Anonymous goes "full 9/11 Truther"

a reply to: facedye

In what regards. The conspiracists arguments? By your logic, what force would a falling man of 220 pounds in a harness exert to his anchor point after falling 9 feet? His anchor point would only need to be rated for 220 pounds, right?

Here is the NIST response.

from:www.nist.gov...

12. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren't the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?
Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.
13. Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST's analyses of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?
Yes. The basic principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses.
In the case of the aircraft impact analyses, which involved a moving aircraft (velocity) and an initially stationary building, the analysis did, indeed, account for conservation of momentum and energy (kinetic energy, strain energy).
After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation was appropriate. Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations. The analyses accounted for conservation of energy.

Here is a MIT paper too.

Paper Title: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis - MIT Mathematics, At www-math.mit.edu › WTC › WTC-asce

a reply to: neutronflux

Here is a MIT paper too.

Paper Title: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis - MIT Mathematics, At www-math.mit.edu › WTC › WTC-asce

Don't confuse them with facts.
By nature a conspiracy is a emotional point of view not a factual one.

a reply to: neutronflux

walk me through the passage you just posted in layman's terms. this should be good.

here's a simple question that I've posed a few times over now. for some reason you're still not addressing it, so i'll rephrase:

if we both concede that the towers "buckled and collapsed inward," how would jet fuel and fire pulverize steel?

when has jet fuel and fire pulverized steel in the past?

a reply to: samkent

which is why you speak purely from emotion and implicit trust of documents you certainly haven't read nor understood?

a reply to: facedye

Let's cut the crap.
Why do you think the damaged WTC towers would be able take and support more than the equivalent in mass of seven, or more, WTC floors dropped from nine foot on top of the structures? Talking about the mass of 7, or more, WTC towers floors that are no longer a static load, accelerating, and releasing stored potential energy.

What is the mass difference between a building and a wrecking ball. Yet look at the damage a simple wrecking ball can cause.

Whould you rather have a five pound hammer placed on your head, or the hammer dropped on your head from nine feet.

Why would the towers survive having the equivalent mass of seven floors dropped on top of them?That's the heart of the argument.

You never answered what the proper rating for a tie of point required for a person of 220 pounds in a safety harness, and why.

a reply to: neutronflux

aaaaaand you're officially deflecting the very easy, simple question I've posed to you.

I think it is you, sir, who needs to cut the crap.

if a hammer dropped from 9 feet onto my head and both the hammer and I were on fire, would I be pulverized? would the hammer be pulverized?



If you confide in the official story, you trust that the steel columns were pulverized. how do steel columns become pulverized with jet fuel and raging fires causing a collapse?

it's a simple question. I love that you're not only running far away from the matter at hand, but also trying to get me to answer something that has nothing to do with the demise of the twin towers.

answer the question, or accept the fact that you don't know enough to answer it.

how does jet fuel and fire cause 110 stories of steel to be pulverized?

a reply to: facedye

Chris Mohr vs Richard Gage debate.

Chris Mohr gave adequate evidence that the WTC tower columns ended up as long mangled lengths. Proving Richard Gage was wrong in Gages's belief tower columns were left in short segments for easy planned removal.

No columns at the WCT were pulverized. You are flat wrong. You must be a follower of Dr. Wood.

a reply to: facedye

Items you have not answered or ignored.

NIST response the WTC could not handle more that six falling floors.

Why you think the towers could handle more than six following floors.

What you think was used to bring down the WTCs and if was set off on each floor of each tower.

If you don't think falling steel can pulverize building materials, then you need to read and study up on rod mills.

a reply to: neutronflux

so you're claiming that no steel columns were pulverized in WTC 1 & 2?

but then you claim falling steel can pulverize building materials?

so which is it?

I've answered your questions directly, looks like you're not paying them much attention.

if you're going to double back and say no parts of the WTC were pulverized, then you disagree with Peter Jennings' and George Stephanopoulos' reporting?

Bush family are reptiles.

a reply to: facedye

so you're claiming that no steel columns were pulverized in WTC 1 & 2?

Please define pulverized.

If you say twisted and torn into unrecognizable shapes then we are in agreement.
If you say turned to dust then you and Judy Wood are way off.
You can't ship dust off to China.

a reply to: facedye

I am saying rod mills pulverizes rock and the steel rod charge needs replace do to steel rods breaking and wearing down with time. That is with only ten tons of rods only effectively falling three feet and the mill rotating at 2 RPM. So, it's not a contradiction.

But pulverized steel dose not even meet the logic rule.

Overhead pictures of the WTC pile clearly shows large steel columns.

Work crews spent months cutting up WTC columns for removal.

Whole lay down yards of WTC columns were established.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Bush family are reptiles.

Do you mean as in lizards or snakes. I was thinking more like chameleons?

Or the same species as Hillary?

Or the Bush's are a species at war with the Hillary species.

So many questions.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye

I am saying rod mills pulverizes rock and the steel rod charge needs replace do to steel rods breaking and wearing down with time. That is with only ten tons of rods only effectively falling three feet and the mill rotating at 2 RPM. So, it's not a contradiction.

But pulverized steel dose not even meet the logic rule.

Overhead pictures of the WTC pile clearly shows large steel columns.

Work crews spent months cutting up WTC columns for removal.

Whole lay down yards of WTC columns were established.

you talk about this as if you're the authority on the matter.

I've posted several aerial snapshots of the WTC plaza here after collapse.

where do you see large steel columns resembling a 110 floor steel column building?

what reason do you have to believe that the rubble remaining is consistent with the remains of 220 steel columns?

are you prepared to commit to the statement that you see 220 floors of steel columns here?




EDIT:

again, with this image in mind, you're prepared to reject the reporting of Jennings and Stephanopolous when they were ON LOCATION, talking to experts?

if so, why?

a reply to: samkent

Please watch the link I posted from Peter Jennings and George Stephanopolous where they confirm that when they say "pulverized," they mean "evaporated."

Are you disagreeing with their on-site reporting?

EDIT: The fact that you don't know what the word pulverized means, but act like you're the appointed spokesperson of the OS is really funny to me.

responding to you is a joke in and of itself most of the time.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye

I am saying rod mills pulverizes rock and the steel rod charge needs replace do to steel rods breaking and wearing down with time. That is with only ten tons of rods only effectively falling three feet and the mill rotating at 2 RPM. So, it's not a contradiction.

But pulverized steel dose not even meet the logic rule.

Overhead pictures of the WTC pile clearly shows large steel columns.

Work crews spent months cutting up WTC columns for removal.

Whole lay down yards of WTC columns were established.

Look, we've all heard stories about tons of steel being shipped off to China, but I've never seen a picture of a substantial amount of steel laid out, organized, itemized, packed etc. And we all know how many pictures and videos were taken at ground zero.

What we HAVE seen are the pics shortly after the collapse and the lack of steel or ANY metal actually above the first 3 floors or so.

How many thousands of file cabinets were recovered? Oh right, just one measly fragment. That jet fuel sure knows how to break the laws of physics!

a reply to: facedye

I see big steel columns laying around in your picture. I cannot make you see logic? The buildings were compromised and fell into a pile?

One, please define pulverized.

Two, the mechanism of pulverization.

Three, what percentage of WTC needed to be pulverized to make the building collapse as seen.

Four, energy source and energy needed to pulverize the steel.

Five, the actual percentage of steel pulverized in the buildings.

Six, why would steel remain straight and not bend or break during a building collapse.

Seven, the stats don't seem to indicate a deficient amount of steel recovered?

From: 911encyclopedia.com...
The total weight of structural steel in the each WTC tower is approximently 100,000 short tons. (MassAndPeWtc.pdf)

The initial debris estimate included 125,000 tons of glass, 250,000 of tons of steel, 450,000 cubic yards of concrete, 12,000 miles of electrical cable, and 198 miles of ductwork. Trade Center Forensic Recovery.pdf disaster.pandj.com

a reply to: facedye

Additional stats.

From: 911encyclopedia.com...

The last debris was processed on July 26, 2002, day 321 of the project. At the close of the Staten Island Landfill mission:
• 1,462,000 tons of debris had been received and processed
• 35,000 tons of steel had been removed (165,000 tons were removed directly at Ground Zero)

a reply to: neutronflux

No, they are all oligarchs so just one species.

Here is more info on WTC dust and debris.

www.uwgb.edu...