World record for a high-rise steel structure for CD is...

[Mancman]

hey Leroy, totally irrelevant for wtc7, that was due to fire and damage. A burning part should be ejected from one of the twin towers 600-700 feet far away. Indeed things were ejected so far, but this one should also burn then. It almost looks like a domino effect of collapsing towers.

WTC7 was 350 feet away from WTC1.

 

[Bell]

WTC7 was 350 feet away from WTC1.

Could you state how many football fields that is? That may intrigue Einsteen, since he keeps bringing up that the debris landed football fields away.

 

[einsteen]

There was at least a building between it and it's generally accepted that it flew away far. Please think about Sir Isaac Newton, he will turn in his grave. A building with a few damaged columns and all others intact sagging into the ground like a CD. For a CD it is absolutely necessary that there is a symmetry in all columns, i.e. they should all be have the same kinf of weakness at the same moment, it is one of the essential points in a CD. We have asymmetrical damage and some smoke, how on earth could that happen ? Please use occam again.

Oh here is another CT nutter smoking gun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ

 

[chipmunk stew]

hey Leroy, totally irrelevant for wtc7, that was due to fire and damage. A burning part should be ejected from one of the twin towers 600-700 feet far away. Indeed things were ejected so far, but this one should also burn then. It almost looks like a domino effect of collapsing towers.

What do these distances tell you, einsteen? You'd have to know how long it took those particular pieces of debris to reach that far. Then you could work out their average horizontal velocity. You'd also have to know how massive they were. With their mass and average horizontal velocity, you could then work out how much energy was spent sending them that distance.

energy = 1/2 x mass x velocity^2

Given the height from which they were ejected (and thus the time it took them to travel such a long horizontal vector) I think you'd find that it wouldn't take nearly as much energy as intuition would tell you by focusing on what seems a large horizontal distance (and ignoring the height).

 

[Gravy]

I can not give those answers, if wtc7 collapsed as a result of fire and damage that must be caused by wtc1 and wtc2 debris,
it is not needed for the debris to be on fire, that could be caused by the impact, maybe a gas explosion.
If you check the pictures of the fires at wtc7
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/fire.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7northface.html
they look localized and if you check the fires in the other buildings wtc #5 for example
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc2.html
it looks similar. Do you expect me to give an answer how to cut some columns in the basement during that day?
but what the CD experts say is that you can implode or topple buildings. The damage was asymmetrical and the implosion
was... Each day I become more skeptical to swallow this b_u_l_l, I almost have to puke but I'm still open-minded, if they
show their math I will be the first one to read it.

I see. You have no evidence that supports your claim, and you can not provide a rational explanation of why building #7 would be demolished.

Is that all, then?

As for debris starting fires, you really should know that the tower collapses started fires in most of the surrounding buildings and in dozens of vehicles. 90 West Street had very serious fires that would have threatened the building's integrity, but they were fought with lines that were run from a fireboat on the Hudson. And of course 4, 5, and 6 WTC were gutted by fires that were started by the collapses.

Each day I become more skeptical to swallow this b_u_l_l, I almost have to puke but I'm still open-minded, if they show their math I will be the first one to read it.

And the NIST interim report on building 7? I've asked you several times for your specific objections to it. You have not responded. Please do so.

Stick around for a day or two, einsteen. I think you'll learn something yet.

 

[Gravy]

A building with a few damaged columns and all others intact sagging into the ground like a CD.

How many columns were damaged by impact and fire? I await your response.

ETA: and how many columns would need to be damaged to cause a collapse?

 

[eeyore1954]

Hooray for critical thinking.

I decided to do a bit of an investigation on the controlled demolition by doing something simple: Find out what is the tallest building ever taken down by controlled demolition.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=4



The WTC 1 & 2 were 3.1 Times taller.

Wtc7 was 1.46 times taller.

And this is the world record we are talking about.

You can stack three Hudson Department building stores on top of each other and you will still not match up to the sheer height of the WTC 1 and 2.

How is this evidence against the CD theory? NO ONE knows how a building that tall will act because nothing like it has EVER been done. But we are to believe that it took a weekend to rig a huge building and a bunch of angry white guys with mid-80s IQ can spot it over demolition contracts, even though something this tall has never been done in demolition history?

Just a little bit of logic to hurt 'em more with.

IMHO I don't think i would agree that the fact that the height of the WTC is higher than any other demolition is a good argument against the towers being brought down by explosives because of the following.

Most of us who argue against the demolition theory state the once the collapse started there was no way the lower floors were going to stop it . I believe demolitions experts would be able to know where to place enough explosives to start this collapse. There is no reason to expect they would have had to be concerned with how they fell or what damage they would have caused to surrounding structures and lives.

Don't get me wrong there are plenty of other good reasons why the demoltion doesn't make sense

Why did the collapses start at the point of impact. Were the pilots that good to hit at the right spot but yet somehow not casue the explosives to fire at the time of impact.

Why risk being caught setting them?
Why risk being caught by evidence of the explosives being found. no matter what Dr Griffin or others would say the debris was thoughly inspected.
Why risk being caught by additional potential whisleblowers?
when I don't think anyone can reasonbly argue that terrorists crashing into the WTC wouldn't have caused enough outrage in the american public to allow Bush or Cheney or the illuminati or whoever they believe was behind it to proceed with their dastardly plans

Explosions heard in the basement and on a floor in 20's heard at the time of impact and well before the final are not indicative of a demolition.

Haphazard squibs don't mean doodley squat


etc , etc you people know them better than I

 

[MarkyX]

Someone just sent me an email who say this point.

He linked to the Wikipedia article on the Singer Building. The height of this building, which was demolished, was 612 ft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singer_Building

So...why did CD claim that the Hudson building was the "tallest" building? Or the Singer Building made out of concrete instead of steel-frame?

 

[R.Mackey]

There was at least a building between it and it's generally accepted that it flew away far. Please think about Sir Isaac Newton, he will turn in his grave. A building with a few damaged columns and all others intact sagging into the ground like a CD. For a CD it is absolutely necessary that there is a symmetry in all columns, i.e. they should all be have the same kinf of weakness at the same moment, it is one of the essential points in a CD. We have asymmetrical damage and some smoke, how on earth could that happen ? Please use occam again.

einsteen, another hilarious mismatch of a name... On what basis do you claim to speak for Newton? You demonstrate no physics proficiency whatsoever.

WTC 7 in no way -- none -- resembled a controlled demolition. There was nothing controlled about it. Now run along.

 

[MarkyX]

Most of us who argue against the demolition theory state the once the collapse started there was no way the lower floors were going to stop it . I believe demolitions experts would be able to know where to place enough explosives to start this collapse. There is no reason to expect they would have had to be concerned with how they fell or what damage they would have caused to surrounding structures and lives.

You are forgetting one big detail: The Free-Fall collapse.

You cannot have a free-fall collapse by slapping a few charges on random floors. Everything needs to be precise in order to mimic the same results. And if they didn't follow the same procedures, where are the calculations that show the "government's method" of demolishing the Two Towers can reproduce a "free fall" like a normal CD?

/head xplode

 

[steve s]

For a CD it is absolutely necessary that there is a symmetry in all columns, i.e. they should all be have the same kinf of weakness at the same moment, it is one of the essential points in a CD.

Bolding mine.

You don't have a [Rule8]ing clue what you're talking about. Look at the video of the CD that Hey Leroy linked to in post #47. Note that the charges aren't detonated in unison. They are set off in sequence. Note that the collapse starts at one corner of the building and fans out throughout the building. This is completely the opposite of what you insist is "essential" to a CD.

Steve S.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Yeah, I saw the Hudson building come down with my own eyes. It looked nothing like the WTC towers collapsing.

Einsteen, you say you're keeping an open mind, but you appear to be doing the exact opposite.

You appear to need to believe there was some greater conspiracy involved, other than the one executed by the terrorists on record.

Why?

 

[Gravy]

Yeah, I saw the Hudson building come down with my own eyes. It looked nothing like the WTC towers collapsing.

However, judging from your red nose, the radiation from the mini-nuke that destroyed the Hudson building may have also affected your memory.

 

[eeyore1954]

You are forgetting one big detail: The Free-Fall collapse.

You cannot have a free-fall collapse by slapping a few charges on random floors. Everything needs to be precise in order to mimic the same results. And if they didn't follow the same procedures, where are the calculations that show the "government's method" of demolishing the Two Towers can reproduce a "free fall" like a normal CD?

/head xplode

Why would the so called truth movement believe the imaginary "planners" would have wanted it to come down at a near free fall speed.

I would guess it is because it did seem to fall fast. Since it did come down quickly once the collapse started(which in my mind is what should be expected) they made their arguments go against those facts. If it had fallen slower they would have had arguments claiming it should have been faster. Just like if building seven had not been severly damaged they would have said the lack of damage was proof it was controlled demolition. OR if Hani Hanjour had made a dive for the pentagon instead of circling it I am sure they would have had arguments about how that proves it was an inside job.

 

[HeyLeroy]

However, judging from your red nose, the radiation from the mini-nuke that destroyed the Hudson building may have also affected your memory.

*blinking eyes* Who said that?!?

 

[eeyore1954]

Could you state how many football fields that is? That may intrigue Einsteen, since he keeps bringing up that the debris landed football fields away.

Maybe he was refering to PeeWee league football or arena football or strat-o-matic dice football .

and what is surprising about debris being thrown that far away when you consider the mass of the upper portion of the building. If it had been explosives shouldn't the debris have been thrown out sooner because the explosives would have been prior to the collapse not after it had started.

 

[MarkyX]

Why would the so called truth movement believe the imaginary "planners" would have wanted it to come down at a near free fall speed.

I don't know, but they use this for their argument that the CD "theory" exists. They fail to tell us HOW it is done in order to produce the so-called free fall speeds.

These guys are nothing but mere junk science.

 

[steve s]

If it had been explosives shouldn't the debris have been thrown out sooner because the explosives would have been prior to the collapse not after it had started.

If you look at that video posted by Hey Leroy you'll notice that nothing gets thrown out by the explosions. Pretty much shoots down the "CDs-cause-stuff-to-get-ejected" myth.

Steve S.

 

[eeyore1954]

I don't know, but they use this for their argument that the CD "theory" exists. They fail to tell us HOW it is done in order to produce the so-called free fall speeds.

These guys are nothing but mere junk science.

While I never understood the science behind it I did know how it was done and explained it on the Loose change board months ago. I even offered a large reward to anyone who could disprove me ( monopoly money). Obvioulsy it was done with the help of aliens with some sort of gravity enhancing device.

 

[GlennB]

For a CD it is absolutely necessary that there is a symmetry in all columns, i.e. they should all be have the same kinf of weakness at the same moment,

Einsteen, you destroy your own argument with that statement.

At WTC7 there was no such symmetry. The E Penthouse fell into the building several seconds before the global collapse occurred. Video of this happening is at

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html (the first of the 3
allows fairly accurate timing)

By your own reckoning this would eliminate CD.