Let's pretend for the sake of argument that the U.S. gov did somehow stage 9/11 (it did not). Do you know how many countries would love to call the US gov out and cause major uproar back here? Russia is a prime example, if 9/11 was a conspiracy Russia would acquire incriminating intel and expose the US gov.
It would be a major win for Russia, and a blow to US gov's legitimacy.
But I doubt conspiracy theorist ever think logically like this.
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;36459378]I can't even tell sarcasm sometimes if its about topics like this. Because dumber things have been said seriously.[/QUOTE]
When dealing with a subject like the 9/11 "truth" movement, use this rule of thumb: the more idiotic the statement is, the more likely the person speaking believes it.
Lets disregard the twin towers and take a look at WTC building 7. I will provide for you a clip of its collapse.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A[/media]
Now I'm sorry to tell you this, but [b]no building ever collapses this way due to fire damage[/b]. When a building collapses due to fire damage is topples the fuck over, not collapses in on itself. Prove me wrong by showing me a building collapsing in on itself due to fire damage. (hint: you cant)
This argument is disregarding the mountain of other evidence including the huge spike in put orders made on businesses effected by 911 one day before.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36545255]Lets disregard the twin towers and take a look at WTC building 7. I will provide for you a clip of its collapse.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A[/media]
Now I'm sorry to tell you this, but [b]no building ever collapses this way due to fire damage[/b]. When a building collapses due to fire damage is topples the fuck over, not collapses in on itself. Prove me wrong by showing me a building collapsing in on itself due to fire damage. (hint: you cant)
This argument is disregarding the mountain of other evidence including the huge spike in put orders made on businesses effected by 911 one day before.[/QUOTE]
Oh god it's [i]this[/i] post again.
For a second I thought I was reading the same dozen posts and the answers relating to them from the previous six pages.
Maybe we should actually read the thread.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;36545338]Oh god it's [i]this[/i] post again.
For a second I thought I was reading the same dozen posts and the answers relating to them from the previous six pages.
Maybe we should actually read the thread.[/QUOTE]
No building will ever fall that way due to fire damage.
[editline]28th June 2012[/editline]
Quit kidding yourself. I know you want to believe what you've been told, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you've been lied to.
No building ever collapses that way due to fire damage.
[editline]28th June 2012[/editline]
Never in history and you will not be able to provide me with an similar incident because I am right. I know because I've already looked. Do you think we want to believe in this shit? We'd really like to believe that our pal the government is always looking out (we really would, i promise we tried) for us but man, the evidence is overwhelming.
[quote]When a building collapses due to fire damage is topples the fuck over, not collapses in on itself. [/quote]
[citation needed]
[quote]
"The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."
"...trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities. "
"... a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7...the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. "
"WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."[/quote]
[quote]Prove me wrong by showing me a building collapsing in on itself due to fire damage[/quote]
Sure will, just as soon as you show me another building that did not collapse after the exact same circumstances occurred. Should be fairly simple since you claim no similar building in history has collapsed in that manner do to fire.
1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage resulting in a 20 floor gash from debris.
6) And weakened by fire that was not fought for over 6-7 hours
7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36545855][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_implosion[/url][/QUOTE]
And what does that have to do with this? He said you have no proof a building can't collapse the way WTC 7 did.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36545404]No building will ever fall that way due to fire damage.
[/QUOTE]
You're right. No building has fallen from fire damage.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/LtGHb.jpg[/img]
[editline]29th June 2012[/editline]
But WTC 7 didn't fall because of fire damage, alone. It fell because a large part of it's unusual structural skeleton was scooped out by large debris, along with propane fueled fire. It probably would've collapsed without the fire, anyway.
It still imploded in on itself.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36546018]It still imploded in on itself.[/QUOTE]
Again: what does that have to do with it? We've made it perfectly clear [i]why[/i] what happened happened, and you just keep repeating that for no apparent reason. Can you come up with anything else or am I just talking to a bot?
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36546084]Again: what does that have to do with it?[/QUOTE]
Uncontrolled demolitions don't implode on themselves.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36546018]It still imploded in on itself.[/QUOTE]
The main structural columns gave out. Causing the whole building to fall in on itself. This isn't a cartoon. In real life buildings are not 100% solid static structures. If a structural beam falls then everything else falls with it. It's the same way the other WTC towers fell. You can even see in the videos of it collapsing that the middle of the building starts to fall first. This is because the columns that failed were in the middle of the building, and due to the fact that they were holding everything else up, the rest of the structure came down with it.
If you still don't believe me, go to your house or apartment building and take an axe to the load-baring wall and tell me what happens.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36546104]Uncontrolled demolitions don't implode on themselves.[/QUOTE]
Yes they do, they can, and they have. Just because controlled demolitions cause implosions doesn't mean that that's the only way to cause one.
