All 9/11 ideas welcomed here

I have a challenge to all the experts in building destruction or building design or anyone very familiar with the wtc7 collapse.

If wtc7 fell due to structural weakening, as a result a crucial beam bent and the entire building collapsed into its own footprint how would the building look if it were wired with demolitions and brought down? How much different would it look, and how much more could the building have fallen into its own footprint?
 
israelside said:
If wtc7 fell due to structural weakening, as a result a crucial beam bent and the entire building collapsed into its own footprint how would the building look if it were wired with demolitions and brought down? How much different would it look, and how much more could the building have fallen into its own footprint?
Click to expand...
There are far more knowledgeable folks here on that subject, and I'm sure they'll post their responses. But in the interim, I can offer two quick points:

1) How much different would it have looked as compared to an actual controlled demolition? Well, all you've got to do there is find some videos of actual controlled demolitions and make careful notes as to what you see and hear. The big thing missing from the WTC7 collapse, which are quite noticeable in videos or films of controlled demolitions using explosives, are a) the flashes of light from the detonation of the charges used to sever the support columns, and b) the sounds of said charges going off (they're really, really loud).

2) WTC 7 did NOT fall in its own footprint. And there is ample photographic evidence to prove it.
 
Corsair 115 said:
There are far more knowledgeable folks here on that subject, and I'm sure they'll post their responses. But in the interim, I can offer two quick points:

1) How much different would it have looked as compared to an actual controlled demolition? Well, all you've got to do there is find some videos of actual controlled demolitions and make careful notes as to what you see and hear. The big thing missing from the WTC7 collapse, which are quite noticeable in videos or films of controlled demolitions using explosives, are a) the flashes of light from the detonation of the charges used to sever the support columns, and b) the sounds of said charges going off (they're really, really loud).

2) WTC 7 did NOT fall in its own footprint. And there is ample photographic evidence to prove it.
Click to expand...

ok, well as a response to 1.
Could have any other form of explosives have been used that were quiet, and or didn't emit so much light? Such as thermite? And if it or something similar was used, could it have been used in certain locations to render beams weak enough to collapse the whole thing?

2. the building fell straight down, the rubble pile looks farley intact, i dont understand how you cant say it fell into its own footprint. If a building falls to one side or another then it DOESN'T fall into its own footprint right? Maybe we need to dedfine our words because it did fall straight down
 
israelside said:
ok, well as a response to 1.
Could have any other form of explosives have been used that were quiet, and or didn't emit so much light? Such as thermite? And if it or something similar was used, could it have been used in certain locations to render beams weak enough to collapse the whole thing?
Click to expand...

Explosives are called explosives because they explode, or technically detonate. Detonation means that the substance undergoes a state change that propagates faster than the speed of sound.

Do you know what that means? That's right, a shock wave.

Did you know that shock waves are loud?

Therefore, there is no such thing as a "quiet" explosive. Contradiction in terms. The only way to quiet an explosive is to insulate it from your ears.

israelside said:
2. the building fell straight down, the rubble pile looks farley intact, i dont understand how you cant say it fell into its own footprint. If a building falls to one side or another then it DOESN'T fall into its own footprint right? Maybe we need to dedfine our words because it did fall straight down
Click to expand...

I believe you mean "fairly" intact.

Just like it fell "fairly" straight down. Obviously it wouldn't have smashed nearby buildings if it had fallen straight down.

Gradualism.

You've got nothing.
 
israelside said:
2. the building fell straight down, the rubble pile looks farley intact...
Click to expand...
Uh, I would say a rubble pile which looks fairly intact is something of a contradiction in terms...

israelside said:
i dont understand how you cant say it fell into its own footprint.
Click to expand...
Because it didn't. Again, there have been photographs posted on this very forum attesting to that fact. You can run a search if you want to find the relevant threads, or perhaps someone will direct you to the threads.

israelside said:
Maybe we need to dedfine our words because it did fall straight down
Click to expand...
No, it apparently fell straight down depending on which angle you viewed the collapse from. The commonly seen view shown on CNN is from an angle which makes it look like it fell straight down. Photographs of the debris pile show, however, that it most assuredly did not fall straight down.
 
so R. Mackey is an expert in CD's? lol given the dumb picture...what about thermite? and what buildings did wtc7 hit when it fell because from the videos i see it falls straight down!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM

If it was a CD you would think the people would have hit it over to make it look like it fell over to one side or another to make it out to look natural, which leads me to another points, whats the odds of fire burning a bean that would take the building out and bring it down so smoothly and in a straight down fashion? Odds are higher that fire would melt 1 part, and not so much on another part and the building would fall lopsided!
 
israelside said:
so R. Mackey is an expert in CD's? lol given the dumb picture...what about thermite? and what buildings did wtc7 hit when it fell because from the videos i see it falls straight down!
Click to expand...
See post #86 about the importance of the camera angle from which the collapse of #7 WTC is viewed...
 
I remember seeing a huge aerial photograph of the WTC compound and the surrounding buildings after both collapses, which showed just how much of the towers fell outside of their own "footprints". Does anyone have that picture handy?
 
If it was a CD you would think the people would have hit it over to make it look like it fell over to one side or another to make it out to look natural, which leads me to another points, whats the odds of fire burning a bean that would take the building out and bring it down so smoothly and in a straight down fashion? Odds are higher that fire would melt 1 part, and not so much on another part and the building would fall lopsided!
Click to expand...
One side of the building collapsed before the other side, it can't be seen well in most footage because in the footage is shot from the side that fell last. A member on these forums made a video about it not that long ago.
 
israelside said:
so R. Mackey is an expert in CD's? lol given the dumb picture...what about thermite? and what buildings did wtc7 hit when it fell because from the videos i see it falls straight down!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM

If it was a CD you would think the people would have hit it over to make it look like it fell over to one side or another to make it out to look natural, which leads me to another points, whats the odds of fire burning a bean that would take the building out and bring it down so smoothly and in a straight down fashion? Odds are higher that fire would melt 1 part, and not so much on another part and the building would fall lopsided!
Click to expand...

Is that the Windsor Tower in Madrid? It had a reinforced concrete core, something the WTC did not have, and if I'm remembering correctly its steel frame actually did collapse, but the core was left intact.
 
Slayhamlet said:
Is that the Windsor Tower in Madrid? It had a reinforced concrete core, something the WTC did not have, and if I'm remembering correctly its steel frame actually did collapse, but the core was left intact.
Click to expand...
That's correct. There were photographs posted on these very forums showing the collapsed portions of the steel frame.
 
israelside said:
so R. Mackey is an expert in CD's? lol given the dumb picture...what about thermite? and what buildings did wtc7 hit when it fell because from the videos i see it falls straight down!
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert in CD's, but I don't have to be. I do, however, know how to apply the Rankine-Hugoniot equation.

It really doesn't take much to dispel your scattered and incoherent theories.

What about thermite? How about you tell me? This ought to be good.

israelside said:
If it was a CD you would think the people would have hit it over to make it look like it fell over to one side or another to make it out to look natural, which leads me to another points, whats the odds of fire burning a bean that would take the building out and bring it down so smoothly and in a straight down fashion? Odds are higher that fire would melt 1 part, and not so much on another part and the building would fall lopsided!
Click to expand...

Nope. Whether or not a building falls over or down is largely a function of its height. WTC 7 was pretty darn tall. Lower than the Twin Towers, sure, but it would be a monster in just about any other town.

Progressive collapse in a structure is a sign of good structural design. It means the building remains standing, using whatever margin exists in redundant elements, until the very last.

Talk to a real expert rather than trying to guess from ignorance.
 
israelside said:
ok, i am really looking for experts here not just speculators, so please if you havn't studied it extremely well please hold your judgments.

check this out, tell me how it's wrong
http://www.wtc7.net/rubblepile.html

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...&svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&sa=N
Click to expand...

That's all you're doing, speculating, and relying on the "research" of non-experts that you found on some conspiracy site somewhere. You obviously haven't studied it "extremely well", so why do you demand that from us before we are allowed to make a judgement? Hypocrite much?

As it happens, many here have been been studying 9/11 for a long time and extremely well. I'm not one of those, but Mackey surely is. So are a lot of people here who aren't on call 24/7 just to entertain your foolish questions and innuendo.
 
shouldn't these images be widely popular on google and video's of it on youtube? I see none of the such...maybe the guy made it up?
 
Slayhamlet said:
That's all you're doing, speculating, and relying on the "research" of non-experts that you found on some conspiracy site somewhere. You obviously haven't studied it "extremely well", so why do you demand that from us before we are allowed to make a judgement? Hypocrite much?

As it happens, many here have been been studying 9/11 for a long time and extremely well. I'm not one of those, but Mackey surely is. So are a lot of people here who aren't on call 24/7 just to entertain your foolish questions and innuendo.
Click to expand...

Please go take a bath or something, I am tired of your foolish talk...I will not stoop to your lows of character bashing just to make your point. I calmly asked for an expert to give me his opinion.....whenever he/she might come on...I am learning, if you don't know enough dont give me your opinion. I have studied the material available for the most part...I guess this hidden portion of the building falling or the rubble pile being totally out of the footprint is not worth most sites reporting on it, since it's not on the most popular sites out there! IF you have it post it...but dont give me your opinion just give me FACTS!! That's why I am asking an EXPERT! I am tired of your comments Slay, please stop your foolishness or you will get reported!
 
israelside said:
shouldn't these images be widely popular on google and video's of it on youtube? I see none of the such...maybe the guy made it up?
Click to expand...

That's because the internet, and Youtube in particular, is flooded with conspiracist morons, all of whom refer to each other and only present the pictorial evidence (just as with the other evidence) that misleadingly suits their agenda, leaving the rest buried in the garbage. Do you really think the amount of conspiracist sites that turn up from a search made through a popular websearcher like google must mean that the conspiracists are right?

It shows a lot about your ethics as a "researcher" that you consider anything which you have to actually do some serious digging and actual research to find must have been faked.
 
Last edited:
israelside said:
Please go take a bath or something, I am tired of your foolish talk...I will not stoop to your lows of character bashing just to make your point. I calmly asked for an expert to give me his opinion.....whenever he/she might come on...I am learning, if you don't know enough dont give me your opinion. I have studied the material available for the most part...I guess this hidden portion of the building falling or the rubble pile being totally out of the footprint is not worth most sites reporting on it, since it's not on the most popular sites out there! IF you have it post it...but dont give me your opinion just give me FACTS!! That's why I am asking an EXPERT! I am tired of your comments Slay, please stop your foolishness or you will get reported!
Click to expand...

Please report me if you have a problem with what I'm saying and think I am breaking the rules, rather than just threatening to do so. (Isn't that against the rules itself?)

If you continue to persist in your ignorance and do so arrogantly, including acting like a hypocrite, I will call you on it. If you can't handle criticism, tough. I will continue to say it whether you like it or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom