Building collapses with NO explosives.

BigAl said:
Fourbrick said:
Maybe it is fake.




A fall from 800 meters is high enough to reach terminal velocity. Adding another 9,100 meters isn't going to increase the speed of impact any.
Click to expand...

Yep. In a flat stable position a skydiver will reach terminal velocity in 12-15 seconds ish. 120 -126 mph. I have personally done 195mph curled into a ball. Quite a rush coming out of that back into a flat position then doing a few somersaults for good measure. Head down can be much faster. If memory serves me correct the world record was set by an american airman called kisinger who went upto 93,000 sat in a chair on a balloon. He released and fell for 4 minutes hitting speeds of 600mph+. I may be a bit sketchy but the figures are about right.

The article presented suggests that this woman was unlikely to have been travelling at such speeds due to the resistance that the equipment around her would have had. Not only would this have slowed her down, she also apparently hit the ground, which was snow, at a sharp angle. Not sure if this actually has any relevence to the arguement raised re 70th floor etc but i would suggest that anyone jumping from the 70th floor without any means to slow themselves down wouldnt stand a chance if hitting a solid concrete surface. Sorry .Horrible thought.

I am aware of skydivers who have had double malfunctions at 2,500 - 4,000ft. Both parachutes have failed to deploy correctly or one has entangled the other and is just a withering 'washing bag' above them. Scary stuff. This has however slowed them enough to actually survive, often with the additional good fortune of hitting trees or buidings which has also cushioned the fall. They are usually in a mess but have survived. No parachute to speak of -then no chance.
Click to expand...
 
Profanz said:
No steel high rise building has ever been completely destroyed because of anything other than explosives. This is just a fact.

This thread can go on forever. Debunkers can throw all kinds of hissy fits forever.

It will never change that fact.
Click to expand...

I'll be awaiting your proof that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were destroying using explosives. Otherwise you're a liar.
 
Profanz said:
I'm talking about factual events that can compare to what is claimed to have happened to the buildings on 9/11 dtugg. Not the religious claims of what happened to the WTC complexes themselves.
Click to expand...

Stop it. Smaller steel-framed buildings have collapsed. It's what they do in unfought fires.

The twoofers have been screaming for years that the dust clouds had to be from explosives. Open your eyes, look at these videos, and tell anyone you hear repeat that dust=pyroclastic flow=explosives BS that they are repeating a stupid error.
 
Profanz said:
That's just it. There is nothing new about it. It just doesn't happen and it never will.
Click to expand...

It happened for the first time on 911. That in itself was something nobody expected. This was the precedence and proved that it could and did happen.

It happened for the second time on 911. This confirmed that it could happen.

If WTC 1 had been hit on Sep 11 2001 and collapsed as it did then WTC 2 was hit on Sep 12 2001 and collapsed as it did then what would you be saying now about it never happenig before.

Two seperate buildings. Two different incidences. Both having the same results. Just because precedence happened on the same day and in the same place doesnt detract from the fact that it happened.

It is your problem that you dont understand or believe that. If you buy books and dvds sold by liars to convince the gullible then that is your problem.
 
Profanz said:
No steel high rise building has ever been completely destroyed because of anything other than explosives. This is just a fact.
Click to expand...

No building taller than 439 feet, of any constuction, had ever been exposively demolished prior to 9/11. WTC 1 and 2 were almost 3 times that height. Therefore WTC 1 and 2 could not have been brought down by explosives. This is a very bad argument, but it uses the principles of reasoning you favor, so it should convince you that the towers were not explosively demolished.
 
Profanz, Scraping the bottom of the incredulity barrel since 2007

Profanz said:
So? Has anyone yet found a steel high rise building that has ever been completely destroyed because of anything other than explosives? Except for 9/11? I wonder if believing in the OCT someday will be a a full fledged religion. The church of OCT. I've often wondered the same thing about Elvis. Elvis could be the new Jesus or Moses in the future. Unless the OCT trumps him.
Click to expand...

I have highlighted and colored the call to perfection coincidental logical fallacies for you. You might as well have said
Has anyone found a cube shaped building that had four different colored sides with a trapezoidal shaped roof bisected on the east with a half basement only under the southern half and a entry facing north that collapsed completely to the ground?
Click to expand...
Because that's exactly how you sound.
 
Last edited:
Jackanory said:
800 metres or 30,000 feet - so what. 800 metres is aprox 1/2 mile high. Thats pretty damn high. I open my parachute at roughly that height and have done thousands of times. I would more than likely die without it. How often have you hung in the air at 1/2 mile. Its a long way up.
Click to expand...

Many hundreds of times. On walls in Yosemite Valley & So. Cal.

Lots of nights, watching the sun go down, beautiful views, 1000' up, havin dinner & settling in for the night on a small ledge. Doesn't get any better than that.

And, if you do make that big mistake, the only difference from 300' to 3,000' (or 30,000') is a few extra seconds of passing scenery.

One of the great stories in So Cal climbing is a climb called Fitschen's Folly at Tahquitz Peak. First Descent by Joe Fitschen, in one crazed uncontrolled fall when he walked off the edge. 170' fall onto high angle slabs of granite, rolled down into razor sharp manzanita, got up & hobbled down the trail. Highly improbable.
 
Profanz said:
So? Has anyone yet found a steel high rise building that has ever been completely destroyed because of anything other than explosives? Except for 9/11? I wonder if believing in the OCT someday will be a a full fledged religion. The church of OCT. I've often wondered the same thing about Elvis. Elvis could be the new Jesus or Moses in the future. Unless the OCT trumps him.
Click to expand...

Using your logic, steel high rise buildings don't exist.
 
Profanz said:
Do you really think that buildings haven't been hit by planes before? What does it matter anyway? What plane hit WTC7? This is what you can't get around. After claiming for years how so unique it was what happened to two different towers on the same day, you then come back with a third collapse for a whole different reason. On the same day no less.

You're a skeptic?
Click to expand...

wtc7 is now the demolition industry standard way of bringing down buildings. Where as in previous years explosives would be set and the building would be destroyed, since 9/11 they discovered you just set a fire and wait a few hours the building will then collapse straight down. It doesn't work all the time mind.

You'd be a fool to think the american government had anything to do with 9/11, after all the american government/military is nothing but a force for good in the world. They've helpfully killed over a million Iraqi's for to bring the people peace,freedom and democracy, that's a nice thing. Afghanistan is now benefiting from the altruistic nature of the american military too. They're so happy that their ancient tribal system is being destroyed so democracy can be installed. At least they're not destroying the poppy crop, them flowers look lovely.They dropped nuclear bombs on Japan killing hundreds of thousands to help end the 2nd world war. They even took on them nice german nazi's after the war to help make them better weapons so they could spread peace and democracy around the world.There is no way the american government could be responsible for anything like 9/11, no siree bob.
 
Profanz said:
Do you really think that buildings haven't been hit by planes before?
Click to expand...

Well, DUH! Every building that has been hit by anything larger than a B-25 has collapsed. What's your point?

What plane hit WTC7? This is what you can't get around.
Click to expand...

Nor would we want to. We are quite willing to embrace it. WTC 7 was, in fact, hit by something else capable of doing even more serious damage in a small area. The surprize is that it stood for so long with all those very hot fire inside.After [/QUOTE]
 
Profanz said:
Let's really frame it correctly according to the debunkers. It needs to be a fully fueled and loaded jet going 500 miles an hour. It can't just be one that is only lost in a fog looking to land with hardly any fuel in it. Because that's what the buildings were designed to take. Right? Remember that bull crap?

Because when NIST came out with the WTC7 report none of that crap seemed to matter anymore. Thermal expansion. Right?

What's next?
Click to expand...

So what is your counter theory? That explosives were planted on pretty much EVERY SINGLE FLOOR of ALL THREE Towers.. For the twin towers, that would be enough explosives to blow out virtually every floor in a timed sequence. That's talking hundreds of square feet that has to be blown out on each floor (since we saw it being "projected outward by explosives" :rolleyes: )

Why do you believe a "controlled demolition" was the cause? I'm pretty certain there has never been a controlled demolition of towers of this magnitude before.. Therefore it's not possible - (once again, according to your logic).
 
Last edited:
BobHaulk said:
wtc7 is now the demolition industry standard way of bringing down buildings. Where as in previous years explosives would be set and the building would be destroyed, since 9/11 they discovered you just set a fire and wait a few hours the building will then collapse straight down. It doesn't work all the time mind.
Click to expand...

Yes. For instance, it didn't work with WTC7, since the buildings around it were heavily damaged by the collapse. This is not a "controlled" demolition by any stretch.
 
aggle-rithm said:
I don't think anyone doubts that they COULD HAVE carried out an act like 9/11. The question is, could they have done it without anyone finding out for eight years, (no) and could they have done it in the manner consistent with all the mechanisms (such as controlled demolition) claimed by truthers (again, no).
Click to expand...

Obviously, people found out. Hell, there are even forums where people spend hundreds of thousands of posts discussing every minute detail.

And why couldn't they have done it with CD, causing collapses similar to those observed on 9/11?
 
RedIbis said:
Obviously, people found out. Hell, there are even forums where people spend hundreds of thousands of posts discussing every minute detail.

And why couldn't they have done it with CD, causing collapses similar to those observed on 9/11?
Click to expand...

Because:

1. Hush-a-Booms™ don't exist. Even for DARPA & the US DoD.

2. Because steel columns are inanimate objects. And you just cannot coax columns that have been blown apart, melted, thermited, termited, or hack-sawed to reassemble themselves into whole complete columns as they lay in the pile.

Tom
 
RedIbis said:
Obviously, people found out. Hell, there are even forums where people spend hundreds of thousands of posts discussing every minute detail.

And why couldn't they have done it with CD, causing collapses similar to those observed on 9/11?
Click to expand...

Because it had never been done before ever in the history of the world.
 
KISS rule? I don't think so.

as far as Truthers and all other CTists go, the more complicated and outlandish the plot, the more likely it is to be true.
 
RedIbis said:
Obviously, people found out. Hell, there are even forums where people spend hundreds of thousands of posts discussing every minute detail.

And why couldn't they have done it with CD, causing collapses similar to those observed on 9/11?
Click to expand...

Tell us how. Don't leave out any details.

Remember, don't multiply entities beyond necessity. Without explosives you have a plane crash, a burning building, and a collapse. With explosives, you have all those, PLUS a mechanism for demolishing the building that could survive the crash and fire, the hundreds of people it would take to plant the explosives, the new technologies required to hide them and make them silent, the apparently ruthless measures required to keep the demolition experts from talking, the people who ordered the ruthless measures, the people who ordered the planting of explosives, the....

Well, you get the picture.
 
RedIbis said:
Obviously, people found out. Hell, there are even forums where people spend hundreds of thousands of posts discussing every minute detail.

And why couldn't they have done it with CD, causing collapses similar to those observed on 9/11?
Click to expand...

other than all of the ways in which it doesn't resemble CD, there is absolutely no reason they couldn't do it.

I mean if this big bad conspiracy is willing to kill 3,000 people for ... ... ... ??? something (usually listed as an excuse to make war, to make money, to grab our rights, becaue they didn't eat enough pizza as kids, because they at too much pizza as a kid), one would then expect them to be willing to blow up a building that was empty and on fire.

Other than the fact that no explosions capable of cutting steel beams were recorded on ANY vide. Other than no steel showed signs of explosive demolitions. Other than the fact that the building was on fire....

other than for those facts... it is just like CD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom