• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Loose Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
geggy said:
The plane didnt hit directly the center part of the south tower, instead it hit close to the corner of the building, cutting the columns only on that side while the columns on the other side stayed intacted. It was clearly evident as we all saw the top part tipped over. When the top portion above the impact hole tipped over, it would forced the column frames and joints on that same side the top part was leaning toward to snap down while the intacted side of the columns would pull the joint up and apart and then fall down. If thats the case, the entire building would've tipped over as much as 8-10 degrees. But instead the columns fell down straight down as if the columns were breaking apart evenly.
Click to expand...
What? The entire building would have tipped over? Why? Remember my point about how high up these towers were hit. Even the south tower.

The only time the whole building might have toppled was in the seconds following the impact of the plane, when there was considerable horizontal force. However, the tower withstood that, swaying back and forward a few times but not toppling. 45 minutes later or however long it was, there was no horizontal force acting at all. So there was no reason for the entire building to tip over.

What we saw was the section of the building above the impact tip over, as the supports failed at the point of impact. There's no reason at all to imagine that the forces involved here would be transferred right down one side of the tower to cause selective failure of the supports at ground level on that side. The building wasn't constructed that way. Either the lower, undamaged part of the tower would have held up, supporting the debris of the tipped-over and unsupported upper part (with some of it falling over the edge to the ground of course), or the structure would fail entirely, causing a pancaking reaction to start at the point of damage. This was inevitable given the structure, and as we could all see, the second consequence was what happened. Given that the south tower was struck relatively low (compared to the north), the failing structure couldn't support the heavier weight of the unsupported top section for so long.
geggy said:
I understand that but it's a bit complicated. If the top part tipped over the way it did, then either

The weight of the bottom edge would have continued pressed one side of the building to snap down the columns below. That pattern would've lead to more tipping.

Or since the rest of the building collapsed straight down, the top part would have tipped back to it's normal stance but it didnt.

What was strange was thet the top part stayed tipped at 80 degree while it was falling in a free fall manner. How is that possible?
Click to expand...
No, no, how can you be so obtuse?

As I pointed out above, the building wasn't designed so that the force of the tipping top section would be transmitted right to the bottom on the same side. The structure was going to fail floor by floor, as a whole.

But now you also seem to be saying that granted the pancaking did happen, the tipped-over section should have righted itself on the way down.

Why?

What forces were acting on it to change its attitude? It was tipped over to a certain point when the floors below it began to fail, one after the other, flat, across their entire area simultaneously. Why should it not then go straight down, frozen at the angle it had reached when the pancaking began?

Why am I arguing with this moron?

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Pssst... Hey Gravy, we're patiently waiting for your story here.

Well, maybe I'm not patient, but everyone else is.
 
Rolfe said:
The only time the whole building might have toppled was in the seconds following the impact of the plane, when there was considerable horizontal force.
Click to expand...
Not even then. If the building gets enough force to push it sideways from the top, there will have to be some point below that where the "bend" in the building occurs. That point where the bend occurs will be vastly weaker than what's required to hold the weight above, and the whole building would just fall straight down, with the bend being the point where the crumbling begins. The top of the building might then hit a little to one side of the footprint, but nothing like what the phrase "toppling over" brings to mind.
 
CurtC said:
Not even then. If the building gets enough force to push it sideways from the top, there will have to be some point below that where the "bend" in the building occurs. That point where the bend occurs will be vastly weaker than what's required to hold the weight above, and the whole building would just fall straight down, with the bend being the point where the crumbling begins. The top of the building might then hit a little to one side of the footprint, but nothing like what the phrase "toppling over" brings to mind.
Click to expand...
I'll take your word for it. I was just thinking about the reports from the people in the towers that there was a very marked sideways movement when the impacts occurred. I thought that if the "bend" was near the foot of the tower, the part above that might sort of collapse/disintegrate sideways.

I don't think the SF cover showing recognisable towers on their sides was ever a realistic scenario!

Rolfe.
 
CurtC said:
Not even then. If the building gets enough force to push it sideways from the top, there will have to be some point below that where the "bend" in the building occurs. That point where the bend occurs will be vastly weaker than what's required to hold the weight above, and the whole building would just fall straight down, with the bend being the point where the crumbling begins. The top of the building might then hit a little to one side of the footprint, but nothing like what the phrase "toppling over" brings to mind.
Click to expand...


Maybe the Cters have watched too much footage of brick chimneys being brought down with explosives? There's plenty of pictures of them toppling (here is a good example) and I remember seeing a lot of these either on the news or used as stock footage when I was a kid.
 
Don't they deliberately remove bricks from the base at one side only, to do this? Keeping the structure standing by propping the space with wooden props? Then they set light to the wood and retire to a safe distance. Like felling a tree by chopping out wood on one side of the trunk until it topples.

So, by that logic, the fact that the towers did not go over sideways, as a controlled felling of a tree or a chimney would have done, must prove this wasn't planned or controlled.

How am I doing?

Rolfe.
 
That's one of the big hurdles CT provers need to overcome -- the lack of footage or snapshots of buildings collapsing unexpectedly.

It's not enough to say "controlled demolitions do exactly what the WTC buildings did"; you have to be able to say "uncontrolled demolitions do not do what the WTC buildings did."

We know what buildings and chimneys that are supposed to come down look like; what we have very little experience with are buildings and chimneys that were not supposed to come down, but did anyway.
 
geggy said:
Nothing personal, I wasn't ignoring you. The strange collapsing of wtc, the fake osama tape, the pentagon, etc, etc are kids stuff. The real stuff is the connections of caryle-bush, the bin ladens-bushes, pakistan ISI-US CIA, the creation of Al Qaeda by Osama and CIA and their history, the bush family busniess interests, etc, etc all of which I think a lot of people need to know about but not many 9/11 truthers talk about it. These are the kind of things that convinced me that the bush administration had a hand in the attacks.

Good sites with more serious investigators that I'd recommend to you are
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/
http://www.oilempire.us/

I'm willing to debate with you as soon as you look into these sites...
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? Do you know what an unbiased objective source of information is? oilempire.us is complete trash!

I'm sure alot of connections can be made, between the Bushes and the Bin Ladens (the family, not specifically Ossama), and whoever with whoever. Do you know six degrees of seperation? It's a dangerous game to make connections like these because at one point, everybody is a supsect! We all know somebody who knows somebody. Not that I close my eyes at possible real connections that might be meaningful, the games of power are complex and often messy. I'm sure the US gorvernment has it's hands very dirty. But we have to rely on FACTS, not assumptions and inuendos. Especially not from sites such as the ones you try to refer us to. You have a deep distrust in your government, it's obviously clouding your judgement. I suggest you try to look at every bit of evidence you think you have and sort through wich is real and wich is just shear speculation. Only then I will be willing to listen and read whatever you find, because then you will be convincing and won't look like a bafoon. True investigations must remain objective, that means free of any partisan passion.
 
Beleth said:
That's one of the big hurdles CT provers need to overcome -- the lack of footage or snapshots of buildings collapsing unexpectedly.

It's not enough to say "controlled demolitions do exactly what the WTC buildings did"; you have to be able to say "uncontrolled demolitions do not do what the WTC buildings did."

We know what buildings and chimneys that are supposed to come down look like; what we have very little experience with are buildings and chimneys that were not supposed to come down, but did anyway.
Click to expand...

My only experience is with a silo falling over in a storm, but that was totally different variables.
 
geggy said:
Nothing personal, I wasn't ignoring you. The strange collapsing of wtc, the fake osama tape, the pentagon, etc, etc are kids stuff. The real stuff is the connections of caryle-bush, the bin ladens-bushes, pakistan ISI-US CIA, the creation of Al Qaeda by Osama and CIA and their history, the bush family busniess interests, etc, etc all of which I think a lot of people need to know about but not many 9/11 truthers talk about it. These are the kind of things that convinced me that the bush administration had a hand in the attacks.

Good sites with more serious investigators that I'd recommend to you are
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/
http://www.oilempire.us/

I'm willing to debate with you as soon as you look into these sites...
Click to expand...

In short you haven't read a single thing posted by anybody here yet. :boggled:
 
NobbyNobbs said:
5 days is nothing. There's a town in Pennsylvania (someone else can find the name, I'm sure) that's been built over a coal mine that's been on fire for *decades*.
Click to expand...

I posted a link to a report about this on #1756. The temperatures down there are at least 1000F, with nothing but anthracite coal burning.
 
Mongrel said:
Maybe the Cters have watched too much footage of brick chimneys being brought down with explosives? There's plenty of pictures of them toppling (here is a good example) and I remember seeing a lot of these either on the news or used as stock footage when I was a kid.
Click to expand...

And even there you can see that it's breaking up and becoming a more vertical collapse by the time it's done. And that's just a relatively minute chimney that's been deliberately compromised so that it falls to one side.
 
geggy said:
Nothing personal, I wasn't ignoring you. The strange collapsing of wtc, the fake osama tape, the pentagon, etc, etc are kids stuff. The real stuff is the connections of caryle-bush, the bin ladens-bushes, pakistan ISI-US CIA, the creation of Al Qaeda by Osama and CIA and their history, the bush family busniess interests, etc, etc all of which I think a lot of people need to know about but not many 9/11 truthers talk about it. These are the kind of things that convinced me that the bush administration had a hand in the attacks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's not evidence, that's conjecture.

And you apparently haven't learned anything from what knowledgeable people here have told you (see bold.)
 
geggy said:
I understand that but it's a bit complicated. If the top part tipped over the way it did, then either

The weight of the bottom edge would have continued pressed one side of the building to snap down the columns below. That pattern would've lead to more tipping.

Or since the rest of the building collapsed straight down, the top part would have tipped back to it's normal stance but it didnt.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp

Pfwahahahaha! You don't know the first thing about physics, do you ?

What was strange was thet the top part stayed tipped at 80 degree while it was falling in a free fall manner. How is that possible?
Click to expand...

Okay... go on top of a multiple-storey building. Stand on the edge of the roof, then tip over. Why would you land on your feet ?

WTC was brought down in a different yet unique way to make it look like the building failed.
Click to expand...

! You can't have your cake and eat it, too, you know ? DID IT or DID IT NOT look like a controlled demolition ?

The top portion of the towers collapsed first, then explosive charges went off in a timely pattern. YOu can come to your own conclusion.
Click to expand...

I don't draw conclusions based on speculation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom