How 9/11 was done

[Dr Adequate]

May I assume that you hold the same opinion as one of the other regulars who opined that the kerosine from the plane was burned in a couple of minutes and that afterwards the fire was continued by consuming paper, curtains, carpets, etc.?

I haven't seen the maths of the unidentified person you're talking about.

But it does seem that the jet fuel acted as an accelerant to the building contents; because the fuel caught light and then the building burned.

If you have an alternative explanation for why the building burned, please post it here.

Why do you ask?

 

[9/11-investigator]

I haven't seen the maths of the unidentified person you're talking about.

But it does seem that the jet fuel acted as an accelerant to the building contents; because the fuel caught light and then the building burned.

If you have an alternative explanation for why the building burned, please post it here.

Why do you ask?

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?

 

[dtugg]

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 weakened?

Who says that the weakening of the core was the cause of the collapses? Once again, what do the lying shills of NIST say the initiation of the collapses was?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Who says that the weakening of the core was the cause of the collapses?

Nobody.

I am asking why the core columns collapsed.

In the mean time, without wanting to interrupt the present discussion, I want to store a very instructive picture for future reference.

 

[dtugg]

Nobody.

I am asking why the core columns collapsed.

In the mean time, without wanting to interrupt the present discussion, I want to store a very instructive picture for future reference.

Because the rest of the building collapsed. The core wasn't designed to stand up on its own although it did remain standing for a few seconds after the rest of the building fell down.

What is that picture supposed to show? Evidence of explosions? You claim that the buildings were destroyed using an incendiary never before used in building demolitions, remember.

Oh, and why did the towers collapse according to the lying shills of NIST?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.

Emphasis added

To the Stundi-cave, Robin!

 

[A W Smith]

Nobody.

I am asking why the core columns collapsed.

In the mean time, without wanting to interrupt the present discussion, I want to store a very instructive picture for future reference.

In the mean time, without wanting to interrupt the present discussion, I want to link to a very instructive picture for future reference
Is the late Marc Morelands hair exploding?
http://www.answers.com/topic/wall-of-voodoo-16-jpg-1

 

[dtugg]

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?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Because the rest of the building collapsed. The core wasn't designed to stand up on its own although it did remain standing for a few seconds after the rest of the building fell down.

That's interesting! The core was able to support itself + a part of the weight of the floors (the reaminder was carried by the outer columns). But it was not able to support itself. That is like saying that you are able to lift a sack of potatoes of 20 kg plus a sack of onions of 20 kilo at the same time but that you are not able to lift a sack of potatoes alone.

Question: do the laws of gravity, as formulated by Isaac Newton, apply in America as they do here in Europa?

'The rest of the building'... let me see: the building mainly consists of a core, 110 etages worth of floors and the outer columns. If I read you right than the floors and/or the outer columns fell first. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume for a (brief) moment that the floors indeed did fell first and pancaked/dominoed towards mother earth. What happened to the outer columns I do not care. But why would the core collapse as well? The floors are connected to the core via trusses and welded using connection points to the core. If a load of floors fall down than what happens is that the connection points cannot support the number of floors (weight + impetus) and break of. But this has no consequences for the core.

You are further claiming that the core remained upright for a few seconds but this is not true. What remained upright for a few seconds was merely 1 or 2 columns (not 47) for the simple reason that Peer Segalovitz, the demolition expert of the Israeli army, had not properly put charges at all the the necessary points (or some charges had failed to detonate).

What is that picture supposed to show? Evidence of explosions? You claim that the buildings were destroyed using an incendiary never before used in building demolitions, remember.

Later, later. First things first. Let's wait the doctor has to say regarding heat + core.

Oh, and why did the towers collapse according to the lying shills of NIST?

Uhhhh, by heat?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

That's interesting! The core was able to support itself + a part of the weight of the floors (the reaminder was carried by the outer columns). But it was not able to support itself. That is like saying that you are able to lift a sack of potatoes of 20 kg plus a sack of onions of 20 kilo at the same time but that you are not able to lift a sack of potatoes alone.

No, no, no. You are committing a mistake with that assertion. A building depends on it's geometry, and the presence of other components of the structure (such as the exterior columns and walls) for its stability. the core could indeed not stand on its own, it was too tall. You err when making a weight comparison. It's not a matter of weight, it's a matter of support. The ability to bear weight doesn't matter when you're talking about an object many, many times taller than it is wide. Nobody's said the core could not support it's own weight; the point is it couldn't stand up without the other structures providing support. That's what the statement meant.

 

[dtugg]

That's interesting! The core was able to support itself + a part of the weight of the floors (the reaminder was carried by the outer columns). But it was not able to support itself. That is like saying that you are able to lift a sack of potatoes of 20 kg plus a sack of onions of 20 kilo at the same time but that you are not able to lift a sack of potatoes alone.

Question: do that laws of gravity, as formulated by Isaac Newton, apply in America as they do here in Europa?

'The rest of the building'... let me see: the building mainly consists of a core, 110 etages worth of floors and the outer columns. If I read you right than the floors and/or the outer columns fell first. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume for a (brief) moment that the floors indeed did fell first and pancaked/dominoed towards mother earth. What happened to the outer columns I do not care. But why would the core collapse as well? The floors are connected to the core via trusses and welded using connection points to the core. If a load of floors fall down than what happens is that the connection points cannot support the number of floors (weight + impetus) and break of. But this has no consequences for the core.

