Apples and oranges. Different buildings, different truck position.Originally Posted by lee h oswald
Side note, I used to work in that area in a few years before the event, and about 100 yards from where that bomb went off.
And the Manchester bomb seems to have been mostly raw ammonium nitrate, with semtex as the trigger, so was considerably less powerful than the Oklahoma bomb.
I also think it is likely that as the building collapsed, and each floor pancaked onto the next, the outer beams would buckle every floor or so. Many of these "buckles" would involve the verticals bending and kinking outwards. It would not take more than a few floors worth of collapse before the momentum and velocity of the mass falling would likely "throw" sections of girder outward as each kink reached its maximum "accordion" bend. Considering the bending to essentially 90 degrees, the outward momentum of each section, and the fact that the joint above each kinking section is connected to a disintegrating mass, it isn't a leap to think that girders could be thrown quite far by this effect.
Lateral velocity is the product of buckling collapse, which is what every successive column was confronted with as it met a tightly-packed sandwich of material at progressively-increasing speed.
There are some splendid lectures to be visited on YouTube. Leohard Euler was the "perpetrator" of column buckling theory, bless'im, in 1745.
There you'll learn about "knees" and lateral velocity, and also understand clearly why those columns in particular failed.
The ejacta are consistent with his theory...
lotek (December 11th, 2012)
I tried to sign up but it had some trouble, not sure what happened.
9/11 and MOST legitimate theories that have a plausible albeit far out tale could very well be real.
Firstly, I support Social Darwinism. The future has no place for people who do not have common sense, or cant think for themselves. They are simple consumers, more like parasites. That is by their very own actions.
you are going to believe a Govt whose known to lie and then you have to believe while any theory involving Govt would actually admit to doing any wrong doing?. That's silly IMO
Factual Assumptions. Cass Sunstein wrote a paper while at Harvard Law School called "Conspiracy theories" he went on to suggest that using these factual assumptions you could sell any theory or discount any theory by creating these unproven and most time impossible theories by just making them factual with no proof whatsoever.
Cass Sunstein was also Obama's information czar before leaving office lat year.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1084585
I will give you one example, then I will just let the Darwinism effect do its job.
This video claims to debunk the collapse pf the towers, yet it uses very specific stats to do that which are 100% impossible to know. That is using the factual assumption meme to make your point a unproven theory yet its in the mains stream so idiots believe this tripe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w
Well, let's take that video and add "approximately" in front of all the figures.
Is it then not a reasonable explanation?
Did you sign up as gabeygoat ?
Was the email address you used valid? It needs verifying before you can sign in.
Try logging in again. I can also reset you password if you like.
i know this is OT/doesn't contribute but this thread makes my skin crawl..
Y U NO Lrn2Science?!?
I know what you mean but a) it happened and b) rational analysis is by definition reason independent of emotion. Reason distinguishes us from most animals. It is worth nurturing.
HappyMonday (December 20th, 2012),lotek (December 11th, 2012),Pete Tar (December 11th, 2012)
Not at all true if you understand better.
Not true either. People that aren't already institutionalized (and some who are!) are quite perfectly capable of adjusting their mindset. It would just be a matter of time.Firstly, I support Social Darwinism. The future has no place for people who do not have common sense, or cant think for themselves. They are simple consumers, more like parasites. That is by their very own actions.
It would be a measure of our maturity to strike some sort of balance with "natural selection", and not let "punishment" be exacted on children, for instance.
Everybody lies. Quite often when it's not their intention at all. Belief is not to be encouraged. UNDERSTANDING is.you are going to believe a Govt whose known to lie and then you have to believe while any theory involving Govt would actually admit to doing any wrong doing?. That's silly IMO
Theories are of no interest. Nor are beliefs. The facts, and how those facts are understood, are what one should concern one's self with.Factual Assumptions. Cass Sunstein wrote a paper while at Harvard Law School called "Conspiracy theories" he went on to suggest that using these factual assumptions you could sell any theory or discount any theory by creating these unproven and most time impossible theories by just making them factual with no proof whatsoever. Cass Sunstein was also Obama's information czar before leaving office last year.
As Mick has suggested to you, these estimates are approximate. They depend and vary according to things like:This video claims to debunk the collapse pf the towers, yet it uses very specific stats to do that which are 100% impossible to know.
- the actual properties of the steel in question
- the actual temperature of the steel in question
- the actual angle of the tower from the vertical
- etc
The general acceptable variability would be plus or minus five per cent. This allows for no other answer than buckling collapse.
This isn't GUESSING any more than aircraft design is. There are many precise pieces of kit used in science, the theory is older than you believe it to be. Heard of Leonhard Euler?
That guy would be saying "Told you so!" had he leapt 256 years into the future to witness it.
I am ALWAYS caught out by this conundrum. The plain fact is that suggesting BOTH towers were destroyed by charges placed EXACTLY where the planes hit them is TOTALLY LUDICROUS. There is nothing more that has to be said.
Last edited by Jazzy; December 11th, 2012 at 03:23 PM.
HappyMonday (December 20th, 2012)
I don't think that's what he was suggesting. I tried to find it in the paper and found these similar sounding things:
We suggest several policy responsesthat can dampen the supply of conspiracy theorizing, in part by introducing diverse
viewpoints and new factual assumptions into the hard-core groups that produce such
theories. Our principal claim here involves the potential value of cognitive infiltration of
extremist groups, designed to introduce informational diversity into such groups and to
expose indefensible conspiracy theories as such.
Our main suggestion isjust that, whatever the tactical details, there would seem to be ample reason for
government efforts to introduce some cognitive diversity into the groups that generate
conspiracy theories. Social cascades are sometimes quite fragile, precisely because they
are based on small slivers of information. Once corrective information is introduced,
large numbers of people can be shifted to different views. If government is able to have
credibility, or to act through credible agents, it might well be successful in dislodging
beliefs that are held only because no one contradicts them. Likewise, polarization tends
to decrease when divergent views are voiced within the group. Introducing a measure
of cognitive diversity can break up the epistemological networks and clusters that supply
conspiracy theories.
Second, we suggest adistinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy
theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their
allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will
undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. They do so
by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups,
thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity
Recall that extremist networks and groups,including the groups that purvey conspiracy theories, typically suffer from a kind of
crippled epistemology. Hearing only conspiratorial accounts of government behavior,
their members become ever more prone to believe and generate such accounts.
Informational and reputational cascades, group polarization, and selection effects suggest
that the generation of ever-more-extreme views within these groups can be dampened or
reversed by the introduction of cognitive diversity. We suggest a role for government
efforts, and agents, in introducing such diversity. Government agents (and their allies)
might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to
undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises,
causal logic or implications for political action.
It seems basically he's suggesting that governments engage in debunking. He does NOT seem to be saying just make stuff up. The above sounds like the theorists have very limited understanding of what is going on (a crippled epistemology), and by introducing new factual information (not made-up information), their minds can be changed.
Pete Tar (December 11th, 2012)
oh no, i get why you say that and agree with what you say which is why it doesnt upset me.
what makes my skin crawl is the truthers in this thread(ill be honest i got to page 4,quit, and made that post). I mean. 911 was my first real exposure to the conspiracy world and boy was i in it. by 930am the day of i was running about 7th grade balls deep supporting alqaeda. what can i say. i watched the matrix twice a day for three years and had social... issues.. it was hard to be around 2000 white middle class midwestern kids trashing every brown person they saw for 5 years. 12 yearold talking about towel heads for years.. racist because it was cool... id have believed anything that polarized me away from them.
But now..Even with crap like some people knowing about pearl harbor and ww1/ww2. intentional entrances into war. but not this time....
It didnt take long even for my middleschool self to realize none a damn one of these 911 CT holds water. not a one.
Edit: I wrote the following to a (now) friend. He was at first one of the faceless chemtrail reposters i got into it with on the internet. couple days later i got an email from him and this was part of my response after we found common ground. you see i, like many people, find 911CT so off the wall in actual application that its one of the things i tend to point out to chemtrail followers.. aimed at conservative chemtrail believers(midwest remember). Around here its a very effective way to find common ground(jimmy carter style) when you are in a ct debate. If you can atleast agree that some theories are just damn foolish you are closer to agreeing that the theory at hand is the same.
