Split Thread The Towers should not hve collapsed (split from Gravysites)

[Mancman]

Mancman:
Here's a real fire - and only the perimeter columns failed, not the core columns (although, granted, many of the core columns were concrete)

All of the core columns in the Windsor Building were concrete.

 

[doobiedoright]

Grizzly Bear:





Pomeroo, the evidence for explosives is inexistent?
- Countless eyewittnesses accounts report for secondary
- and primary explosions
- Squibs
- Pyroclastic Surge
- Unusual power surges and construction works in the weeks before 9/11
- Thermate residue found in the debris

I saw some where the crew to CD a 20 story building.
So I upscaled it and estimated what it would take.
It was something like 2200 men over 300 days and tone's of equipment to CD the towers.
Your fantasy simply cant be true!







Johnny Karate, that's because you live in the US of A where the MSM are completely worthless and bribed billions by government agencies to influence their reporting.

Link to facts please!!!!!!!

 

[CptColumbo]

- Countless eyewittnesses accounts report for secondary
- and primary explosions

How many times does if have to be said/written: explosions does not automatically equal explosives.

 

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo, the evidence for explosives is inexistent?
- Countless eyewittnesses accounts report for secondary
- and primary explosions
- Squibs
- Pyroclastic Surge
- Unusual power surges and construction works in the weeks before 9/11
- Thermate residue found in the debris

Your ignorance is staggering. Yes, things blow up in office fires, but random explosions do not hint at a controlled demolition. There were no "squibs." How many times does this canard need to be knocked down? You are seeing bursts of compressed air. Please stop misusing the word "pyroclastic." Your imaginary "power surges" could not conceivably relate to a controlled demolition and there is zero evidence of thremite or thermate residue. Steven Jones has tweaked his contaminated samples for years without finding anything worth mentioning. How he keeps you pathetic suckers on the hook is beyond me.

Even if we had none of these bits of evidence, we not only have no proof that the fire caused the complete collapse, we also do not have a conclusive theory that explains how fire could have caused a collapse like the one observed, with the core structures failing. However, we can have a conclusive theory on how explosives could have been used to bring an entire building like the WTC towers down, making CD a superior theory even in this hypothetical absence of all evidence other than the collapse itself.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not a valid theory that should be investigated with scrutiny.

Your CD fantasy is a very inferior theory because it fits none of the known facts. There is a reason why no demolition professionals anywhere take your nonsense seriously. NIST published ten thousand pages explaining how the impacts of the planes and the resultant fires caused the Towers to collapse. You have read none of this material.

Johnny Karate, that's because you live in the US of A where the MSM are completely worthless and bribed billions by government agencies to influence their reporting.

Your uninformed blather is absurd. Please explain why the MSM is so implacably opposed to everything Bush does. Yes, we understand that it's all an elaborate ruse, but how about attempting a real-world explanation?

MarkyX, The debris was not investigated for bombs, in fact, it was quickly moved out of the country in a move that was even criticised by mainstream media and and non-truther structural engineers. We have however Stephen E. Jones who claims to have found evidence of thermate combustion in a sample that was gathered from a piece of debris now located at a memorial site.

Stop lying. Of course the massive, multi-agency investigation checked for explosives. An agenda-driven ignoramus fabricating nonsense can't stand reality on its head. Again, Jones has found absolutely nothing.

Peteweaver, you show no understanding of basic physics. How much fire does it take to heat up steel to 300°C and how long does it take? Especially if the steel is a ginormous structure over 1500ft in length that can act like a giant heatsink. And even that's not the argument, the argument is that no amount of fire could have made the central column collapse purely due to its large amount of redundancy. Go back to school.

You haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about. And, like all conspiracy liars, you are unwilling to learn anything. Your ancient, thoroughly discredited myths have been dealt with many times on this forum. I could ask to you to check the archives, but you wouldn't make the effort.

 

[Elind]

I can't believe this thread still exists, much less is still stickied. Whoever believes that either of the WTC buildings came down because of "fire" is either utterly misinformed, is paid or pressured to propagate this nonsense, or is so completely devout in sticking to a certain, hilariously irrational worldview ("durr Conspiracies are impossible") that it would impress even the most fanatic muslim or christian fundamentalist.

This is why I never normally visit this section. The most fanatic conspiracy fundies are just as brain dead as the creationists or Islamists, to mention but a few. They lie, ignore facts, and spout garbage that they think makes them sound important.

This jerk should be ignored, but hey, all rules are meant to be broken now and then, right?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes because in your typical building on fire/being crashed into by commercial jets/collapsing events, it's perfectly silent. Who in their right mind would expect to hear loud explosions in such an event. The only result can be bombs. You know those random bombs that went off hap hazardly and eventually causing the building to fall an hour later through the use of magical exploding thermite that completely vanishes.

And we still haven't found those locomotives people heard either. Talk about an inside job!

 

[Thunder]

the damaged section of both towers was unable to withstand the weight of the building above it. with increased weakening of the steel from the fires, the damages dection eventually gave way. the sections below it were not built to withstand the downward motion of such a huge mass...so they gaveway..and so on and so on.

is it soo hard to understand? only i guess, if you choose to ignore it.

 

[johnny karate]

Johnny Karate, that's because you live in the US of A where the MSM are completely worthless and bribed billions by government agencies to influence their reporting.

First of all, there's this great big, heavily populated place outside of the U.S. called "the rest of the world", a point I addressed in my question with the phrase "on the planet". So even if what you're claiming about American MSM is true, you still need to account for everywhere else.

Secondly, I didn't only ask you about the worldwide MSM. I also asked about investigative bodies and law enforcement agencies. See, no one, anywhere, has raised the points you're making in this thread in any kind of official capacity. I want to know why you think that is.

As a reminder, and to perhaps aid in your reading comprehension, here is my question again:

If what you are alleging is true (that the WTC towers couldn't have possibly collapsed under the conditions witnessed by thousands of people and outlined in exhaustive and unrefuted detail in the NIST report), then why hasn't this information been discerned and/or revealed by a single MSM outlet, investigative body, or law enforcement agency on the planet?

Let's see if you can give me an actual answer this time.

 

[1337m4n]

Johnny Karate, that's because you live in the US of A where the MSM are completely worthless and bribed billions by government agencies to influence their reporting.

Link to facts please!!!!!!!

Take your own advice. I demand a link to support your ludicrous claim that the "MSM" (as if it were a single monolithic group) is bribed "billions" by "government agencies" to "influence their reporting".

Can you support your absurd claim with facts?

 

[CptColumbo]

Take your own advice. I demand a link to support your ludicrous claim that the "MSM" (as if it were a single monolithic group) is bribed "billions" by "government agencies" to "influence their reporting".

Can you support your absurd claim with facts?

I think he/she screwed up quoting Dablju, and its not his/her feelings

 

[Myriad]

On an Internet forum, this kind of discourse is fun, isn't it, Dabljuh? You can just show up and claim whatever you want. When counter-arguments come your way, you just do whatever you can to deflect them short of actually answering. Counter with different questions, misinterpret the question, give absurd answers and demand they be proven wrong, ignore them -- whatever works. It's like being Superman and the bullets just bounce off your chest. Quite a thrill, isn't it?

The problem for the Truth Movement, the people who actually believe this stuff (which I don't believe for a moment includes you), is that these same kind of tactics are pure failure in the real world.

If a real Truther were to take your argument to a reporter, a judge, a prosecutor, representatives of a professional society, a University staff, anyone in a position to take action about the matter, he'd get only as far as the first claim in your opening argument: that the core of the WTC towers were strong enough to support six times the weight of the entire tower.

The reporter, judge, whoever, would ask, how do you know this? Please show me the calculations that show that this bizarre claim, which requires that someone spent enormous amounts of money building structures far stronger than they should ever need to be (money which, unlike money spent for fancy marble lobbies or nice bathrooms, would not translate into higher rents), could actually be true.

And the moment the Truther evades the question, bats it away, ignores it, misinterprets it, counters with another question, changes the subject, or whatever, they've failed. They've given no reason to take their claim seriously and obvious reasons to ignore them and everyone else with the same position.

Since you no doubt consider yourself intelligent, your only conceivable reason for being here and acting the way you are is to attempt to cripple the Truth Movement by setting such an extremely bad example for how they should attempt to pursue their cause. (Don't bother trying to deny this, since denial is exactly what I would expect if you were actually anti-Truther disinfo.) Perhaps you believe your efforts will be appreciated here among 9/11 debunkers and political opponents of the Truth Movement, because you're acting to benefit "our side." But your tactics are distasteful regardless of who they're aimed at. They're not needed here. The Truth Movement's claims will either stand up to rational examination or they will not.

Truthers, I want you to know that I don't approve of Dabljuh's approach, trying to make you look bad by association and to deceive you into adopting (or in some cases continuing to use) tactics of discourse that give you a false sense of invulnerability while making you and your cause irrelevant in the real world. Most of you deserve better than that.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[kookbreaker]

Kookbreaker, your failure to come up with even a single argument surprises me. You wrote so much and still - One would assume that by sheer random chance, there would be a worthwhile argument in your post. Read Grizzly Bear's post, he at least comes up with a counter argument (and not a bad one either, although far from sufficient)

I presented plenty of counter-arguements. I pointed out where you inventing figures. I countered your attempt at passive-aggressive logical fallacy usage and
you tried to evade the issue as if you had not brought it up.

You are trolling, plain and simple and I am not required to present anything more to retreating trolls than to point out the failures of their claims. I have done so, and you have lost.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Instead: Come up with your own source. Find the accurate value.

Dabljuh,

I have calulated this myself for WTC1. After the core damage due to airplane impact the demand to capacity ratio for the core is roughly 0.5. That means the core could support roughly twice the actual existing loads prior to any fire damage.

See the this article:

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/loadDistribution_v1.pdf

The link in the main article doesn't work in pdf for some reason...

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/calcCriticalLoad.pdf

/Greg

 

[1337m4n]

I think he/she screwed up quoting Dablju, and its not his/her feelings

Whoops. Sorry bout that, Doobie.


Okay, Dabljuh, YOU answer my post.

 

[A W Smith]

e^n: The columns mainly carried the gravity load.

A W Smith, I can't calculate that from a floor plan like that. I'd need much more information. However, a few hints that the central columns carried the main load of the gravity are: Their strength compared to the perimeter columns, and again: The columns mainly carried the gravity load.

from your own hyperlink. the columns mainly carried the gravity load.

of the Central service core. look at the section you are pulling your quote from. it is under a description of the service core. The perimeter columns MUST carry the load of half the span of the 60 foot trusses and the 35 foot trusses. There is no way around this. Only a fool would not grasp this very simple concept. The service core area is 12144 square feet and that's not even subtracting the elevator shaft area. The clear span office total area per floor is 31120. square feet. The perimeter columns carry the floor load of 17660 square feet of that. Add two zeroes and thats your typical commercial designed live load. Not including dead load which is the structure itself. this is of course an overly simplistic description. As I an not an engineer. Gregory Urich has a thorough description of the areas and loads.
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/urich/MassAndPeWtc1.htm

 

[Dabljuh]

Since no one in this thread said anything that disproved my central statement, (but plenty of blatant lies instead) I went surfing for porn. When I was done, I found this movie and it says largely what I've been saying so far. Even mentioned Mockingbird! Well I focus more on "Fire being impossible as a cause of complete collapse" while this guy focuses more on the evidence pointing towards demolition with explosives.

Click me if you got 2 hours of time

Oh, and it's a presentation by an architect, you know, not someone who has to know how to design a building so it doesn't explode when a fire happens in it. Especially not when it's a huge tower with tens of thousands of people living in it, where you would reasonably expect a couple fires in its lifetime. What a kook.

It's probably a good thing that 9/11 happened, because before that, the engineering community was largely oblivious to the phenomenon of buildings spontaneously exploding. Newer buildings are designed with spontaneous explosion in mind.

 

[A W Smith]

snip.

Yup. you're a troll alright. You have been debunked yet ignore it. Thanks for playing.

 

[Dabljuh]

Yup. you're a troll alright. You have been debunked yet ignore it. Thanks for playing.

When was I debunked? Oh right, I wasn't, not in the slightest. There were some arguments regarding the behaviour of the MSM (which by then could already have been answered by looking at my sig) and many, many blatant lies. The only real argument was that controlled demolition were really hard to pull off - Which is by itself true. But unlike a fire-related collapse, not entirely impossible. The latter being my central point. Maybe it wasn't CD, maybe it was alien heat rays. Is that more probable? Every hypothesis is relatively improbable, be it 'fire', be it 'cd' and be it 'alien heat rays' - But they're not all equally improbable. You're meant to find the most rational explanation.

Lets just pretend I was debunked for now, what does that change? You don't have to pay attention to me either way. Go away if you don't like it. It's not like you are paid to read and write my obviously inane stuff now are you?

Now, back to reality. I wasn't debunked. Since my central argument is the debunking of the officious theories ("Fire") that means you can no longer, by rational standards, support the fire theory, doesn't it? Oh no. You're a conspiracy kook now. Are you gonna blame the jews? I think the jews have it bad enough without your antisemitic drivel, thank you very much.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Since no one in this thread said anything that disproved my central statement, (but plenty of blatant lies instead)

If you want to prove me a liar, start debunking my last response to you point by point. Your blatant misunderstanding of structures has been utterly astounding so far and has earned you zero credibility.

Click me if you got 2 hours of time

Oh, and it's a presentation by an architect, you know, not someone who has to know how to design a building so it doesn't explode when a fire happens in it. Especially not when it's a huge tower with tens of thousands of people living in it, where you would reasonably expect a couple fires in its lifetime.

Sheesh and you were telling me I was making an appeal to authority? Yes, we all should agree that card board boxes are a perfect representation for why the towers should not have collapsed.

 

[kookbreaker]

Oh, and it's a presentation by an architect, you know, not someone who has to know how to design a building so it doesn't explode when a fire happens in it. Especially not when it's a huge tower with tens of thousands of people living in it, where you would reasonably expect a couple fires in its lifetime. What a kook.

I'm sorry, you were saying?