Demolition Failures Versus the WTC Collapses

[porridge]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

I've also said the top section disintergrates all along so why are you saying I or anyone else has said the contrary?

The image you show is wrong as it shows an intact section all the way to the bottom, when you and I are clearly in agreement that the top section disintergrated, thus not being intact?

All along? LOL

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Nope, just the part that was intended for you to address. Invisible mass? So what happened to the top section, the percentage that didn't go over the sides of the building? Did it just float away? Or did it fall onto the below floor and grow in mass as it took each floor with it?

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Its just something I observed from the video footage, disintergrated maybe, but was gaining in mass as the floors below that it destroyed would also fall. As I have said before, once columns start failing the building fails, it was like a chain reaction basically.

I could go back further to my 1st post on the topic & show what kind of reaction it met. But I cant be assed playing your silly petty dishonest games & Milky try not to take it to personally.

Now what does NIST say actually happened & please explain their 'pile driver theory' to me.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

All along? LOL





I could go back further to my 1st post on the topic & show what kind of reaction it met. But I cant be assed playing your silly petty dishonest games & Milky try not to take it to personally.

Now what does NIST say actually happened & please explain their 'pile driver theory' to me.

Oh my, porridge, I said disintergrated maybe as if to say that's the case but the top sections mass was still present, disintegrated or otherwise. So yes I've always acknowledged that the top section disintegrated and your bizarre atempts above to somehow prove otherwise have failed. Never mind.

Why don't you read the NIST report for yourself, assuming you can read.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Oh my, porridge, I said disintergrated maybe as if to say that's the case but the top sections mass was still present, disintegrated or otherwise. So yes I've always acknowledged that the top section disintegrated and your bizarre atempts above to somehow prove otherwise have failed. Never mind.

Why don't you read the NIST report for yourself, assuming you can read.

Milky, no need to get like that.

For someone who has an in depth understanding of the OS I just thought you might be able to explain it to me, isnt that what you are on this forum to do, put the story straight?

And you are always quick to jump on anyone so why not explain this properly.

My understanding from Wispys & your replys, is the chain reaction had built up & it didnt need the mass from the top to demolish the rest of the building.

So Ide like to go through what NIST actually do say in their 'global collapse' sequence.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

Milky, no need to get like that.

For someone who has an in depth understanding of the OS I just thought you might be able to explain it to me, isnt that what you are on this forum to do, put the story straight?

And you are always quick to jump on anyone so why not explain this properly.

My understanding from Wispys & your replys, is the chain reaction had built up & it didnt need the mass from the top to demolish the rest of the building.

So Ide like to go through what NIST actually do say in their 'global collapse' sequence.

If you cannot take, then don't give.

Read it then, simple.

I'm just giving my personal opinion, based on my own logic. Which also includes opinions from experts Via NIST and many academic institutions. Along with indipendant engineers etc. I have explained it all before and you know I have, so if in doubt read prev posts. And please as above stop quoting out of context, you know I've said the top section disintergrated so stop trying to prove otherwise, you're wasting your time. Any comeback on your image of that top section staying intact? Why is it intact when you and I both know it didn't stay like that?

[porridge]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

If you cannot take, then don't give.

Read it then, simple.

I'm just giving my personal opinion, based on my own logic. Which also includes opinions from experts Via NIST and many academic institutions. Along with indipendant engineers etc. I have explained it all before and you know I have, so if in doubt read prev posts. And please as above stop quoting out of context, you know I've said the top section disintergrated so stop trying to prove otherwise, you're wasting your time. Any comeback on your image of that top section staying intact? Why is it intact when you and I both know it didn't stay like that?

But A&E911 are completely barmy & full of pseudo bullshit to you, nothing they say makes any sense whatsoever. Puhleaze

You have contradicted yourself & I am not trying to be factious, on this.

Your story changed as I pointed out to you, so i dont think you are anymore sure on this than anyone else who I have asked & their story also wasent sure.

So wouldn't it be better to go through it in depth to find out the truth.

1st with NISTS version of events, then with the alternatives, beats petty squabbles & trolling.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

But A&E911 are completely barmy & full of pseudo bullshit to you, nothing they say makes any sense whatsoever. Puhleaze

You have contradicted yourself & I am not trying to be factious, on this.

Your story changed as I pointed out to you, so i dont think you are anymore sure on this than anyone else who I have asked & their story also wasent sure.

So wouldn't it be better to go through it in depth to find out the truth.

1st with NISTS version of events, then with the alternatives, beats petty squabbles & trolling.

As I've said its my opinion on what happened, of course sometimes my opinion on things changes, I see nothing wrong with that. That's the idea Porridge look at both sides of the story, and for me the OS makes the most sense overall and is backed by many institutions and individuals. You're wrong in terms of me believing the top section did not disintergrate as this is something I've always known to be the case.

Trolling? Yes you have been but I'm sure you can stop it if you really try.

Ok let's look at the 'alternatives' given the facts. Which of the following catches your eye as being more accurate than NIST's take on things:

DEW
No Plane
Thermite or Thermate
Conventional explosives CD

And others?

Or how about plane and fires = collapse?

[lobuk]

Originally Posted by porridge

But A&E911 are completely barmy & full of pseudo bullshit to you, nothing they say makes any sense whatsoever. Puhleaze

You have contradicted yourself & I am not trying to be factious, on this.

Your story changed as I pointed out to you, so i dont think you are anymore sure on this than anyone else who I have asked & their story also wasent sure.

So wouldn't it be better to go through it in depth to find out the truth.

1st with NISTS version of events, then with the alternatives, beats petty squabbles & trolling.

Wouldnt be the first time that milky has flip flopped LoL.

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Yes maybe your right maybe the building was comprimised, by fire, but comprimised in such a way it would fall? i dont think so from the research that was done by many engineers, they have come to a conclusion this structure was demolished, i see this research as credible. you may not, see the 9/11 architects and engineers for truth research for yourself if you have not already.

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

I commented on a RIP to all 9/11 victims page, Saying obviosuly RIP also that wtc 7 was not explained by the official report in terms of why it collapsed etc, this is not good enough even some of the families of victims are crying out for real answers, i also mentioned architects and engineers for 9/11 truth who are great, and how obvious it was that WTC 7 was demolished. i got called sick and labelled a conspiracy theorist, people just dont want to beleive that their own government could be so incompetant and or twisted!

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by lobuk

Wouldnt be the first time that milky has flip flopped LoL.

Great timing, and a great example. See opinions do change.

[lobuk]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Great timing, and a great example. See opinions do change.

Glad to see you still have a sense of humour at least.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by lobuk

Glad to see you still have a sense of humour at least.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

As I've said its my opinion on what happened, of course sometimes my opinion on things changes, I see nothing wrong with that. That's the idea Porridge look at both sides of the story, and for me the OS makes the most sense overall and is backed by many institutions and individuals. You're wrong in terms of me believing the top section did not disintergrate as this is something I've always known to be the case.

Trolling? Yes you have been but I'm sure you can stop it if you really try.

Ok let's look at the 'alternatives' given the facts. Which of the following catches your eye as being more accurate than NIST's take on things:

DEW
No Plane
Thermite or Thermate
Conventional explosives CD

And others?

Or how about plane and fires = collapse?

I just pointed out how you changed your opinion in a few posts . You are a flip flop mate. Deny it all you like.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

I just pointed out how you changed your opinion in a few posts . You are a flip flop mate. Deny it all you like.

No you didn't you quoted two paragraphs and took them out of context, as I say I've changed my mind plenty of times in the past as CORRECTLY pointed out by Lobuk, however I'm afraid your point of saying I used to think a few pages ago, that the top section did not disintergrate is incorrect and you know it. I have not said the top section stayed intact, you did in your image.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

As I've said its my opinion on what happened, of course sometimes my opinion on things changes, I see nothing wrong with that. That's the idea Porridge look at both sides of the story, and for me the OS makes the most sense overall and is backed by many institutions and individuals. You're wrong in terms of me believing the top section did not disintergrate as this is something I've always known to be the case.

Trolling? Yes you have been but I'm sure you can stop it if you really try.

Ok let's look at the 'alternatives' given the facts. Which of the following catches your eye as being more accurate than NIST's take on things:

DEW
No Plane
Thermite or Thermate
Conventional explosives CD

And others?

Or how about plane and fires = collapse?

I just suggested we go through the official version of how the towers collapsed & then the alternatives. As the topic is:

Demolition Failures Versus the WTC Collapses

Whos the troll here ffs?

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

I just suggested we go through the official version of how the towers collapsed & then the alternatives. As the topic is:

Demolition Failures Versus the WTC Collapses

Whos the troll here ffs?

So calling people 'dickhead' is not trolling? Any how I've already offered to discuss that, above I offered 4 or 5 alternative theories accompanied with a question, but you ignored it.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

No you didn't you quoted two paragraphs and took them out of context, as I say I've changed my mind plenty of times in the past as CORRECTLY pointed out by Lobuk, however I'm afraid your point of saying I used to think a few pages ago, that the top section did not disintergrate is incorrect and you know it. I have not said the top section stayed intact, you did in your image.

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Nope, just the part that was intended for you to address. Invisible mass? So what happened to the top section, the percentage that didn't go over the sides of the building? Did it just float away? Or did it fall onto the below floor and grow in mass as it took each floor with it?

lol

I think its good you changed your opinion, as that shows you can evolve & not get stuck in dogmatic points of view, so no need to feel embarrassed.

I would like to move on now tho & as you obviously cant help me on what NISTs global collapse sequence really means. I guess will have to go read up & report back on the findings.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

So calling people 'dickhead' is not trolling? Any how I've already offered to discuss that, above I offered 4 or 5 alternative theories accompanied with a question, but you ignored it.

Nope,

But you are derailing & would be best to get back on topic. Like I told you at the time, take it up with the management.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

lol

I think its good you changed your opinion, as that shows you can evolve & not get stuck in dogmatic points of view, so no need to feel embarrassed.

I would like to move on now tho & as you obviously cant help me on what NISTs global collapse sequence really means. I guess will have to go read up & report back on the findings.

Can you not read? I'm really doubting you can now. Where in that statement did I say the top section did not disintergrate? I was explaining to you, that the top section fell onto the upper most floor of the bottom section and as it was collapsing it gained in mass. Again why would that mean the top section would have to be intact? And yes you'll have to read it yourself.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

There was enough mass, did you not see the size of the top section that fell onto the lower section? Floor by floor it smashed its way through the lower section.

lol

Referring to this:

In reality, there simply is no 'pile driver'. Most of the top section disintegrates before the collapse 'progresses' to the lower section. It is completely unrealistic to believe that around 13% of the structure (in the case of WTC 1) would be able to crush the lower 87% while itself remaining intact. The steel at the base was 16 times as thick as it was at the top of each tower. It is one thing to believe that a solid 50,000 tonne 'hammer' could crush the underlying structure, but it is something else to believe that a loose jumble of debris could have done so. It's like the difference between someone dropping a 20 kg bag of rice onto your head, or pouring it out. Furthermore, the concrete was pulverised and ejected, and about 80% of the steel was also ejected outside each tower base, so very little mass/debris actually fell directly onto the lower structure. And only a small proportion of this mass/debris would actually have struck the columns, since they only accounted for a minor percentage of the surface area.

At the base of each tower, the columns were strong enough to bear the static load of the entire 500,000 tonne structure. What kind of 'pile driver' do we see resting on them at the end of the collapse? Basically none. The building site is just a wide debris field of steel column segments and other shredded building materials/contents. There is no 'pile driver' resting on the bases of the columns. It literally looks like a bomb site.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

lol

Referring to this:

This is a repeat from another thread I posted in.

Buildings are designed to be stronger than needed, so as to be able to endure wind, earthquakes, and so on. Usually, having the building able to withstand loads a factor of three to five times the actual (static) load is considered adequate for safety. The first floor is simply overwhelmed with a force of 31 times the static load. But, what are the next floors hit with? That requires consideration of velocity?

Please read all the rest here:

http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911a.htm

Also again, the section I refer to is evidently not intact, but as above the floor below is overwhelmed with a force it cannot arrest.

[lizzyking]

This article might be old news in the 9/11 forums, but I just came across it, thought it was interesting, Here's an excerpt:

The Dangers of a False Theory

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which is led by Richard Gage, has been ceaselessly promoting the nanothermite discovery as the “smoking gun” of 9/11, and calling the substance a “high explosive”. If there is ever a proper investigation and a lawsuit is filed in a court of law on the “strength” of nanothermite as “hard evidence” of controlled demolition by explosives at the World Trade Center and it is revealed to the court by the opposing side that nanothermite is at best a very weak “explosive” and could not possibly have destroyed the Twin Towers in seconds, the entire case would almost certainly be dismissed and a legal precedent set against future efforts by others.

The danger of promoting a false theory or of overselling a weak hypothesis to millions of people is that it may someday be a convenient way to close the book on the entire issue. That 9/11 nanothermite advocates insist on their position in the face of significant refutations is disturbing. They are clearly unwilling to change their minds or even to discuss facts that expose weaknesses in their statements. What do these refusals really mean? Are some leaders deliberately pushing a flimsy theory with the intent that it will ultimately be shot down? Or is nanothermite a red herring or limited hangout to keep us from looking into what was really used?

The 9/11 Truth community can be confident in its refutations of the official account of 9/11 without having to present a “bullet-proof” alternate theory. It may well be that thermite/thermate/nanothermite was used in its familiar role as an incendiary (or “cutter charge”) in destroying the Twin Towers. But that is very different than to claim that it is a “high explosive” that could have destroyed those buildings. The 9/11 Truth movement must not commit itself to a feeble alternative, especially when an honest assessment of the empirical data for that theory does not support its applicability and actually refutes it.



--------------------------




T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer with more than two decades of experience in the industry, currently works for NASA. His views, however, are an exercise of his freedom of speech and in no way represent the positions of his employer.




Source: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08...u-must-acquit/