(I was).......a vocal 911 conspiracy supporter circa loose change days. every day this lil voice eating at me. saying "you know you cant discern speed in video with that method" and "you know if a fundy christian used that argument youd be laughing"
then i realized i just wanted the stuff in the vids to be true because i already decided it was true...
then i got a job and realized just how often everyone makes mistakes or is lazy etc. now i imagine a secret nwo trying to scheme like that and i crack up. i cant believe i thought gw bush was that smart....or that dumb. nothing works 100% of the time.
now look at the "facts" and youtube quality "tests" used in loose change etc, its just blatant crap. laughably dismiss able. "video proof no airplane hits pentagon" omg omg proof! then ya watch it and not only can you not see the pentagon but the thing they point out as a missile is OBVIOUSLY a white suv on the highway going the same speed as the car infront and behind it.... lol but if you WANT it to be true, the highway looks like the pentagon, and you dont even notice the other 20 cars on the highway with the 'missile'.
/soapbox
Last edited by lotek; December 11th, 2012 at 08:05 PM.
Y U NO Lrn2Science?!?
I recently watched the BBC 9/11 road trip. It's quite astonishing the amount of resilience that some people have to reason. Really a large part of it is based on "you can't trust them", rather than actual evidence. That's something that carries over to chemtrails, where after you've explained to them why their evidence is bunk, they are always left with "what, surely you don't trust the government?!!"
It's interesting that a forum which claims strict rules against insults is alright with folks making comments/submitting content that state/suggest truthers are miserable wastes of time and breath.
Well one can hardly ban every single YouTube video that's impolite. But if you you've got a problem with a particular thing, then maybe you should be more specific?It's interesting that a forum which claims strict rules against insults is alright with folks making comments/submitting content that state/suggest truthers are miserable wastes of time and breath.
Truthers are just people.
I don't want to name fingers and point names, just saying is all. The sentiment comes up a few times throughout this big old thread, isn't too encouraging for a first time visitor who's not satisfied with the official account, but is willing to hear out those who swear by it.
By all means, if you think there's a problem, name names. I want the politeness policy to be consistent. But sometimes the impoliteness enters the conversation in such a way it's difficult to extricate without harming the discussions - especially when the same people have been discussing it for months and are familiar with each other. Then its a bit of a judgement call.
If you don't have any huge concerns about tone, perhaps you could offer your reasoning on if you think this photo is consistent with a progressive collapse, or not?
You are not the only person that has problems with "the accepted story" . . . the chance that we had 3 out of 4 hits on the assumed targets is difficult to accept under the circumstances . . . the collapse of three steel structured buildings within hours of being damaged, the lack of air defense reaction especially since similar scenarios had been or should have been known since the Philippines' terrorist plan was uncovered . . . http://articles.cnn.com/2003-07-26/w...?_s=PM:asiapcf
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
When a vertical column fails by buckling instability it typically folds at its center point (normally called a "knee"), which gets accelerated laterally at speeds equivalent to the downward velocity of compression. Downward momentum has to be translated to lateral momentum when buckling occurs.
At the base of the tower this was around 200 ft/sec, so from the point of failure downward, column centers were being ejected (or injected!*) at progressively increasing speeds up to that figure. This explains how fragments of WTC1 reached 180 yards to WTC7 and started fires there.
There is evidence that the fire allowed the internal columns to relax by heat-soak above 660 deg C by a process known as creep, allowing the top hat truss to transfer some of the internal loading to the external columns, which failed by buckling instability opposite the point of impact where the maximum heat soak occurred due to the accumulation of burning wreckage.
No explosives were required. Buckling always begins silently, but soon becomes "explosive" when seventy floors collapse progressively beneath a descending tower top.
The mathematics of buckling instability were first worked out by Leonhard Euler (a genius on a par with Newton or Einstein) in 1745 AD.
* They could go inwards or outwards, but were tied laterally so they couldn't go sideways. You can see this happen quite clearly on the closeup video of the collapse of WTC1. There really is no noise as the collapse initiates.
Last edited by Jazzy; December 19th, 2012 at 04:54 PM.
Seems heat fatigue lead to three highly unlikely failures in the space of just a few hours . . . something that has never to my knowledge happened before in steel reinforced high rise structures nor has it happened since . . .
Last edited by George B; December 19th, 2012 at 05:04 PM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Think I'll keep clear of these high rise buildings. I wouldn't like to get caught on a floor above an office fire and not be able to get down past the fire... It would be even more terrible now we know there is a design fault and any of these high rise buildings could just pancake down like that within a few hours.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
George B (December 19th, 2012)
I honestly can't say. I find the force, size and spread of the dust-cloud to look more or less blast-like, and I wonder where all that dust would have come from so quickly if it was a progressive 'pancaking', but I can't claim to know enough to say it must be one or the other. I did, however, find the use of similar-looking professional demolition jobs that didn't use explosives to explain how the collapse in the photograph didn't require them somewhat ironic. I also don't think dropping a pen on the back of a chair is demonstrative of anything other than how to bounce a pen off a chair.
Last edited by Grieves; December 19th, 2012 at 05:29 PM. Reason: Missin' B!!!!!
Seems strange but the design flaws which allow high rise buildings to pancake down in seconds are still not widely known. e.g This site doesn't even mention it under 'Cons'
http://www.rentenna.com/blog/low-ris...se-apartments/
High-Rises: The Cons of High Rise Apartment Living
- Are typically MUCH more expensive, due to their better location and more luxurious spaces.
- Take much more time to get to your apartment from street level.
- Typically are in congested, high pollution areas with poor air quality.
- Noise pollution is also a problem, as your ideal location will lead to car horns and daily traffic interrupting your nights.
- Much more difficult to move in or out, especially if the entrances are small and limiting.
- Unlikely to have any private outdoor space, such as a garden.
- Harder to negotiate a deal because the rooms are in high demand and owners are typically less forgiving.
- Less privacy: many more people will occupy the same building, leading to more social interaction and possibly more disputes.
But if it were me, I would be lying awake all night wondering if someone under me had a wiring fault, fell asleep with burning cigarette in hand, left the chip pan on or any one of a number of things.
It was bad enough when it was just 'Towering Infernoesque' worries without sudden and instant pulverization.
Shame Leonhard Euler couldn't work out a solution. Some inferior person thought they had solved the problem though because they said the WTC was designed to withstand a commercial airline hit.
Just goes to show, scientists of today are not necessarily better than scientists of yesteryear.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
Yea, they don't build them like they use to . . .
The CrashAt 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.
Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor. Still, a bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building. After the flames were extinguished and the remains of the victims removed, the rest of the wreckage was removed through the building.
The plane crash killed 14 people (11 office workers and the three crewmen) plus injured 26 others. Though the integrity of the Empire State Building was not affected, the cost of the damage done by the crash was $1 million.
http://history1900s.about.com/od/194...mpirecrash.htm
Last edited by George B; December 20th, 2012 at 05:49 AM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Guess it was just luck this one didn't pancake into dust.
I wonder what the scientists say as to why it didn't collapse? Must have had a knee support or something.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
1) Less speed . . . 200 mphGuess it was just luck this one didn't pancake into dust.
I wonder what the scientists say as to why it didn't collapse? Must have had a knee support or something.
2) Less weight by far of aircraft . . . fuel type and amount
3) Brick and masonry construction
4) Compartmentalization of structure
5) Support beams protected by concrete from heat
Those old guys must have known something about buildings and how to protect against terrorist attacks !!!
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0311.shtml
Even so, the impact alone does not fully explain what doomed the World Trade Center towers. A fatal contributing factor was the fires ignited by the exploding fuel tanks. A 767 has a maximum fuel capacity 35 times greater than that of a B-25D. The aircraft that struck the Empire State Building was nearly out of fuel when it crashed while each 767 still carried approximately half of its maximum fuel load at impact. The Empire State Building fire exhausted its supply of fuel rapidly while that at the World Trade Center ignited the office contents across several floors and burned much longer. The type of fuel carried may also be a significant factor. The B-25 burned avgas, a high-octane version of gasoline still used aboard piston engine aircraft today. The 767 instead uses Jet-A, a derivative of kerosene that fuels all commercial jetliners. Jet fuel tends to reach higher temperatures than gasoline causing the fires in the WTC to burn more intensely than that in the Empire State Building.
Last edited by George B; December 20th, 2012 at 07:39 AM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
That looks like the Empire State Building crash in 1945. You're looking at two different animals in terms of construction.Guess it was just luck this one didn't pancake into dust.
I wonder what the scientists say as to why it didn't collapse? Must have had a knee support or something.
- There was much, much more steel in the Empire State Building than the Twin Towers, and that steel was thick girders, apart from the thin columns at WTC which could be more easily damaged from a high velocity object - such as a jet flying over 500 mph.
- The amount of fuel plays into this. The airplane that struck the Empire State Building had intended to land in that area, so it had already completed the majority of its journey and had burned a fairly large amount of fuel, leaving much less to burn compared to WTC, which involved planes that had just taken off and had full tanks IN ADDITION to the required fuel reserves.
- Fire containment - this, you could argue, WAS luck. The staircases down WTC became blocked with debris at various points and did not allow firefighters to easily access the blaze and attempt to contain it. The Empire State Building stairwells were not blocked, and the fire was contained within 40 minutes of impact.
The one character aspect I am most proud of is being able to recognize that something can be a total load of crap.
Not all building impacts by an airplane are terrorist attacks, George. This was an accident due to low visibility and pilot error.
I'm sure the architects planned for a potential collision by an aircraft - as did the architects World Trade Center, I might add (just not for the situation that did occur on 9/11).
The one character aspect I am most proud of is being able to recognize that something can be a total load of crap.
Yep . . . what you say is true but seems like it was designed to withstand those situations . . . guess it simply failed twice or maybe three times . . .
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-se...airplanes.html
In addition, investigators from NIST who examined the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers told The New York Times in 2007 that newly disclosed documents from the 1960s show that the new York Port Authority, the original owners of Twin Towers, also considered aircraft moving at 600 mph,slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers.
"I found photostat images of WTC designer John Skilling's 3 page 1964 White Paper on a German website and posted the links over on the UK911 board.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/WTC.html
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
I think they planned for almost the identical impact . . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Of course WTC7 was simply a result of some fire contagion, having no plane or fuel.... so I guess that was just bad modern day planning and building... using cheap thin and nasty girders, poor design etc on the connection points so that just one or two failures could bring the whole thing down as if it had been demolitioned.
Poor old twoofers... can see how they were ignorantly sucked in by it
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
Yes, the events of 9/11 were incredible, unusual, unprecedented, improbable, unbelievable. They make the mind boggle, and shake your understanding of the universe.
And yet they still happened. They have been extensively studied, and we have a good understanding of what happened. We don't simply stop after a few adjectives and declare that it's mighty suspicious. Dig in. Do the math. Ask a scientist.
Oxy. Your objections have answers. You can probably find most of the answers in this very thread, because it's a long one. But you can also find them in physics if you like, and in the sciences of building construction, and fire safety.
Why don't you start with what you know, what you don't disagree with. Planes flew into the towers on that day - I hope we can at least agree on that? Then what's the first thing that happened after that where you think the official story got it significantly wrong?
Seems NIST believes the whole process was caused by the insulation being blown off the support columns . . . Wow!! If so . . . was this part of the process in WTC 7 . . . no that had to be structural damage . . . no explosions to rip off the insulation there . . .
The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi.../wtc_about.cfm
Last edited by George B; December 20th, 2012 at 07:58 AM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Holding opinions is one thing. Voicing them is another.
The concrete-clad girder steel of the Empire State and the hollow box-section columns of the WTC towers are directly comparable, are they, Oxy?
I'm aware that you don't hold much to science, but buckling collapse is easy to observe and understand. Stand a drinking straw vertically on a tabletop and press lightly down on it from above. Restrain the straw lightly halfway up, increase the downward pressure without causing it to collapse, and then remove the central restraint. That's the buckling collapse that the loss of floor attachment caused happen to the heaviest-loaded columns in all three structures.
Where the straw folds is the KNEE. Observe the speed that knee can reach. THAT is the downward-to-lateral translation and THAT slung many tons of steel on outward trajectories.
George, the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707 loitering at approach speed, looking to land. Not a fully-laden 767 at Vne. The latter had THIRTEEN TIMES more energy in it.
So the loss of insulation was the cause of the eventual collapse of WTC 1 & 2 but not 7 . . . is this contradictory ????
The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.
In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc7final_112508.cfm
Last edited by George B; December 20th, 2012 at 08:15 AM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Please read #748 and 752 above . . . also NIST disagrees somewhat . . . it was the loss of the insulation on the beams from the impact . . . not simply the size and force of impact . . . the fuel and impact alone would not have cause the collapse . . .
Last edited by George B; December 20th, 2012 at 08:23 AM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
The impacts did not cause collapse, so what's the issue?
Undoubtedly... due to the events of 9/11 which were as you say, incredible, unusual, unprecedented, improbable, unbelievable, etc a 'global war on terror' which can go on indefinitely, as there will always be 'terrorists, was started.
It involves, loss of civil liberties, unprecedented defense budgets at a time of near financial collapse, invasions of sovereign states, torture, extraordinary renditions of 'suspects' to 'terrorist states' for 'questioning'. The list goes on and on and on but I don't want to Gish Gallop here.
I have researched this off and on for years as data has become available. What I see is 'fake this' fake that, fake the other and yet we must believe the government would not lie to us or we are accused of being nutters, alarmist, stupid, tin foil hatters, unpatriotic etc etc.
I would love someone to show me I have got it all wrong... I cannot do it myself as all my investigation reinforces the unofficial conspiracy theory... but yes debunk away by using science, reason and logic and truth... not by vilification and lies, half truths, setting up strawman arguments and inappropriate comparisons.
I can debunk the official conspiracy theory in many many ways, but is it 'apples v pears', coincidence after coincidence after coincidence ad infinitum...?
As you quite rightly said though... '9/11 was incredible, unusual, unprecedented, improbable, unbelievable'.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
You know what else is unbelievable, running across a bath of corn starch and water.
Like I said, your objection to the the physics of the events all have answers. The fact that something seems unbelievable does not mean you should then stop looking for answers, or scoff when they are proffered.
Well if loss of insulation caused the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 . . . how did WTC 7 fail . . . remember there was no explosions in WTC 7 . . . however, there was a collapse aided by heat fatigue according to NIST ??
Last edited by George B; December 20th, 2012 at 08:35 AM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Did I say that... hang on a minute, let me adjust my tinfoil................... no, don't think I said that. What I inferred was 'they don't build em like they used to', possibly = crappy modern construction and design
Oh that's way too technical for the likes of my ignorant mind... but I'll take your word for it cos you obviously understand these things much better than me or the whole plethora of scientists, architects, firemen, pilots, high ranking military and intelligence personnel who say otherwise.I'm aware that you don't hold much to science, but buckling collapse is easy to observe and understand. Stand a drinking straw vertically on a tabletop and press lightly down on it from above. Restrain the straw lightly halfway up, increase the downward pressure without causing it to collapse, and then remove the central restraint. That's the buckling collapse that the loss of floor attachment caused happen to the heaviest-loaded columns in all three structures.
Where the straw folds is the KNEE. Observe the speed that knee can reach. THAT is the downward-to-lateral translation and THAT slung many tons of steel on outward trajectories.
But NIST states the impact had nothing to do with the collapse.... it was the raging fires that weakened the 'flimsy steel core', as shown in this picture here with Edna Cintron standing for an hour in the hole where the plane went in. (go up from girder 134)George, the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707 loitering at approach speed, looking to land. Not a fully-laden 767 at Vne. The latter had THIRTEEN TIMES more energy in it.
http://letsrollforums.com/burning-ed...g-t22147.html?
I don't know how she managed to stand in that blazing inferno for best part of an hour waving to attract help.... just look at those massive flames.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks