ANZACs and war and stuff

[Oscar]

But your third paragraph suggests Hinny's "web of steel" didn't exist. You wouldn't be saying the buildings were built as per design, with a central dense support column and looser more space external support, and that it is quite see-able from the video and analyses that the plane's nose didn't hit the central support column? To suggest the the extra fuel load of a fully fuelled 747 could weaken steel designed to with stand a much smaller 707 - really?

Sorry but the pancake must have been set off by explosives in the basement because that is what some conspiracies say happened. And it can't have been fuel leaking down the elevator shaft because the viability of that senario has already been called in to question.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

The video clearly shows the buildings starting to pancake at the point of impact, whereas a controlled demolition from the basement would show an obvious pancaking effect from the ground floor.

The point about the design specs is that the building was built to withstand the impact of a 707, but that the steel supporting the floors was not designed to withstand the heat of burning jet fuel. The building was designed around a central column, and the floors were basically set on bearers attached to the column and the outside grid, but not joined.

BTW - The planes involved were not 747's, but the smaller 767's IIRC.

[mashman]

After a large laden plane had been flown into them???

Is that an African one or a European one?

[Katman]

How would anyone benefit from the controlled demolition of an empty (it had been succesfully evacuted with no casualties) and burning building (there are dozens of pics of it burning prior to it's collapse)? Why would you somehow construct a plan to fly planes (missiles) into WTC 1&2 or blow them up, only to wait until WTC7 was damaged and on fire, and then blow it up?

Possibly Larry Silverstein stood to gain more by the buildings being demolished than by them being left standing.

[Edbear]

So you know of another 81 story building that didn't collapse after being damaged by adjacent collapse’s of two other buildings and subsequent fire?


Notwithstanding that, let's apply Occam's Razor.
How would anyone benefit from the controlled demolition of an empty (it had been succesfully evacuted with no casualties) and burning building (there are dozens of pics of it burning prior to it's collapse)? Why would you somehow construct a plan to fly planes (missiles) into WTC 1&2 or blow them up, only to wait until WTC7 was damaged and on fire, and then blow it up?

Logic and facts are wasted on these idiots, but you can try if you like.

[Katman]

Logic and facts are wasted on these idiots, but you can try if you like.

Ed, there's a lot of highly qualified people around the world that don't think things stack up here.

I'm sure they would be amused that someone with your beliefs would describe them as idiots.

[Edbear]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

The video clearly shows the buildings starting to pancake at the point of impact, whereas a controlled demolition from the basement would show an obvious pancaking effect from the ground floor.

The point about the design specs is that the building was built to withstand the impact of a 707, but that the steel supporting the floors was not designed to withstand the heat of burning jet fuel. The building was designed around a central column, and the floors were basically set on bearers attached to the column and the outside grid, but not joined.

BTW - The planes involved were not 747's, but the smaller 767's IIRC.

They were 767's.

[Katman]

I think they were 757s

Your research is letting you down again Ed.

[oneofsix]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

The video clearly shows the buildings starting to pancake at the point of impact, whereas a controlled demolition from the basement would show an obvious pancaking effect from the ground floor.

The point about the design specs is that the building was built to withstand the impact of a 707, but that the steel supporting the floors was not designed to withstand the heat of burning jet fuel. The building was designed around a central column, and the floors were basically set on bearers attached to the column and the outside grid, but not joined.

BTW - The planes involved were not 747's, but the smaller 767's IIRC.

True, they were not 747s but they were bigger than what the building was designed to handle. As to your question I was being ironic, thought it would have been obvious, perhaps my mistake on aircraft type threw you.

[Banditbandit]

Three buildings fell in a perfect implosion into their own footprint - in a manner that demolition experts would dream to be able to replicate.

Yeah .. and ? That does not imply aytrhing other than the three buildings imploded in a maner that made demolition experts envious .. and nothing else ..

If one building had been rigged for demolition then it would not be surprising to discover that all three had been done likewise.

No, that would not be surprising at all .. but gives you no grounds to suspect gthe otrher buoldings had been wired fror demolition .. the reason they fell down was pretty obvious .. a bloody big plane flew into each ione of them

The reasons for the way the collapsed was to do with the way they were built ... not how force was applied to them.

Anything else would be like saying "building 7 fell like that due to an expert demolition job but those other two buildings that are over twice the height fell like they did purely by luck".

Not at all ... pure luck had nothing to do with it ... the two towers fell because bloody great big aircraft flew into them and damaged them so badly they fell down ... I have no idea why Building 7 fell down ... but then I'm not looking to put the responsibility for the attack on anyone but Al Qaeda and the freedom fighters in the planes ...

But then, I have no issues in saying that the reasons why the two towers fell down in the way they did was a combination of chances ... a deep gravitation well with random motions is a chancey environment .. or what you would call pure luck ...

Just as I would have no issue with saying that if a car came around a corner on the wrong side of the road and took you out ... that it was just pure luck (or bad luck) .. and would not need to look for a reason why you might have fucked up .. ...

[Edbear]

Ed, there's a lot of highly qualified people around the world that don't think things stack up here.

I'm sure they would be amused that someone with your beliefs would describe them as idiots.

Why don't you simply stick to the known facts?

The planes were 767's that hit the towers, and a 757 that hit the Pentagon. Proven by eye-witnesses actually there, like Police, Paramedics and so on! Enough of all the planes survived to prove what they were.

Building 7 was extensively damaged by impact from the falling debris and severe internal fires, FACT, borne out by photo and video and eye-witness accounts.

The experts I prefer to believe are those who are qualified to give testimony, like the architects and designers, the Firefighters who were actually there on the job, and the construction engineers who examined the buildings.

You dumbo's will not even read and critique the links as they are in contrast to your precious theories. The only links you will accept are the conspiracy links and we all know that conspiracy theorists never lie or mis-represent anything, eh? Even when it is proven beyond question they have...

[Katman]

The experts I prefer to believe are those who are qualified to give testimony, like the architects and designers, the Firefighters who were actually there on the job, and the construction engineers who examined the buildings.

For every expert you choose to believe Ed I could probably give you six others that choose to believe differently.

[Edbear]

For every expert you choose to believe Ed I could probably give you six others that choose to believe differently.

As I said, start with the proven facts and go from there, but you won't even acknowledge them let alone comment on them. I gave you proven facts that anyone who cares, can verify, but as you always do, you simply pass over them and ignore them and continue in your dogged prejudice and keep asking the same dumb questions.

[Katman]

The planes were 767's that hit the towers, and a 757 that hit the Pentagon. Proven by eye-witnesses actually there, like Police, Paramedics and so on! Enough of all the planes survived to prove what they were.

I'm not the one questioning that.

Building 7 was extensively damaged by impact from the falling debris and severe internal fires, FACT, borne out by photo and video and eye-witness accounts.

I don't believe Building 7 was sufficiently damaged by falling debris and localised office fires to cause it to collapse.

[Edbear]

I don't believe Building 7 was sufficiently damaged by falling debris and localised office fires to cause it to collapse.

Well of course you are far more highly qualified to judge, aren't you...

I prefer to believe those who were actually qualified to judge and who clearly and in detail explained why and how.

[Drew]

I can't pick a side to argue for. It's too fuckin funny either way!