an observation about the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7

Hypothetical situation here,
imagine you see a truck on the freeway
and on the back of this truck is one of those
vending machines ( junk"food", soda... whatever )
and the machine falls off the back of the truck
and then the large heavy truck that was following
the first one, runs over said vending machine.
now what do you see in the road, a badly damaged
vending machine. OK, now in a artist workshop,
an artist sets about to dismember a similar machine, and using cutting torch, saws, grinders, the machine is reduced to small bits, now if you compare the two end products of these specific events, you would say that there is an obvious difference between the two events in the outcome of each.

so now, to point to the skyscrapers destroyed on 9/11/2001, why should you expect to see the result that is indicative of a intentional event, that is one having been guided by intelligence rather than the product of chaotic forces.

Why should complete destruction be considered
"normal" in the case of an event that is allegedly
the product of chaotic forces.

 

debunkers dont count that.

they only see the piles and disregard the distinctions. lol

 

This is a serious question,
why should anybody accept the "news" report
of an event that has exactly the same result as
a well planned & executed controlled demolition,
to have allegedly been the result of chaotic forces?

 

Prove D-Day happened

 

These "chaotic forces" worked against a complex structure designed to work as whole. When you start to remove/weaken random supports, the remaining structural elements still try work as a whole to keep the unchanging load above from falling. As structural elements are removed/weakened, the remaining elements take on more and more of the load.

And since when is gravity a chaotic force?

 

Because the destruction was not " complete "

the buildings fell and nothing whatsoever indicates it was planned or guided by intelligence.

- - - Updated - - -

Because there is not even a speck of evidence that it was controlled demolition nor is there reason to think it was

 

This is why after nearly 13 years the analysis of 9/11 is more important than what happened on 9/11. How do hundreds of millions of grid locked brains get unlocked and what happens if they do?

But what does it mean for all of our so called scientists and engineers if they don't?

psik

 

No body is gridlocked.

We know what happened and it was well analyzed long ago.

The problem is you desperately wish to be viewed as smarter because you believe in the fiction of CD. But you are not and it IS a fictional tale.

 

Yeah right, and you can't find a physicist or structural engineer discussing the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower even though the NIST admits it tilted 22 degrees.

How often in history can you find 30 stories of any building tilting 22 degrees, much less doing it 1000 feet above the ground?

ROFLMAO

psik

 

How often in history does every building collapse in the exact same predictable manner? Zero.

Yes you can easily find such physicists and engineers. It is as easy as finding one and speaking to him or her.

The event was well analyzed by experts of many diverse backgraounds far smarter than you. Not a shred of evidence supports your belief

 

If it didn't,you wouldn't be here

 

You really don't get it, the chaotic bit is a function
of the damage allegedly caused by an airliner,
and then the total destruction of the tower(s)
Please, if you have evidence that the tower(s) were
not completely destroyed, what remained 1%, 5%
or? and can you document how much was left?

why is it not at least as plausible to have the
upper mass tip off to the side and in so doing
dump its mass down the side of the tower without
causing total destruction?

 

Any event that is filmed from multiple directions should be taken at least somewhat seriously.

How many millions of dollars do you think it would probably cost to hire actors and special effects crews to duplicate the following several videos of a UFO over the Temple Mount in 2011?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIoHE6P8gOk

Post #1 of this thread has a comment on UFO's by near death experiencer Christian Andreason……….. My point is that the six videos… of the Temple Mount UFO….. could well be valid…… and the multiple videos of the 9-11 terrorist attack also deserve to be taken seriously!

http://www.politicalforum.com/other-off-topic-chat/338698-will-ufos-assist-bringing-peace-world.html

Will UFO's assist in bringing peace to the world?????

 

How many people said they would collapse BEFORE it happened? How many said they couldn't collapse BEFORE it happened? Where is your data on that?

If it was so predictable then shouldn't it be easy to build a physical model that duplicates the north tower collapse?

So where is it?

The mentally grid locked have nothing but talk and don't even want accurate data of the steel and concrete distributions down the towers. The NIST does not even specify the total amount of concrete. Yeah, real experts.

psik

 

Apparently you did not read what I posted I never said the collapse of a building in a specific manner is predictable quite the opposite.

The NIST report does in fact specificy the weight support distributions and you are not supplying any data accurate or otherwise.

 

So if "in a specific manner" can include the complete & total destruction
of said building, the three buildings WTC 1,2 & 7 all "collapsed" in a specific manner and all in the same day, what are the odds?

Somebody rolled sake eyes 1,000,000 times in a row. .........

 

None of them resulted in complete and total destruction and none of them were the same.

They all collapsed in a different manner your claims are deliberately obtuse and false

 

Oh really? Care to tell us what page in which report? I have the whole thing on DVD.

And I said they don't specify the total amount of concrete which is much simpler. In fact they said they needed the distribution of mass to analyse the motion due to impact which they did not have in 2003.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5D.pdf page 74

psik

 

Oh I get it alright and I never said the towers weren't considered completely destroyed. What YOU fail to understand is that each bit of "chaotic" damage affected a piece of the structure that was DESIGNED and BUILT to function as a whole. To redistribute loads to the grillages upon the bedrock at it's base. All within a 208' x 208' square.

Do you understand load pathing in a structure?

Do you understand that when certain structural elements in a localized area are removed or weakened, the remaining/functioning structural elements need to take on that extra load?

Do you understand that load redistribution happens quickly, that when you remove/weakened an element, the other surrounding elements immediately start taking that extra load

Because that's not what happened. The "axis/pivot point" that would have caused the upper section to continue to tilt/pivot failed and gravity took over.

You're problem here is, and I've said this before, your lack of knowledge regarding structural engineering. You are arguing for controlled demolition because you don't understand how structural systems work.

If explosives were set of simultaneously, what caused the upper section of WTC2 to tilt?

 

The official report refers to "total collapse" and indeed what is total collapse if not total destruction of the WTC tower(s)? I have repeatedly asked for evidence of exactly how much of the towers or 7 remained so as to not be considered totally destroyed and as yet, nobody has provided any documentation of ground zero that shows only partially destroyed Tower(s) or 7.

The feature of total destruction of the buildings is a significant commonality with controlled demolition.

 

I am arguing for controlled demolition because I understand how
probability works, and the total destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7
is the least probable out-come of all the possible scenarios.

 

Look up the word collapse and then look up the word destruction. They do not mean the same thing.

You are quite dishonest. You have been shown evidence that a that rubble and ruins remained. This is evidence that the destruction was not total as you claim.

The destruction was also common for many buildings which collapse due to fire and other causes it was not exclusive to controlled demolition.

 

No you do not grasp how probability works. They were not totally destroyed and this has been proven.

Nor is it as you claim the least probable outcome of all the possible scenarios.

You merely use the word probability because it sounds good you have no idea how it works. Probability is based on math not merely a feeling.
Since you are making the claim it is on you to show your calculations to arrive at this probability. You will not because you have never calculated such probability you merely repeat it because you believe it makes you sound smart.

 

I have not been shown documentation of the amount of either WTC1,2 or 7
remaining after the collapse events, may I ask for specific post # for these
bits? also where is the precedent? do you have any links to events that
are similar in results &or similar in other characteristics to the "collapse"
of skyscrapers on 9/11/2001?

 

These threads have been around for a decade now and you are ignoring the facts which answer your questions which are posted on these threads.

Asked and answered ad infinitum which is why you are dishonest you keep asking the same things long ago proven false.

In other words read all the posts on the threads for that matter just do some real research. All you have ever done is watch a couple of you tube videos.