You are further claiming that the core remained upright for a few seconds but this is not true. What remained upright for a few seconds was merely 1 or 2 columns (not 47) for the simple reason that Peer Segalovitz, the demolition expert of the Israeli army, had not properly put charges at all the the necessary points (or some charges had failed to detonate).



Later, later. First things first. Let's wait the doctor has to say regarding heat + core.



Uhhhh, by heat?

It is clear that you understand nothing of physics and engineering, and I really do not care enough to explain to you. I am only here because it is fun messing with ignorant twoofers.

Oh, and what was the mechanism for initiation of the collapse of the towers? It is more than "heat." Very telling that you cannot even tell us what the lying shills even say.

 

[A W Smith]

That's interesting! The core was able to support itself + a part of the weight of the floors (the reaminder was carried by the outer columns). But it was not able to support itself. That is like saying that you are able to lift a sack of potatoes of 20 kg plus a sack of onions of 20 kilo at the same time but that you are not able to lift a sack of potatoes alone.

thats a piss poor analogy and disingenuous at best. You know and I know that the towers were designed so that the perimeter behaved like a tube to take wind loads. The core played almost no part in that respect. without the perimeter and connecting floor trusses the narrow footprint of the core would not survive even a moderate wind storm. As the outside of the towers collapsed along with many of the core perimeter columns connecting to that tube it became to narrow to stand on its own.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You are further claiming that the core remained upright for a few seconds but this is not true. What remained upright for a few seconds was merely 1 or 2 columns (not 47) for the simple reason that Peer Segalovitz, the demolition expert of the Israeli army, had not properly put charges at all the the necessary points (or some charges had failed to detonate).

What kind of silly assertion is that? There were no remnants of "charges" found, and no evidence of explosives or incendiaries left on the steel. Furthermore, there were no explosions heard, which negates explosive charges, and there was no fireworks-level light show, which negates incendiaries.

You cannot make unsupported assertions like that. You have zero proof that this Segalovitz person installed demolitions of any kind.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

And why was Segalovitz mentioned? You're cribbing from Chris Bollyn's erroneous junk. Segalovitz was detained and questioned in Florida, not New York, back in March of 2001. When the hell was he in New York? There's zero evidence he was ever in New York. Not even Bollyn makes the connection; he just jumps from "Jew" to "WTC", and even his error-laden pages note that Segalovitz came to Florida in January of '01, not New York.

You need to be more discriminating and think more critically about the information you're reading.

 

[9/11-investigator]

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.

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). What Mearsheimer and Walt had to say about the field of foreign policy applies to all sectors of society. But this is a theme for a different topic, in which I will not participate. I propose we restrict our discussion to trusses and steel columns, just not to upset all sorts of people.

 

[9/11-investigator]

No, no, no. You are committing a mistake with that assertion. A building depends on it's geometry, and the presence of other components of the structure (such as the exterior columns and walls) for its stability. the core could indeed not stand on its own, it was too tall. You err when making a weight comparison. It's not a matter of weight, it's a matter of support. The ability to bear weight doesn't matter when you're talking about an object many, many times taller than it is wide. Nobody's said the core could not support it's own weight; the point is it couldn't stand up without the other structures providing support. That's what the statement meant.

OK, I'll be magnanimous and admit that the core ain't no Eiffel tower, so maybe, just maybe, if the core, provided it is standing alone AND is subjected to a hurricane, that under these conditions it might fall over (just maybe, I do not really believe that). What I reject completely however is that it is possible that the core will implode in itself just because it is no longer supporting 110 floors (unless it receives some Israeli assistance).

This notion is ridiculous.

 

[stateofgrace]

That's interesting! The core was able to support itself + a part of the weight of the floors (the reaminder was carried by the outer columns)

<snip>

You understand the floor trusses braced the inner core to the external columns, right? You do actually understand the relationship between the external columns, the floors and the inner core, right?

Bracing, ever heard of it?

 

[beachnut]

As per usual you are not in possession of any facts.

WTC 1, South Face, 8:55am - 9 minutes after impact

WTC 1, South Face, 9:19am - 33 minutes after impact

Which is more intense?

Any response to post 756?

Why do 9/11 truth supporters fail at understanding fire?

Good. Would you not agree with me that during the first minutes the conditions on several floors resembled an inferno that quickly became a lot less intense?

Proven wrong with evidence. How could this happen with over 7 years to study 9/11?

 

[9/11-investigator]

And why was Segalovitz mentioned? You're cribbing from Chris Bollyn's erroneous junk. Segalovitz was detained and questioned in Florida, not New York, back in March of 2001. When the hell was he in New York? There's zero evidence he was ever in New York. Not even Bollyn makes the connection; he just jumps from "Jew" to "WTC", and even his error-laden pages note that Segalovitz came to Florida in January of '01, not New York.

You need to be more discriminating and think more critically about the information you're reading.

Bollyn says this:

One of the Israeli agents was 27-year-old Lt. Peer Segalovitz, a platoon leader with Israeli special forces 605 battalion in the Golan Heights. Segalovitz and the 80-man platoon he commanded "specialized in demolition."

"Segalovitz acknowledged he could blow up buildings, bridges, cars and anything else that he needed too," according to the report. If the Israeli "art student" intelligence operation is connected to 9-11, then the prevalence of military computer programmers and demolition experts among the agents would make sense given the evidence that the terror attacks of 9-11 required a great deal of expertise with computer networks and explosives.

Segalovitz is a likely candidate considering his credentials. But I do not really care if it was him or somebody other Israeli.

 

[dtugg]

Nobody cares what your Holocaust denying hero says.