View Single Post
ry_goody
 
ry_goody's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
It collapsed for completely different reasons. My initial point was that you are trying to compare a unique collapse event to those which have come before and there is nothing even close to the events of 9/11 in recorded history making any comparison of preceeding events almost meaningless. Still I was able to find two instances of building collapse and the aftermath does look like a demolition because fallen and destroyed buildings look like fallen and destroyed buildings...

The Sampoong Store collapse would be an example of controlled demo gone wrong if it had been a controlled demo.

One was a five story mall that collapsed due to shoddy construction and building practices and the other was a modern 110 story steel framed building that collapsed from being hit by an airliner and the resulting damage and fire. Again the point here is that there are no comparable events to 9/11 to draw conclusive arguments from about what buildings do or don't do when suffering unprecedented catastrophic failures from unprecedented initiating factors.


That point is completely mute because the collapse wasn't unique.

You seem to be implying that WTC 7 collapsed in some completely radically new way in which you can draw no correlations to anything else. But this isn't true.

While, there are no correlations to buildings that collapsed of natural means.

There is quite the correlation to buildings that collapsed by controlled demolition.

Many correlaitons can be made to controlled demolitions
NOT MANY CAN BE MADE TO NON-CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS
THIS IS NOT A COINCIDENCE

I am not gonna just cover up the single most obvious observation of this entire thing with WHOOPS COINCIDENCE

WHOOPS THIS ONE BUILDING COLLAPSED OVER HERE JUST like controlled demolition BUT ITS COINIDENCE

ALL COINCIDENCE

This ONE building in the history of mankind just COINCIDENTALLY fell JUST LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. But that means its not a controlled demolition. Lets ignore our own eyes, our own observation, and instead replace that with a bunch of government mandated reports. Thats the way to truth.

And it's just so convienent that this one concidence nicely reinforces and goes directly with the agenda of the american government. WHAT A NICE CONVIENENT COINCIDENCE FOR THEM, ITS SO CONVIENENT NOT EVEN GOD COULD OF ARRANGE A BETTER COINCIDENCE.

And no your sampoong store does not count. Because

a) there is no video of the collapse, how do you know it didn't collapse in some sequential manner?
and b) http://www.pyramid-tech.net/images/g...g_Collapse.jpg THE ENTIRE THING DIDN"T COLLAPSE
Your sampoong demonstrates exactly the point I'm making that buildings don't completely evenly collapse, all the way across, all at once, just like a controlled demolition, UNLESS ITS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

and I don't want to touch the main towers argument.
I know your tactic is to attempt introduce so many elements and variables and whatnot to cloud and confuse the thing to the point where you just gotta say 'i dunno I'll believe whatever" and then in swoops the most prestigious sounding, politically correct report to swoon all the followers. But I'm not walking into that. My point remains simple.

Your assertion would make WTC 7 the only building to collapse exactly like a controlled demolition, but not be a controlled demolition.

hurr coincidence


Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
Yes, I have read all the NIST/ASCE/ETC reports on the matter.

The same thing that happened in the south tower collapse happened here. You don't need to weaken or even destroy all of a buildings support structure to have it fail like WTC7 did. When one part of a building of that size starts to fail it creates a cascade of failure as adjacent members to the ones that failed are overcome with the increased force from the loss of support from the failing members.

Have you ever formed a human pyramid? When one person on the bottom gives way due to the stress of the weight of the people above the increased strain of trying to hold the load coupled with the failing sections of the structure causes pretty much everyone else to fail/fall as well.

you assume.

this video demonstrates right here that it is a very possible for a building to tip over
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1X8j...eature=related

I mean were dealing with steel collumns here, not ice collumns. The collumns aren't just gonna snap at a certain bend point. They'll be able to uphold some structural integrity causing some tipping to occur.

Now I'm not saying I'm expecting WTC 7 to tip over. I'm just saying, I'm expecting it to not look just like a controlled demolition.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
See my picture of the south tower and its lean angle upon failure. That is, as I explained, indicative of a progressive cascading failure. One section lost integrity and as the rest of the building attempted to compensate, eventually the forces were too much and there was nothing else that could possibly happen but total and complete failure of the structure once that process was initiated. Buildings are not built with the idea in mind that some day part of the structure might have to arrest the catastrophic failure of the rest of the building above that point. And it is questionable whether skyscrapers, who's purpose is to maximize floor space in the smallest amount of base square footage, could even be built in such a way to make this possible.

Also, If the building had been explosively demolished with precise timing to cause a simultaneous failure across its entire square footage then there would have been no lean angle at all. The top would have moved straight downward into the floors below initiating the catastrophic failure of the remainder of the building. Of course you can time explosives to create lean angles but then we are back to the fact that there is no sound of high explosive cutting charges on any recording of any building failure from that day. This would seem to rule out the use of explosives completely.

there is lean apparant in controlled demolitions, while the explosives could be in perfect timing, there is still some additional resistance that might cause one side to fall quicker than another.

I mean it's apparant in the controlled demolition of the video I keep posting
http://www4.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/1...p?i=23&lores=1
The second building it shows collapse starts leaning on it's fall.

And notice WTC 7 is actually collapsing more perfectly than the second controlled demolition?


Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
And really this argument is somewhat silly because it hinges on the idea that if you smash a building into the ground floor through controlled demolition that you will get a substantially different result than if a building comes down through a progressive cascading failure. The acceleration due to gravity is exactly the same regardless of the initiating factor. Smashed concrete, glass and steel all look pretty much the same after the fact. The only difference in result between a controlled demo and the aftermath of a catastrophic cascading failure is the spread of the debris pile. In a controlled demo the building breaks up upon impact with the ground floor and any debris piled up there already. In the WTC towers the failure occurred further up and the upper floors of the building were smashed against the remaining, undamaged structure below starting above the midpoint of the buildings resulting in a much more chaotic event and a much more dispersed debris pile.


The physics of trying to arrest the weight of a section of 30 stories or so of building with 70 stories or so of building made of the exact same strength dictate that this is so. Once a collapse has been initiated, the initial reason for the collapse is somewhat of a moot point. You still get a collapse...

the main towers are completely a different subject in themselves and one I honestly don't care to get into

all I want is WTC 7


Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
Correct, I understand this fact even better than many but in this instance I still do not think the government is actively complicit in the destruction of the towers. If they had any foreknowledge or involvement of any kind I believe it is far more plausible that they merely allowed the attacks to be carried out as they were planned without interceding as they should have or with the full force they could have.

well the exact specifics of any conspiracy i really don't know

I mean it could be possible that absolutely no government agency knew of anything and it was completely done by private parties

Like I've said before, I don't want to get into conspiracy theory, I don't even know the slightest bit of details about any of it. I havent even watched farenheit 911 or any of those other 911 documentaries through. I don't know anything about any of the conspiracy theory. All I'm saying...the similarity is striking and I don't like coincidence.
__________________
SOMEONE ELSE GAVE ME THIS AVATAR
Old 06-14-2009, 11:14 PM ry_goody is offline  
Reply With Quote
#133