Events similar to 9/11: Pirelli Tower, Empire State Building

Another screed blaming jooooooos....and the jets only hit near the mechanical floor on one tower

 

Wow. Reread what you just posted above. Can you explain how a cutter charge or explosive would be concentrated across a floor to blow out a small opening? It's a jet of force at the origination point! Look at it. It looks exactly like a whale blowing water out of it's blowhole! No explosives needed.

Right. Air pressure escaping.

 

huh?



its a demolition term.

- - - Updated - - -

Gamolon didnt you know that explosives create air pressure?

 

in demolition terms they did.

Dont you know how the industry interprets that?


It either fell into its own footprint or it tipped over. Those are the choices IF you work in the industry. IF you do not I suppose you can make up any garbage you want.

 

Gamolon, Since YOU claim they are squibs I asked you to explain and it appears you are cutting and pasting more of the same garbage from some dablunder site since you are dodging again.

When do you intend to actually support any of the trash you post? Ever?

 

Tell you what Koko.

Show me an explosive force that travels a distance, without any containing elements, and be expelled through a small opening away from the explosive force.

You have no clue.

Are you suggesting something concentrated that force into a straight line?

 

The size and shape of the window will determine how the smoke comes out of it.

If you are that dumb, there's really no point in talking to you.

Now you need to explain to us how this smoke was expelled by air pressure at those particular locations only due to air pressure from the floors falling when the collapse line is that far above it.

In other words, how did this smoke manage to find it's way down several stories and then emerge out the center windows on opposite and adjacent faces at the central windows only?

Then tell us which explanation sounds most credible.

 

Something obviously did. It also emerged with a sizable velocity such as one might expect from an explosion coming from the interior of the building.
This process was not random.

 

What do you mean by "NOW"? I don't know who you have been conversing with, but don't confuse my opinions with those of others or try to mislead others into believing that they are one and the same.

What you are asserting is that it was the COMBINATION of the damage done by the jets PLUS the effects of fire which caused the collapse. Right?
Are there any other mitigating factors which you wish to call upon before we proceed?

What I am contending is nothing more than what the original designers of the buildings have stated, ie that the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of airliners. That would necessarily include the fuel load, which I do not believe they would have neglected to account for.

If you want to site specific examples of where steel framed buildings have collapsed in the manner of the WTC bldgs. then we will discuss the apples and oranges.

I haven't seen your "proof" of anything. Post all the tidbits you want to. The physical laws of nature are not the exclusive property of DeBunkers.

The success of a Verinage demolition depends upon the application of those laws being applied in a specific manner according to the design of the building in question. What works for one may not work for another.

But a complete collapse of a steel frame building such as those of the WTC would depend upon the upper portion gaining enough momentum to completely overcome whatever strength there was in the lower portions of the building. That included most of the building which was NOT subjected to fire OR damage from a plane crash.

As it was, THOSE portions remained intact and were undamaged UNTIL the upper portion began to fall. This means the only force available to destroy them was contained in the downward momentum of the falling portion.

This mechanism depends on the EXACT SAME principle as a VERINAGE demolition, namely the force of inertia and gravity. The difference being that Verinage is PLANNED and the collapse of the towers could not have been, according to YOU. Therefore the ensuing collapses which ALL fell in a manner which is highly suggestive of controlled demolitions, could only have been attributed to the unselected removal of specific columns in conjunction with the random effects of fire necessary to simulate the effects of Verinage.

I maintain that this orderly appearance would be unexpected in even one instance and highly improbable in three.

Of course they didn't, despite the fact that they fell practically straight down. The reason why the debris was scattered out from the center of the buildings is the same one that explains why the tiny bone and flesh fragment were found on the Deutshe building, viz they were violently ejected in a horizontal direction.

This suggests that there was more going on than simply their displacement by the falling upper portions. And the steel beams weighing tons were not thrust into the sides of adjacent buildings nor were those debris scattered as the result of toppling.
The falling straight down of the buildings plus the scattering of debris out and away from the buildings in all four directions also suggests the kind of symmetry that would occur if each floor was being detonated in succession so as to appear to collapse.

If this was true as it would be had the collapses occurred naturally due to incidental and random processes, then most likely the frame of the upper portion which was seen to have tilted upwards of 20 degrees would have remained on it's course.
Since the damage incurred by both the jets and the fires would have been UNsymmetrical, an equally UNsymmetrical fall would be expected commensurate with the uneven damage which initiated the collapse to begin with, the toppling of the building would have moved predominately towards the side of most damage.

What you are saying confirms this. For the redistribution of the load would necessarily be UNEVEN as would the resultant torque and stress factors.
But this doesn't jibe with the even way in which the buildings collapse.

Neither does it fit with the way in which Verinage demolitions are preformed, wherein ALL supports over one or more floors are removed SIMULTANEOUSLY.

You have not demonstrated how this can happen with a random collapse, much less that it would be likely.

I'm glad you said that. I know better who I am talking to now and what your motive is for engaging in this discussion. And it isn't for the sake of 9/11 TRUTH.

That's right! Building 7 was remarkably different in design. That begs the question then of how it ALSO, just happened to fall in the same manner as WTC 1 and 2.
In the case of seven the damage prior to the collapse was even MORE asymmetrical. Yet the videos clearly show the dip in the antenna above the center and the straight down collapse just as they were seen with the towers.

And all of these cases were supposed to be the result of random events.

How about that!?

I think the "at the source" is the part that you are confused about. The only way I can decipher your problem in grasping this is that you seem to believe that any explosive would have to be placed at the surface of the window or something.
I don't see what whales blow-holes have to do with it other than whales DO eject water WITH FORCE. The force they use, albeit not nearly the magnitude of that which is seen with a bomb, is still due to air.
After all, an explosion gets it's energy from the rapidly expanding gases caused from the heat of a reaction.
The whale similarly expels water with the force of air. Right? You'll have to provide more information on the anatomy of a whale because I am not an expert on the matter as you seem to be.

But clearly something DID force those "squibs" out of those buildings. And they WERE symmetrically located and they DID happen at the SAME TIME>

You have not yet explained how the air pressure from falling floors above could manage to make it's way down several floors and then selectively emerge from specific windows all at the same time.
Why should this "smoke" be ejected any more forcefully than that from an explosion?

That's good work.

Anyone planning to bring down a building would have to take all those factors under consideration, although I doubt if the particular number of elevators would be as relevant as the core columns which supported them.

I ask you first.

Matthew 21

I'm glad to hear all that, but I wasn't asking you for your resume. I would much prefer that you just answer the questions that I put to you.

Hasbarats most always like to asked all the questions. And they seldom answer any unless they can do so with some cute quip or a thinly veiled insult.

Besides, Bazant was much more qualified than you are to do the study. So if I don't believe him, why do you think I would believe you?

Bazant wasn't a Jew by the way, but I've noticed that most of the predominant Debunkers are. The rest appear to be either ignorant sycophants or highly paid Shabbos Goyim.

 

You're supporting Jojo's idiotic, unsupported contention of 'no planes' now.

- - - Updated - - -

"Because Jews"

 

Jojo's contention of 'no REAL planes' only CGI

 

I'll tell you what I just told your bud>

This is a gross oversimplification of the problem.

The insinuation is that I blame EVERYTHING on the "Jews" which is absurd and everyone knows it.

The defenders of Zionism and Jewish hegemony like to make this insinuation every time someone suggests that there may be some collusion among them and that some of them might possibly be crooks or murderers.

So far no race or ethnicity has been found which is free of villains. And there is no religion which everyone adheres to perfectly either, no matter what kind of sticklers they pretend to be about observing customs and obeying the law.


It's easy enough for the media to lump all Muslims into the bad guy category. And it's easy enough for Jewish critics, authors, and social engineers to cast the white European Anglo Saxon as the harbinger of all evil and portray the Christian religion as one which promotes genocide and torture.

It's much easier to say similar things about the Jewish coalitions in light of the fact that they all profess a religious affiliation which is supposed to adhere to the rules and regulations of a society which existed millinenia ago and whose teachings include the misaligned and misapplied scriptures of the Old Testament which were only applicable to the times they were written, and directed only to the people to whom they were written.

You might try reading the New Testament with an open mind and then examining it in juxtaposition to the Old.
You might be surprised to discover that none of the diabolical machinations the Jews have attributed to Christianity can be found there anywhere.
You don't have to believe a word of it, much less obey it. But to be honest to it you can not attribute the works of man to the admonitions which are written therein.

Likewise, it is dishonest to pretend that I have said or done anything which I have not.

And it is just as prejudicial and biased for you to attempt to lump all "truthers" into the same bag as it would be for me to say that all Jews participated in the events of 9/11. At the same time I cannot easily avoid identifying those who did by any other label than the one they have assigned to themselves.

 

So then show me similar "squibs" to the ones that came out of the towers from other demolitions. Surely you have proof of explosions prior to the collpase that look the same?

Let's see them.

Unfortunately for you, I can find examples of expelled air that look EXACTLY like the "squibs" you are referring to.

 

good!

find one that blows people out the window at 50+ mph

 

It fell in the same manner? Are you high?

1. Are you saying that some core columns in the interior of WTC1/WTC2 failed letting a portion of the roof (east penthouse) fall into the interior of the building proper 6 seconds PRIOR to the upper sections started descending?

2. Are you saying that the perimeter facade/columns of WTC7 fell away from the building proper?

3. Are you saying that the floors of WTC7 were sheared from the core like those of WTC1/WTC2

4. Are you saying that parts of the core (without floors attached) of WTC7 remained standing for a few seconds like WTC1/WTC2?



You need to look up the definition of similar.

 

looks to me like you totally missed his point.

 

Correct.

Nope

They did withstand the impact. Or are you suggesting the towers immediately fell when the planes hit?

Sorry, but there are no other specific examples in history. I defy you to find me a building, similar to WTC7's design, that had unfought fires within it, that remained standing. Please find me a building, similar to WTC1/WTC2, that were by 767s, had unfought fires within them, that remained standing.

The point being argued is that truthers say Newton's law was violated. They say that a smaller, upper section of a building cannot destroy the lower, larger section of the same building. The Verinage video I posted is proof that they are wrong in their understanding.

All the descending upper section had to overcome was the design load of the immediate floor beneath. Do you understand that? There is proof that floors were sheared from both perimeter and core columns. Floors are designed to hold the load of their own weight plus that which is placed upon them, nothing more.They don;t support the entire weigh of the structure above them.

Perfect! Now answer me this. What was the design load of each floor and what was the load generated by the falling upper section?

Wrong again.

You mean to tell me that the outward push generated from the falling upper section after shearing the floors from the perimeter columns is not enough to send sections of perimeter columns, hundreds of feet in the air, in a parabolic trajectory to land 600 feet away? Go do some math. Also, find me video proof of these sections being ejected horizontally.

Correct! The "squibs" you are talking about look exactly like that. From air being forced out. I asked you to show me anything that shows "squibs" like those you refer to in the towers in any other demolition prior to collapse (to remove air pressure being the reason), when the explosives go off. You can't do it.

Correct again! The explosive force EMANATES from the origin in all directions unless contained. This simple fact blows your theory of explosives out of the water. Your suggested explosive force, strong enough to sever columns, reached the windows and.... pushed out through a small opening???? You're nuts.

 

Are you BLIND?

Look at the PERSON flying out the window in the previous post?
Are you saying that the smoke did THAT?


The antenna on one of the towers was seen to begin to fall immediately prior to the collapse of one of the towers.

This is seen in demolitions where the central portions of buildings are exploded first in order to get the buildings to fall in on themselves.

The top center of bldg 7 was seen to begin collapsing immediately preceding it's collapse indicating "ditto".

These buildings were constructed differently but they somehow managed to collapse by the same heretofore unseen process which Youskys can't seem to agree on exactly what it is!

How many different stories did they concoct before they settled on one?

And didn't what's his name finally admit that he really didn't know what made 7 collapse and he couldn't REALLY explain it?

ans. Yes he did.

But YOU are saying that of all the people that have puzzled and speculated over it that YOU KNOW.

I think you KNOW alright.
You know that DeBunkers are as full of bunk as anyone.
They are all "similar" in this respect.

 

Nope. YOU are missing the point. How were they similar Koko? Will you dodge again?

 

Person?! Looks like a jacket to me. Or was that person decapitated and cut in half?

 

a jacket with arms and legs? news to me


sure it isnt bar rags that coincidentally look like a body?

- - - Updated - - -

how is what siimilar to what

be specific

 

They withstood the impact, as they were designed, UNTIL the thermite and cutter charges which were planted on them were detonated. The builders never said they designed them to withstand THAT.

First tell me how many buildings in history were built on the same blueprints as WTC 7 and where it is located.
Then perhaps someone can arrange to have a passenger plane flown into it and everyone can then stand around and watch to see if it falls.

The "truthers" claimed that no steel framed high risers had ever been seen to collapse like that due to fire.

This was true. You just admitted it.
DeBunkers are often seen to deny this little "tidbit".

You never answered my proposition.

IF it were possible to have 100 or more actual WTC towers set up just as they were on 9/11 and have planes flown into them, how many times out of a hundred do you think that ALL THREE buildings would collapse just as though they were being brought down by a Verinage demolition?

I'm sure you've seen dozens of pictures already of TOWERING INFERNOS that REALLY happened and did NOT collapse.

Obviously they made no impression upon you so I don't see the point in posting them again for your sake. If I do that it will be for the benefit of those who haven't seen them and still believe the Kosher LIES about 9/11.

Stop telling lies about what people say. Didn't Your Mother ever teach you that that's impolite?

What they say is, that in order for the buildings to have fallen at the speeds at which they were seen to and not been slowed as they encountered resistance without having any assistance as DeBunkers say THEN Newtons laws would have had to have been violated.

It goes like this: For every reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

[video=youtube;tejFUDlV81w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tejFUDlV81w[/video]

I told you before, if you want to post your "proof", do so, THEN we will discuss "apples vs oranges".

THAT is where you are WRONG. And that is the FALLACY upon which all DeBunking "domino theories" rest.

Everyone has seen rows of dominoes stacked up and then knocked down by simply knocking down the first one.

They ASSUME that the principle which allows this to occur is the same one that can be used to explain the collapse of the building.
Their thinking, and yours, goes like this:

A floor above collapses on a floor below. It causes a compromised floor beneath it to collapse as well.
Therefore if the falling floor has enough momentum to collapse a lower floor then there is nothing to prevent those two from then collapsing the next one, and then the next one, in a chain reaction.

To discover the error in this first we need to examine the dominoes to see how THAT "collapse scenario" works and then compare it to the structure of the WTCs and see where the difference is.


A standing domino contains potential energy by virtue of its shape and position with relation to gravity. If you lay it on it's side then it can't fall down because it is already in a position of lowest potential energy due to configuration.
When a person stands the domino in it's highest upright position, he is giving to it the potential energy it possesses when it is in a standing position. This upright position is more precarious than one in which the domino would be placed on it's side. Why? because of the area of the edge which supports it is greater and it's center of gravity is lower.
This additional stability is basically the difference between a hair trigger and one which hard to pull. The latter requires a greater energy of activation.

DeBunkers who ascribe to the "chain reaction theory of inevitability" which the Kosher team has so cleverly lodged into their brain gears, IGNORE the energy of activation required to dismantle the resistance of a steel frame AND they unconsciously imagine that the full brunt of of the falling floor is entirely absorbed by the floor which is being contacted immediately. THIS IS FALSE.

The difference is that each domino in a row has been previously given an amount of potential energy which is easily activated by the potential energy of the preceding domino unleashed as it falls.

In other words, the "energy of activation" contained in a falling domino is sufficient to impart enough energy to unleash, or "trigger" the potential energy of the one which follows.

It may sometimes be observed that even with dominoes, if they are not set up at the proper distance required to accomplish this trigger then the dominoes may halt, "jam up", and cease to fall at the point in which the dominoes are set either too far apart, too close, or at the wrong angle.

Try it and see.

But MORE IMPORTANT than that is the fact that the energy of the falling domino is ENTIRELY absorbed by the one in which it falls into. That is to say; because the dominoes are not in contiguously in contact there is no way that the energy of activation can be shared by the entire row of dominoes which is intended to come down.

IF ALL the dominoes in a row were connected in such a way that they ALL shared in receiving the force of the falling domino, then the energy of that falling domino would be distributed amongst them all. Consequently it would NOT be sufficient to cause a chain reaction.


Now compare this to the falling floors on one of the towers.

In order to gain the MAXIMUM amount of kinetic energy that can be delivered by a collapsing floor, ALL of the remaining supporting members MUST be removed at ONCE. Otherwise the full potential of the unimpeded falling mass will not be gained.

It is also important that the falling mass fall ALTOGETHER as one solid unit. Otherwise some of this energy will be distributed unevenly and less concentrated. It is clear from videos of the falling towers that a substantial amount
of this mass WAS indeed lost as it is seen being propelled out and away from the building far enough so as to have no impact on the lower floors whatsoever.

In a Verinage demolition, the collapse of ALL supports are executed at the same time in order to achieve the maximum amount of kinetic energy from the falling floors AND to achieve a UNIFORM surface contact upon collision in order to achieve a SYMMETRICAL and "straight down" fall.
But this is done INTENTIONALLY. SOMEONE CAUSES this to happen. That's why it is called a CONTROLLED demolition.

They do not just enter a floor at random and knock out a few columns then set fire to the waste baskets and run, hoping that the whole thing will go as planned.

According to DeBunkers the towers could not have been acted upon in this way. According to them the effects of the towers as was witnessed IN ALL CASES, could only be attributed to uncontrolled, nonselective damage and the random process of fire.

DeBunkers assert that CONTROLLED demolition in the manner which was observed was IMPOSSIBLE in the case of the WTCs and that ONLY the chance process described above could account for what was seen.

This is exactly the opposite of what one would expect had they seen the buildings fall with no knowledge that they were struck by planes.
As I mentioned earlier, seeing the planes strike opens the door for the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

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

DeBunkers have made a diligent effort to make sure that this fallacy remains firmly lodged in the minds of those who aren't familiar with physics, engineering, higher math, and demolitions, or even those who do not watch what ZOG is doing.

They INSIST that CONTROLLED demolitions were IMPOSSIBLE. And they do not want that POSSIBILITY to even enter the minds of the sheeple, much less that they think about it for very long or very hard.

Instead, they say that all it takes to knock over a high rise is to fly a couple of planes into it and then the whole city is likely to fall over like a bunch of dominoes.



Continuing:

The important thing to bear in mind when thinking in terms of dominoes and trying to relate that to building collapse, is that the dominoes are DISCONNECTED initially. The FULL force on the initiating energy is borne by the next domino in line.
The energy require to knock down a rather precariously positioned domino is NOT SHARED by the entire chain. If it were, it would NOT be sufficient to knock them all down because the "energy of activation" hump could not be mounted by a single domino.

In the case of the buildings, remember that the lowest floor has always withstood the entire weight of all the upper floors. It is certain that the static weight of all the upper floors combined would supercede the dynamic force of one floor falling over the distance of one floor or even two.

