Does this really look like a "collapse" to you? The buildings simply disintegrated into fine dust from the top down. We are talking the mid-air pulverization of thousands of tons of concrete (each floor slab several feet thick, approximately 110 stories/floors). Do you see those massive dust clouds? That's concrete dust! All that shit that blew all over Manhattan and all the way to New Jersey, covering streets and cars several inches thick? That's concrete dust! Apparently, the amount of macroscopic concrete at the site that you could pick up and hold in your hand was negligible. What would cause thousands of tons of concrete to just jump up into the air and pulverize itself into fine dust?
Also, notice that many of the photos of the buildings disintegrating exhibit a "banana being peeled" type of effect, like peeling a banana from the top down. There are other photos that show the effect much better than these, but you can definitely see it here. What would cause this?
Notice the "cauliflower" shape of the dust clouds in the last photo. What would cause this? Is there any other phenomenon that you are familiar with that would produce this effect?
Question: If a tree converted itself into sawdust from the top down, would you say that the tree "collapsed?" If not, then why are buildings which disintegrate into dust from the top down described as a "collapse?" What part of "this is not a collapse" don't you understand?
OK Karma, are you going to tell us why you think it happened? If you don't know, just say so, but it is irritating that you claim to have dialogue with others when you only point out flaws, not solutions. Complements are not solutions.
I'm that clown! Yay!
And TBH, the credentials you present are like a roadie claiming to be a good musician because he 'was on the last tour' with Aerosmith.
Also, your model is flawed. We aren't looking at one floor in isolation falling onto another floor in isolation or the effect of a single concrete slab falling 30 feet. We are looking at the top quarter of a massive building falling into everything below it. At that level of kinetic force can you tell us you are surprised that reinforced concrete becomes something close to a liquid?
First, you attack me by saying "go take some structural engineering courses." Then, when I say I have not only taken structural engineering courses, I have done structural engineering work, you attack me again with the above. Obviously, you are just another asshole with nothing constructive to add to anything, so I don't care to dignify anything else you say with a response.
hmm, well, actually the 'constructive' bit was right under the roadie comparison, but if you didn't read down that far let me put it another way:
The level of energy necessary to fragment concrete to a particulate level is entirely achievable under these circumstances.
lol, kharma will take the time to respond to a perceived slight but refuses to provide any explanation for what really caused the dustification. oh conspiracy theorists, if they weren't so damned annoying you'd have to love 'em!
Well... whatever else I might say regarding this, at least I can say you gave an answer, and were polite about it if nothing else.
Do you have any theories regarding building 7? It disintegrated from the bottom up, not top down as the towers did. Since I'm guessing you wouldn't claim boulders flew up from the ground floor disintegrating everything in their path... do you have another explanation?
building seven had a gaping hole (about a third of the structure) torn out of it by the collapse of the second tower (or possibly both, im unsure on that) and was left to burn for about 7 hours. the fire brigade decided not to fight the fires because building 7 was a lost cause, and they knew well in advance that building 7 would collapse. it was bulging and creaking well before it came down. so they evacuated the area and let gravity take its course.
its not rocket science.
I asked him, not you. I already said I wouldn't dignify you, or certain others, with a response, but you keep polluting the thread with your misinformation.
Building 7 did not have a "third of the structure" torn out of it. That is a bald-faced lie. It basically had what amounted to an external "scratch."
The government said that one of the external columns was injured with this "scratch." Let's assume that this is true. Let us also assume that this injury was severe enough to bring down the building (a ridiculous assumption, but I'm purposefully giving you the most generous assumptions possible).
It doesn't matter. The building "collapsed" absolutely perfectly symmetrically, straight down, at free fall acceleration. It didn't topple in the direction of the injury. The roof line of the building remained perfectly flat and level during the "collapse." Every single massive steel column in the building failed catastrophically at the exact same instant.
Any idiot with half a brain understands that asymmetrical damage (assuming it was severe enough to bring down the building) would result in asymmetrical collapse. It is physically impossible to be otherwise.
The government actually says it doesn't know why Building 7 collapsed. It says that "even their best hypothesis has a low probability of occurrence." You can read this in their official report. Perhaps you should call them up and enlighten them with your knowledge?
Is that so? So you are claiming people had foreknowledge that this building would "collapse?" I find that quite interesting.
That's the first bit of truth you've spoken all day.
For those of you who want to see clips of the perfectly symmetrical "collapse" of this building at free fall acceleration (keeping a perfectly straight and level roof line the entire time), go here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6QV6LK8j1Q&feature=related
Watch all the collapses from all the different vantage points. In particular, listen to Dan Rather reporting on one particular clip as the building goes down. Here are his words. I wonder why he chose these words? I guess he forgot to disbelieve his lying eyes for an instant, and blurted out the obvious?
“Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”
CBS News anchor Dan Rather commenting on the collapse of Building 7 - September 11, 2001 at approx 5:30pm EST.
just a scratch!
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cruthers.txt
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Ryan_William.txt
Ahh, I see... wall of text wars! I could post my own walls of text in response, but I'll spare the reader.
Put to rest by who? And according to who?
There not only has been nothing "put to rest" my friend, the government's case actually keeps getting worse and worse as more time goes on. There now has been active super nano-thermite found in all that dust that blew all over New York City.
You say I am "regurgitating." What the hell are you doing? Also, you stated in one of your earlier quips that I'm "late to the party" or words to that effect. No, my friend, I've been here at the party from day one.
Are you sure you want to "go there?" I've got my own walls of text I could post from people who fought fires in those buildings. I also have audio recordings I could post. I also have video interviews. Again, are you really sure you want to "go there?"
Far more accurate than "a third of the structure," LOL!
I'm actually quite pleased that you posted that photo, as it shows just how little damage their was. In contrast, buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 were all struck by the full force of the falling towers in direct hits, and suffered catastrophic damage, in addition to becoming raging infernos fully engulfed in flames. They never collapsed, and had to be torn down (actually demolished with explosives).
To the reader, just look at the video I posted, and contemplate whether you think an external gouge in the side of a skyscraper that *may* (I repeat *may*) have affected one external column out of 47 total columns, would result in the "collapse" you witnessed.
Kharma,Do you have a real point to make, with actual evidence to back it up?Or, are you simply trolling?Because, so far, you sound like a six year old trying to get attention.
you've got nothing that contradict what ive posted nor the mountains of testimony you can easily find from people who fought those fires. or maybe you have a bunch of cherry-picked quotes or out of context sound bites ive no doubt seen/heard before. but, feel free to post anything you think contradicts what ive written. because you'd be the first 911 truther who was able to respond to those quotes, and ive been dealing with your kind for a number of years. i look forward to your disingenuous response!
no it doesn't. it shows a building quite on fire. and combined with multiple testimonies from numerous NYFD employees, i have established that your earlier assertion, "the scratch" is completely, and undeniably wrong. there are dozens of other fire dept testimonies that validate my position.
are you being deliberately dense? i honestly can't tell. those other buildings had different structural designs. comparing them is truly retarded. i already tried to explain the structural designs to you earlier (you're the worst supposed engineer ive ever seen). different buildings with different levels of damage and different severity of fire, BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY.
and here we have the panacea for every conspiracy theorist:
Appeals to 'common sense';Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.
there are a number of peer-reviewed studies published in engineering journals that support collapse by fire. what do you have, other than a few youtube videos, vanity/fake publications from non-experts, and a small, vocal group of internet warriors? if you had an honest committment to knowledge you would have already been able to answer these questions for yourself, but it is painfully obvious all you've done is follow one CT site to the next, without bothering to check the volumes of evidence contrary to your pre-conceived position. i see it all the time with 911 truthers.
hahahahahahahahahaha. its quite amusing, as somebody that is new to the debate, to see you claiming that things are getting worse. there hasn't been a significant (false) finding trumpeted by the truth movement in at least 2 years. steven jones didn't find nanothermite (and has, to this day, refused to provide his samples for corroboration), and it is absolutely impossible to demolish buildings with it. do you know anything about demolitions at all? thermite isn't used. ever. thermite was invented by jones (2 or more years before he "found" some in the dust) to explain the lack of explosions heard right before all 3 collapses. its a fairy tale.
though i disagreed with you in the past (evolution, global warming) you had me fooled in those topics that you had a firm grasp of what you were talking about. but now i see you are completely clueless, left to parrot the talking points of a dead "movement", most of whom have gone on and forgotten about this idiocy. thermite became thermate became nanothemite, rofl. and here you are, gobbling it up with no conscious reflection. its embarrassing.
You are an example of the worst sort of cretin and monstrosity people have to contend with when they venture online. The real probability of getting your teeth kicked in generally keeps people like you somewhat in line out in the real world, but alas you don't have to worry about such things hiding behind an internet connection.
I'm not going to try to "out-wall of text" you, and I'm not going to try to "out-shout you down." I'm also not going to keep making post after post correcting your disinformation, your ad hominem attacks on people, and your downright lies about the issues. Therefore, you are welcome to take over this thread if you want.
Karma, he's already taken over the thread, because you do nothing productive. You've looked at everything that contradicts your theory (which you have yet to state. If you want honesty from us, state why the buildings *collapsed* as you put it), called the writer a troll/liar and anything they said BS, and then state that you're not going to do anything productive or even respond because "they wuz a jerwk". Meanwhile, those that actually offer theories have been told they are wrong (arrogantly), and that they should try again to satisfy "Agent of Kharma, the all-knower of strucural engineering, 9/11, nanothermite (wait, you didn't deny that BS, that means you support it. Hahaha, go back to Fox news!), and ignoring others because they are not as good".