[QUOTE=OvB;36546120]If you still don't believe me, go to your house or apartment building and take an axe to the load-baring wall and tell me what happens.[/QUOTE]
1/3rd of my house collapsed.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36546129]Yes they do, they can, and they have.[/QUOTE]
[Citation Needed]
A good example would be this wooden stick thing: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NBbz2eIoVDQ#t=105s[/url]
After sustaining enough structural damage, it collapses in on itself, with a slight lean toward the point where it was hit. Similar to the WTC buildings.
[editline]29th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36546152]
[Citation Needed][/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smreRx51cus[/media]
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36545855][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_implosion[/url][/QUOTE]
It's funny because a.) you didn't properly cite a source, and b.) you completely ignored my post.
If you aren't even going to attempt to debate properly, I'm going to just disregard what you type.
Also, there's this building:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXS_IkhgStk[/media]
Although only a section collapsed. The building was not of the same proportions or construction as the steel buildings of the WTC. The physics behind it is not the same, but that building did collapse in on itself on its own.
[QUOTE=OvB;36546207]Also, there's this building:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXS_IkhgStk[/media]
Although only a section collapsed. The building was not of the same proportions or construction as the steel buildings of the WTC. The physics behind it is not the same, but that building did collapse in on itself on its own.[/QUOTE]
Now that is what WTC7 should've looked like.
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;36546194]If you aren't even going to attempt to debate properly, I'm going to just disregard what you type.[/QUOTE]
And nothing of value was lost.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36546227]Now that is what WTC7 should've looked like.[/QUOTE]
But WTC 7 was not a piece of shit concrete building, but a steel frame building being held up by 3 main load-baring columns. One of them was completely destroyed, putting the weight on the other two, which were under constant flame, which anyone with an elementary science knowledge knows weakens metal (something "truthers" don't seem to understand) The buildings entire structural integrity was gone. There was literally nothing holding it up.
[QUOTE=OvB;36546283]But WTC 7 was not a piece of shit concrete building, but a steel frame building being held up by 3 main load-baring columns. One of them was completely destroyed, putting the weight on the other two, which were under constant flame, which anyone with an elementary science knowledge knows weakens metal (something "truthers" don't seem to understand) The buildings entire structural integrity was gone. There was literally nothing holding it up.[/QUOTE]
Its collapse would be it disintegrating over the course of a minute, not it plummeting down in 6 seconds.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36546523]Its collapse would be it disintegrating over the course of a minute, not it plummeting down in 6 seconds.[/QUOTE]
Nope. That's not how it works. Unless you want to find proof that you can remove all the load baring supports from a steel building, and have it take a minute to fall. Not to mention the rest of the structure was also weakened from fire in a similar way. Building collapses are a chain reaction. Even in controlled demos they only put charges on select load baring beams. The rest is physics. It's just instead of demo charges you had debris taking out one column and fire causing a fatal blow to the other two columns strength.
Then there's the fact that it was sitting there in this condition for [i]7 hours[/i] In reality it took 7 hours to collapse. It's only when those two remaining beams finally cave in on the heat and pressure that the building comes down.
Okay, so the three weight load column system in the WTC7 building is already weak and unusual, then is carved out making it even more weak and is heavily on fire for most of the day, then the interior collapses due to it and the shell comes after evident by the fact that the first thing to fall in the video posted was the penthouses.
Oh but that looks unnatural because Fenderson tells us so.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36546523]Its collapse would be it disintegrating over the course of a minute, not it plummeting down in [b]6 seconds.[/b][/QUOTE]
There are few more idiotic things a truther can say than that. It did not "plummet down in 6 seconds", find the actual footage of what happened, truthers only show the last six seconds because it makes it look like what they say it is, when you see the whole thing you realize it's not. Not only do those final six seconds not cover the seven hours of out-of-control fires and falling debris striking the building, but the actual collapse begins quite some time before.
[editline]29th June 2012[/editline]
[video=youtube;_kSq663m0G8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8[/video]
Here's a decent video of it, it was made before the official investigation was concluded so some of the information (like the source of the fires) is incorrect, but the footage is genuine.
By the firefighters' statements the actual collapse took over an hour, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is approximately 59 minutes 54 seconds longer than six seconds.
And why does it seem that absolutely every video having to do with 9/11 is from the 80s-90s, I get that this stuff was recorded 11 years ago, but that video was edited together in 07.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36545255]Lets disregard the twin towers and take a look at WTC building 7. I will provide for you a clip of its collapse.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A[/media]
Now I'm sorry to tell you this, but [b]no building ever collapses this way due to fire damage[/b]. When a building collapses due to fire damage is topples the fuck over, not collapses in on itself. Prove me wrong by showing me a building collapsing in on itself due to fire damage. (hint: you cant)
This argument is disregarding the mountain of other evidence including the huge spike in put orders made on businesses effected by 911 one day before.[/QUOTE]I've got a better video.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7NHCy13ZLk[/media]
Fenderson give proof that it was a controlled demolition.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;36552345]Fenderson give proof that it was a controlled demolition.[/QUOTE]
wtf tower 7 falling is proof that is was a controlled demolition
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A[/media]
vs
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EksfvDeZzeI[/media]
???
you will not be able to find a building that falls straight down due to uncontrolled structural damage, that is proof.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36552709]
you will not be able to find a building that falls straight down due to uncontrolled structural damage, that is proof.[/QUOTE]
it doesn't work that way.
