1745 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

joc, on 13 January 2013 - 07:52 PM, said:

Let me tell you exactly what you are looking at.  You are looking at the South Tower in the process of being demolished...The top of the building is falling away from the rest of the building...but then..somehow...it mysteriously stops and goes straight down with the rest of the building.  This is indicative of demolition controlled explosives.

With all of the weight of the upper level focused on a small area at the hinge point, which was not capable of supporting the added weight, there was no way the  top of the building was going to topple over to the side and the only path was straight down.  Look at it like walking on thin ice until you fall through the weakest surface layer.

[Arbenol68]

socrates.junior, on 13 January 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

AKA, qualified people are the people to ask about their craft.

Only a few days ago you dismissed my professional observations as "anecdotal evidence". Seems you're not too consistent with your approach. The above quote of yours only appears to apply to those who say something you agree with.

As it goes, I don't think you're wrong about this. Just thought I'd point it out.

[skyeagle409]

joc, on 13 January 2013 - 08:20 PM, said:

Probably not.  None of it really makes any sense.  Three buildings dropping like that?  One that wasn't even hit...  And just collapsing straight down so fast.  How does that happen?  Where has that ever happened before?  Lots of buildings have had fires...none have ever spontaneously collapsed.

On the contrary, the steel structure of the Windsor building during a fire collapsed due to the fire. Only the concrete core was left standing.




In Thailand, steel frame buildings collapsed due to fire.

Quote

Fire in Thailand toy factory leaves 210 dead: No alarms or fire escapes in buildings that collapsed within 15 minutes as 4,000 workers changed shifts

The fire broke out on Monday afternoon, and quickly engulfed the factory's four four-storey buildings, which collapsed only 15 minutes later.

http://www.independe...ts-2322362.html

[Paul Rubino]

joc, on 13 January 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

... the Buildings could never have fallen as they did unless they were wired for demolition.

A very short video to counterpoint your assertion:

9/11: Were Explosives Used?

[joc]

socrates.junior, on 13 January 2013 - 08:27 PM, said:

If you paid any attention to what I'm posting, you'd know it wasn't a list of debunkers. Sorry, I forgot...it isn't a pretty picture. My bad.

Wait, I thought you said that the towers were pulverized? Now there's huge chunks of concrete? Is that consistent?

The towers were pulverized...but as they were falling chunks of the building mysteriously found their way...600 feet or meters...approximately two football fields away with enough force to significantly damage the buildings they hit.
Now...please explain to me using the law of physics which you seem to know so much about....exactly how does that happen when a building is just collapsing in on itself?  And please...don't regurgitate Sky's ridiculous claim of parts of the building ricocheting.  We are talking about a significant force to propel large chunks of concrete 2 football field lengths.

[joc]

Paul Rubino, on 13 January 2013 - 09:06 PM, said:

A very short video to counterpoint your assertion:

9/11: Were Explosives Used?

Very interesting.  But it doesn't refute anything.  There are alot of differences.  First, look at the amount of debris that these buildings left behind...compared to the debris left behind from WTC.   Second, none of these buildings were built like the WTC with a main core of Steel.  These buildings were built to withstand a Boeing 707 direct hit....and they did.  The fires were not raging inside the buildings...they were pretty much contained.  So how does the Vernage effect take place there?

skyeagle409, on 13 January 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:

On the contrary, the steel structure of the Windsor building during a fire collapsed due to the fire. Only the concrete core was left standing.




In Thailand, steel frame buildings collapsed due to fire.

Where was the raging fire in the WTC?

[Czero 101]

joc, on 13 January 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

The towers were pulverized...but as they were falling chunks of the building mysteriously found their way...600 feet or meters...approximately two football fields away with enough force to significantly damage the buildings they hit.
Now...please explain to me using the law of physics which you seem to know so much about....exactly how does that happen when a building is just collapsing in on itself?  And please...don't regurgitate Sky's ridiculous claim of parts of the building ricocheting.  We are talking about a significant force to propel large chunks of concrete 2 football field lengths.

Why is it "ridiculous"...? While I wouldn't personally use the word "ricochet", the basic idea is correct... one piece of rubble / debris hits another piece of rubble / debris and both go off at different angles. With a big enough "chunk" there would be sufficient forces in play to send that "chunk" a good distance away.

Just because you can't grasp the basic physics of it doesn't mean that it can't happen or that it is "impossible" or "ridiculous".






Cz

[joc]

Czero 101, on 13 January 2013 - 09:46 PM, said:

Why is it "ridiculous"...? While I wouldn't personally use the word "ricochet", the basic idea is correct... one piece of rubble / debris hits another piece of rubble / debris and both go off at different angles. With a big enough "chunk" there would be sufficient forces in play to send that "chunk" a good distance away.

Just because you can't grasp the basic physics of it doesn't mean that it can't happen or that it is "impossible" or "ridiculous".
Cz

Please explain to me then using basic physics, how that happens.  I'm not saying at all that pieces of the building didn't ricochet out...but with an upward trajectory that would carry them 200 yards?  Yeah, explain how that happens...please.

[Czero 101]

Please show evidence of this "upward trajectory" you claim. If its in this 2-hour video you've posted, then just give the time it occurs as I have no interest in viewing the whole thing.

Beyond that, do you think it impossible for steel to bounce or to have elasticity?

Also... why do you assume that all of the building fell straight down? Are you claiming that it is "impossible" or "ridiculous" that debris could have fallen at angles or peeled off the structure in such a way that would have it land on something some distance away?





Cz

[skyeagle409]

joc, on 13 January 2013 - 09:46 PM, said:

Very interesting.  But it doesn't refute anything.  There are alot of differences.  First, look at the amount of debris that these buildings left behind...compared to the debris left behind from WTC.   Second, none of these buildings were built like the WTC with a main core of Steel.  These buildings were built to withstand a Boeing 707 direct hit....and they did.  The fires were not raging inside the buildings...they were pretty much contained.  So how does the Vernage effect take place there?

The engineers built the WTC towers strong enough to absorb a strike by a B-707, but they failed to take into an account an impact dislodging the fire protection for the steel structure, which exposed the unprotected steel structure to temperatures high enough to weaken steel. The temperatures didn't need to be high enough to melt steel, but just high enough to weaken the remaining undamaged steel columns to the point of failure.

Looking at it this way, let's say that a 100 pound weight is supported by four legs, each capable of supporting 35 pounds. One leg was struck and taken out, which leaves the 3 remaining legs supporting the 100 pound weight with 5 pounds of additional strength to spare, however, add heat that saps 20% of the strength from each of the remaining 3 legs and you will eventually have a collapse.  

The aircraft damaged much of the supporting steel structure and temperatures were high enough from the fires that were in the range to weaken the remaining steel structure. The proof that high temperatures from the fires initiated the collapse of the WTC buildings can be determined by the fact the WTC buildings began to  buckle in the minutes prior to their collapse, which was a clear indication that fires were slowly weakening the steel structures to the point of collapse and the remaining structures could only absorb so much of the overhead weight and explains why WTC2 collapsed before WTC1, and remember, WTC1 was struck first,  but was the second building to collapse because it supported less overhead weight than WTC2. Let's take a look at the following picture and notice that WTC1 is supporting less overhead weight than WTC2.

.

Quote

Where was the raging fire in the WTC?

In the areas where they were struck.

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 January 2013 - 10:45 PM.

[Coffey]

Hasina, on 13 January 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

My problem with hearing things from 'professionals' is that they'll say different things.

Two of my buddies brothers are pilots in the airforce, one says he could've done it with the same amount of training those guys supposedly did, the other one thinks there's no way someone could've jumped into the seat of jet and done it.

There is no way they have the same Aviation experience as John lear.

Quote

John Lear, a captain for a major US Airline has flown over 160 different types of aircraft in over 50 different countries. He holds 17 world speed record in the Lear Jet and is the only pilot ever to hold every airline certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration. Mr. Lear has flown missions worldwide for the CIA and other government agencies. A former Nevada State Senator candidate, he is the son of William P. Lear, designer of the Lear Jet executive airplane, the 8-track stereo, and founder of Lear Siegler Corporation.

He's one of the most experienced pilots in the world.

socrates.junior, on 13 January 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:

Ah, John Lear. The man who obviously lost touch with reality a long time ago. Good guy to have in your corner. John Lear is talking completely out of his ass.



Yes, actors are always my first source for investigations.



Mmmmm wrong. Please read the link.



Hmmmm which architects, pilots, and engineers? Yes, because I'm not a raving lunatic, I do know more than John Lear...but you've provided no one else.

I provided a whole truckload of engineers.

Provide proof of architects engineers and pilots? LOL

Google or youtube the millions of results you will get. lol

You can list your examples, if I listed mine I'd get banned from UM for spamming as it would take up thousands of posts. lol

[Hasina]

Coffey, on 13 January 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

There is no way they have the same Aviation experience as John lear.






He's one of the most experienced pilots in the world.




Provide proof of architects engineers and pilots? LOL

Google or youtube the millions of results you will get. lol

You can list your examples, if I listed mine I'd get banned from UM for spamming as it would take up thousands of posts. lol

Now here's the thing for me, if I'm not to trust the government, why trust one man because of his fancy credentials. I will say I'll take his word more so over my own, I don't know if someone could or couldn't do it, if he says it couldn't be done then I defer to him because of his experience in that field. If other professionals also want to have their say, with their own data, with their own credentials, I'll also read and listen, because I have no first hand experience in this. There's no credibility in the world of conspiracies, IMO.

Edited by Hasina, 13 January 2013 - 10:41 PM.

[socrates.junior]

Arbenol68, on 13 January 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

Only a few days ago you dismissed my professional observations as "anecdotal evidence". Seems you're not too consistent with your approach. The above quote of yours only appears to apply to those who say something you agree with.

As it goes, I don't think you're wrong about this. Just thought I'd point it out.

Um, I wasn't aware of your professional status in the field. "Worked with" being a very loose term for anything. My bad.

joc, on 13 January 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

The towers were pulverized...but as they were falling chunks of the building mysteriously found their way...600 feet or meters...approximately two football fields away with enough force to significantly damage the buildings they hit.
Now...please explain to me using the law of physics which you seem to know so much about....exactly how does that happen when a building is just collapsing in on itself?  And please...don't regurgitate Sky's ridiculous claim of parts of the building ricocheting.  We are talking about a significant force to propel large chunks of concrete 2 football field lengths.

Oh those crazy laws of physics. If you give me a size and distance, I can do some back of the envelope calculations as to possible explanations. As far as any other explanation would go...I guess you wouldn't read if I linked anything about momentum, or energy. It's a shame.

Did any reading of any of those reports yet? Or still working on heart and soul?

EDIT:

Quote

Provide proof of architects engineers and pilots? LOL

Google or youtube the millions of results you will get. lol

You can list your examples, if I listed mine I'd get banned from UM for spamming as it would take up thousands of posts. lol

I don't know about millions. I'm sure you would get millions of Google results...but I'm sure you realize that's hardly the same as the number of experts supporting you. That number would be about 1700, as far as I noticed. Toeing the party line of an attention-grabbing wing-nut.

I don't need to list examples of people who agree. I merely listed their conclusions based on the evidence.

Edited by socrates.junior, 14 January 2013 - 12:08 AM.

[joc]

socrates.junior, on 14 January 2013 - 12:05 AM, said:

Um, I wasn't aware of your professional status in the field. "Worked with" being a very loose term for anything. My bad.



Oh those crazy laws of physics. If you give me a size and distance, I can do some back of the envelope calculations as to possible explanations. As far as any other explanation would go...I guess you wouldn't read if I linked anything about momentum, or energy. It's a shame.

Did any reading of any of those reports yet? Or still working on heart and soul?

Have you watched the video yet?

[socrates.junior]

I got 23 minutes in...then realized that their were much better things to be doing than listening to wild-eyed speculation. As frenat said, tell me when they mention the rain of concrete.