• 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.

The Collapse of WTC1 and 2

The Doc said:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546

The above video clearly shows the perimeter columns of the World Trade Center bow inwards before the collapse. This was due to the sagging floor trusses pulling them inwards as they sagged further and further.

To replicate the collapse of the towers, you would somehow need to get the floor trusses to sag enough to pull those perimeter columns inward. Fire will do this, explosives and thermite will not.

Blowing all the core columns on one floor of the tower would also create a visible and audible explosion outside of the trade centers. This was not seen on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Dont be silly. Don't you know brave NWO operatives were inside pulling the floor trusses inwards?

Silly Doc.
 
coughymachine said:
Consider this hypothetical scenario:

A decision has been made to bring a WTC-type tower down in a controlled manner. The reasons are legitimate and irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Hold it right there. They wouldn't be legitimate, because controlled demolition by explosives is against the law in New York City. There's too much underground infrastructure that might be damaged.
 
The thing I simply don't get about the truthers is their 'contention' that the fires could have not get hot enough to cause the floor trusses to bow inwards.. so, what is their explanation to video evidence of this?
 
aggle-rithm said:
Hold it right there. They wouldn't be legitimate, because controlled demolition by explosives is against the law in New York City. There's too much underground infrastructure that might be damaged.
Click to expand...

He said a WTC-type tower, not the WTC. Since this hypothetical tower isn't actually the WTC, we can put in in Las Vegas instead of New York.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
The thing I simply don't get about the truthers is their 'contention' that the fires could have not get hot enough to cause the floor trusses to bow inwards.. so, what is their explanation to video evidence of this?
Click to expand...

One of our intrepid truthers insisted that it was an optical illusion. Was that Christophera?
 
Undesired Walrus said:
The thing I simply don't get about the truthers is their 'contention' that the fires could have not get hot enough to cause the floor trusses to bow inwards.. so, what is their explanation to video evidence of this?
Click to expand...

More unbelievable is that so many people would jump to their deaths for no reason at all.

Hello? What would it take to make a troofer jump off a 110-story building to a certain death? Fear of SMOKE?!?

Remind me not to light a cigarette around these guys. Could get ugly.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Does Las Vegas have sufficient bedrock to hold up a tower that size?

Speaking hypothetically, of course.
Click to expand...

Does it matter? We're going to hypothetically blow it up once it's hypothetically built, so as long as it doesn't hypothetically fall over before it hypothetically falls down, we're hypothetically set, hypothetically that is.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Does it matter? We're going to hypothetically blow it up once it's hypothetically built, so as long as it doesn't hypothetically fall over before it hypothetically falls down, we're hypothetically set, hypothetically that is.
Click to expand...

How much hypothetical insurance do we have on it? Hypothetically?

Is it covered for hypothetical thermite damage?
 
aggle-rithm said:
More unbelievable is that so many people would jump to their deaths for no reason at all.

Hello? What would it take to make a troofer jump off a 110-story building to a certain death? Fear of SMOKE?!?

Remind me not to light a cigarette around these guys. Could get ugly.
Click to expand...

No no no no, you have it wrong, they didn't jump, they were trying to get away from the smoke and fell out the window. I mean, anyone that would jump from buildings that so obvioiusly weren't on fire would have to be as stupid as pilots that couldn't take down a cave dwelling arab with a little box cutter.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
The thing I simply don't get about the truthers is their 'contention' that the fires could have not get hot enough to cause the floor trusses to bow inwards.. so, what is their explanation to video evidence of this?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure this is where the thermite is supposed to have come in.

edit: ...hypothetically.
 
Last edited:
aggle-rithm said:
How much hypothetical insurance do we have on it? Hypothetically?

Is it covered for hypothetical thermite damage?
Click to expand...

Since you are hypothetically telling us that you are hypothetically blowing it up, any hypothetical insurance company wouldn't give you the hypothetical time of day, much less issue any hypothetical coverage on the hypothetical building. ;)

If I were the hypothetical underwriter writing the hypothetical proposal, I would hypothetically decline and laugh in your hypothetical face.

You might want some hypothetical general liability for the hypothetical demolition workers, though.
 
If all you youngsters had worn your sweaters like I told you to, you wouldn't have gotten hypothermia!
 
Well, someone else has pointed out that it's not really a controlled demolition if a 110 story structure is demolished with explosives, so I'll just add my questions on to that:

What's the difference in cost of demolishing the building in the conventional way (painstakingly taking it apart from the top down, recycling all the materials that you can and binning the rest)? Is the conventional method any more/less expensive? With the time-frame needed to wire even a small building for explosive demolition, does it really save any time (I watched a building (probably 30 stories) in Toronto be disassembled from the top down over the course of 4 months this winter, would wiring, demolishing and clearing the site have taken longer)? What about those recyclable materials, if they are deconstructed properly are they more or less valuable than what can be scavenged from the rubble pile that is left at the end of an explosive demolition? Is there an increased level of pay for workers on an explosive demolition site (insurance costs/danger pay) that would have to be taken into account?

Without answers to those questions, I don't think that anyone can say that "obviously" explosive demolition of the buildings were the cheaper, easier way to go. I think that an argument could be made that with the wealth of materials in the towers and the extra risks (sure, in the CT scenario insurance doesn't need to be paid, but I'm thinking danger pay/hush money would make up for that expense) would be worth taking them down in the conventional manner if they did need to come down (which has not been shown).
 
Undesired Walrus said:
And thermate that can burn a hole in steel was meant to be able to warp and displace floor trusses?
Click to expand...
Hey man, I'm just repeating what I read on a website. They said they were peer reviewed. What, did you expect me to do? Fact-check?!? Fack-checking is for nerds, nerd.
 
chipmunk stew said:
Hey man, I'm just repeating what I read on a website. They said they were peer reviewed. What, did you expect me to do? Fact-check?!? Fack-checking is for nerds, nerd.
Click to expand...

As the great 28th Kingdom once said: "Right brained = nerdness"

I'm not sure precisely what the hell he was talking about, but I think we've got some seriously right brained, nerdny people in here*. :)




*Including me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom