Mind Explaining These Things To Me?

Ok, not much usefull information inthere, but yes he says the outer frame holds about half the weight. I've heard otherwise, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt.

But, what does that prove anyway ?
It would further undermine your theory of a collapse coming from a plane crashing into the towers. If you spread the weight to 4 walls and the center column, instead of just the center column, it would even be more magic for a progressive collapse to occur. Because the fires would have to be as hot at the center, plus all four walls/corners.

And even IF that occured, the central column would still be there to slow it down, tip it over, anything but dissapearing into thin air.

That's what those pictures show you. And what does it matter where they are build ? That's just another excuse for a perfectly good comparison, just like everything we try to show you. Why don't you come up with some pictures that actually show a collapse like the WTC did ? Make sure they are build from the same materials and preferably by the same architect because otherwise we're comparing apples and oranges.

Originally posted by Shroomery
If you spread the weight to 4 walls and the center column, instead of just the center column, it would even be more magic for a progressive collapse to occur.

That is precisely the reason that the buildings did not collapse when they were first struck, the structure was able to redistribute the loads from the damaged columns to other undamaged columns.

[

Because the fires would have to be as hot at the center, plus all four walls/corners.

Actually the fire had to heat up the floor slabs until they began to sag and fail.

And even IF that occured, the central column would still be there to slow it down, tip it over, anything but dissapearing into thin air.

By “central columns” is take it you mean the are structure, which is composed of a number of columns and beams.

Originally posted by Conspicuouz
so due to the failure, of let's say roughly in the radius of 10 floors, this total failure in support on those floors were enough to perfectly put the entire floors below it in a free-fall without any resistance what so ever?

is this correct? i'm no knowledgeable physicists but im not stupid either. if a few floors gave way, the supporting floors should somewhat slow or stop the collapse of the higher floors especially if they are a sufficient amount of floors below compared to the amount on top don't you think?

i need to get in contact with some building architects and constructors to get their take on the event provided with this information. if anyone already has some comments, please post. and please do not post any that comment on the official story but their own take on it. will be appreciated.

OK, since you both seem to be asking essentially the same question, I will try to answer it the best I can.

1) Momentum of the falling mass. No one can deny that as the top part of the building dropped downward, it rapidly built up a staggering amount of momentum. I’ll grant you that this falling mass was somewhat elastic, in that it could absorb some of the impact with the floors below, but, the overwhelming downward motion of the mass would have crushed everything in it’s path.

2) This was a buckling failure. As the initial columns buckled and broke, they twisted the columns that they were attached to so that they too buckled and failed. You could almost visualize it as a “wave” of buckling steel progressing down the building followed by the falling mass. In fact, the falling mass would have pushed the walls outward, breaking them away from the floors below. Most of the breakage occurred at the bolted connections. That is why you had column sections that were 30 feet long afterwards.

3) The collapse of the buildings was not a perfect free fall by any means, at least not at the start. It just looked that way because the dust and debris that fell on the outside of the building envelope DID freefall, obscuring the actual progress of the collapse of the bulk of the building mass. I think that there is probably a 1 or 2 second difference between the actual collapse time and a true free fall. That may not seem like much, but it wouldn’t have taken that long for the top of the structure to build up enough momentum to make any resistance of the lower part a moot point.

The problem is that the average person with an average IQ finds it hard to grasp how something so 'solid' can fail in such a way. As they have little or no knowledge of physics, and more crucially the inability to assimilate and analyse information beyond their basic understanding, so they find it hard to accept and visualise.
When I was younger I found it hard to accept and picture how someone's head could be crushed beyond recognition and their brain visibly smeared over the pavement just by a vehicle rolling over them. But I know it's possible because I've seen it.
You feel pretty tough, I've been in car accidents without a seatbelt and not had a bruise, however I knew two people in a low speed collision who were killed instantly and suffered horrendous multiple injuries.
You tend to not think it possible unless you see it because in your mind you feel tough. Especially if you've been through a lot.

It's the same with building, they seem so big and unbreakable, everything is relative however and they can be broken.

A colony of termites can build a fantastic city taller than a man. To them it is unbreakable, it can be damaged but never destroyed. If they can or could be capable of conscious thought the ides of it being destroyed to them is unthinkable.
But if you attack and weaken the structure then it can fail, same as ours. They can only put up with so much within certain parameters.
People just find this hard to accept.

It's pretty clear that if the supportig structure of the tower above the crash point is weakened to collapse, the force of the structure remaining above falling is going to smash it.

It's like a high tensile wire line, you can tie each end to a lorry and take up the slack and pull all day long without it giving. But if you were both to accelerate from it being slack to give it a sharp yank it will just give and snap.

Same as the towers, the tops collapsed onto it and the whole lot gave, what did you expect? For it to neatly sit on top.. give it a rest.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
The problem is that the average person with an average IQ finds it hard to grasp how something so 'solid' can fail in such a way. As they have little or no knowledge of physics, and more crucially the inability to assimilate and analyse information beyond their basic understanding, so they find it hard to accept and visualise.

The problem in your reasoning is that you over-simplify, and as a side note, you come across quite arrogantly as well. Not all of us have trouble visualizing how brains can be crushed out of skulls, and yet there are still problems with the collapses that you cannot account for without stepping outside of the official story.

For example:



What is this?

Howard would tell you that that huge, outward-directed explosion was caused by compressed air. In reality, if pressurized air moved down the building, it would immediately equalize with the air on the lower floors. That is basic physics. And if air could somehow, *magically* travel in compressed jets like that and not equalize with the air around it (again, impossible), look at how many floors have collapsed so far in that photograph, and seriously consider whether or not there would be enough compression to do that from those floor collapses alone.

Also notice that it isn't just air coming out of the building. It's the concrete dust debris that so many of us are familiar with by now. Air do that too? Because the collapse hadn't gotten there yet to smash the concrete up.





And where are the chunks of concrete we would expect from a gravity-driven collapse? All I see is fine powder.


If you want to make oversimplified metaphors and smug insults to our intelligence while ignoring this kind of evidence, Agent Smith, maybe you should find another conspiracy to rant on and leave this one to those that are a little more apt to denying ignorance. And blaming those squibs on compressed air, btw, is ignorant. Again, that being just one example. Too many problems, too simple an answer. And you insult our IQs.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Actually the fire had to heat up the floor slabs until they began to sag and fail.

But, what about the fact that there were no fires that could ever heat them up to the point where they would fail ?

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Actually the fire had to heat up the floor slabs until they began to sag and fail.

But, what about the fact that there were no fires that could ever heat them up to the point where they would fail ?

Sure there were.

Evan an ordinary house fire will generate temperatures in excess of 1000 degrees C.

Why do you think that the WTC fires would have been different?

Those temps tend to be concentrated in the upper hot gas layer, near the ceiling, only the ceiling tiles had all been knocked down by the shock of the impact and the subsequent fuel explosions.

Furthermore, even if the fireproofing was relatively undamaged, which I don't believe that it was (from personal experience with a similar material, it does not take much to knock it off), the trusses were extremely vulnerable to heat. The diagonals were not that thick, and would have heated up quickly.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by AgentSmith


And where are the chunks of concrete we would expect from a gravity-driven collapse? All I see is fine powder.

A void space search at WTC


Searching a void space. Notice the tag lines going into the void. People have entered that opening to look below.

Sure there were.

Evan an ordinary house fire will generate temperatures in excess of 1000 degrees C.

From what I understand, hydrocarbon fires will rarely burn at 800º C (let alone much higher) unless the air has been pre-heated or pressurized, and the burns at 800º C are usually resultant of mixed flame such as what you would get from a blow torch. The type of fire in the WTC was not this sort of fire, but was hydrocarbon (ie, jet fuel, plastics, etc.), which suggests it would've been much cooler than 800º C for the most part.

Coincidentally, there is no evidence of the fires in either tower, nor Building 7, being around 800º C. That seems to fit right along with the fact about hydrocarbon fires rarely burning at 800º C, huh? There were no glowing beams of steel, the fires remained local to the impacted region of the building (they would've easily spread if they were hot enough), and there were and are no reports or other evidence of windows ever shattering from heat at the WTC complex on 9/11 (though this may be a moot point, because around the same temperature, the aluminum that held the windows in place would have been liquid).

Check this chart out:



Try to find a single beam from Ground Zero, or even during the fires, before the collapse, whatever, glowing anything other than a cool, dark gray. Good luck.

Howard, all that was from the basement. Seriously, how freaking trivial can you be?

...

Let me try to refine this for you:

The basement was underground! Find something other than dust from the freaking slabs between the floors! >.<

[edit on 18-8-2005 by bsbray11]

Have you ever heard of "Operation Northwoods" DaTerminator?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Sure there were.

Evan an ordinary house fire will generate temperatures in excess of 1000 degrees C.

Why do you think that the WTC fires would have been different?

Those temps tend to be concentrated in the upper hot gas layer, near the ceiling, only the ceiling tiles had all been knocked down by the shock of the impact and the subsequent fuel explosions.

Furthermore, even if the fireproofing was relatively undamaged, which I don't believe that it was (from personal experience with a similar material, it does not take much to knock it off), the trusses were extremely vulnerable to heat. The diagonals were not that thick, and would have heated up quickly.

Great THEORY. But if you look at THE EVIDENCE, you are PROVEN WRONG.

The upper hot gas layer you say ? Are they anywhere near the invisible flames ? Where I come from flames range from red to yellow white and blue.
Never are they black or invisible on a camera or the naked eye.

Look mate, you know what you gotta do. Keep your head stuck to the tv and believe whatever they throw at you.

If you just took a step back and looked at the entire event, maybe your eyes would open. Cause all you've been doing is denying the simplest evidence. When that's what it all comes down to.

There's no need to go into details, it's even better not to, because the official report is fishy to say the least. And even if we wanted to go into details, we could never find them because they were shipped to China.
You don't need to have structural reports, seismographic info, temperatures, you just need to look at what happend that day, the months before, and the months and years following.
Combine that with how for the first time in history 3 towers did a perfectly vertical collapse due to a (light) fire and you must be pretty damn ignorant to say that these are all coincidences.
We have the evidence, 'the officials' have the theory.

Terminator...could you please leave the link

" I have seen video footage of the 19 terrorists entering the plane and heard audio of the telephone calls concerning the hijackers. "

I like to see those 19 hijackers entering the planes.

did this post close or someting.

it amazes me how when ever it gets to the point that the theorists are the only ones with any evidence... that it end of topic

Originally posted by ABC_123
Terminator...could you please leave the link

" I have seen video footage of the 19 terrorists entering the plane and heard audio of the telephone calls concerning the hijackers. "

I like to see those 19 hijackers entering the planes.

It doesn't take much to find those videos. I get them Later.

news.bbc.co.uk...

did this post close or someting.

it amazes me how when ever it gets to the point that the theorists are the only ones with any evidence... that it end of topic

Or maybe we get tired of hearing your bullsh*t.

[edit on 19-8-2005 by DaTerminator]

[edit on 19-8-2005 by DaTerminator]

[edit on 19-8-2005 by DaTerminator]

Originally posted by DaTerminator

Originally posted by ABC_123
Terminator...could you please leave the link

" I have seen video footage of the 19 terrorists entering the plane and heard audio of the telephone calls concerning the hijackers. "

I like to see those 19 hijackers entering the planes.

It doesn't take much to find those videos. I get them Later.

news.bbc.co.uk...

did this post close or someting.

it amazes me how when ever it gets to the point that the theorists are the only ones with any evidence... that it end of topic

Or maybe we get tired of hearing your bullsh*t.

Great evidence right there, you can't even make out what nationality these people are. And, you're already forgetting the fact that half of the terrorists showed up ALIVE AFTER 9/11.
And there are no 19 terrorists in that video now are they ? Just 2 or 3 foreign guys, they could be anyone and I think we've seen enough evidence lately that not every olive or brown coloured person on video is a terrorist.
So who are these people on the video ? If they are so certain these are the hijackers, why don't they tell us their names ? I'll tell you why, because everytime they have it turned out that the person was still alive .

And you tell us we come up with bull# stories ?
Your ignorance knows no boundaries.



[edit on 19-8-2005 by Shroomery]

Great evidence right there, you can't even make out what nationality these people are. And, you're already forgetting the fact that half of the terrorists showed up ALIVE AFTER 9/11.

Oh really? Show me this from a reliable source.

And there are no 19 terrorists in that video now are they ? Just 2 or 3 foreign guys, they could be anyone and I think we've seen enough evidence lately that not every olive or brown coloured person on video is a terrorist.

First of all that is not the only footage. I'm sure you have seen the footage of the main pilot (I forget his name) board the plane and his face points directly at the security camera. And even if he wasn't a hijacker which you so boldly assert there is no way that he is now alive because he was aboard the plane.

So who are these people on the video ? If they are so certain these are the hijackers, why don't they tell us their names ? I'll tell you why, because everytime they have it turned out that the person was still alive .

That's utter crap. Just because a public news agency fails to mention the hijacker's names doesn't mean they are still alive.

And you tell us we come up with stories ?

Yes.

Your ignorance knows no boundaries.

Thats bull.I think it is your blind need for a conspiracy theory that knows no bounds. We have Al-Queda claiming responsibility for the attacks every single damn day and here you are saying it was some government cover-up. I suppose you are going to say that the uss cole and the recent missle attacks against US ships are all a government conspiracy too.

[edit on 19-8-2005 by DaTerminator]

Originally posted by DaTerminator

Great evidence right there, you can't even make out what nationality these people are. And, you're already forgetting the fact that half of the terrorists showed up ALIVE AFTER 9/11.

Oh really? Show me this from a reliable source.

news.bbc.co.uk...
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

or just google for "911 hijackers alive".
And before you start accusing me of pasting conspiracy links, these FACTS were all over the news.
Sometimes I wonder if you really follow what's happening around those events or just keep your nose up Bushes ass ?

Originally posted by DaTerminator

And there are no 19 terrorists in that video now are they ? Just 2 or 3 foreign guys, they could be anyone and I think we've seen enough evidence lately that not every olive or brown coloured person on video is a terrorist.

First of all that is not the only footage. I'm sure you have seen the footage of the main pilot (I forget his name) board the plane and his face points directly at the security camera. And even if he wasn't a hijacker which you so boldly assert there is no way that he is now alive because he was aboard the plane.

No I haven't, and I can't recall his name either, I'm sure you'll look it up for me.
You're forgetting something though, if SOME turned up alive, your theory of "he must be dead cause he got on the plane" just doesn't add up now does it ?

Originally posted by DaTerminator

So who are these people on the video ? If they are so certain these are the hijackers, why don't they tell us their names ? I'll tell you why, because everytime they have it turned out that the person was still alive .

That's utter crap. Just because a public news agency fails to mention the hijacker's names doesn't mean they are still alive.

How convenient, but the names must be known, right ? So why don't you do some research and tell us their names ? Perhaps they are on the list of those that are spotted alive and well after 9/11?

Originally posted by DaTerminator

Your ignorance knows no boundaries.

Thats bull.I think it is your blind need for a conspiracy theory that knows no bounds. We have Al-Queda claiming responsibility for the attacks every single damn day and here you are saying it was some government cover-up. I suppose you are going to say that the uss cole and the recent missle attacks against US ships are all a government conspiracy too.
[edit on 19-8-2005 by DaTerminator]

Why would anyone need a conspiracy theory ? Ever thought about that ? Do you really think we're all that paranoid ? Don't forget you're calling 90% of New York a conspiracy nut.
YOU are now the minority believing boxcutters caused three towers to collapse, not us. The majority already accepted that those events on 9/11 did not happen the way they like us to believe.
And again, as long as you have evidence it is no longer a theory, the boxcutter story is a theory. Because all evidence for that 'theory' has been debunked as you like to call it.

Where do we have Al-Qaeda claiming responsibility for the attacks ?
That's a flat out lie, he told us he WASN'T responsible for the attacks, as the video shows. But who do you believe ? The fake video where it's obvious that whoever is speaking is not Osama.
Or maybe it was the other video where he said he was happy about the attack ? Well you know what, I was happy too! Because it was just an intro to an entire soap you could see developping even on that day.

You fools just swallowed the whole thing like they assumed you would.

Shroomery and DaTerminator -

The kind of debate you two are getting into now is the kind that will go in circles ad infinitum. Just an observation.

And as Shroomery pointed out...

Originally posted by DaTerminator
We have Al-Queda claiming responsibility for the attacks every single damn day and here you are saying it was some government cover-up.

That's wrong. Bin Laden said he thought it was probably either a faction within the US government or Israel that did 9/11 when he was being interviewed with major Pakistani press on Sept. 28, 2001. The tapes came out later, and of course were bogus, as anyone with eyes can clearly see by looking at photo comparisons. Not to mention the tape was a find unique to our military, unlike most Bin Laden tapes that air over al Jazeera.

You're forgetting something though, if SOME turned up alive, your theory of "he must be dead cause he got on the plane" just doesn't add up now does it ?

Of course it does. If you watch someone get on the plane that crashed into the trade center there is no possible way they are alive whether they are hijacker or not.

So who are these people on the video ? If they are so certain these are the hijackers, why don't they tell us their names ? I'll tell you why, because everytime they have it turned out that the person was still alive .

The BBC said that only four of the 19 hijacker's identities are in doubt, not that all 19 hijackers are still alive, thats absurd. Now you referenced BBC earlier when you talked about the "live hijackers." The video came from the BBC as well. Are you going to claim that your webpage article is credible but not the video which I presented?

Why would anyone need a conspiracy theory ? Ever thought about that ? Do you really think we're all that paranoid ? Don't forget you're calling 90% of New York a conspiracy nut.

I highly doubt that statistic. Come up with that statistic from a credible source.

YOU are now the minority believing boxcutters caused three towers to collapse, not us. The majority already accepted that those events on 9/11 did not happen the way they like us to believe.

That is a delusion. If you were the majority then why haven't I heard more about your ludacris idea on the news? Or from other people prior to my visiting of this website. Why haven't there been actions taken to impeach the president and dissolve the cabinet if your conspiracy is taken seriously?

And again, as long as you have evidence it is no longer a theory, the boxcutter story is a theory. Because all evidence for that 'theory' has been debunked as you like to call it.

Where are you getting this nonsense? A theory in scientific terms is an idea supported by evidence that has withstood the test of time and skepticism. An idea is simply a speculation. And where has the alledged "boxcutter theory" been debunked. I have seen know indication of that. What I have seen is rebuttals of your assertions that the boxcutter theory doesn't work.

Where do we have Al-Qaeda claiming responsibility for the attacks ?
That's a flat out lie, he told us he WASN'T responsible for the attacks, as the video shows. But who do you believe ? The fake video where it's obvious that whoever is speaking is not Osama.

www.cbc.ca...

Or maybe it was the other video where he said he was happy about the attack ? Well you know what, I was happy too! Because it was just an intro to an entire soap you could see developping even on that day.

I'm tired of your mindless anti-american crap.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by AgentSmith

And where are the chunks of concrete we would expect from a gravity-driven collapse? All I see is fine powder.

I'd just like to make it clear that it wasn't me that said that - it was Ray and there is obviously some formatting error there.