DYSFUNCTIONAL COUNTRY, DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY

anyway...

 

You mean like all the precious metals that were stored in the safes in the bottom of the World Trade Center? You know, seeing as it was one of the worlds largest depositories of gold....I think if I had $950 Million in gold I would be there to 'spirit' it away too....

 

Alright this getting old I propose that we now discuss how the fake moon landing was staged by Nasa, the area 51 cover up, how the US military caused the 2004 Tsunnami in the Indian Ocean, and how KFC is making black men impotent by lacing their chicken with a drug that only works on black people. Without smurf their is really no reason to address the issue of dinosaur like shape shifting alien reptiles that are currently ruling the earth.

 

Please take 4 minutes of your time to watch the following videos. Then tell me what caused the structural collapse of building 7.

The first is rarely seen close up footage of WTC 7 before its collapse that was just released on youtube a couple of days ago. Compare the intensity of the fires to those that engulfed the Windsor Building in Madrid, a structure that burned for 28 hours without collapsing.


RARE CLOSE-UP FOOTAGE OF WTC 7 SHOWS LIMITED FIRES

Windsor Building in Madrid

Now compare both collapses.

 

And from a structural engineering stand point in your own words Nursey what does that mean?

 

I watched your video. Now please watch mine. Turn your speakers on, and notice this as you watch -

1. BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM and THEN the building falls.

2. The buildings fall from the sides in, not straight down like the WTC 7

3. The building crumple all over, not just a ride to the ground.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153&q=implosion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRaNwPGcQcM&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNshGhc8cnk

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2421326324041129616

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmZJc68zyAA


Now consider this -

1. WTC 7 had a significant fire on the seond floor from the top.

2. TONS of water was being pumped to the floor above, as well as other areas. Water is heavy.

3. The building collaped straight down, after the weight of the upper floor impacted the interior. The weight of water was even, since water seeks it's own level. The impact was enough to cause a base failure and the building just fell.

4. Where was the BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM?

Do this Nursey - I am serious. Take an undented aluminum can (soda or beer) and carefully place it upright on the ground. Now stand on it with one foot. Much to your surprise the paper thin walls will support your weight without collapsing.

Now while you are standing on it, have Pimp touch the can with his finger. The slightest touch will deform the can, and you will come crashiong down. (On his finger I hope). Buildings are the same. They support tremendous weights, but a comprised area can cause the whole thing to crash.

FYI - I am not wasting any more time with this. Find me a video with the Booms, and I will believe.

 

They dont like the can theory baz. They think the towers fell straight down, in their own footprint. Which is how it miraculously killed FDNY and NYPD members that were not in it's immediate vicinity. Those close on one side died. Those close on the opposite side lived. It slid over as it went down.

I did miss the explosions though. That is a very valid point. It was thermal explosives that were designed by the government to have a low blast sound. And watching those videos it made a very interesting thing clear. There were a lot of individual bangs, as the interior support was weakened, then there was another series of explosions to bring it down. Odd. I am sure one of the NYPD helicopters that were in the air would have seen such explosions, or there would have been some footage as it fell.

 

The real evidence speaks. Where are the BOOMS?

 

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER

The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.

WTC 7 Collapse
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

Widespread Damage
CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."


Click to enlarge

VIOLENT COLLAPSE: Pancaking floors--not controlled demolition--expel debris and smoke out South Tower windows. PHOTOGRAPH BY AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

 

All i know for certain is what i can see for myself...that building 7 collapsed from the bottom up in an evenly dispersed, highly systematic (manmade looking) fashion.
The only historical precedent (other than that set by WTC1 and 2) we have of this type of structural failure is that seen during controlled demolitions. Fire has never caused a building to collapse in this fashion prior to or since 911.



Yet you assure me that the buildings which many believe were brought down by a highly professional controlled demolition...and are the first and only buildings to have ever collapsed controlled demolition style without the cause being controlled demolition...behaved in a perfectly logical fashion?

Maybe the answer does indeed lie in Professor Barry Swope's revised coke can buckling thesis, which astonishingly has not yet been accepted for peer review (as of this current posting). Or maybe the answer lies in the professional (unbiased) opinion of Danny Jawenko - an explosives expert who has worked in demolition for 28 years and represents the 'absolute Dutch top'?

Don't they use controlled demolitions to bring down buildings that have otherwise been gutted by fire because they don't just collapse like that as a natural result of heat damage...until that fateful day?

 

But anyway, it seems futile arguing when we don't even see the same thing when watching the same video. For example, I see a building collapsing from the base up in a smooth, uniform structural failure reminiscent of controlled demolition, whereas Barry sees an upper floor giving out causing a domino effect style, naturally occurring collapse. I must need reprogramming.

 

Explosion Recorded from WTC7

Watch now on Studyof911.com

Filmed from just behind and North of WTC7, a large explosion sound can be heard prompting a reaction from the firefighters and camera operator. The time has been confirmed at approximately 10:20am.

 

"It's gonna explode" -- Explosions before WTC2's Collapse

Watch now on Studyof911.com

A mass of people start moving away from the WTC complex as explosions are heard and one New Yorker says, "It's gonna explode."

 

I hear what you are saying Nursey. But look carefully at the video. See the slight v shape at the top of the building? That was the first collapse, which sent the shockwave to the girders that held the whole thing up. It then began to fall by collapsing on itself.

It really bothers me is that the "evidence" video is only 9 seconds long.
9 seconds long Nursey. That means it has been clipped.
So what did they clip out of the video? If there was ANYTHING in the rest of the clip that would support an implosion, surely they would have included it. What was clipped was the failure of the second floor that happened just seconds before the building collapsed. Think about it. Why edit out only 9 seconds? Why start a video clip with the building already falling?

You are a smart person Nursey. Don't be fooled.

 

It's a never ending relentless flinging of bullshit by these people Barry. The same people that hate America are the same people who constantly require lowering of standards in military enlistment. There are a lot of heroes and a lot of zeros in the military. Just wait till the dorks and simpletons come home and are manipulated by people into seeing things that never existed and then start their blogs about the atrocities committed by the American government. Catapulted instantly into rock star status zero to hero of the left for any betrayal, the payoff is huge and there are many with no real honor about them. Look at that Shit Bag John Murtha, or Kerry for example. Or that pervert in Virginia or West Virginia which ever it was.

 

They bring them down because they dont know when they will collapse. The structural integrity has been compromised and they bring it down for safety, the safety of firefighters and those in areas around the building. It's not a question of if, but when.

 

The 'v'? You mean the dip which appeared in the roof a split second before the whole building sunk down smoothly into the ground (as it would during a controlled demolition)? The dip in the roof which is in fact a typical characteristic of a controlled implosion?
Are you really suggesting the entire (reinforced) building was completely LEVELLED (into fine powder) at the rate of freefall (in a vacuum).....by the "shockwave to the girders" from a floor collapse? Jeez! The contortions of logic you will go to to avoid facing up to the obvious!

It's a short clip because it's just a gif animation. Here's video which shows the building prior to collapse.

That's something we are intuitively aware of after a lifetimes' observations of the world around us. That's why the building collapses appear unnatural.

So what's the next new fangled explanation going to be? Girder shock, water flooding...anything but the one that it most closely resembles!

By what? My own eyes?

 

I suppose all those who came back to tell of the atrocities they saw or committed in Vietnam were also just 'dorks' being manipulated into 'seeing things which never existed'? Including those suffering flashbacks? What about the ones who we know definately DID commit atrocities in Iraq? Are they being manipulated into seeing things which didn't exist too? And Jessica Lynch? Was she being manipulated into.......nevermind.

 

See what I mean you'r seeing the molding of falseality for the next 100 years.

In your lifetime the flow of shit will never cease.

 

Or how. Because they don't just collapse neatly in a uniform, predictable fashion. The point i was making is that there are buildings which have been burned far longer more completely than WTC7 - but which still required manmade demolition to destroy the remaining structure.

But when it does, does it usually happen in an asymmetrical, barely predictable manner depending on areas which sustained worst damage etc., or does someone fart and the whole thing just suddenly collapses with all core and perimeter columns suddenly failing simultaneously?