"your honor, the defendant is guilty, unless he proves he isn't, he has to do our job for us!"
burden of proof lies solely on you. when you make a claim, you need proof to back it up. you have no proof, zilch, nada. you continually post the same video, you obviously interpret the video in a different way than most people, but do not post any scientific evidence or credible theories as to what you believed happened. if the building was brought down by a controlled demolition, what kind brought it down? who did it? when? how was it kept secret?
[b]you[/b] need to find us a building that had the exact same circumstances occur that I posted earlier, since you are trying to find similarities.
as I've said before, it is unusual for a building to collapse in it's own footprint, wtc 7 was unusual. it's construction was unusual. it's unusual for a building to burn out of control for 6-7 hours, it is unusual for a building to be right beside two of the largest skyscrapers in the world when they collapse.
buildings are not trees, they are load bearing structures. when 20 floors collapse simultaneously, what happens when gravity continues to send the weight of those 20 floors downward? you guessed it.
as usual you will skim over my post and skirt the issue, like most truthers.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36552709]wtf tower 7 falling is proof that is was a controlled demolition
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A[/media]
vs
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EksfvDeZzeI[/media]
???
you will not be able to find a building that falls straight down due to uncontrolled structural damage, that is proof.[/QUOTE]
That building collapsed because it had a crappy foundation that caused it to lean. Tower 7 had it's structural supports removed. How do you not understand this?
The tower in your video looked like it was mostly concrete, if not a mix between steel and concrete. The structural frame of the building was sound but the foundation was shit, causing it to lean like that. In tower 7 the frame was entirely steel and it had it's structural frame destroyed and compromised, causing it to come in on itself. How is this not easy to understand? Now its your turn to come up with some real facts and proof other than just bullshit.
You want to know something? You know how demolition experts collapse buildings in on themselves like that? They put charges on the load bearing columns of the building, causing to to fall in on itself rather than lean. They do this so it's clean and safe. The reason why the collapses on 9/11 look so similar to a controlled demo is because the same physics are at play. The structural columns were destroyed entirely or severely weakened and buckled in on themselves under the intense weight and heat.
1. If 1 and 2 WTC were controlled demo, they would've put the charges on all of the supports, and the towers would have started to collapse at the bottom and fall in on itself. Instead, we see that the top part falls in first causing a cascade of collapse down the whole tower. This causes a huge plume of debris and dust to be ejected out the side. A demo crew would not do this as it severely damages everything around it.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI[/media]
Notice how the building starts to fall at the bottom floors first, and how little debris is ejected out the side. Now compare that to WTC 2's collapse:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0[/media]
You notice that it falls from the top down, causing huge chunks of debris to fall down with it.
The reason WTC 7 looks so much like a controlled demo is because it fell in a very similar way. If a demo crew was going to bring down the building, they would've put charges all up and down the three main supports. That would be been sufficient to bring down the building in on itself because that's how buildings are designed to fall under controlled circumstances. When the debris hit the building, it completely severed one of the beams, putting extra stress on the other two. Those two beams were then set on intense fire for 7 hours, along with the added stress. Eventually the beams heated up to a point where they lost their integrity and collapsed, the building lost it's support and came down with it. (note: steel does not have to melt to lose it's strength.)
Now, come up with some actual proof that it was a controlled demo rather than just videos of entirely different constructions of buildings falling over due to foundation problems.
[editline]29th June 2012[/editline]
When a metal structure fails, it does not fall over, it comes in on itself. It's similar to a overweight grandstand collapse:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXXnPrbHbtE[/media]
The structural supports fail, and the building falls.
Lesson for today: When thing's lose support, they fall in, not out. Hell, even when someone is shot, they don't dramatically fall down like in the movies. They collapse at the knees and fall what you would call straight down.
[editline]29th June 2012[/editline]
It's the very reason why controlled demos work in the first place.
But the building didn't collapse, it imploded. Buildings don't implode, they disintegrate. I know this not from watching cooky-ass truther documentaries but one documentary on the discovery channel on building demolition.
A controlled demolition is carried out by experts hired to minimize damage to surrounding buildings and people. They place charges in a manner so the building collapses in on itself. These controlled demolitions don't always go right, though. Sometimes a mistake is made. WTC7 was a very special incident, I can, however, provide you with similar buildings falling due to controlled demolitions gone wrong.
Here is one video. Epic fail at 1:30.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wwDF58Hw9M[/media]
Just search "demolition fail" on youtube and you'll see how hard it can be to bring down a building.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
