Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

Ragnarok said:
Not quite the same spectacle though, is it? I'm not sure that would have got the public banging their drums behind Dubya!
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Bush Admin sure capitalized on the horrid spectacle of a subsidiary building collapsing more than 8 hours after the attacks, with no one inside them and no fatalities, which few people saw and even fewer (i.e. mostly Truthers) seem to give much of a damn about. Thousands of Americans already dead, but no way would the American people have allowed their nefarious government to go after the alleged perpetrators (wink wink) if it weren't for that final straw of WTC7's collapse which broke the camel's back!

Why not try thinking before you type?
 
Kill 3000 innocents, yea, not a problem; you're just acting out. Collapse the WTC7? You FIENDS! We will hunt you down and KILL YOU.

REMEMBER WTC7!
 
Ragnarok said:
And so, NIST, the brightest and the best, charged to investigate the towers for use in improving future building's safety standards, hasn't even a cursory interest in how the building behaved all the way down? No thoughts at all for how they might save anyone in a similar situation in the future who might make it two thirds of the way down and then have a building collapse on them. And you don't find that surprising?
Click to expand...

I'm not an architect or structural engineer, but I don't find that surprising. Even an infinitely detailed simulation could only tell you where survivable pockets would form in the stairwells. Working your way backwards from that to try to figure out how to ensure more and/or larger pockets would be impossible for such a chaotic event, and repeatedly running the simulation with variations in the building design to see which left the most/largest pockets would be effort better spent figuring out how to reduce the likelihood of a collapse happening in the first place.
 
There is just no way to explain how all four widely-seperated corners of WC7 fell at the same tme due to a progressive collapse from asymmetrical damage.

Only a controlled demolition can have caused this. It couldn't happen naturally and spontaneously from wildly uneven and localised damage to it's 40,000 ton steel frame..
 
Last edited:
Here's a mental exercise. Imagine only the four corners of WTC7 standing alone with no structure between. Then suddenly they all fall down together like morror images of each other. This is completely impossibe you say ? Can't possibly happen.

Okay then. Now mentally add some structure between the four corners that will cause all four corners to fall down simultaneously like mirror images of each other.

Tough, ain't it ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
There is just no way to explain how all four widely-seperated corners of WC7 fell at the same tme due to a progressive collapse from asymmetrical damage.
Click to expand...
Exhibit A: A fascinating dive into the allegorical imagination of a "controlled demolitioner." Whereby through a lack of critical thinking skills asserts that the only structural components are the corner walls. Next week kids we'll explore what bill smith was missing in his latest episode.
 
Now, don't forget the obvious structural integrity that just about every firefighter commented on to the media outlets and people on the stret.

I saw the flipping bulge. It was very noticeable. Not just a few windows, huge spans of many floors.
 
triforcharity said:
Now, don't forget the obvious structural integrity that just about every firefighter commented on to the media outlets and people on the stret.

I saw the flipping bulge. It was very noticeable. Not just a few windows, huge spans of many floors.
Click to expand...

In bill smi--- well, any twoofers world... what you can't see behind the smoke an exterior walls just isn't there. Apparently the idea has expanded to what he thinks was holding up the building too.
 
kylebisme said:
Of course I can say; it should have looked like a standing building with some structural damage and heavy office fires, despite all the falser claims to the contrary.
Click to expand...

You can say anything you want. Physics says otherwise.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Exhibit A: A fascinating dive into the allegorical imagination of a "controlled demolitioner." Whereby through a lack of critical thinking skills asserts that the only structural components are the corner walls. Next week kids we'll explore what bill smith was missing in his latest episode.
Click to expand...

Why did you even bother Grizzly ? It's totally meaningless.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
See The Heiwa Challenge thread! Very popular! Just produce a structure, where a hugh top structure/mass C will, after drop, crush down a bigger bottom structure/mass A by gravity.
Click to expand...

Ignore THE HEIWA CHALLENGEthread,it's bs,a total waste of time.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
In bill smi--- well, any twoofers world... what you can't see behind the smoke an exterior walls just isn't there. Apparently the idea has expanded to what he thinks was holding up the building too.
Click to expand...

Not at all .The building was held up by a 40,000 ton structural steel frame so strong that 'It was one of the most structurally redundant buildings ever built in the history of steel structures.'

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity..."--Lucky Silverstein
 
bill smith said:
There is just no way to explain how all four widely-seperated corners of WC7 fell at the same tme due to a progressive collapse from asymmetrical damage.

Only a controlled demolition can have caused this. It couldn't happen naturally and spontaneously from wildly uneven and localised damage to it's 40,000 ton steel frame..
Click to expand...

So..uh..the entire events of 9/11 were orchestrated by the government so they could covertly demolish WTC7?
You did it! You did what no one else could! You cracked the whole thing wide open!
You can go now!
 
kylebisme said:
Of course I can say; it should have looked like a standing building with some structural damage and heavy office fires, despite all the falser claims to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Huh?? I'm confused. Are we talking about 7, because that is EXACTLY what it looked like up untill it fell. I mean, other than the huge multi-storey bulge, and the leaning, and the huge, unfought fires. Yeah, that is exactly what it looked like. Maybe I am confused.
 
kylebisme said:
Alienentity and Reactor drone, I don't doubt you both mean well, but haggling over the moment the roof line first trembles is overlooking the issue at hand. Even NIST admits 2.25 seconds of free fall, which is equivalent to two floors of nothing but air. Were there anything resembling a building in the way, even weakening by massive office fires all the way across, it quite simply couldn't have come down like that. To put it another way, nitpicking the bends in the roof is like driving 90Mph down the highway and then arguing you didn't speed because you took the on ramp slow. Granted, the the molten steel at the base explains part of what happened, as does watching the NIST guy dance around like a puppet when being asked about it:



If you watch to the end, you'll see a NASA shot showing the base of all three buildings, with building 7 being the hottest. That is the work of some fancy incendiary used as a corrosive, and I wouldn't be surprised if hydraulics were what brought down the center first. Also, on a hunch I googled a phrase, and found an excellent video suggesting who might have done it:



Seems like the right team for the job, eh?
Click to expand...

Yeah, except for the fact that they are actors, and couldn't actually do that in real life.

Comapring someone robbing a casino, and wiring a building for demo is idiotic at best.

Oh, and that video is sick, and you're still ignorant on things like structrual engineering.
 
Ragnarok said:
And so, NIST, the brightest and the best, charged to investigate the towers for use in improving future building's safety standards, hasn't even a cursory interest in how the building behaved all the way down? No thoughts at all for how they might save anyone in a similar situation in the future who might make it two thirds of the way down and then have a building collapse on them. And you don't find that surprising?
Click to expand...


Ragnarok,

Why would someone STAY in a building that has been on fire for many hours, that are NOT firefighters??
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom