concrete platforms. these platforms were the size of the building, a full square block. they were installed as a base for the massive communications towers on top of each of the buildings. when the floors the planes crashed into gave out and collapsed these massive blocks started their downward motion and acted like a wedge splitting the building as they dropped. and that is what caused the buildings to collapse the way they did. it was basically like splitting a log.

Really? Very interesting, not.

You do realize that the building was calculated to support all the imposed loads and with a saftey factor of four ( design loads are four times calculated loads). That would include whatever amount of mass was in the base for the com towers. Also all high rise buildings are calculated to withstand wind loading which on towers that high is astronomical.You also realize that the weight imposed never increased.

It was basically like controlled demolition.

 

[wihosa]

so here's the deal. at the top of both trade centers there were huge concrete platforms. these platforms were the size of the building, a full square block. they were installed as a base for the massive communications towers on top of each of the buildings. when the floors the planes crashed into gave out and collapsed these massive blocks started their downward motion and acted like a wedge splitting the building as they dropped. and that is what caused the buildings to collapse the way they did. it was basically like splitting a log.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju3AxVZs31g]9/11 Buildings crashed to ground zero @ free fall speed - YouTube[/ame]

except given the fact that items fall at 98m/sec and the center was 400 meters tall the guys calculation of the time is would take to fall is more than twice what it would be. more liberal spin

Don't forget the buildings fell through the path of greatest resistance, so of course is going to take longer than a brick dropped through the air from that height.

What does ones political bent have to due with it?

 

[Gamolon]

world trade tower seven is very hard to accept as an accidental free fall drop.


I dont think about it much any more as we will likely never get the truth on it.


for it to fall into its own footprint in freefall time just by accident is alot to accept.


Especially when the people who ran the country at the time have been proven to have repetedly lied to the American people in matters of life and death.

so here's the deal. at the top of both trade centers there were huge concrete platforms. these platforms were the size of the building, a full square block. they were installed as a base for the massive communications towers on top of each of the buildings. when the floors the planes crashed into gave out and collapsed these massive blocks started their downward motion and acted like a wedge splitting the building as they dropped. and that is what caused the buildings to collapse the way they did. it was basically like splitting a log.

Really? Very interesting, not.

You do realize that the building was calculated to support all the imposed loads and with a saftey factor of four ( design loads are four times calculated loads). That would include whatever amount of mass was in the base for the com towers. Also all high rise buildings are calculated to withstand wind loading which on towers that high is astronomical.You also realize that the weight imposed never increased.

It was basically like controlled demolition.

You seemed to have "missed" the following in the other thread.

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of how such buildings are engineered. I do have a basic knowledge having installed a few structural steel elements (beams and columns). First know that in structural engineering there is the safety factor which in high rise buildings is a factor of four. In other words if the math dictates for instance that a beam should have a load bearing capacity of say 40 pounds per square foot then the design beam will have to have a load bearing capacity of 160 psf. The point is that these building are over engineered by a factor of four.

Answer something wihosa.

Are you suggesting that I could remove/weaken any steel columns on a given floor to a point that the remaining columns could have up to four times the load applied to them and remain structurally sound? How does one calculate the current safety factor of a building with a damaged structure?

For example. When the plane impacted the south tower, what was the saftey factor of floors 77 through 85 at that time? Was it still a safety factor of 4?

So what was the safety factor of the floors impacted by the jet? Was it still 4?

 

[Gamolon]

Well we both agree, there was a conspiracy, you have a theory which I have debunked and I have yet to form one as I don't have enough facts.

But one fact is, the impossible didn't happen, new evidence to the contrary WTC7 was a result of CD.

Make up your mind...

 

[Gamolon]

Aluminum melts at around 1600degrees F but does not burn until heated to over 6000degrees F far beyond the temps resulting from hydrocarbon fires.

1600F???

Chemical Elements.com - Aluminum (Al)

Melting Point: 660.37 °C (933.52 K, 1220.666 °F)

Watch the YouTube video of the collapse, it falls neatly straight down at

Nope, it hit other buildings.

near free fall speed

Nope, wrong again. How long did the collapse take from start to finish?

into its own footprint.

Nope, it hit other buildings.

This can ONLY happen if ALL the support columns fail simultaneously on each floor and synchronously from floor to floor.

Is this why the east penthouse fell into the building first? Because all the support columns failed at the same time?

Look at the 2005 Windsor Tower fire in Madrid Spain. Here you see a modern steel frame high rise fully engulfed in fire.

All buildings act the same right? Design type has no play in how a building reacts to fire right?

What caused the bulge in WTC7 seen by firefighters?

 

[Gamolon]

You are wrong I did prove it. You have failed to offer any evidence that my facts are wrong. Let me guess, you forgot the facts.
1. No steel modern steel frame high rise building has EVER collapsed due to fire.

Compare apples to apples. Show me a steel high rise, designed like WTC7 that had unfought fires in it OR show me an example of a 1300' high, tube in tube, 208' x 208' square high rise, that was hit by a jet in the upper third, that remained standing.

I can play your historical bullshit game too. If you cannot provide a building fitting the criteria above, your claim is crap.

2. Video of WTC7 displays all the characteristics of controlled demolition' namely sudden, immediate and symmetrical collapse in a straight downward direction through the path of greatest resistance.

Did it? Symmetrical? You call the east penthouse falling into the building FIRST, followed by the rest of the building symmetrical?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Do some homework then tell us why they call this a punch out hole.... HINT: It's not because the nose of the plane hit it.

Why don't you enlighten us? What do you think made the hole?

That is the picture of the "c"ring wall. The wall that was punctured after the plane supposedly went through the exterior concrete and steel wall and all the interior support columns.

So you don't know.....And you don't know how to get through all the conspiracy crap to find out..... Got it....... i might even enlighten you some time....

 

[Spoonman]

world trade tower seven is very hard to accept as an accidental free fall drop.


I dont think about it much any more as we will likely never get the truth on it.


for it to fall into its own footprint in freefall time just by accident is alot to accept.


Especially when the people who ran the country at the time have been proven to have repetedly lied to the American people in matters of life and death.

so here's the deal. at the top of both trade centers there were huge concrete platforms. these platforms were the size of the building, a full square block. they were installed as a base for the massive communications towers on top of each of the buildings. when the floors the planes crashed into gave out and collapsed these massive blocks started their downward motion and acted like a wedge splitting the building as they dropped. and that is what caused the buildings to collapse the way they did. it was basically like splitting a log.

Really? Very interesting, not.

You do realize that the building was calculated to support all the imposed loads and with a saftey factor of four ( design loads are four times calculated loads). That would include whatever amount of mass was in the base for the com towers. Also all high rise buildings are calculated to withstand wind loading which on towers that high is astronomical.You also realize that the weight imposed never increased.

It was basically like controlled demolition.

yea, and no one ever thought pinto's would explode upon rear impact. I mean they weren't designed to explode when hit from behind.

 

[eots]

so here's the deal. at the top of both trade centers there were huge concrete platforms. these platforms were the size of the building, a full square block. they were installed as a base for the massive communications towers on top of each of the buildings. when the floors the planes crashed into gave out and collapsed these massive blocks started their downward motion and acted like a wedge splitting the building as they dropped. and that is what caused the buildings to collapse the way they did. it was basically like splitting a log.

Really? Very interesting, not.

You do realize that the building was calculated to support all the imposed loads and with a saftey factor of four ( design loads are four times calculated loads). That would include whatever amount of mass was in the base for the com towers. Also all high rise buildings are calculated to withstand wind loading which on towers that high is astronomical.You also realize that the weight imposed never increased.

It was basically like controlled demolition.

yea, and no one ever thought pinto's would explode upon rear impact. I mean they weren't designed to explode when hit from behind.

actually Eisenstein they did know but calculated it was cheaper to pay potential burn victims than fix the problem

True Conspiracy: The Ford Pinto Memorandum
Ford was fully aware of all these construction problems. However, people didn't know that until Mother Jones magazine published a stolen copy of an infamous memo that was sent out to all senior management at the Ford Motor Company.

Here are the highlights of the memo on the altar worshiping the Almighty Buck:
True Conspiracy: The Ford Pinto Memorandum - For Dummies

 

[wihosa]

so here's the deal. at the top of both trade centers there were huge concrete platforms. these platforms were the size of the building, a full square block. they were installed as a base for the massive communications towers on top of each of the buildings. when the floors the planes crashed into gave out and collapsed these massive blocks started their downward motion and acted like a wedge splitting the building as they dropped. and that is what caused the buildings to collapse the way they did. it was basically like splitting a log.

Really? Very interesting, not.

You do realize that the building was calculated to support all the imposed loads and with a saftey factor of four ( design loads are four times calculated loads). That would include whatever amount of mass was in the base for the com towers. Also all high rise buildings are calculated to withstand wind loading which on towers that high is astronomical.You also realize that the weight imposed never increased.

It was basically like controlled demolition.

You seemed to have "missed" the following in the other thread.

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of how such buildings are engineered. I do have a basic knowledge having installed a few structural steel elements (beams and columns). First know that in structural engineering there is the safety factor which in high rise buildings is a factor of four. In other words if the math dictates for instance that a beam should have a load bearing capacity of say 40 pounds per square foot then the design beam will have to have a load bearing capacity of 160 psf. The point is that these building are over engineered by a factor of four.

Answer something wihosa.

Are you suggesting that I could remove/weaken any steel columns on a given floor to a point that the remaining columns could have up to four times the load applied to them and remain structurally sound? How does one calculate the current safety factor of a building with a damaged structure?

For example. When the plane impacted the south tower, what was the saftey factor of floors 77 through 85 at that time? Was it still a safety factor of 4?

So what was the safety factor of the floors impacted by the jet? Was it still 4?

The design of the building was unchanged. All the floors below the damaged area were still designed support all the applied loads with a safety factor of four. The weight of the structure from the damage area up did not increase. In other words the structure was still capable of supporting the damaged floors.

 

[wihosa]

Well we both agree, there was a conspiracy, you have a theory which I have debunked and I have yet to form one as I don't have enough facts.

But one fact is, the impossible didn't happen, new evidence to the contrary WTC7 was a result of CD.

Make up your mind...

Having trouble following a line of reasoning?

Ok, try to pay attention, the fact that nothing but controlled demolition can explain the collapse WTC7 is not a theory, it is a fact, new evidence to the contrary not withstanding. In the eleven years since 911 the NIST has yet to explain how fire could have caused the collapse, so their assertion is just as likely as saying fairies did it. There are numerous videos of CD with WTD7 showing all the same characteristics.

Your conspiracy theory regarding WTC7 is debunked.

 

[wihosa]

Well we both agree, there was a conspiracy, you have a theory which I have debunked and I have yet to form one as I don't have enough facts.

But one fact is, the impossible didn't happen, new evidence to the contrary WTC7 was a result of CD.

Make up your mind...

Do you know the difference between a theory and a fact?

Ok, try to pay attention, a theory is a reasoned explanation of the known facts.this theory would then be tested by experimentation and or test or in the case of a criminal trial in a court of law.

 

[wihosa]

Aluminum melts at around 1600degrees F but does not burn until heated to over 6000degrees F far beyond the temps resulting from hydrocarbon fires.

1600F???

Chemical Elements.com - Aluminum (Al)

Melting Point: 660.37 °C (933.52 K, 1220.666 °F)

Nope, it hit other buildings.
Of course it did, the materials pilled up and hit the buildings around it. so? How does that affect the way it fell, or are you denying what is plainly seen in the videos?


Nope, wrong again. How long did the collapse take from start to finish?


Seconds. Did you bother to look at an example of a high rise damaged by fire, the Windsor Tower? Slow developing asymmetrical partial failure after nearly two days of complete conflagration.

Nope, it hit other buildings.
You are clutching at straws.

This can ONLY happen if ALL the support columns fail simultaneously on each floor and synchronously from floor to floor.

Is this why the east penthouse fell into the building first? Because all the support columns failed at the same time?
Yes, the columns in those floors failed simultaneously. Do you think it would fall all together if only one column failed? This is obvious.

Look at the 2005 Windsor Tower fire in Madrid Spain. Here you see a modern steel frame high rise fully engulfed in fire.

All buildings act the same right? Design type has no play in how a building reacts to fire right?
No all buildings are not the same, but all steel frame high rise buildings are.
What caused the bulge in WTC7 seen by firefighters?

On now were talking about what the firefighters experienced, well then how about the explosions they heard before WTC7 came down?

 

[wihosa]

You are wrong I did prove it. You have failed to offer any evidence that my facts are wrong. Let me guess, you forgot the facts.
1. No steel modern steel frame high rise building has EVER collapsed due to fire.

Compare apples to apples. Show me a steel high rise, designed like WTC7 that had unfought fires in it OR show me an example of a 1300' high, tube in tube, 208' x 208' square high rise, that was hit by a jet in the upper third, that remained standing.

I did, the Windsor Tower, exact same type of building, steel frame high rise.

I can play your historical bullshit game too. If you cannot provide a building fitting the criteria above, your claim is crap.

Your statement is crap, no two buildings are identical. That's idiotic.

2. Video of WTC7 displays all the characteristics of controlled demolition' namely sudden, immediate and symmetrical collapse in a straight downward direction through the path of greatest resistance.

Did it? Symmetrical? You call the east penthouse falling into the building FIRST, followed by the rest of the building symmetrical?

You are lying to yourself now. Symmetrical doesn't mean that the upper most portion would not first be taken down so as to CONTROL THE DEMOLITION!

 

[wihosa]

Do some homework then tell us why they call this a punch out hole.... HINT: It's not because the nose of the plane hit it.

Why don't you enlighten us? What do you think made the hole?

That is the picture of the "c"ring wall. The wall that was punctured after the plane supposedly went through the exterior concrete and steel wall and all the interior support columns.

So you don't know.....And you don't know how to get through all the conspiracy crap to find out..... Got it....... i might even enlighten you some time....

Yeah, but first you would have to have an idea of what the word enlighten means.

By the way Sarge, you're the one defending a conspiracy theory.

 

[SAYIT]

Why don't you enlighten us? What do you think made the hole?

That is the picture of the "c"ring wall. The wall that was punctured after the plane supposedly went through the exterior concrete and steel wall and all the interior support columns.

So you don't know.....And you don't know how to get through all the conspiracy crap to find out..... Got it....... i might even enlighten you some time....

Yeah, but first you would have to have an idea of what the word enlighten means.

By the way Sarge, you're the one defending a conspiracy theory.

No he's not but he is toying with you and you are bouncing like a puppet on a string.
I suspect many "truthers" get into the CT World for the fun but invariably end up taking themselves and their movement waaaay too seriously. When you resurface you will find a lot of people have been laughing at you.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Wow, First off you cannot make controlled demolition of WTC7 a fact just because you say so. You need some kind of proof other than it looks like a CD..... Yes of course explosions were heard, they are heard in all office fires and many home fires, there are lots of things that go boom when heat is applied.....Or didn't you know that was a fact? Now ask yourself what does a CD sound like? It's not intermittent explosions lasting several hours and then no explosions when a building starts to fall. Never heard of any explosion doing a delayed time destruction sometime after the blast. And you still haven't looked for what could have caused the blast hole at the pentagon....You aren't looking for truth, you are the same as the other CTrs here....

 

[SAYIT]

Do some homework then tell us why they call this a punch out hole.... HINT: It's not because the nose of the plane hit it.

Why don't you enlighten us? What do you think made the hole?

That is the picture of the "c"ring wall. The wall that was punctured after the plane supposedly went through the exterior concrete and steel wall and all the interior support columns.

So you don't know.....And you don't know how to get through all the conspiracy crap to find out..... Got it....... i might even enlighten you some time....

It won't help. CTs are impervious to enlightenment.

"No amount of evidence will dissuade a conspiracy theorist, but when they appeal to scientific evidence, they're fair game. And the 9-11 conspiracy sites have some very strange science." - Steven Dutch (from Nutty 9/11 Physics)

 

[Gamolon]

Really? Very interesting, not.

You do realize that the building was calculated to support all the imposed loads and with a saftey factor of four ( design loads are four times calculated loads). That would include whatever amount of mass was in the base for the com towers. Also all high rise buildings are calculated to withstand wind loading which on towers that high is astronomical.You also realize that the weight imposed never increased.

It was basically like controlled demolition.

You seemed to have "missed" the following in the other thread.

Answer something wihosa.

Are you suggesting that I could remove/weaken any steel columns on a given floor to a point that the remaining columns could have up to four times the load applied to them and remain structurally sound? How does one calculate the current safety factor of a building with a damaged structure?

For example. When the plane impacted the south tower, what was the saftey factor of floors 77 through 85 at that time? Was it still a safety factor of 4?

So what was the safety factor of the floors impacted by the jet? Was it still 4?

The design of the building was unchanged.

First of all, you ignored the actual question (for obvious reasons I might add). let me repeat it for you. What was the safety factor of the floors after being impacted by the jet? Was it still a 4?

All the floors below the damaged area were still designed support all the applied loads with a safety factor of four.

You really have no clue do you? See your next quote for proof of this...

The weight of the structure from the damage area up did not increase.

Really? The downward movement of the upper structure at collpase initiation did not increase the load/force at all????

Are you friggin' stupid?

Hmmmm. Let's try an experiment. Place a 20 pound weight on a scale. 20 pounds right? Now drop the same weight from ten feet and tell me what the impact registers.

In other words the structure was still capable of supporting the damaged floors.

When the load was static you moron!!!

Jesus H. Christ!!

No wonder you believe controlled demolition and all the other bullshit.