Author Topic: When good buildings go bad! (Read 6835 times)

240 is Back · « **on:** February 10, 2007, 11:19:21 PM »

When a building collapses, it looks like this:

240 is Back · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2007, 11:21:32 PM »

Now, when a building is demolished using explosives, something different happens. The concrete and contents are vaporized and ejected as huge rolling clouds of fine dust and debris.

As a result, the building falls straight down, and unlike the buildings above, they lose all their material and become a small pile. You see, instead of turning from 50 stories to 40 stories, it goes from 50 stories to 2 stories:

240 is Back · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2007, 11:23:33 PM »

In the picture above, you see a 47-story building in New York city which has been brought down ina controlled demolition. That means, wired explosives went off in an order to remove all structure integrity and collapse the building into its footprint.

See how every building around it is fine, yet it is nearly completely vaporized? That is a sign of very expert use of explosives, to not affect the hearby buildings.

Here you see it before/after. See how 47 stories became 20 feet of debris? Very different from the 4 pics at the top, where collapses occurred. This before/after animation shows a very precise takedown of a building using explosives.

Does anyone disagree?

pumpster · « **Reply #3 on:** February 11, 2007, 12:07:06 AM »

Tell us more..

onlyme · « **Reply #4 on:** February 11, 2007, 12:12:20 AM »

Oh god is 240 going to tell us thats what happened on 9-11. I hope not cause it is impossible. We'll wait to see if it is what he is going to say.

Fury · « **Reply #5 on:** February 11, 2007, 01:48:43 AM »

Show us some pictures of 100+ story buildings collapsing and not 10 story ones and you might have a point.

Nordic Superman · « **Reply #6 on:** February 11, 2007, 03:36:26 AM »

Where were the buildings in the first photographs taken?

They don't look modern, don't like they belong in a country like USA, UK, Germany etc... looks like some Russian/Brazilian slum.

If the buildings in the first pictures are in fact from a country other than the US, are you sure they have the same buulding guidlines, materials etc to validly use them as a comparison to the US collapse?

240 is Back · « **Reply #7 on:** February 11, 2007, 07:37:05 AM »

Quote from: Nordic Superman on February 11, 2007, 03:36:26 AM

Where were the buildings in the first photographs taken?

They don't look modern, don't like they belong in a country like USA, UK, Germany etc... looks like some Russian/Brazilian slum.

If the buildings in the first pictures are in fact from a country other than the US, are you sure they have the same buulding guidlines, materials etc to validly use them as a comparison to the US collapse?

It could be argued that the steel-reinforced concrete of the modern 47-story building in NYC should have been MORE LIKELY to retain its structural integrity.

I mean, if those buildings don't vaporize, why do the higher quality US buildings do it?

240 is Back · « **Reply #8 on:** February 11, 2007, 07:46:10 AM »

Quote from: onlyme on February 11, 2007, 12:12:20 AM

Oh god is 240 going to tell us thats what happened on 9-11.

Actually, Keith, the Official story of 9/11 never discussed this particular building (called World Trade Center 7).

However, there is videotape, as well as EMT, military, NYPD, and other groups which testify that there was a 20-second countdown to the takedown, then flashes and bombs. Also the police cleared everyone from the area.

This isn't really a debate, as the govt never said it WASN'T a controlled demolition. All we have is the obvious videotape, and the word of the men on the ground. The crazy talk comes from the people who call it a normal collapse (which would make it look like the first 4 pics in this thread). The evidence - video and testimony - call it a controlled takedown with explosives and a standard countdown.

Debussey · « **Reply #9 on:** February 11, 2007, 08:06:35 AM »

Quote from: onlyme on February 11, 2007, 12:12:20 AM

Oh god is 240 going to tell us thats what happened on 9-11. I hope not cause it is impossible. We'll wait to see if it is what he is going to say.

You are not very bright.

Cap · « **Reply #10 on:** February 11, 2007, 08:22:51 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on February 11, 2007, 07:46:10 AM

Actually, Keith, the Official story of 9/11 never discussed this particular building (called World Trade Center 7).

However, there is videotape, as well as EMT, military, NYPD, and other groups which testify that there was a 20-second countdown to the takedown, then flashes and bombs. Also the police cleared everyone from the area.

This isn't really a debate, as the govt never said it WASN'T a controlled demolition. All we have is the obvious videotape, and the word of the men on the ground. The crazy talk comes from the people who call it a normal collapse (which would make it look like the first 4 pics in this thread). The evidence - video and testimony - call it a controlled takedown with explosives and a standard countdown.

Well I guess you will reveal the truth huh?

I'm sure glad that you, of all people, are gonna crack this one open. You really need to get a life.

Debussey · « **Reply #11 on:** February 11, 2007, 08:29:23 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on February 11, 2007, 07:46:10 AM

Actually, Keith, the Official story of 9/11 never discussed this particular building (called World Trade Center 7).

However, there is videotape, as well as EMT, military, NYPD, and other groups which testify that there was a 20-second countdown to the takedown, then flashes and bombs. Also the police cleared everyone from the area.

This isn't really a debate, as the govt never said it WASN'T a controlled demolition. All we have is the obvious videotape, and the word of the men on the ground. The crazy talk comes from the people who call it a normal collapse (which would make it look like the first 4 pics in this thread). The evidence - video and testimony - call it a controlled takedown with explosives and a standard countdown.

Remember what we learnt by watching X-files: DENY EVERYTHING.

