about that WTC tower "collapse"

Do you understand the significant difference in the application of the word destroy and collapse? You keep trying to interchange them as if they are synonyms. Either you don't understand the difference in meaning, or you are deliberately attempting to obfuscate the point.

 

Why did the NIST say "TOTAL COLLAPSE" when in fact that tower(s) were totally destroyed?

 

By display, the answer would be no.

The buildings collapsed, they were in a huge pile that took months to clean up.

If a person falls to the ground, did they collapse or were they destroyed?

 

The fact that it took months to move all the rubble, makes a statement about the size of the building, NOT the completeness of demolition.

a person is not a skyscraper and the total destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 makes the statement loud & clear that it was a demolition job, not fire & chaotic damage.

 

that makes no logical sense.

 

Argument from Incredulity. No math was touched in the above statement.

 

I'm sorry that you appear to require pages of numbers to justify what is right in front of you. The total destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 is a fact and that fact does not require pages of numbers to justify, in addition the fact is that total destruction in anything is extremely rare if not a planned for and engineered event. therefore it is NOT "incredulity" it is fact that the destruction of WTC1,2 & 7 points to an engineered event not a side effect of a terrorist attack.

 

how about a paragraph.

is that too much to ask for?

 

What did I just give you? The fact is that in the standard fire fighters reference, there is the statement that complete destruction of anything is considered suspicious and the authorities should indeed look for signs of explosives or any added fuel that would have accelerated the burn of the structure in question. In addition, steel framed structures do not simply collapse in response to fire + the fact that the damaged from the alleged "FLT175" & "FLT11" airliners was totally a matter of speculation, there was no confirmation of the alleged airliner damage by forensic investigation of the steel left after the "collapse".

Look at post #23 in "FEA regarding WTC 1" and ask yourself
why should the outcome that was shown on TV be any more
probable than what the pix shows in that post?

 

No sources, no evidence in your post.

Argument from incredulity.

 

Until you learn the difference between collapse and destroyed, you will forever be in the dark.

 

so you allege that the condition of the WTC towers & 7 could not be described as destroyed on 9/11/2001? is that what you think?
When first responders tell the stories that they found NO bits not even recognizable remnants of file cabinets or desks, & only little pieces of computers or telephones, I would call the scene, one of total destruction.

You insist on getting the definitions straight here, who wouldn't call this a scene of total destruction of the towers & 7?

and as total destruction, its either the product of a controlled demolition, or its a huge "lucky shot" 3 times over.

 

Wrong. The buildings collapsed causing the internal destruction.

 

so, destruction happened, you get that, and your explanation is that the structure "collapsed" causing the total destruction of the skyscraper.
however, what caused the total "collapse".
There is no getting around the fact that this had to have been an engineered event.

 

Your comprehension is appalling. Please provide evidence of said "engineered" event. The structure collapsed causing the destruction of filing cabinets, telephones, etc. Do not continue to put words in my mouth.

You should probably watch the documentary 9/11 Conspiracy and Science. It is a very interesting and eye opening watch. It is available on Netflix. The interesting parts are when truther heroes Griffin, Avery, and Gage are confronted with real science, real experts, watch them flounder.

 

But that is one of the phenomenal anomalies of 9/11. Shouldn't there have been hundreds of flattened filing cabinets?

http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/filingcabinet.htm

psik

 

I've seen the hit-piece that you reference and its total bad science!
In reference to the destruction of the alleged airliners imbedded in
the skyscrapers people say " oh yea, it had a 110 story skycraper
fall on it, what do you expect to see, a completely undamaged airliner?"
fact is that the whole 110 story skyscraper did NOT fall on the jet(s),
only the bit above the crash site. & in reference to stuff that may be
expected to survive in some sort of form that even a recognizable remnant of it would be seen, but not a thing remains, note the Restaurant at the top of the skyscraper would have heavy cookware, (etc.... ) stoves, refrigerators ( etc.... ) and nothing remained of the restaurant?
The contents of the floors near the top of the structure would have much higher probability of having some artifact remnant to be seen, where did the energy come from for total destruction?

also in rebuttal to the "documentary" 9/11 Conspiracy and Science.
have you seen any of Johnathan Cole's work? very interesting stuff.

 

So you expect something that was over 1000 feet in the air to remain intact after collapsing to the ground? Wow, just wow. You obviously have no idea of how crash mechanics work. Please do wow us by disproving the experiments that were performed by real scientists, your dismissal is worthless.
I'll wait.

 

Why would there be flattened filing cabinets? They were thrown into a blender. Do you put fruit in bender and expect it to be flattened? Do better.

 

But how could GRAVITY produce the effect of a blender?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSueQsVsk_M

That is the entire point. Fire and collapse alone could not produce the effects we see. But if it could then why don't scientists explain it IN DETAIL. Instead we don't even get accurate data on the amount of steel and the amount of concrete on each level to even accurately compute the Potential Energy.

The biggest scientific farce in history. We are supposed to just BELIEVE in the 9/11 Religion.

psik

 

Actually there is plenty of info on that but what they cannot calculate is the live load, what is on the floors that add to the weight.

 

The floors had a rating. Use the maximum live load on every floor.

DUH!

Excuses, excuses!

What information is there on the horizontal beams in the core?

psik

 

Where is YOUR proof that fire and collapse was NOT enough to produce the effects? Point me to a paper that shows the calculations which show that the energy of the descending upper section was not enough to produce the effect we see.

Or do you just "believe"...

 

There is an additional factor here also, and that is the consistency of the destruction, when the towers & 7 "collapsed" they were totally destroyed.
and that is a problem. You see in "natural" events such as other instances
of skyscraper fires, there has been asymmetrical damage, in the case of the WTC buildings, there was a symmetrical pattern of destruction that ended in the buildings being totally destroyed ( just like a controlled demolition )

 

We can accuse each other of BELIEVING forever.

That is why I talk about building models. Let's see you build a physical model that can support its own weight and then completely collapse due to the fall of the top 15% by height and less than that by weight.

We can't even get data on the amounts of steel and concrete on every level so you are the one believing without data. I am simply saying PROVE IT!

psik