The Impossible Fast Collapse of The Towers

[SolarPlexus]

Conspiracists always produce a clip that misses out the collapse of the penthouses a few second before the building goes, a key indication of an internal structural failure.

Firstly, i did not produce the gif image above, i merely linked to it. Secondly, the collapse of the penthouses is a key indication of a cotrolled demolition as well

Really? How do you make that out? A long time ago on another thread, I challenged Q24 to come up with anything similar in a controlled demolition and he failed.

Uh.. the intitial penthouse drop shows that the core structure of the building was removed first just as with classic controlled demolition. Why do you think the penthouse collapsing is some kind of proof it wasn't a CD?

[SolarPlexus]

[Lilly]

The next person who comes out with "liar" and/or "stupid" will find themselves in the time out box.

[Little Fish]

There was nothing remotely like the very loud series of bangs that you get with a real controlled demolition. Any building that is on fire, let alone collapsing, is going to generate some noise, but a real CD is unmistakable.

Two separate points:

Those experiments were unrepresentative of what would be required for a demolition, just check my reply.

The "Nanothermite" claimed to have been discovered in the dust barely marked whatever it was resting on when it was ignited.

Yes

Dear me, who's getting in a temper?

you said there were no bangs in the wtc 7 footage.

I showed you bangs.

and again you enter a false reality by stating you will continue to say there are no bangs.

It has been pointed out to you that thermite charges are less audible than commonly used demolition explosives.

you deny that the bangs exist, and out of the other side of your mouth state they are not loud enough to be rdx charges.

you said thermite cannot cut steel beams.

I showed you thermite cutting steel beams.

and again you dispose of the truth by stating thermite cannot cut steel beams.

you deliberately misstate that the colour of the orange molten material flowing from the building is silver.

how can you continue to embarass yourself like this? where is your self respect?

[mrbusdriver]

So if there were bangs, it was explosives, and if there aren't bangs, it's thermite...right?

Just trying to keep it straight here.

Is there any room at all for a third alternative, or are these the only possible explanations?

[Little Fish]

So if there were bangs, it was explosives, and if there aren't bangs, it's thermite...right?

Just trying to keep it straight here.

if there are bangs there are bangs, if there are not bangs then there are not bangs.

where it gets bent is when people say there not bangs when there are bangs, and when they say there are bangs when there are not bangs...or in the case of flyingswan when he says simultaneously that there are bangs and there are no bangs. straight enough for you?

Edited June 16, 2011 by Little Fish

[Q24]

Yeah, default to insult. You've confirmed my point.

It wasn't an insult or even an ad hom, but a factual observation.

For example...

When it has been pointed out to you over a number of years that the WTC demolitions were by their very nature unconventional, and you continue to claim they cannot have been demolitions because they do not contain all conventional features, yes that is stu... err... illogical.

Even Q24 in his post above doesn't claim bangs when you'd need them:

I said there would be no "bangs" equivalent to those heard in conventional demolition and it would be nonsense to expect such given the covert operation proposed.

Of course there is voluminous evidence of unexplained "bangs" preceeding the building collapses as I have shown before and Little Fish has demonstrated above... just not so obvious as those witnessed in conventional demolition, as expected and fully congruent with a covert demolition.

[booNyzarC]

Your arguments for controlled demolitions and bangs which would support this hypothesis remind me a lot of William Hung's musical carreer....

It seems so exciting and interesting on the surface. But we all know that it was just a farce.

[Guest]

I have one last serious contribution to make to the whole controlled demolition debate.

Rigging the twin towers for a controlled demolition represented a very serious risk to the organisers as what would have happened if the very real possibility that the planes failed to make it to the towers and there was no excuse for the drop. There would have been an extensive investigation and the controlled demolition infrastructure would have been found, and the "Conspiracy" would have been out of the bag - why take the risk if it wasn't necessary.

These are the common sense questions that have to be asked before launching into any speculation about controlled demolition.

My last thought on this one .

Br Cornelius

[Q24]

Your arguments for controlled demolitions and bangs which would support this hypothesis remind me a lot of William Hung's musical carreer....

It seems so exciting and interesting on the surface. But we all know that it was just a farce.

Tell it to Ricky Martin.

... the very real possibility that the planes failed to make it to the towers...

Accepting the attack were a false flag and having so much rely on its success, would you really leave the plane element to chance?

There was no possibility of fighters intercepting those planes which impacted the towers - unlike the Pentagon incident, it happened too fast. The fact the demolitions relied so completely on the planes as a pretext is the very reason these impacts would have been chosen to occur at the early stage.

You may point to Flight 93 which went down for... whatever reason (opinion differs), but either way the situation and awareness had advanced by then; the circumstances had changed all around from those first early stages.

Now according to official theorists, the hijackers were somewhat competent pilots who could not have missed such large targets. I happen to believe the hijackers were poor pilots and have pointed out difficulties in both the Pentagon and Flight 175 manoeuvres - I do think they could have missed.

I would not allow this possibility - it was quite feasible to remotely override the plane controls from a ground (or even air) station and/or switch the aircraft (akin to that described in Operation Northwoods). This would be facilitated by those transponder alterations which made the specific planes impossible to track with certainty on radar.

The huge controversy over the aircraft identification and black boxes leaves this as a possibility - the lack of aircraft investigation in the case of all the 9/11 flights is unprecedented in U.S. aviation history.

There is not a scrap of proof available they were flights 11 & 175 which hit the towers.

I'm kind of disappointed you are backing-off from discussion of the points I have raised (that's a roundabout compliment to you).

[Little Fish]

Rigging the twin towers for a controlled demolition represented a very serious risk to the organisers as what would have happened if the very real possibility that the planes failed to make it to the towers and there was no excuse for the drop. There would have been an extensive investigation and the controlled demolition infrastructure would have been found, and the "Conspiracy" would have been out of the bag - why take the risk if it wasn't necessary.

Are you sure there would be "an extensive investigation and the controlled demolition infrastructure would have been found" if the planes had not met their targets?

consider the possibilty of flight 93's intended target being building 7. there actually is no excuse for the drop. did we get an extensive investigation that would have found controlled demolition infrastructure? nope, the government agency NIST refused to consider demolition based on their absurd 140db criteria.

suppose all 3 wtc planes did not reach their targets (unlikely for the first plane given what we know about NORAD, drills, etc). you always have at least a plan B. In the unlikely circumstance of plan A failing, you carry on with the demolition of undamaged buildings using plan B and blame al quaida for placing demolition devices in the towers. yes plan B is harder to sell than plan A when placing the blame since a more thorough investigation INTO WHO DID IT would be required, however plan A is unlikely to fail in the first place and easier to sell since they would just need to connect al quadia with the planes - passports surviving fireballs, quarans left at bars, wills left at airports, flight training manuals found in flats, arabs training at flight schools, all easily contructed evidence.

If the planes had not hit their targets, then without controlled demolition the operation fails. With controlled demolition if plan A fails, it still succeeds with the harder to sell plan B.

[flyingswan]

you said there were no bangs in the wtc 7 footage.

I showed you bangs.

and again you enter a false reality by stating you will continue to say there are no bangs.

There are no bangs that are anything like a conventional CD, as even Q24 admits.

It has been pointed out to you that thermite charges are less audible than commonly used demolition explosives.

you deny that the bangs exist, and out of the other side of your mouth state they are not loud enough to be rdx charges.

So? Prove that a thermite demolition is possible.

you said thermite cannot cut steel beams.

I showed you thermite cutting steel beams.

and again you dispose of the truth by stating thermite cannot cut steel beams.

I didn't say that.

you deliberately misstate that the colour of the orange molten material flowing from the building is silver.

It starts out orange, but cools to silver as it falls.

how can you continue to embarass yourself like this? where is your self respect?

You're misinterpreting my posts doesn't embarrass me in the least.

[flyingswan]

It wasn't an insult or even an ad hom, but a factual observation.

For example...

When it has been pointed out to you over a number of years that the WTC demolitions were by their very nature unconventional, and you continue to claim they cannot have been demolitions because they do not contain all conventional features, yes that is stu... err... illogical.

Ah, you're back to claiming that anything that looks like a CD is proof of a CD and anything that doesn't look like a CD is proof of a covert CD. Is that logical?

I said there would be no "bangs" equivalent to those heard in conventional demolition and it would be nonsense to expect such given the covert operation proposed.

Tell that to Little Fish. He thinks he's found one.

Of course there is voluminous evidence of unexplained "bangs" preceeding the building collapses as I have shown before and Little Fish has demonstrated above... just not so obvious as those witnessed in conventional demolition, as expected and fully congruent with a covert demolition.

Why unexplained? There are plenty of things that go bang in a fire. Any enclosed container of liquid, for a start, or uneven thermal expansion damaging the structure. These are hardly evidence for CD, covert or otherwise.

[Little Fish]

It has been pointed out to you that thermite charges are less audible than commonly used demolition explosives.

you deny that the bangs exist, and out of the other side of your mouth state they are not loud enough to be rdx charges.

So?

so it proves irrelevant your point "There are no bangs that are anything like a conventional CD".

Prove that a thermite demolition is possible.

you take the position that office fires demolished wtc7, but reject that thermite could have demolished wtc7.

thermite produces much higher temperatures than ordinary office fires of the order of thousands of degrees Celcius, and can be focussed directly at stuctural points, and ludicrously you drop down the logic well the fact that thermite can cause office fires.

it is like you are saying you know a car can kill you by knocking you down, but you need proof that a lorry can kill you by knocking you down. Your point fails basic logic. If you are claiming it impossible for thermite to destroy a steel structure then you prove it impossible.

I didn't say that.

Put your word tweezers away, your point was clear to everyone.

[flyingswan]

so it proves irrelevant your point "There are no bangs that are anything like a conventional CD".

First you claim there are bangs, so it's a conventional CD, now you claim the bangs are not loud enough, so it's an unconventional cd?

you take the position that office fires demolished wtc7, but reject that thermite could have demolished wtc7.

thermite produces much higher temperatures than ordinary office fires of the order of thousands of degrees Celcius, and can be focussed directly at stuctural points, and ludicrously you drop down the logic well the fact that thermite can cause office fires.

it is like you are saying you know a car can kill you by knocking you down, but you need proof that a lorry can kill you by knocking you down. Your point fails basic logic. If you are claiming it impossible for thermite to destroy a steel structure then you prove it impossible.

As far as I'm aware, no CD has ever used thermite. If you claim it is possible, it's up to you to show it.

The fires were there, everyone saw them, the fire-fighters expected the building to come down, so why do you need any help from thermite?

Put your word tweezers away, your point was clear to everyone.

On the contrary, you claim I said something that I did not.

[turbonium]

The fires were there, everyone saw them, the fire-fighters expected the building to come down, so why do you need any help from thermite?

So they were expecting a collapse, then they all went inside, a few of them even reaching the 78th floor, they also reported small fires that could be put out with two lines.

So how can you claim it was 'expected' from such actual evidence??!

What is your evidence that they 'expected' collapse?

[flyingswan]

So they were expecting a collapse, then they all went inside, a few of them even reaching the 78th floor, they also reported small fires that could be put out with two lines.

So how can you claim it was 'expected' from such actual evidence??!

What is your evidence that they 'expected' collapse?

Do pay attention. We are talking about WTC7, not the towers.

[turbonium]

Do pay attention. We are talking about WTC7, not the towers.

Sorry, I just assumed it was on the thread's topic. So they didn't expect the towers to collapse, but they expected this one to collapse? WHich means 1 out of 3 that they got it right. So....what is your point, exactly?

[flyingswan]

Sorry, I just assumed it was on the thread's topic. So they didn't expect the towers to collapse, but they expected this one to collapse? WHich means 1 out of 3 that they got it right. So....what is your point, exactly?

Two out of three. After the first tower went, no-one thought the second was safe.

My point is that the fire-fighters watched the fires developing in WTC7 and predicted a collapse. No need for any thermite.

[War Eagle]

My point is that the fire-fighters watched the fires developing in WTC7 and predicted a collapse. No need for any thermite.

Just curious; Is there anyway to verify/confirm that fire-fighters actually predicted the collapse of WTC7...?

[flyingswan]

Just curious; Is there anyway to verify/confirm that fire-fighters actually predicted the collapse of WTC7...?

Plenty of reports to that effect from the fire-fighters themselves:

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

[turbonium]

Two out of three. After the first tower went, no-one thought the second was safe.

My point is that the fire-fighters watched the fires developing in WTC7 and predicted a collapse. No need for any thermite.

No, it's still 1 out of 3 right. They went into both towers, which means they had no idea of imminent collapse of both. It doesn't take a genius to change into thinking it may collapse, after one had already collapsed.

And using your point, the towers had no sign of collapse, which supports CD.

[War Eagle]

Plenty of reports to that effect from the fire-fighters themselves:

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

It's all nicely packaged together from 1 - 86 and highlighted for easier reading too, but wheres the original source to those so called claims...?

Also i noticed none of them were ''quoted''. Is it from official report/s?

I even copied & pasted some of the fire fighers so called eyewitness accounts from your link, took me either nowhere, some sites that counter your claims, or straight back to the same page??

No time to go through them all but some were hard to make out...?

3. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.

Missing steel? (WTC7 i assume) Where did it go?

11. Unidentified speaker in video: "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon."

Hmmm 'Unidentified'... kinda sounds more like a certainty than a prediction.

[SolarPlexus]

BrCornelius I'm still waiting for your reply

The Towers collapse is entirely in conformity with a collapse brought on by heat stress, and entirely not in conformity with a controlled demolition.

Can you explain how the towers collapse is

"entirely not in conformity with a controlled demolition"

??

Regards,

Solar

And I'm still waiting for your reply as well flyingwan. We were talking about WTC7 penthouse before you disappeared.

Secondly, the collapse of the penthouses is a key indication of a controlled demolition as well

Really? How do you make that out? A long time ago on another thread, I challenged Q24 to come up with anything similar in a controlled demolition and he failed.

Uh.. the initial penthouse drop shows that the core structure of the building was removed first just as with classic controlled demolition. Why do you think the penthouse collapsing is some kind of proof it wasn't a CD?

Edited June 18, 2011 by SolarPlexus

[Guest]

BrCornelius I'm still waiting for your reply

And I'm still waiting for your reply as well flyingwan. We were talking about WTC7 penthouse before you disappeared.

I said I had expressed my opinion and do not wish to spend any more time on this endless debate with minimal hard facts. Sad but true - I have things that interest me more, take my expressed opinion for what it is.

Br Cornelius