You Tell Me: What happened to WTC 3?

[Mr.Herbert]

Tracy.... This has to be the culprit:

 

[George 152]

Where you labeled "WTC3" is the section that was rebuilt after the 1993 bombing. It was reinforced to help prevent collapse.

Did you know the 1993 bomb was not under the towers?

Questioning Dustys knowledge ain't going to get us anywhere.
A kill file on the other hand saves us the anguish of watching her moving heavy goal posts

 

[WTC Dust]

Uh....sorry but from one of the very pictures you linked to, is it not self-evident? And not requiring a scare quote?

Fitz

The reason I make the distinction is because of the trail of .... stuff .....
that appears behind the big pieces of WTC 2 that are very close to
WTC 3.

Consider a more familiar object: the human body. If you were to see
that body falling from any distance ... trailing fumes that are similar
to what we see trailing the pieces of WTC 2... would it be fully explicative
to describe the event as a falling body? No. It would be a falling body
that is trailing some fumes.

In the same way, I claim that the pieces of WTC 2 were being acted upon
by the force of gravity, correct, but that "falling" doesn't completely
describe what happened to the pieces. They were also trailing fumes.

Anyway, even if chunks of a building fell on another building, I'd expect to
see at least a building-sized chunk of debris at the bottom. Falling items
do not obliterate the items that they fall on.

 

[WTC Dust]

WTC Dust:

What happened to this building?

[qimg]http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l564/dgmwood/USA_New_York_City_St_Nicholas_Hellenic_Church_055DHA00461.jpg[/qimg]

If memory serves, they found pieces of the alter.

Yes, that's WTC 3 directly behind it....

Yeah, pieces, but this building was almost completely destroyed, too.
Can't really imagine the priests would have allowed thermite incendiaries
to be pre-placed inside this building in preparation for the attacks of 9/11,
can you? Doesn't mean a plane crash in a different building could do the
deed, but still important to consider.

 

[WTC Dust]

Nice presentation, Dusty!

It's not particularly important, but so far I didn't really know how WTC3 was damaged by the South Tower's collapse, I just knew that it had been practically destroyed in the event (and then the NT piled up on that).

So I downloaded the album

Can you explain the damage seen to WTC 3?
It has nothing to do with foam.

 

[Justin39640]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROe3fyAZt_k

Three words.

ETA: NSFW

 

[beachnut]

... They were also trailing fumes.

Anyway, even if chunks of a building fell on another building, I'd expect to
see at least a building-sized chunk of debris at the bottom. Falling items
do not obliterate the items that they fall on.

The fumes, gypsum dust, it trails the objects due to aerodynamics, etc. Should have taken physics, and fluid dynamics.

Your post shows massive amounts of steel about to crush WTC 3. Your answered your own OP. If you don't realize that you need to help.

What did you smoke for lunch?

 

[WTC Dust]

I'm sure I'll regret this, but...it took me about one second's worth of perusing your very first photo -- the one labeled "1, 2, 3" -- for me to figure out what very obviously happened to WTC3. Indeed, I'd have found it astounding beyond all belief if the results had been otherwise.

And in all honesty, I believe I could show this very photo to a group of pre-schoolers, explain to them that the tall buildings will be destroyed by airliners crashing into them, and then ask what will happen to the little building. I'd be surprised if 100% of them didn't all furnish the exact right answer.

Does this conclude this thread??

Can you explain the damage done to WTC 3? Remember the part-way damage. You have to explain that. You can't just say "building go bye-bye!"

 

[fitzgibbon]

What did you smoke for lunch?

T'isn't just for lunch anymore.

Fitz

 

[Justin39640]

Can you explain the damage done to WTC 3? Remember the part-way damage. You have to explain that. You can't just say "building go bye-bye!"

You should watch the video DGM posted. It explains what you're asking in detail.

 

[MIKILLINI]

These are labeled images of before, during, and after WTC 2 "...fell?" on top of WTC 3.

Seriously??!! The images are self explanatory. Come on Tracy! Are you a 4-year old who just woke up? WOW

 

[Oystein]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROe3fyAZt_k

Finally a 9/11 film worth every minute - thanks for posting it, I hadn't seen it so far! Got my eyes slightly wet...


I hope Tracy watches it, too, to the end. I have a hunbch her 9/11 "research" and her cartoons, her posting are really just intended as some sort of performance art that she is having fun with. I hope she realizes what really happened there - the pain of the victims, the ordeal of the survivors, the doubts of the heros.

 

[Stellafane]

Can you explain the damage done to WTC 3? Remember the part-way damage. You have to explain that. You can't just say "building go bye-bye!"

Yes, I can explain it. Material from the big buildings fell on the little one and damaged it.

If what you're asking is, "Why was only part of the little building knocked down, and not all of it?" the answer is just as simple: this is what often happens when stuff falls on something and damages it, whether it be my foot stomping on a house made of Legos, or an asteroid exploding over Tunguska -- or WTCs 1 and 2 collapsing onto WTC3. Randomness is lumpy like that.

Really, for the life of me I cannot understand what you think is even remotely mysterious or unexplained here.

 

[cjnewson88]

 

[WTC Dust]

Yes, I can explain it. Material from the big buildings fell on the little one and damaged it.

If what you're asking is, "Why was only part of the little building knocked down, and not all of it?" the answer is just as simple: this is what often happens when stuff falls on something and damages it, whether it be my foot stomping on a house made of Legos, or an asteroid exploding over Tunguska -- or WTCs 1 and 2 collapsing onto WTC3. Randomness is lumpy like that.

Really, for the life of me I cannot understand what you think is even remotely mysterious or unexplained here.

The huge chunk missing from WTC 3 after WTC 2 went down. That's the mysterious part that needs 'splainin'.

 

[beachnut]

The huge chunk missing from WTC 3 after WTC 2 went down. That's the mysterious part that needs 'splainin'.

Seriously? Just say no.

E=1/2mv²
Get thyself to a physics class, hurry, you are making up nonsense again.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The huge chunk missing from WTC 3 after WTC 2 went down. That's the mysterious part that needs 'splainin'.

It went down too. Gravity is like that. This is not mysterious and I can't imagine why you think it is.

 

[332nd]

The huge chunk missing from WTC 3 after WTC 2 went down. That's the mysterious part that needs 'splainin'.

Ok, a big chunk of WTC 2 hit 3 in that spot causing massive damage.

 

[DGM]

You should watch the video DGM posted. It explains what you're asking in detail.

I hope Tracy watches it, too, to the end.

She's seen it (I really didn't post it for her). If I recall, she cherry picked the statement the firefighter made about part of the building "disappearing".

 

[Scott Sommers]

Nice presentation, Dusty!

It's not particularly important, but so far I didn't really know how WTC3 was damaged by the South Tower's collapse, I just knew that it had been practically destroyed in the event (and then the NT piled up on that).

So I downloaded the album

This is so wrong. WTC 3 was clearly destroyed by a small, portable probably hand held foamification device. It would be simplier even than the phasers from Star Trek and even a trained animal could use one.

I think if I say this enough times, it should come true. Don't you?