If you don't respond to this and give it "dignity", then you only confirm that you are a 9/11 truther, that you believe whatever supports you and deny anyone who doesn't. [e digicons]:typo:[/e]
Wow. This has turned into something similar to reading comments posted on YouTube by 15 year olds.
I think people should just ignore Agent of Kharma, and Agent of Kharma should just shush too.
I haven't been on this forum for quite a while...aren't there any mods here?
Unless I've missed something, the OP is mostly just making himself look silly.
You are being kind.
Kyro, I'm surprised. I would expect this from someone else. But from you? What did *I* do to make myself look silly? I didn't even respond to RAISTLIN's first 5 ad hominem attacks or so, where he called me a "fucking retard" unprovoked, among other things (see pages 1-2 of this thread). But *I'M* the one who's making himself look silly? Where the hell do you get off saying that?
So first I have to tolerate ad hominem attacks from him and others. But now you? If you have an opinion on the matter at hand, a rebuttal, whatever, by all means state your opinion... but this?!?
You have no leg to stand on, so I guess you just don't like what I say? Then go ahead and ban me!
EDIT:
RAISTLIN's ad hominem attack #1 (page 1):
RAISTLIN's ad hominem attack #2 (page 1):
RAISTLIN's ad hominem attack #3 (page 1):
RAISTLIN's ad hominem attack #4 (page 1):
Yet what did I respond with? NOTHING. Then I get...
RAISTLIN's ad hominem attack #5 (page 2):
And you say I'm making myself look silly? I guess I know where all the assholery comes from on this forum. The top down!
-the "wall of text" was to give you a full appreciation of the context of the quote i was making, to ensure that no misunderstanding could be had. since i know you are obviously a fact-checker and seeker of truth, i thought you might appreciate the full context of the discussion, and i even took the time to bold the most relevant parts in case you were too lazy to read a whole few paragraphs.
-if anyone deserves ad hominems, its 911 nutcases.
-and i would definitely take the time to call you a wanker if i saw you standing around on a street corner waving "911 was an inside job" placards. im not afraid of intellectual dishonesty, it just shits me to tears. and i hope your post means you'll leave this thread and let it die, just like steven jones' employment, credibility and scientific reputation.
Agent -
Start a topic like this when you aren't among like-minded people and you better have a thick skin. That was your first mistake, because you seem awfully defensive throughout this thread.
Second thing would be to respond to criticisms with more than smug insinuation. "Oh, that's your theory, is it? Too bad you don't know the REALITY of things like I do! I could blow your mind but you called me a silly goose so nyah nyah nyah at you!" No one is going to respond well to that.
It should be abundantly clear to you at this point that not only is the hole in the collective American psyche left by 9/11 still smoking, but most people don't want your naive pedantic bullshit shoveled into it, especially when you can't even back it up with "proof"
Better luck next time
Kestrel
[e digicons]:beer:[/e] [e digicons]:beer:[/e]
The way the WTC collapsed is odd but with fault of an actual analog or test to verify it it's always going to be debatable.
Now what makes me fell that something wrong happen on 911 other then terrorist flying planes into skyscraper is the destruction of WTC building 7 and the fact that we can know for sure what hit the pentagon, their is 1 camera angle taken form a hotel that would show exactly and clearly what hit the pentagon but the government will not release that footage. Instead they only show the crappy footage from the security building witch doesn't show shit.
And for all those of you who are so readily ready to believe any bullshit the government tell you well think again. Our political institutions have changes greatly since the 60-70 witch you could actually probably believe what your politician said:
Power of Nightmareshttp://documentarystorm.com/politics/the-power-of-nightmares/
What happened to our freedomhttp://documentarystorm.com/politics/the-trap-what-happened-to-our-dream-of-freedom/
Booth are documentaries produced by the BBC witch is probably the most independent and critical source of of factual information.
AoK, this is entirely too similar to your intelligent design topic, which you later admitted was a bet you had with someone to see how far you could troll people. And in answer to your complaint in #70, it's not flaming if it's true.
But please, by all means give us *your* theories on how the buildings collapsed. Keep in mind you have to address the energy issue you brought up - if potential energy and jet fuel were "orders of magnitude" short of being able to pulverize that much concrete, what was the external energy source, and why isn't it visible in any of the videos of the attack?
Don't ask for my opinion, or anyone else's, until you can clearly articulate your own. And please, dumb it down enough so the rest of us can understand the brilliance of your "works-in-a-structural-engineering-department-but-isn't-a-structural-engineer" point of view.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