Furthermore, if upper floors fall as a result of random damage it is most probable that it will do so in an asymmetric fashion so that maximum momentum is lost, that members will not strike in unison nor uniformly, and that any ensuing collapse will most likely occur asymmetrically as well.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, the momentum or dynamic force of the falling floors will be imparted to ALL those floors beneath them which are still intact in the same way that an anvil bear the full force of a hammer blow upon it. This shock wave travels very fast to the ground. To do so it must pass through the entire remaining edifice.

A simple analogy is this. When you hold a bag of groceries, their weight is transmitted to the ground via your feet. In order to do so the impulse of picking them up must pass through your legs. It makes no difference whether you pick them up very slowly or the "bag boy" tosses them to you.

If the bag bursts when it reached your arms, some of this momentum is lost.
If your arms give out, that is no guarantee that your legs will too.

So the "energy of activation" of a falling floor is SHARED or DISTRIBUTED throughout the entire lower portion of the building which is still intact and undamaged.

What you are trying to do is get the naive to accept the idea that the floor being impacted is absorbing the entire shock. This would be like saying that the body of the anvil is not needed because only the surface makes contact with the hammer.

Therefore to compare the collapsing building with a falling row of dominoes in ones mind is a false and very misleading analogy.

Moreover, the number of signs indicating a controlled demolition should indicate sufficient reason to suspect them and investigate them as such since that possibility was never ruled out.

Instead, the Bush administration and everyone charged with that did everything they could to stall, interfere, and censor serious inquiry and if possible prevent any altogether.
WHY?

You tell me. We've seen the energy summations given by the Kosher crowd vs those who have their doubts and we see that the "experts" don't all agree.
This leads me to believe that the decisions that were made about them were as politically motivated as they were science based.
It is impossible to describe any real event entirely by a mathematical description which covers every possible detail, especially when one can only guess about the starting conditions.

I want to make it clear to the reader that they do not have to be an expert on multivariable differential equations and tensor algebra to smell the rat in 9/11.

They just need to see all the circumstantial evidence which points to definite foreknowledge and obstruction and malfeasance of justice and consider the lump sum of it. Any third rate gum shoe would have to reach the same conclusion.
And a good many of these DeBunkers KNOW THIS!

That's right. You're wrong.

As far as "parabolic trajectory" goes, you can't neglect wind resistance and forward momentum.
A person being ejected in a parabolic trajectory to land 600 feet from his point of departure would not be blown to smithereens on the way down. More likely he would just fall according to what landed on top of him and as the floor gave way beneath his feet.

The steel beam you see sticking into that building weighs quite a bit. The force of air resistance on it's "parabolic trajectory" would be negligible

The windows are like orifices from which the smoke may be belched. When it is forced out very quickly , as with an explosion, it becomes like a squib. Otherwise, smoke slowly emerging from such an opening would have more time to dissipate in all directions. Smoke is comprised of particles you know.

There are plenty of videos of squibs for you to see. I don't have to show them to you. You're a big boy. Look them up yourself.

And you are not making any sense.

I could call you names as well, those which could truly be applied to you, but the management won't allow me.

They only permit DeBunkers to call names at "twoofers". They do not allow "twoofers" to call DeBunkers names.

This may help give them impression that the smartest ass "wins" regardless of whether he makes sense or not. You just need to give the illusion of kicking sand in someones face. That's basically the Hasbara's stock in trade.

 

I wish I had a freeze frame of the silhouette and I could show the positions of the arms and legs.
You need to look at it several times before it registers because it goes by so fast.

Besides, I wouldn't think that a jacket would be caught up as if in a whirl wind if the smoke in a room were only being forced out by air pressure.
How fast did you say those upper floors were falling again? 100 mph?

 

freeze frame all you want...It would still be the same crappy resolution..

 

yep lost the core, they will say hat truss, but its mounted directly to the core LMAO