Buildings are very fragile and easily collapse into piles of steel and dust

[spooked911]

whoops:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdIOlEHrOZQ

[AZCat]

1. Apples to apples, spooked. n/t

[KDLarsen]

2. You're absolutely right!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GNhEpHfgfI :eyes:

[BeFree]

3. Hey Spooked

Just wanted to say that was watching a space shuttle info show the other day and they showed some of the solid rocket fuel burning in air.

They said that it burned hot enough to melt steel.

The fuel was in cake form, easily handled, and they had a 200 lb box of it that the guys just picked a bread loaf sized piece out of, hooked up a small wired detonator and that stuff went crazy, throwing off sparks and all that!!

200 pound box - a regular cardboard box - full of individual pieces of steel melting, solid rocket fuel. How hard would that have been to set in the towers?

[Theobald]

4. I love how you just make shit up.

Who the fuck said buildings were fragile? Who the fuck said the WTC easily collapsed into piles of steel and dust? No one did.

Your strawman arguments are pathetic and highlight your inability to provide evidence to back up your baseless assertions.

[spooked911]

23. I remember an OCTist claimed here that the WTC towers were like a house of cards

(I think LARED, though maybe it was boloboffin).

So yeah, it has been said.

In any case, clearly I was being playful with the title.

[CrunchMaster]

5. Here's some Good Evidence towards proving possible 9/11 Controlled Demo

Here's another building collapsing in an UNCONTROLLED collapse. Falls to its side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKeENdyIluI

Here's WTC 7 falling STRAIGHT down. For absolutely no apparent reason whatsoever
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Here's an example of Controlled Demo disinfo.
The first falling building seems to obviously be a fake. It is followed at the end by real building collapse that doesn't crumble all the way to the ground. I guess someone wants to smear the concept that buildings in uncontrolled collapses tend to not come down cleanly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb-1O2sMWok&feature=related

The last REAL building from the above sequence which does not disentegrate into dust:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiNrzmbdC1Q&feature=related

Here's another building falling that DOES NOT collapse into rubble:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c&feature=fvw

Compare again to building 7 which falls straight down unimpeded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

World Trade Center 7 was a controlled demolition. I don't see what else it could be. Buildings do not just fall down like that.

If they are lying about World Trade Center 7 when it appears by comparison to other collapses to be an obvious controlled demolition then what makes you think they aren't lying about World Trade 1 and 2? If WTC 7 was rigged to collapse then why not WTC 1 and 2? They have lied about basically all aspects of 9/11. Why wouldn't they lie about this?

The WTC was designed to withstand an airplane impact:

"Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BbN_2tAUCU
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Much larger Beijing Fire, Did not collapse building:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2iAfYxiET8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sO7uLtfUZY&feature=related : Morning after a rage fire the building did not collapse


Windsor building fire Spain: Did not collapse


Parque Central Building Fire Venezuela. Did not collapse


First Interstate Bank, Los Angeles bank burning much stronger and closer to base for than WTC 1 and 2, burns 3.5 hours, did not collapses:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/highrisefires.html

Person standing in World Trade Center, Much Smaller Fire, Entire building collapse:



Above : WTC burning Much Higher, burning area bearing much less load above it, one barely burning at all. Entire building collapses:

The OFFICIAL STORY IS BULLSHIT. The evidence is that these buildings did not collapse from fire.

[KDLarsen]

17. Let's compare, shall we?

Much larger Beijing Fire, Did not collapse building:
The particular construction had incorporated the changes to building design and fire proofing, that were recommended as result of the WTC7 investigation.

Windsor building fire Spain: Did not collapse
Different design, had a concrete core. And answer me this, what is the smoldering black remains seen here in this photo? It wouldn't happen to be the steel structure that collapsed?:


Parque Central Building Fire Venezuela. Did not collapse
Different design, had a reinforced concrete structure. Did not suffer severe structural damage at the outset of the fire.

First Interstate Bank, Los Angeles bank burning much stronger and closer to base for than WTC 1 and 2, burns 3.5 hours, did not collapses:
Burned for four hours, was fought succesfully by the LAFD (http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_1stInterstateFire/050488_InterstateFire.htm) and was somewhat limited compared to WTC in that the fire was never active on more than two floors at the same time.

Also, I note with disgust the way you are using Edna Cintron as an example of how the fires weren't very large. She ended up jumping to her death due to the heat from the fires.

[CrunchMaster]

19. Here we go again implying because I ask a question that somehow I am callous to this woman's death

"Also, I note with disgust the way you are using Edna Cintron as an example of how the fires weren't very large. She ended up jumping to her death due to the heat from the fires."

Give me a break.

Kind of like this response I got in another thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com//discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=274634&mesg_id=278242

You guys have any meat and potatoes to put on the table with that weak sauce? Try again.

[SDuderstadt]

21. It's beyond stupid to claim....

the fires in WTC 1 & 2 weren't large, dude.

[OnTheOtherHand]

25. I note that you disregarded most of the comment you responded to

Maybe meat and potatoes just aren't your thing. :shrug:

[LARED]

6. Question

Why did you post this?

[spooked911]

24. To show that large buildings don't undergo complete collapse very readily.

Got a problem with that?

[LARED]

26. Why would I have a problem with your post?

I was wondering if there was some purpose. Apparently you have successfully showed that small (compared to WTC 1&2) concrete apartment style buildings improperly prepped for demolition don't collapse very readily.


Congratulations.

[spooked911]

29. Thanks!

Obviously, this is not directly comparable to the WTC, but yes, it shows that buildings don't simply fray apart when they collapse.

[LARED]

30. Why do you continually ignore different construction methods?

There is a world of different between concrete constructed buildings and steel constructed buildings.

[spooked911]

38. I am not ignoring that, and of course there is a difference.

That is why I am not saying this is proof of WTC demolition.

However,it is still remarkable and shows how bldgs don't crush themselves that easily.

[chaddyt]

39. Oh, really?

Is that why you used the title "Buildings are very fragile and easily collapse into piles of steel and dust" for this thread? You weren't trying to incite a comparison to the WTC at all, whatsoever? That's why you posted the link to the video in the conspiracy forums?

... Your disingenuousness is truly staggering.

[chaddyt]

27. Pretty dangerous assumption...

... that large buildings are all constructed the same way and therefore should all collapse or not collapse the same way.

Must be you using your finely-tuned "basic logic" again.

[EmKayUltra]

7. Crime Of The Century

It is not far fetched to realize that those Towers, along with B-7 were brought down by controlled demo.
I am amazed at the number of beings that see it otherwise. I guess that is why so many Americans are so easily lead. Is it the Aspartame or just insane in the membrane?

[SDuderstadt]

8. No...

it's the lack of convincing evidence for your goofy claim, dude.

[CrunchMaster]

10. I just laid out some evidence

Why didn't the LA tower collapse when it was burning with a greater fire for many more hours at a lower level? The official story is bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

11. Simple questions....

Were the buildings designed exactly the same? Was the LA tower a "tube-in-a-tube" design? Do you even know what a "tube-in-a-tube" design is? Was the LA towerfire unfought? have you ever taken a structural engineering class? If what you say is true, why aren't the vast majority of structural engineers up in arms?

Last question: Have you ever taken a critical thinking class?

[CrunchMaster]

13. You ask a lot of questions but never seem to provide any alternatiives

"have you ever taken a structural engineering class?
Have you ever taken a critical thinking class?"

No and No.

I'm sure a lot of smart people haven't taken either of those classes. And I imagine you haven't either.

The buildings were not designed exactly the same. But designing skyscrapers is something we've been doing for 100 years. If you have done any reading at all you will learn that both WTC buildings were designed to withstand fires and plane impacts. Most modern skyscrapers are designed this way. And yes there are a lot of engineers and architects up in arms. Go here:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

The reason there are not more is because of the American political and media mafia that wants to keep its people stupid, poor and unquestioning.

That's my last and only reply to you because you are really offering nothing constructive here and I'm not wasting my time going in circles with you. I posted some stuff here and in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com//discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=274634&mesg_id=274634 that has a few facts people can look at and make up their mind. I don't claim all of that stuff is true. I'm just posting info and connections that to me shed some light on how the USA got to this sorry state.

People here are asking questions, and they are being beat down by a group of posters who post hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of messages with the only aim of beating people down and calling them conspiracy theorists for simply asking questions about something that many people have a lot of questions about. Fine go ahead. I'm not going to get sucked into that.

[SDuderstadt]

16. No, dude....

we're challenging you both on your lack of facts and simply that even the stuff you do post which is remotely factual is being mischaracterized. When confronted with this, you immediately slipiyour "you're trying to supress the truth" mode, instead of engaging in actual debate. Or, better yet, you slip into your "he reason there are not more is because of the American political tand media mafia that wants to keep its people stupid, poor and unquestioning" mode. Really? You don't think anyone else can think as well as you?

You can run away from the debate if you want, but all that demonstrates is you can't hold your own in actual debate, so you have to invent reasons why you won't actually debate. The most embarrassing thing is you post myth after myth that is easily debunked. For example, take your assertion that the towers were designed to withstand a crash from a jetliner. Do you know the assumptions that were made in that respect? And, by the way, the Towers DID initially withstand the crash or else they would have immediately fallen down, dude. However, the assumptions made in the design were that a) the jet would be smaller b) it would be lost in a fog on approach to landing at a nearby airport and thus c) it would be flying much slower and d)would not have that much fuel. Of course, you ignore half the facts and only post the ones which support your goofy claims.

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has in excess of 40,000 members. EDo you honestly claim the reason that ASCE is not up in arms is because "The reason there are not more is because of the American political and media mafia that wants to keep its people stupid, poor and unquestioning"?

Dude, take some critical thinking classes (your local community college will have them) and quit embarrassing liberalism and the Democratic Party in general, and DU in particular, with your goofy bullshit. Like I said, you can run away from the debate all you want by underhandedly questioning our motivation, but I'd venture to say most people can see right through your rhetoricsl trick, dude.

[soyousay]

34. I have a question for you SDuderstadt...

Since on the internet you can not tell the gender of the poster and since dude is a term used to reference the male gender
Logically you are refering incorrectly to as many as half the posters on this board as males when they are in fact females when you call them dude.
It is also logical to assume some posters would be offended by this. Some would be justifiably insulted.
This does not seem to follow the ideals of the average Democratic views on sexism and the board rules on insulting others.
What gives?

[greyl]

35. The truth is out there:

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dude&r=f

[SDuderstadt]

36. Click on profiles, dude....

Duh. Dumb post.

I would LOVE to hear how addressing BOTH genders as "dude" could remotely be considered to be sexism. Do you understand the definition of the term?

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EmKayUltra]

15. The Dude Abides

Dude? I prefer goofy dude suits me better. It's so Disney, and so Lebowski!

[CrunchMaster]

9. Not far fetched at all EmKay

It's beyond me the amount of resistance to what seems very apparent : the evidence shows that plane impacts and fires don't topple skyscrapers designed to withstand both. And here it happened twice in one day. Two entire buildings collapsed into rubble. What an amazingly convenient coincidence.

[EmKayUltra]

12. Eye For An Eye.........

makes the world go blind? You can beat them all in the head with the reality of physics, and that fleeting factor, common sense. And they will still see the programmed vision their Judas Goat media provides for them.
If they cannot see it for what it is (a controlled demo) and especially Building 7. Then they must all be under some spell or the epitome of Madison Ave culture.

I have heard this from the programmed ones...."do you really believe that our government would orchestrate or allow 3,000 people to die for some Faustian machination?
The same government that allows 34-40 thousand to die every year as a result of proper health care? YES I do!

[CrunchMaster]

14. I hear ya...

It seems pretty obvious WTC 7 especially is a controlled demo. I wouldn't waste too much time with these guys saying otherwise. The argument will go nowhere and nothing will become of it.

“Their ears hardly hear and their eyes do not dare to see.” Mt. 13:15

Not religious but I do like the quote.

[CrunchMaster]

18. To all reading this thread

Don't spend your life being a tool in someone else's half-baked "official conspiracy theory." Weigh the evidence and draw some conclusions. Don't let them intimidate you. Ask questions. Those who have something to offer constructive to help clear things up will offer it. Those who don't won't.

I got asked a question above and the answer is in a link above. Here's the short form answer to the question asked and I'm not wasting any more time with it because these guys are not looking for answers


The official story is bullshit. No shit. Stop running circles arguing with these guys.

If there was anything faulty in the logic of what i wrote above you would have seen my total ass kicking somewhere in this thread. Didn't happen because these guys have nothing but weeksauce. I posted some stuff with some links and some solid evidence pointing towards CD and got nothing but weaksauce in response. So I rest my case.

[SDuderstadt]

20. You just proved my point, dude....

1st, the planes that hit the towers were larger and weighed more. You also conveniently left out the impact of a nearly fully fueled plane versus one that was low on fuel. You also conveniently leave out the relative speeds.

Who's being a tool, dude? Why can't you debate on the facts? Is that why you have to continually attack our motivation?

[LARED]

22. What makes you think people that disagree with half baked

CT's have not weighed the evidence and draw conclusions based on logic, reason, and evidence.

[Twist_U_Up]

31. I agree, but still like to have fun with them from time to time.

its just sooo easy.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Instead, you just displey your ignorance of actual facts...

and further marginalize what's left of the "truth movement". Briliant strategy, dude.

[AZCat]

33. Yes, because whenever I have a technical issue...

I always take it to an internet forum full of anonymous posters because that's the best way to determine validity of technical arguments, rather than discussing it with the other engineers in my office. :eyes:

[hack89]

28. No - they should have built the WTC with concrete.

lot stronger and more fire resistant.