240 is Back · « **Reply #12 on:** February 11, 2007, 08:42:00 AM »

Quote from: cap86 on February 11, 2007, 08:22:51 AM

Well I guess you will reveal the truth huh? I'm sure glad that you, of all people, are gonna crack this one open. You really need to get a life.

Sounds like cap86 would rather let murder and insurance fraud go undetected, than look into obvious lies.

cap86, why are you so interested in defending the terrorists' accessories to the crime here? Do you support their cause? If not, can you explain why you want evidence supressed?

Debussey · « **Reply #13 on:** February 11, 2007, 08:57:29 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on February 11, 2007, 08:42:00 AM

Sounds like cap86 would rather let murder and insurance fraud go undetected, than look into obvious lies.

cap86, why are you so interested in defending the terrorists' accessories to the crime here? Do you support their cause? If not, can you explain why you want evidence supressed?

Can you post a few calculations to back up your statements? (You once posted a link to a physics page, but give us more juice)

240 is Back · « **Reply #14 on:** February 11, 2007, 09:14:12 AM »

Quote from: Debussey on February 11, 2007, 08:57:29 AM

Can you post a few calculations to back up your statements? (You once posted a link to a physics page, but give us more juice)

In my own words - a 47-story skyscraper that was NEVER hit with a plane or any parts, converts from standing building to powder and molten steel in 6.5 seconds. When it falls, has the classic kink, streamers, and ejection jets, falls faster than freefall speed (explosion removes oxygen which lets building fall without air resistance). buildings on all sides of it stood just fine. It simply imploded.

Explosives were the only way.

Some good stuff here:
http://www.wtc7.net/

Cap · « **Reply #15 on:** February 11, 2007, 09:19:53 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on February 11, 2007, 08:42:00 AM

Sounds like cap86 would rather let murder and insurance fraud go undetected, than look into obvious lies.

cap86, why are you so interested in defending the terrorists' accessories to the crime here? Do you support their cause? If not, can you explain why you want evidence supressed?

Again, you have no concrete proof. You are no credible source on the topic so your credibility in general on every 911 thread is nonexistent. I have posted numerous scientific pages which you dismiss and then respond with conjecture and bullshit. You have zero concrete facts. You dismiss kh300 who knows more than you and say his facts are wrong. I hate terrorists and think they should be wiped out but it's more than likely that they did what they did and it didn't involve a gov't conspiracy.

What evidence? You have nothing pal. If people heard blasts or explosions, you mean to tell me there was nothing flammable or combustible in that building? Get real.

You weren't there at WTC 7 so you know jack shit about it. Stop there while you're ahead. You know nothing about buildings, structural integrity, collapses. You post jargon of which you have no knowledge and disseminate it in a constructed sentence as fact. You are a HISTORY major, stick to what you know. Keep saying the same old bullshit.

I am more patriotic than you will ever be and don't forget that.

sandycoosworth · « **Reply #16 on:** February 11, 2007, 09:26:56 AM »

fuck patriotism

its irrelevant

look at the friggen gif of the building falling, it imploded ... that doesnt happen without explosives

the owner said they pulled it

people on here have said they remember free talk of the demolition on radio/tv because the building was unsafe

there is no question the building was imploded with explosives

YoungBlood · « **Reply #17 on:** February 11, 2007, 09:29:34 AM »

Quote from: BerzerkFury on February 11, 2007, 01:48:43 AM

Show us some pictures of 100+ story buildings collapsing and not 10 story ones and you might have a point.

You're a genius!!! Pretty much the only difference between a 10 story building and a 100+ story building, is weight and size. So, you think a building the is 90 more stories is going to simply change how it falls based on the height and weight?

Cap · « **Reply #18 on:** February 11, 2007, 09:30:24 AM »

Quote from: sandycoosworth on February 11, 2007, 09:26:56 AM

f**k patriotism

its irrelevant

look at the friggen gif of the building falling, it imploded ... that doesnt happen without explosives

the owner said they pulled it

people on here have said they remember free talk of the demolition on radio/tv because the building was unsafe

there is no question the building was imploded with explosives

You're not even American so you're imput on patriotism has no relevance. You know for a fact what happened? That's all I;m asking. Maybe you should read what KH300 said again, "pulled" does not equal imploded. Hope that helps. Are you a building expert?

sandycoosworth · « **Reply #19 on:** February 11, 2007, 09:52:56 AM »

http://www.jonhs.net/911/wtc7_blowup.htm

sandycoosworth · « **Reply #20 on:** February 11, 2007, 09:54:15 AM »

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bombs_inside_wtc.html

kh300 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 11, 2007, 11:01:09 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on February 10, 2007, 11:19:21 PM

When a building collapses, it looks like this:

those buildings didnt collapse,, they fell over because of a bad foundation.. big difference between a failed structure-wtc's,, and a bad foundation

240 is Back · « **Reply #22 on:** February 11, 2007, 11:09:11 AM »

Quote from: kh300 on February 11, 2007, 11:01:09 AM

those buildings didnt collapse,, they fell over because of a bad foundation.. big difference between a failed structure-wtc's,, and a bad foundation

Please show me ONE building in history that imploded from failed structure that didn't include explosives.

I'll paypal you 100,000 for each one. Cause there are none. Ever. In history. It's true. HTH.

Nordic Superman · « **Reply #23 on:** February 11, 2007, 11:22:55 AM »

240, I'm still waiting on the facts regarding the structural designs of these buildings and if they are even comparable and usable as evidence for your cause.

E.g.

- What are the circumstances that the buildings collapsed under.
- Under such circumstances, what were the buildings designed to do.

kh300 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 11, 2007, 11:26:50 AM »

how do you plan on paying me?