Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers

[Warham]

Yep.

[Hardrock69]

Let's imagine, contrary to the evidence, that debris from the tower collapses damaged Building 7's structure, that diesel fuel tanks exploded, and that incredibly intense fires raged through large parts of the building. Could such events have caused the building to collapse? Not in the manner observed. The reason is that simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.

To deny reality as Elvis and others do, means they really do not care about the "reality".

Their sole purpose is to simply troll around this forum with the intent of pissing people off.

Therefore I am not going to waste my time replying to people here who insist on posting their "delusional fantasies". They WISH the "official" story was true, and are extremely frustrated that they cannot prove that it is.

And no...I do not believe the "Government" brought down the WTC.

But I am not stupid enough to believe the "offical fairy tale" they have been spouting.

19 Terrorists my ass.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
No they were not melted. Some of them were partially VAPORIZED.

Something that mere "fire" cannot achieve.

probably not.

but mere fire, combined with crashing/exploding airplanes and the immense pressure of a collapsing building?

could that partially vaporize a steel support beam or 2? or can only controlled demolitions explosions do that?

[ELVIS]

Don't forget being nearly a quarter mile up...

[Warham]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Let's imagine, contrary to the evidence, that debris from the tower collapses damaged Building 7's structure, that diesel fuel tanks exploded, and that incredibly intense fires raged through large parts of the building. Could such events have caused the building to collapse? Not in the manner observed. The reason is that simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.

To deny reality as Elvis and others do, means they really do not care about the "reality".

Their sole purpose is to simply troll around this forum with the intent of pissing people off.

Therefore I am not going to waste my time replying to people here who insist on posting their "delusional fantasies". They WISH the "official" story was true, and are extremely frustrated that they cannot prove that it is.

And no...I do not believe the "Government" brought down the WTC.

But I am not stupid enough to believe the "offical fairy tale" they have been spouting.

19 Terrorists my ass.

Who the fuck would do it if it weren't the government? Donald Trump's always looking for real estate, but I dunno...

I think you've got to give us a credible story of who, why, and how before we even START to consider that your possibility is true. Before that, it's the official story. Nobody here is frustrated by the official story, except for you, FORD, and Tin Foil Beanie Keeyth.

[Cathedral]

So, i ask you people this, How many controlled Demolitions have you ever attended live?

Remember Riverfront Stadium?
I was there when it went BOOM, and i also saw the events of 9-11 unfold on the tube and there was something missing from the towers collapse that is evident in every controlled demolition in history...the blasts that set it off.
There were no blasts as those towers began to fall, that is why it was deemed a "Collapse" and not a "Demoliton".

And also, since when are demolition charges NOT planted at the base of a building?
By the logic that the building couldn't collapse on it's own we would have see evidence of charges going off while they collapsed.

now i don't know what to believe about what came into play exactly with those towers. But a controlled demolition is a theory i would bet my life against.

I don't know much about building codes of the '70's, but i do know how to handle blasting caps and dynomite...it is sort of a requirement when you live on a farm with lots of tree stumps to remove.

There are many things that could have happened that day, but there is no fucking way it was a controlled demolition, the physics just do not support that theory, sorry.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Rikk
I hate Bush. I hate the entire administration. I think they're criminals.

But I 100% believe that the steel was weakened to a certain point until it just gave out (thus, the breaking sounds...or "explosions") and the building(s) collapsed.

You don't need to get all crazy that they bombed the buildings. They just pulled assets away from investigating Atta & Company after whuppin' the beehive a bunch.

Easy as that. Next stop DICTATORSHIP