9/11: Is this photo consistent with a progressive collapse?

[lee h oswald]

Here's a picture of the North Tower going down. Would anyone care to say that this looks like a 'progressive collapse'?

Right. Let's remember this thread was actually started by Mick, let's be charitable and say 'on my behalf', but really just because he didn't want to talk about the other subject; the thread for which he closed without good reason (other than he felt like it). Let's leave aside some of the ludicrous claims about Iran and 'al-qaeda' - an organization made up by the FBI back in the nineties in order that they might prosecute bin Laden in absentia, using existing laws created to deal wth the mafia. You see, they required an organization with a command structure in order to do that - without it, new laws would have had to be drafted and that didn't suit - much easier just to make it up. 'Al-qaida' was 'born' out of the database (and the fertile imagination of some establishment people) of Mujahadeen trained and funded by the CIA, MI6 and ISI during the Russian episode in Afghanistan. There's abundant evidence to back this claim, so get to work and try to stop being blinded by the bullshit spun at you. If all you want is to cling to the paradigm you desire to be real, then don't bother getting to work. All of you appear to be quite happy being on a war footing. Them against us. It's ok that the US and UK go about the world arming people and then killing them if they don't do what they're told - ie. give us your resources so we can maintain a better standard of living at your expense. I've really no time for people like you. You simply have no idea, and worse, you don't really want to see the reality of it. Suffering of others for your benefit is ok with you lot so long as it is at a remove in distance and culture and it doesn't affect your 'cost of living'. To conclude: Some posters here are so blinded by the propaganda they will seize upon any old bullshit and present it as fact - then, when Meta Mick holds forth, they flip and acquiesce to his view all of a sudden.

On to this photo: Let's have a look at the arrow pointing to the steel being thrown through the air. Follow the arrow line to the opposite end of the pointy bit and then, at around 9.30 to that point you will see another piece of steel, much higher than the ones the arrow points to. Another reference point to this is the top of the building - find the top of the building and go about one and a quarter inches to the right and fractionally higher: there is the steel I am discussing. Now, let's take Mick's analogy of a car driving through people spaced ten feet apart (it's a ridiculous analogy as the material involved doesn't bear comparison to the actual ones, but hey-ho, let's go with it anyway). Given that the main body of the top part of the building is below this errant piece of steel, what could we conclude from this? That the large part of the building is accelerating faster than this piece of steel detached and presumably in freefall. Presumably Mick will come up with some nonsense about 'bouncing' steel beams, but what did it bounce off, Mick? Did it bounce up? This picture asks us to believe that a mass trying to break through a greater mass below it is moving faster than a piece of steel in freefall. When are you people going to stop deluding yourselves?

 

[Mick West]

It bounced off the uncollapsed portion of the building.

Consider for a second what would happen to a 10 foot long girder, dropped from say 200 feet (which is a lot, go find a 200 foot building and look up at it). The girder falls, it hits the uncollapsed portion of the building, say it impacts some other, fixed, girders, at 45 degrees. It's velocity is translated (it bounces), and now it's not falling with the rest of the building any more.

Smaller building show exactly the same behavior, you should review PCWilliam's excellent Verinage compilation:

​




Why would explosives be used, if progressive collapse looks identical?

 

[lee h oswald]

It bounced off the uncollapsed portion of the building. Consider for a second what would happen to a 10 foot long girder, dropped from say 200 feet (which is a lot, go find a 200 foot building and look up at it). The girder falls, it hits the uncollapsed portion of the building, say it impacts some other, fixed, girders, at 45 degrees. It's velocity is translated (it bounces), and now it's not falling with the rest of the building any more. Smaller building show exactly the same behavior, you should review PCWilliam's excellent Verinage compilation: Why would explosives be used, if progressive collapse looks identical?

Show me a banana and tell me it's a gooseberry. Sorry to say, but I actually find this quite disturbing. Perhaps, I can try to point out a few things. Every single building colllapse demonstration you have presented as your evidence for the towers being an inevitable collapse caused by the conditions we are told occurred are videos and pictures of controlled demolitions. A controlled demolition by Verinage, or any other (non-explosives or explosives based) hydraulic method, is by its own definition the deliberate destruction of a structure. You are saying that these videos represent accurately what we saw with the towers destruction; Ergo, the evidence you present in this respect actually refutes your central point of agreement with the official lie. I dispute your clear assertion that these videos, and indeed the buildings they depict, bear any resemblance to the towers. The construction of these buildings is in no way comparable to that of the towers; frankly, it's smoke and mirrors - show me a picture from one of your Verinage demolitions showing a large steel girder/joist bouncing off anything, show me a picture of a large steel beam bouncing higher than the top of the building being demolished. I look forward to that. You also assert that, by sticking to the official lie of the day, you believe the progressive collapse theory as presented, ie. that the (smaller) upper portion of the building became detached and crushed down onto the structure below causing total destruction in both cases, almost identically even though the damage was unique to each structure. You agree that the lighter, less structurally robust part of each building crushed the larger, stronger, undamaged parts of those enormous buildings in their entirety before being destroyed itself - in both cases exactly the same. Most difficult to understand is that these videos should be used to represent a large part of the evidence you offer, but they only need be looked at once and it can be seen that there is no comparison - again, either in the structures or in the nature of their destruction. What gives you the idea they look the same? Because they are buildings and they are being deliberatley collapsed by some mechanical means? That's what your evidence here strongly implies; and I agree with you there.

 

[Mick West]

Verinage simply shows that if one floor fails, then the building collapses. The block of upper floors crushes the lower floors one at a time. It's exactly the same kind of progressive collapse in the Verinage demolitions as in in the WTC 1&2 collapses.

If all these buildings collapse the same way, then what's so improbably about WTC 1&2 collapsing in the same way?

 

[scombrid]

It is a demonstration of progressive and complete collapse following the failure of a single intermediate floor. It's fairly straight forward. I also notice bits (large pieces of exterior walls and whatnot) being flung laterally such that if you freeze the videos mid collapse the bit being flung off the side appears to be falling slower then the central mass. Looks like a useful illustration to me.

show me a picture of a large steel beam bouncing higher than the top of the building being demolished.

Bouncing higher than the top of the building collapsing? You've seen that in footage and photos of the WTC collapse? Really? That's odd, I don't see that in any video or the photos in this thread.

 

[lee h oswald]

Verinage simply shows that if one floor fails, then the building collapses. The block of upper floors crushes the lower floors one at a time. It's exactly the same kind of progressive collapse in the Verinage demolitions as in in the WTC 1&2 collapses. If all these buildings collapse the same way, then what's so improbably about WTC 1&2 collapsing in the same way?

You seem to have missed the point. Here it is again: you've used Verinage as an example of a similar collapse to wtc. But Verinage is a controlled demolition, yet you claim the towers are not. That is not logical.

You seem to be forgetting that if, as you say, the block of upper floors crushes the larger, stronger, undamaged lower floors one at a time, then the same is true of the upper block, no? So, for every floor crushed by the upper block falling, a floor in the upper block would also be crushed. Equal and opposite reaction, yes? If Isaac's right then we need to know what happened to the rest of the building, don't we? Did it spontaneously self-destruct out of sympathy with the upper portion?

It is categorically NOT 'the same kind of progressive collapse' as the wtc. The structures do not bear comparison, as you well know.

You are using comparisons to mechanically engineered demolition to prove that the wtc collapses were not mechanically engineered, yet they look identical according to you (even though they don't look identical!). I think your reasoning is seriously flawed

 

[Mick West]

You seem to have missed the point. Here it is again: you've used Verinage as an example of a similar collapse to wtc. But Verinage is a controlled demolition, yet you claim the towers are not. That is not logical.

I'm saying that the collapse of the towers looks like a progressive collapse. The cause of that progressive collapse was most likely the plane impact and the fires. What are you saying?

You seem to be forgetting that if, as you say, the block of upper floors crushes the larger, stronger, undamaged lower floors one at a time, then the same is true of the upper block, no? So, for every floor crushed by the upper block falling, a floor in the upper block would also be crushed. Equal and opposite reaction, yes? If Isaac's right then we need to know what happened to the rest of the building, don't we? Did it spontaneously self-destruct out of sympathy with the upper portion?

I think you forget gravity. Once a floor fails, it falls down, not up.

It is categorically NOT 'the same kind of progressive collapse' as the wtc. The structures do not bear comparison, as you well know.

You are using comparisons to mechanically engineered demolition to prove that the wtc collapses were not mechanically engineered, yet they look identical according to you (even though they don't look identical!). I think your reasoning is seriously flawed

No, I'm using it to show you don't need to plant explosives on every floor in order to bring a building down. I'm debunking that particular theory - controlled demolition with explosives on multiple floors.

Verinage (and simple physics really) shows that all that is need is for one floor to fail, and the building will collapse.

Now if you want to posit a theory where the towers were destroyed by Verinage after the planes flew into them, then go ahead.

 

[lee h oswald]

It is a demonstration of progressive and complete collapse following the failure of a single intermediate floor. It's fairly straight forward. I also notice bits (large pieces of exterior walls and whatnot) being flung laterally such that if you freeze the videos mid collapse the bit being flung off the side appears to be falling slower then the central mass. Looks like a useful illustration to me. Bouncing higher than the top of the building collapsing? You've seen that in footage and photos of the WTC collapse? Really? That's odd, I don't see that in any video or the photos in this thread.

Yes!! Really!! Try looking at what you're posting on - it's a quite large picture, right at the top of the page and it's what we're all talking about - you?

 

[scombrid]

Yes!! Really!! Try looking at what you're posting on - it's a quite large picture, right at the top of the page and it's what we're all talking about - you?

There are no anythings bounced above the top of the building in the photo at the top of the page. I see stuff out to the side that is falling with the building. The space that once marked the top of the building is occupied by dust in that photo which indicates that it is well on into the collapse. In videos the bigger bits in air out to the side looks like it was flung that way by momentum transfer as the building collapsed.

 

[scombrid]

a floor in the upper block would also be crushed.

And its mass continues being dragged towards earth by gravity with the mass of the floor that just got crushed and all the other crushed floors added to it on to the next floor and the next as the mass of the falling bits gets bigger and bigger with each progressive floor failure.

 

[Mick West]

 

[Mick West]

Here's something to ponder Lee. Why is it that in all the videos, nothing other than dust is ever seen moving upwards? It's all just falling, down, and bouncing off to the sides.

 

[Mick West]

I made a video showing where this particular girder comes from:

​

 

[lee h oswald]

I'm saying that the collapse of the towers looks like a progressive collapse. The cause of that progressive collapse was most likely the plane impact and the fires. What are you saying? I think you forget gravity. Once a floor fails, it falls down, not up. No, I'm using it to show you don't need to plant explosives on every floor in order to bring a building down. I'm debunking that particular theory - controlled demolition with explosives on multiple floors. Verinage (and simple physics really) shows that all that is need is for one floor to fail, and the building will collapse. Now if you want to posit a theory where the towers were destroyed by Verinage after the planes flew into them, then go ahead.

Ooh, what a little wasp's nest....

So, you've changed your answer from your original: It bounced off the uncollapsed portion of the building. Yes? Why? Because you now realise what a ridiculous statement that is and will be seen to be by anyone reading this? But now you say this (it's good you are actually able to change your mind, I guess): I'm saying that the collapse of the towers looks like a progressive collapse. The cause of that progressive collapse was most likely the plane impact and the fires. What are you saying? What am I saying? I'm saying that your reasoning is seriously flawed.
Using examples of controlled demolition by mechanical means, saying it looks exactly like the towers destruction, but then saying that it's just an example of 'progressive collapse'. The fact of the matter is that you can't present one single example of a building suffering a 'progressive collapse' other than mechanically forced demolition. Therefore the evidence you are presenting backs the case for controlled demolition. You neatly avoid this next point by simply ignoring it: If the floors in the falling upper block are crushing 'one floor at a time' the larger, more robust, undamaged structure below, then for each floor crushed by the upper block a floor in the upper block would also be crushed. This means that the mass of the falling upper block was being reduced in mass by the ratio (in floors) of 1:1, ie. one floor per floor crushed below. I do hope you're not going to be foolish and tell us all again that Newton's third law action = negative reaction doesn't apply in this case, as it clearly does. Given the bountiful visual evidence which shows very clearly large sections of the structure being turned to relatively very small pieces and ejected laterally then what sufficient mass remained to crush the rest of the building after all the falling upper block floors had been crushed by the structure below?

You also ignore that these buildings are not constructed in the same way as the towers - therefore all evidence you present of these Verinage demolitions is not relevant to the towers, is it?
You'll say: I'm using it to show you don't need to plant explosives on every floor in order to bring a building down. I'm debunking that particular theory - controlled demolition with explosives on multiple floors. Verinage (and simple physics really) shows that all that is need is for one floor to fail, and the building will collapse.
Where exactly is this theory you say you've 'debunked', the theory you claim which says you don't need to plant explosives on every floor in order to bring a building down - that theory....whose theory is that? Who claims that in order to bring a building down you must plant explosives on every floor? I can tell you the answer to that one - There is no such theory - well done, you've 'debunked' a theory which does not exist except that you made it up.

Verinage (and simple physics really) shows that all that is need is for one floor to fail, and the building will collapse. Oh really? I disagree wholeheartedly: Verinage is a means of mechanical destruction used on structures of a certain construction; it is carefully planned and executed by a team of experts so as to achieve the desired result - complete demolition. The collapsing of the floor is done mechanically and with split second precision to ensure the desired result - not by assymetric accident. Your argument is wafer thin and just as see-through. Given that you likely do understand Newton's third law, it is disturbing that you can still make these ludicrous claims and actually take them seriously yourself.

Finally - you say that these Verinage demolitions look exactly like the towers destruction - I disagree, I say they look nothing like it. Describe what exactly makes you say that; show us where they look exactly the same. I reckon you can't because they don't. It's not even required to know any simple physics for this exercise, just some very simple observation and comparison of what you present in pictures and how you contradict it with your words, presumably hoping no-one will notice the two bear no relation to each other.

 

[Mick West]

So, you've changed your answer from your original: It bounced off the uncollapsed portion of the building. Yes?

No. That was an explanation of what the girder bounced off.

Why? Because you now realise what a ridiculous statement that is and will be seen to be by anyone reading this? But now you say this (it's good you are actually able to change your mind, I guess): I'm saying that the collapse of the towers looks like a progressive collapse. The cause of that progressive collapse was most likely the plane impact and the fires. What are you saying? What am I saying? I'm saying that your reasoning is seriously flawed.
Using examples of controlled demolition by mechanical means, saying it looks exactly like the towers destruction, but then saying that it's just an example of 'progressive collapse'. The fact of the matter is that you can't present one single example of a building suffering a 'progressive collapse' other than mechanically forced demolition. Therefore the evidence you are presenting backs the case for controlled demolition.

It backs the case for one floor failing, and that causing the progressive collapse of the building, which is how Verinage works. This was just a rather more extreme and chaotic example.

You neatly avoid this next point by simply ignoring it: If the floors in the falling upper block are crushing 'one floor at a time' the larger, more robust, undamaged structure below, then for each floor crushed by the upper block a floor in the upper block would also be crushed. This means that the mass of the falling upper block was being reduced in mass by the ratio (in floors) of 1:1, ie. one floor per floor crushed below. I do hope you're not going to be foolish and tell us all again that Newton's third law action = negative reaction doesn't apply in this case, as it clearly does. Given the bountiful visual evidence which shows very clearly large sections of the structure being turned to relatively very small pieces and ejected laterally then what sufficient mass remained to crush the rest of the building after all the falling upper block floors had been crushed by the structure below?

I'm sorry but that's just nonsense. The mass of the upper floors is not "destroyed". It's still there. It gets bigger with each new floor it accumulates as it falls. The failure of a floor does not make that floor vanish, it frees it from the support of the lower part of the building, and then falls on it, and the process repeats. The mass of the building that is falling gets bigger and bigger, so the relative acceleration will (if anything) increase slightly.

Think about it. Please. It's just physics.

​

 

[lee h oswald]

And its mass continues being dragged towards earth by gravity with the mass of the floor that just got crushed and all the other crushed floors added to it on to the next floor and the next as the mass of the falling bits gets bigger and bigger with each progressive floor failure.

...dragged towards earth by gravity with the mass of the floor that just got crushed and all the other crushed floors added to it on to the next floor and the next as the mass of the falling bits gets bigger and bigger...Ok, if that's what you really think, then show me the pictures of all these masses of floors collected together at the foot of the buildings after they had collapsed. If what you say happened did happen then show me the pictures. You can't, there aren't any. What are you to say? That this great accumulated mass you speak of just disappeared when it reached the ground? There wasn't a lot left considering 110 acres (440,000 square metres) of 100mm thick r/c floors plus 110 acres of steel decking per tower, plus 80,000 tons of structural steel per building. Show me the pictures of all this mass of floors left at the base of the towers after destruction. That is exactly what you would expect to find after a collapse: large sections of intact floors, desks, screens, plasterboard, carpet....a massive pile of debris....where is it? Where are the pictures showing this? There aren't any because there was no such rubble pile, lots of molten metal and dust and sheared steel columns. It's clear to anyone with an ounce of sense that these buildings were destroyed by an explosive event, and not by collapse.
Also, there is something of a contradiction in your description: what do you mean by 'crushed'? crushed into a denser mass, seems to be what you are implying...try looking at the pictures and video of the structural elements being systematically dissociated from the structure as it was. The fact of huge amounts of crushed concrete and sheared steel flying through the air says that the mass was being significantly spread and therefore reduced, not accumulated - how do you square that? Sorry, but your analysis is just badly wrong.

 

[Mick West]

The piles of rubble left after verinage demolition look like the pile of rubble left by the WTC collapse.

 

[lee h oswald]

I disagree. But what you are saying is that the result of the towers after collapse looked just like a controlled demolition, right.

It's you who needs to think about this. You cannot provide an example of a 'progressive collapse' without it being a controlled demolition. Show me otherwise. Show me where the Verinage and the towers are exactly the same. The buildings you use as an example are in no way comparable to the towers - how many times does it need to be pointed out? Do you need me to explain the difference? The only similarity is that the towers were also destroyed by some mechanical means - in that respect you're almost right.

And I refer you to the above post - if the upper floors are accumulating mass then where is it after all is said and done? Where are the massive debris piles of intact floors?

And you've avoided this? Where exactly is this theory you say you've 'debunked', the theory you claim to have debunked by saying you don't need to plant explosives on every floor in order to bring a building down - that theory....whose theory is that? Who claims that in order to bring a building down you must plant explosives on every floor? I can tell you the answer to that one - There is no such theory - well done, you've 'debunked' a theory which does not exist except that you made it up. Please tell me who holds forth on this 'theory' - apart from you

 

[scombrid]

That is exactly what you would expect to find after a collapse: large sections of intact floors, desks, screens, plasterboard, carpet....a massive pile of debris....where is it? Where are the pictures showing this?

I wouldn't expect much intact stuff. I would expect a massive rubble pile as was observed.

There aren't any because there was no such rubble pile,

Yes there was.

lots of molten metal

Not really.

It's clear to anyone with an ounce of sense that these buildings were destroyed by an explosive event,

I thought the general truther argument was that it couldn't have been an accidental collapse because the buildings collapsed too neatly into their own footprint.

The fact of huge amounts of crushed concrete and sheared steel flying through the air says that the mass was being significantly spread and therefore reduced, not accumulated - how do you square that? Sorry, but your analysis is just badly wrong.

Can you quantify the mass of material "being significantly spread"? It does not appear to constitute the majority of the mass of falling material.

Maybe you can measure the horizontal velocity of some "suspect" objects and see if it is more likely from momentum transfer or is the result of an explosion. With an explosion you should be able to measure velocities of fairly large objects moving up and away from the building at speed far in excess of the falling building.

 

[scombrid]

if the upper floors are accumulating mass then where is it after all is said and done? Where are the massive debris piles of intact floors?

Why would the floors need to remain intact in order for each new broken floor to be added to the mass of falling material. The mass of falling material is the sum of all the pieces. The pile was quite large and not some melty puddle of molten metal and dust.

 

[lee h oswald]

And again: You say that these Verinage demolitions look exactly like the towers destruction - I disagree, I say they look nothing like it. Describe what exactly makes you say that; show us where they look exactly the same. I reckon you can't because they don't.

Come on - show us where they are exactly the same.....

 

[lee h oswald]

Why would the floors need to remain intact in order for each new broken floor to be added to the mass of falling material. The mass of falling material is the sum of all the pieces. The pile was quite large and not some melty puddle of molten metal and dust.

Where is your evidence for this quite large pile? In your imagination? I'm still waiting for your photographic evidence, but won't hold my breath, eh?

 

[lee h oswald]

Why would the floors need to remain intact in order for each new broken floor to be added to the mass of falling material. The mass of falling material is the sum of all the pieces. The pile was quite large and not some melty puddle of molten metal and dust.

What caused the material structure of the buildings to dissociate completely? Pile up one hundred and ten concrete slabs 2ft x 2ft with two bricks between each slab all around the perimeter, set up a system that pulls out one floor's set of bricks and see what happens - what do you think happens? That every single slab is completely turned to dust as the others above tumble on top of the structure below? Show me the evidence of a non-explosive collapse - there's plenty of pictures available, and the fact is you can't offer any photographic evidence because there isn't any to back your claim. what happened to 880,000 square metres of 4 inch thick reinforced concrete floors? Where is it? You think it was crushed? Where is the mass which you say 'crushed' the building? If what you say is correct, then show me the evidence.

 

[Mick West]

So you think that every square foot of the WTC was rigged with explosives?

 

[lee h oswald]

No. I do not think that every square foot of the WTC was rigged with explosives.

Now why don't you answer some of my questions?

Where exactly is this theory you say you've 'debunked', the theory you claim to have debunked by saying you don't need to plant explosives on every floor in order to bring a building down - that theory....whose theory is that? Who claims that in order to bring a building down you must plant explosives on every floor? I can tell you the answer to that one - There is no such theory - well done, you've 'debunked' a theory which does not exist except that you made it up. Please tell me who holds forth on this 'theory' - apart from you?

And: where exactly are these Verinage demolitions exactly the same as the towers? as you have claimed they are.

You are claiming to understand what happened and are putting forward what you apparently think is a reasonable explanation for the same. I am showing that you do not know what happened. I have never claimed to be in possession of the facts of what happened, on the contrary, I have always said when asked, that I do not know what happened. You have a belief in the official narrative and you're sticking to it; I think there's a serious flaw in that analysis.
Now how about you answer those questions so anyone reading this might have a better understanding of this position of yours - of which you appear to be so sure.

 

[Mick West]

Maybe we need to figure out what your theory is exactly, so I don't debunk the wrong one.

You say:

these buildings were destroyed by an explosive event, and not by collapse.

So is that the theory? Could you clarify what you mean by it? Was there just ONE explosive event? Or lots? Where were they?

 

[lee h oswald]

I wouldn't expect much intact stuff. I would expect a massive rubble pile as was observed.



Yes there was.



Not really.



I thought the general truther argument was that it couldn't have been an accidental collapse because the buildings collapsed too neatly into their own footprint.



Can you quantify the mass of material "being significantly spread"? It does not appear to constitute the majority of the mass of falling material.

Maybe you can measure the horizontal velocity of some "suspect" objects and see if it is more likely from momentum transfer or is the result of an explosion. With an explosion you should be able to measure velocities of fairly large objects moving up and away from the building at speed far in excess of the falling building.

And here's another one seems so sure of what happened. Still waiting for those photos of the 'quite large' debris pile, whatever that means.

Is this your argument? Can you quantify the mass of material "being significantly spread"? It's a stupid question, and the wrong question and obviously the answer is 'No'. Here's another question with the same answer...Can you quantify the mass of crushing material you appear to cite as being the reason for the complete destruction of both buildings in exactly the same fashion even though the damage was unique to each structure?

Your argument is feeble, if not facile - until I see some evidence of this massive debris pile you say there was....still waiting for those previously unseen photographs...tell me, just where did all the mass go? Show me the pictures....I can wait

if you want we can do some calculations to tell you just how many cubic metres of material there was in those buildings, it's a simple calculation - where did it go? Either it accumulated into one mass and crushed itself, or it was turned, in large part, to dust. Now, what does the available evidence tell us? And what would be the most likely cause of such an event?
I don't expect a rational answer, by the way.

 

[Mick West]

Please do the calculations.

Make sure you account for lateral spread, and subterranean floors.

Here's a useful reference site

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM

 

[lee h oswald]

I'll wait until you've answered my questions before answering any more of yours, thanks all the same.

here's a reminder: you said this in post 47: No, I'm using it to show you don't need to plant explosives on every floor in order to bring a building down. I'm debunking that particular theory - controlled demolition with explosives on multiple floors.

What particular theory is that? Who promotes it and where have you 'debunked' it?

And you said in the same post: I'm saying that the collapse of the towers looks like a progressive collapse

Ok. Now show me an example of 'progressive collapse' which is not a controlled demolition.

And you say: Verinage (and simple physics really) shows that all that is need is for one floor to fail, and the building will collapse.

You are wrong. Verinage is a split second, carefully planned and executed method of deliberately failing all of one floor simultaneously in order to produce a vertical collapse. It's intentional, it's engineered, it's done by experts. It does not follow by any stretch of anyone's imagination that the floor failures in not one but both of the towers would be universal and timed to perfection in order to collapse the buildings by chance. Oh the irony. Your evidence supports the controlled demolition theory quit well actually.

Anyway, stop ignoring, answer the questions, like I answer yours

 

[Mick West]

here's a reminder: you said this in post 47: No, I'm using it to show you don't need to plant explosives on every floor in order to bring a building down. I'm debunking that particular theory - controlled demolition with explosives on multiple floors.

What particular theory is that? Who promotes it and where have you 'debunked' it?

It's your theory. You said:

these buildings were destroyed by an explosive event, and not by collapse.

I've debunked it by showing a building can be destroyed by collapse, as in verinage.

 

[lee h oswald]

Maybe we need to figure out what your theory is exactly, so I don't debunk the wrong one.

You say:



So is that the theory? Could you clarify what you mean by it? Was there just ONE explosive event? Or lots? Where were they?[/COLOR]

As if it's not clear enough.

Let me clarify once and for all. I do not have a theory - I do not claim to have a belief in what happened that day - I say: I don't know what happened that day. You, however, have a belief. You, however, hold forth on this subject with great belief in the authority of what you are saying. Any theory I might have only goes as far as pointing out the flaws and poor deduction/analyses going along in your pronouncements - the theory is all yours and it's so biased it's ridiculous. The fact that the most obvious means of destroying buildings such as the towers - explosives - was never even investigated says it all. You'll come up with all kinds of absurd defence for this position, when there is no excuse for it; but all that will do is make it clearer that your position is not realistic, untenable and false.

Is that clear enough?

 

[lee h oswald]

It's your theory. You said:



I've debunked it by showing a building can be destroyed by collapse, as in verinage.

My theory? Was it? Really? Another good example of your bias and mindset - where did I say that a building could not be destroyed by anything other than explosives? Find me that quote or, seriously, you need to take a long hard look at your reasoning and what you have again presented as fact which is demonstrably false. You've got a real problem. Unless you're getting paid to do this I'd go find some other way to spend your time more productively perhaps. Spend some time outside, away from the computer. It'll do you good.

Oh, yeah - and these pictures look NOTHING like the towers going down - not even close - where are the flying steel beams? How was this building constructed? Where are the vertical plume ejections?

 

[Mick West]

It's clear to anyone with an ounce of sense that these buildings were destroyed by an explosive event, and not by collapse.

My theory? Was it? Really? Another good example of your bias and mindset - where did I say that a building could not be destroyed by anything other than explosives?

So you are saying it was an explosive event, but possibly not from explosives?

 

[lee h oswald]

And: where exactly are these Verinage demolitions exactly the same as the towers? as you have claimed they are.

Show us and explain where they are the same

 

[Mick West]

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04X4fGOh7WA

You have to scale it up though. Obviously it's not exactly the same. The WTC collapses were unique events.

The point is that the mechanism is the same. A floor fails, total collapse is inevitable.

 

[lee h oswald]

No, I'm using it to show you don't need to plant explosives on every floor in order to bring a building down. I'm debunking that particular theory - controlled demolition with explosives on multiple floors. Verinage (and simple physics really) shows that all that is need is for one floor to fail, and the building will collapse. Now if you want to posit a theory where the towers were destroyed by Verinage after the planes flew into them, then go ahead.

This was you a while back. Your analysis of 'what Verinage shows' is wrong by omission. Verinage shows that if you carefully arrange for one floor in the middle of the building to be failed by engineered means, then in the case of buildings of such construction upon which Verinage is used as a means of demolition, they will crush themselves from top to bottom - the desired result from the correct input.

So where exactly did I say that you need to plant explosives on every floor of a building to destroy it? Point out the text or admit it's another fabrication please.

 

[Mick West]

This was you a while back. Your analysis of 'what Verinage shows' is wrong by omission. Verinage shows that if you carefully arrange for one floor in the middle of the building is failed by engineering means, then in the case of buildings of such construction upon which Verinage is used as a means of demolition, they will crush themselves from top to bottom - the desired result from the correct input.

Except then there's this one, where there's an asymmetric destruction of one floor near the top of the building. Plenty of ejecta too.



Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o 3:18

 

[lee h oswald]

zzzzz. same old argument; completely different construction, no comparison - they pulled two whole floors out btw and there's hardly any steel in buildings like that, wtc had 80,000 tons each all tied up to concrete and everything else - and that's not Verinage, is it?

 

[lee h oswald]

In fact, keep going, the more stuff like this you post the better to demonstrate how carefully these things need to be prepared - look at the last one and see where they have removed the exterior columns over three floors to the side of the building, the same will be true of the side we can't see - it is carefully prepared to get the desired control - even then people are kept at safe distance in case something is not as predicted - even the experts get it wrong sometimes.
It takes this much care and effort to take a piece of cheap construction down - where are the flying steel beams?

 

[Mick West]

Well WTC 1&2 had pretty unique construction and scale, so it's a little tricky to find something exactly the same.

Here's a nice perspective of the Pres Saint Jean towers, Dec 5 2009, showing lateral debris ejections.



Source http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVlC9rYU-gs