How 9/11 was done

[Grizzly Bear]

Now that I come to think of it, the existence of the spire proves my point. A single column is able to stand upright for a moment, although it is weakened by cuts from explosives and finally folds. If the columns would not have been blown to pieces and horizontally interconnected they were even more able to stay upright (just like the Eiffel tower).

Comparing the Eiffel tower to the construction of the TWC is akin to comparing apples and oranges... You have quite a strange taste of such comparisons to boot... I tried to convey to you the crux of the point, but I see it's flown high over your head...

 

[9/11-investigator]

3:15 am here. sign off. will collapse into my bed and dream of pancakes. Good night.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Explain to me why the upper half of the Eiffel tower does not collapse without protecting trusses and surrounding outer columns.

because it was designed to stand without them, the WTC core was not designed this way (and why would it be?)

 

[dtugg]

No I will not, because you will never be sure if I googled it up.

Cool. You refuse to show that you even know what you are talking about. Nice to know who we are dealing with.

And yes, if you now said how the collapses initiated, I would assume that you just googled it. But that would be fine. There is photographic evidence supporting NIST's theory which cannot be refuted. No twoofer to date has been able to explain away the mechanism for collapse initiation.

 

[stateofgrace]

Explain to me why the upper half of the Eiffel tower does not collapse without protecting trusses and surrounding outer columns.

Please explain , exactly what a "protecting truss" is.

Oh while you are at it please explain, to us hillbillies,the relationship between the core .the external columns and the floor trusses.

Can you do that Investigator?

 

[Baylor]

Sigh. That's not the core. Buy glasses. That's a single column of the once 47 columns core, where the detonators failed to do their job.

The core is not the core? Twoofers. You can't live with 'em. You can't talk about thermite without 'em.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Sigh. That's not the core. Buy glasses. That's a single column of the once 47 columns core, where the detonators failed to do their job.

There were no detonators. Stop lying.

Or... you could provide evidence for detonators. But since none exists...

 

[9/11-investigator]

Can't let go of course. Here is the video that deals with our discussion tonight.

http://www.youtube.com/v/qJ11i6fi7KQ

To my advantage.

It explains why the core should have stayed upright in case of your evil arabs using the twin towers as a Boeing parking lot.

 

[9/11-investigator]

There were no detonators. Stop lying.

Or... you could provide evidence for detonators. But since none exists...

The proof is in the video I discussed in post 760 (page 19).
Endless array of earwitnesses who reported explosions everywhere in the building.

You guys are defending a basket case.

 

[dtugg]

The proof is in the video I discussed in post 760 (page 19).
Endless array of earwitnesses who reported explosions everywhere in the building.

You guys are defending a basket case.

So now you are claiming it was explosives again? I thought it was thermite. You need to make up your mind.

And explosions do not equal explosives. If explosives were used, it would have been recorded by every video camera and heard by every person within miles.

 

[stateofgrace]

The proof is in the video I discussed in post 760 (page 19).
Endless array of earwitnesses who reported explosions everywhere in the building.

You guys are defending a basket case.

But you said this before.

Very true, not explosives. Consider though, that although it wasa controlled demolition it was not supposed to looklike a controlled demolition. In official CD situations one does not have to consider sound levels. I am sure that it is possible to accomplish WTC-CD with 'civilized' sound levels.

Mind you, I will not attempt to market myself as a CD expert but if I watch this hilarious video clip where a flower pot with thermite eats itself through the engine of a car then I notice that there are no explosive sounds whatsoever. No doubt a similar effect can be accomplished with vertical steel beams without suggesting awkward truther types potential society destabilizing ideas.

For a couple of years.

Well?

Not just making this up as you go along are you?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Another thing that I am wondering. If 9/11 was indeed carried out by the evil jooooooooos, why does the everybody else that matters say otherwise? Is 9/11-investigator and the infamous Holocaust denier he gets his info from smarter than the FBI, NIST, FAA, NTSB, Boeing, American Airlines, United Airlines, the FDNY, ect. Or maybe they are covering for the evil jooooooooooos. If so, why?

Air Lines have no official position about who did 9/11.

The other institutions are state institutions and are a function of the decisions of the government. If my brain commands my hand to grab a spoon than my hand will do it unless I am a dying organism. The same applies for NIST, etc.

Your callous disregard for reality is a wonder to behold.

Never mind the hundreds upon thousands of laypeople, professionals in their various fields, who have contributed to the efforts to determine answers to these various questions. And never mind the thousands of civil servants, not a few of whom are dedicated to their personal code of ethics, not to mention the law. And never mind the fame and fortune that would follow were someone willing to share their damning evidence with the world. Never mind all that. What "decisions of the government" are you referring to, in this case?

Regarding the 'evil jooooz'... if a courageous (or dumm) person like the Canadian politician Lesley Hughes has the nerve to state that maybe the Israelis had 9/11 foreknowledge, than his/her career is basically over. That's why everybody shuts up about the 'evil jooos' (your words)...

Anyone who cares to engage in libel and/or slander without evidence should understand some actions bring consequences. But step up with some proof...

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Ok, I'm no engineer, not even close...physics was my weakest SCIENCE (not subject) in school, but here goes.

On the Eiffel Tower. Impressive structure, no? Here's a picture, just so it's made clear what I am referencing here.

Ok, so that's a big picture, but that's good, it shows it in good quality. Like I say, it's a gorgeous building, ad you notice the way the...let's say legs? Yes, legs will do nicely. Notice how the legs of the building splay out at the bottom and create a really wide base, with the structure curving up and slimming, until you reach the very pinnacle? It's a wonder isn't it? Well old son, that is the reason it's different from the centre column.

See, when you have something tall, the taller it gets, the more support is needed to keep it upright, and there are two ways of doing this (maybe more?).

One, employed by the WTC centre column, is to have the weight spread by supports, such as the floor trusses, and other colums. This provides a wide network to contain the weight and thus allows the column to raise higher into the sky without becoming unstable, bending, or collapsing completely.

The Eiffel Tower, on the other hand, employs method two. If the base is wider than the top by a proportion that is correlated to the height of the structure (I don't know the numbers and I won't pretend I do) then the weight is distributed over a larger surface area, and there is more support.

Think about it this way, if you were to stand with your body completely rigid, and feet pressed firmly together on the floor, thus minimising the area your weight is distributed across, you won't fall over, but you will be more easily pushed over, right? Well, the taller you get, the more effect this situation has. Someone who is 5' tall who does this will be more stable than someone 7' tall and thin. The same or marginally more weight spread out over a taller frame, with a small area of support.

However, if you were to place your feet apart, in a comfortable fashion, you would be far harder to push over. This is similar to the principle behind the wide base on the "feet" of the Eiffel Tower.

That good enough an explanation, of engineering/physics lords of this here board?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The proof is in the video I discussed in post 760 (page 19).
Endless array of earwitnesses who reported explosions everywhere in the building.

You guys are defending a basket case.

Ah, good ol' earwitnesses. This sounded like that, so this must be that. Please.

Under the best of circumstances such testimony is unreliable and often conflicting. But this event wasn't exactly a model of pastoral calm, now was it?

Nope, were this a controlled demolition (again, impossible) there would be physical evidence. That you can't produce any should, again, tell you something.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So now you are claiming it was explosives again? I thought it was thermite. You need to make up your mind.

And explosions do not equal explosives. If explosives were used, it would have been recorded by every video camera and heard by every person within miles.

the Hush-a-boom was created to confuse people.

 

[Baylor]

Can't let go of course. Here is the video that deals with our discussion tonight.

http://www.youtube.com/v/qJ11i6fi7KQ

To my advantage.

It explains why the core should have stayed upright in case of your evil arabs using the twin towers as a Boeing parking lot.

So you didn't learn about the Monroe Effect, huh? It would've saved you the embarrassment of citing such a laughable video.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I ask because I want to find out how it was possible, according to the debunkers, that the fires caused the collapse of the 47 core columns.

So we have 47 columns of some 415 meter high, see attached photo, interconnected with horizontal beams.

Provided that say 5 floors had collapsed and were resting on a underlying 6th floor, which after an hour or so finally collapsed; next six floors crash onto a 7th causing a domino effect. So far so good. But to use a comparison: if somebody drops his pants that does not mean that his legs crash against the floor as well.

So why did the core columns collapse? You will say: 'by heat'. OK. I agree that if one heats steel enough than it will gradually become weaker and in the end it will melt. Nobody claims that the steel melted (by fire), so where, according to the debunkers, was the core fatally weakened?

You mean you don't know?

The towers were fatally weakened in the sections which had planes crash into them and then turned into a raging inferno. This weakens buildings.

 

[stateofgrace]

This from page three of this thread.

That is, the plot consists of 12 core people plus 20-40 foot soldiers.

All the nerve gas, the voice morphing, the remote controlling, the controlled demolition and whatever “Mr Investigator" comes up with.

The entire plot consists of 12 core people plus 20-40 foot soldiers.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The proof is in the video I discussed in post 760 (page 19).
Endless array of earwitnesses who reported explosions everywhere in the building.

You guys are defending a basket case.

...

Very true, not explosives.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The title of the thread reminds me of that old Cheech and Chong skit "What I did for summer vacation".