Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

kylebisme said:
Tour Broca was a 15 story structure in which 2 stories being pushed out resulted in a period of free fall for about about 13% of its hight.

WTC7 was a 47 story structure which expeanced a free fall equvanlt to 8 stories, which comes out to about 17% of its hight.

.
Click to expand...

So all you require is to be shown that there was a period of time, 2.5 seconds IIRC, during which there was a coincident destruction of up to 8 lower floors?

OK, the core area of the structure failed first. This is patently evident in the video as we see the top floor center of the structure begin to fall several seconds before the north facade begins its descent.

If you look at the construction of WTC 7 you will see that the 60-70% of width of the north facade above the 7th floor is being held up by 7 or 8 cantilever trusses that extend to the centeral core of the building. Take out the core columns that are supporting those cantilever trusses and the entire north facade has no support whatsoever. This is what can be expected to occur before the north facade comes down completely since it begins it descent well after the core.

Mystery solved?

It can also be noted that perhaps not coincidentally, much of the portion of the structure to the east of those cantilever trusses fell not to the south, but instead, to the northeast. It impacted 30 West Broadway so severly that it also had to be torn down.
the 'kink' in the building occurs just east of the eastern most cantilever truss and the roof structure descent progresses westward from that kink (ie. towards the support of those trusses)
 
Last edited:
I have always LOVED how twoofs ignore Fitterman Hall when discussing the collapse of wtc7. Amazing that.

Of course if I were arguing that a building fell into its own footprint (which it didn't), and that it was a symetrical collapse (which it wasn't), i would definately IGNORE Fitterman hall which had damage and collapses FROM THE ROOF where it was struck by WTC7.

And of course the damage to the Verizion building next door on the opposite side was also ignored... I love it.

<twoof mode>
lets ignore it. it obviously isn't important.
</twoof mode>
 
TruthersLie said:
I have always LOVED how twoofs ignore Fitterman Hall when discussing the collapse of wtc7. Amazing that.

Of course if I were arguing that a building fell into its own footprint (which it didn't), and that it was a symetrical collapse (which it wasn't), i would definately IGNORE Fitterman hall which had damage and collapses FROM THE ROOF where it was struck by WTC7.

And of course the damage to the Verizion building next door on the opposite side was also ignored... I love it.

<twoof mode>
lets ignore it. it obviously isn't important.
</twoof mode>
Click to expand...

fiterman hall was heavily damaged on its south face (another obvious sign that WTC7 did not come straight down)
but from what i understand the damage was repairable
apparently mold and dust did it in
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/construction/project_updates/fiterman_hall_39764.aspx
 
This was the damage to the roof of fitterman hall
414px-Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg


The problem is that it was left to sit, and had massive mold growing inside the seriously damaged building. Couple that with the exposed asbestos in the building and it is needing to be brought down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boroug...ge#Fiterman_Hall_and_the_September_11_attacks

But again, how does a building that "collapses into own footprint" and "collapses symetrically" do this damage to the ROOF of a buidling across the street?

ETA: From the Fema building report http://911research.com/mirrors/guar...oalbum/11/911_HighQualityPhotos7784.jpg[/img]
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
That's terrible! Why did the Port Authority allow them to build Fitterman Hall in the footprint of WTC7?
Click to expand...

It is the new way to do engineering.. it is like double booking at airlines and hotels.

Call it double footprinting, just in case another building isn't going up right there.
 
Is it really beyond absolutely all possibility that the planes were just covers for a non-conventional, yet still controlled demolition, or do most of you just refuse to dwell on the idea, content as you are to argue "the official position"?

Don't argue the "why's" and "what fors", but try and imagine the "what ifs"!
 
Ragnarok said:
Is it really beyond absolutely all possibility that the planes were just covers for a non-conventional, yet still controlled demolition, or do most of you just refuse to dwell on the idea, content as you are to argue "the official position"?

Don't argue the "why's" and "what fors", but try and imagine the "what ifs"!
Click to expand...

There's a million "what if's". However, through a concise and accurate engineering analysis we have an "is definitely". Please, read about it.

Truthers still have not come up with a mathematical explanation for why the towers collapsed or cannot collapse that can stand up to reason. Without that proof, the rest of your beliefs regarding your entire religion is rendered moot.
 
Last edited:
Ragnarok said:
Is it really beyond absolutely all possibility that the planes were just covers for a non-conventional, yet still controlled demolition, or do most of you just refuse to dwell on the idea, content as you are to argue "the official position"?

Don't argue the "why's" and "what fors", but try and imagine the "what ifs"!
Click to expand...

Ah.. but you see here is the problem with your idea.

if the "what if" is not physically possible, then it is just as likely that Mothra did it.

you have Cd with silent explosives which leave no trace. amazing. I'd bet the military and any construction company in the world would LOVE to have it.

You have BS science trying to pass off as "real." Yet you can't get a single peer reviewed scientific journal ANYWHERE in the world to touch your papers, so you have to resort to vanity publishing...

It really is rather amazing.
 
Ragnarok said:
Is it really beyond absolutely all possibility that the planes were just covers for a non-conventional, yet still controlled demolition, or do most of you just refuse to dwell on the idea, content as you are to argue "the official position"?

Don't argue the "why's" and "what fors", but try and imagine the "what ifs"!
Click to expand...

"what if" means you have no evidence
 
Newtons Bit said:
There's a million "what if's". However, through a concise and accurate engineering analysis we have an "is definitely". Please, read about it.

Truthers still have not come up with a mathematical explanation for why the towers collapse that can stand up to any reason. Without that proof, the rest of your beliefs regarding your entire religion is rendered moot.
Click to expand...

Newtons Bit is right. Also: The failure modes of the recovered steel in NCSTAR 1-3C specifically rules out demolitions.
 
Ragnarok said:
Is it really beyond absolutely all possibility that the planes were just covers for a non-conventional, yet still controlled demolition, or do most of you just refuse to dwell on the idea, content as you are to argue "the official position"?

Don't argue the "why's" and "what fors", but try and imagine the "what ifs"!
Click to expand...

Please tell me you didn't somehow manage to get unbanned just to say that!
 
Ragnarok said:
Is it really beyond absolutely all possibility that the planes were just covers for a non-conventional, yet still controlled demolition, or do most of you just refuse to dwell on the idea, content as you are to argue "the official position"?

Don't argue the "why's" and "what fors", but try and imagine the "what ifs"!
Click to expand...

Beyond all possibility no. Well beyond the realm of probability, yes. That is to say that if you are in essence saying that some sort of technological magic (which I would define as invoking technology that is as yet shown to be available), then yes it could be considered. However it is akin to saying that the "Matrix" movies just might be docuementaries.

ETA: I see there will be no further discussion from Ragnarok
 
Last edited:
Indeed I have yet to see a 911 conspiracy speculator comment on 30 West Broadway(Fitterman Hall) and the fact that it lay in the opposite direction that most of WTC went.

70% of WTC 7 falls to the south, the rest falls to the north and they claim that it fell into its own footprint. - ignored

The ample reasoning for the 2.5 seconds of essentially free fall acceleration of the north facade during the 17 second collapse of WTC 7 (6.5 seconds of north facade descent being only the last portion of the collapse) is ignored.

ETA: I could have sworn that this thread was dealing with the tower collapses. I see that I must be incorrect as it is obviously now a thread concerning WTC 7's collapse
 
Last edited:
TruthersLie said:
Actually I like this image better
[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/11/911_HighQualityPhotos7784.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Here is another good one:

http://911guide.googlepages.com/debris.jpg/debris-full;init:.jpg

Remember how we've been told time and again that the collapses could not happen in such a symmetrical manner unless the resistance of every column was removed at the same time for each floor? Notice the INTACT frames in both of these pictures?

Time to goalpost move...T-10, 9, 8...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom