In Support Of The Twin Towers Collapsing Due To Fire .

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

You said this was impossible SO can you explain why it happened I see you
seem to ignore this REQUEST!

upload.wikimedia.org...

Whats up you were SO confident about the toothpicks and washers so here
you have a component failure high up that causes a collapse to ground level
so were the toothpicks to strong

I already responded to that Ronan Point crap. You can still see the folded down floors hanging on the side of the building. It just helps demonstrate how scientifically imprecise the word collapse is. It fits very different situations that shojld not even be compared. That wasn't a collapse like a complete building fall and do we have any information on the TIME it took to happen compared to a free fall collapse from the top? It is the TIME that makes the WTC collapse IMPOSSIBLE because of the INERTIA of the MASS slowing things down. But then the BELIEVERS don't insist on knowing the distribution of MASS.

It could only happen if energy sources other than airplanes and jet fuel were involved. I am not trying to explain what they were I am trying to explain why it SHOULD BE OBVIOUS that planes could not do it. But a lot of people are not demanding certain information about the towers. Not knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level after EIGHT YEARS is ridiculous. Talk about floors pancaking or not pancaking without mentioning how much they weighed. It's like talking about football games without mentioning the scores.

The purpose of that demonstration was to show that MASS affected collapse behavior. I was comparing the collapse on toothpicks without washers to toothpicks WITH WASHERS. The strength was the same in both cases but what did the mass do to the collapse distance?

If you watch the video WITH YOUR BRAIN IN GEAR you will notice that the collapse changed due to MASS regardless of the strength of the toothpicks. It's called PHYSICS!

So why aren't the EXPERTS discussing the DISTRIBUTION OF MASS of the towers to explain what should or could have happened to the towers as a result of the aircraft?

The other collapse design is better:

www.youtube.com...

The strength of the paper loops had to be increase toward the bottom as in a real skyscraper. The paper could not hold 60 of those heavy washers like the toothpicks held the small washers. The falling portion is crushable with the same structure as the stationary portion below. The toothpick model is irrelevant by comparison.

Building a physical model with the same structure, mass distribution and strength ratios of the original towers would be extremely difficult and I bet it would cost thousands of dollars. Models will have to demonstrate the PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES of the phenomenon and people will still have to put their brains in gear to figure out how that applies to a large scale object like a 1360 foot skyscraper. As objects get smaller the strength to weight ration changes. A 100th scale model of the WTC made of the exact same materials as the WTC would be far stronger than the WTC in relation to its size therefore the collapse behavior could not match the real thing. So my models are to show the inertial effects of the MASS in a collapse and point out how we are not being told the distributions of mass in the towers.

Very peculiar for the nation that put men on the Moon to leave out information that simple. Newtonian physics is 300 years old. Wasn't knowledge of it necessary to get to the Moon?

psik

[edit on 5-5-2010 by psikeyhackr]

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

It could only happen if energy sources other than airplanes and jet fuel were involved. I am not trying to explain what they were I am trying to explain why it SHOULD BE OBVIOUS that planes could not do it. But a lot of people are not demanding certain information about the towers. Not knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level after EIGHT YEARS is ridiculous. Talk about floors pancaking or not pancaking without mentioning how much they weighed. It's like talking about football games without mentioning the scores.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by psikeyhackr]

In my research I came across quotes that people used cleaning up the rubble.

whatreallyhappened.com...

Originally posted by iamcpc

In my research I came across quotes that people used cleaning up the rubble.

whatreallyhappened.com...

That is fine. But I accept the fact that if someone gave me dust from 9/11 and a laboratory with all of the equipment necessary to test for thermite I would have no idea how to find it. That is something I have to accept other people's expertise in.

But I understand mass, gravity, acceleration, inertia and velocity. I can figure out that certain aspects of this entire business make no sense. So what is with all of the people at JREF and Ryan Mackey?

His Hardfire episode #3 is rather funny, talking about models.

www.youtube.com...

At 6 minutes Mackey applies the conservation of momentum equation to the falling mass and the top level of the stationary mass. He then talks about the calculation of the TOTAL moving mass breaking the supports. But the stationary mass can't move until the supports are bent or broken and they won't bend or break until the mass moves. So Mackey is ASSUMING the two actions which must occur simultaneously can be analyzed separately and don't affect each other.

That is complete nonsense from a NASA SCIENTIST!!!

But my second collapse design is rather similar to the conceptual model he proposed. But my falling portion is crushable while he used a solid block that would not absorb any of its own kinetic energy.

So how many people supposedly knowledgeable of physics are allowing this crap to continue?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by iamcpc


That is complete nonsense from a NASA SCIENTIST!!!

But my second collapse design is rather similar to the conceptual model he proposed. But my falling portion is crushable while he used a solid block that would not absorb any of its own kinetic energy.

Do you have a source or is your statment:
"complete nonsense from a nasa scientist" 100% opinion?

Originally posted by iamcpc

Do you have a source or is your statment:
"complete nonsense from a nasa scientist" 100% opinion?

I provided a link to Ryan Mackey running his mouth.

I pointed out where he stuck his foot in SIX MINUTES into the video and explained what it was..

How does the conservation of momentum apply when the stationary mass has to break its supports to move?

Ron Weick keeps calling Mackey a NASA scientist.

911blogger.com...

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by iamcpc

Do you have a source or is your statment:
"complete nonsense from a nasa scientist" 100% opinion?

I provided a link to Ryan Mackey running his mouth.



How does the conservation of momentum apply when the stationary mass has to break its supports to move?


911blogger.com...

psik

An excellent question. Although I would not ask it here and get someone's un-expert opinion. I would ask a physics professor about that video.

It is my opinion that the author of this thread is simply trying to look smart and incite an argument at the same time. You can't pick pieces of a story that you want to exclude when those pieces have quite a bit to do with the totality of the controversy. WTC7 is central to the debate. To say "We are not talking about this and that," is unproductive.

This whole thread is unproductive. When it comes to facts, opinions don't matter, but he already knew that. He just came here to ruffle some feathers.

reply to post by iamcpc


If you are truly interested in seeking original unpolluted sources then I am not quite sure why you are posting a link to " what really happened ".

In connection with that link I would suggest that you investigate the following :- The picture of firefighters looking into a glowing hole is actually taken from a video showing firefighters looking into a hole with a powerful flashlight. The red hot material in a machines' jaws is photoshopped and the cut upright steel was cut during the clean-up.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by iamcpc

 

If you are truly interested in seeking original unpolluted sources then I am not quite sure why you are posting a link to " what really happened ".

In connection with that link I would suggest that you investigate the following :- The picture of firefighters looking into a glowing hole is actually taken from a video showing firefighters looking into a hole with a powerful flashlight. The red hot material in a machines' jaws is photoshopped and the cut upright steel was cut during the clean-up.

I've found a lot of unpolluted sources.

Originally posted by Alfie1
The red hot material in a machines' jaws is photoshopped

Sorry, no it's not photoshopped. It's only someone's opinion on a website that it was photoshopped. And even if someone photoshopped the red-hot metal, the dripping part would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to photoshop the dripping part in that photo.

Besides, the president of CDI has already stated that that exact image exists as well as videos of the molten steel. I'll believe the president of CDI over some anonymous person on a website any day.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Besides, the president of CDI has already stated that that exact image exists as well as videos of the molten steel. I'll believe the president of CDI over some anonymous person on a website any day.

Really?

Among the dozens of people I have spoken to recently who are experts in the construction of tall buildings (and many of whom witnessed the events of September 11th as they unfolded), only one said that he knew immediately, upon learning, from TV, of the planes' hitting the buildings, that the towers were going to fall. This was Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated, a Maryland-based family business that specializes in reducing tall buildings to manageable pieces of rubble. "Within a nanosecond," he told me. "I said, 'It's coming down. And the second tower will fall first, because it was hit lower down.' "

Before September 11th, the largest building ever to be imploded by accident or design was the J. L. Hudson department store, in Detroit, with 2.2 million square feet of floor space, which C.D.I. "dropped" on October 24, 1998. To do their work, Mark Loizeaux and his brother Doug need to understand the same forces and formulas that structural engineers study, but instead of using that knowledge to erect buildings they use it to take them down. They are structural undertakers, which may explain why Mark, when confronted with the spectacle of the crippled buildings, lacked the sentiment that builders feel for their creations—that innate sympathy which helped blind the engineers of the World Trade towers to the reality of what was about to occur. "I thought, Somebody's got to tell the Fire Department to get out of there," Loizeaux told me. "I picked up the phone, dialled 411, got the number, and tried it—busy. So I called the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management"—which was in 7 World Trade. "All circuits were busy. I couldn't get through."

source:
The Tower Builder
Why did the World Trade Center buildings fall down when they did?
by John Seabrook Issue of 2001-11-19

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Really?

Sorry, but someone giving their opinion about the towers collapsing from the plane impacts, and describing images and videos of molten steel, are two totally different things.

An opinion about the towers collapsing from the impacts is just that, an opinion. But claiming that there are images and videos of molten steel, and even describing the following image to the tee, is more than just opinion. Especially when the claim of molten steel is corroborated by dozens of other eyewitnesses.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/539834a09446.jpg[/atsimg]


So now you are left with a conundrum. Either there really was molten steel, which would be virtually impossible in a normal office fire, or his opinion is correct about the collapse of the towers from the impacts.

Take your pic. I'll await your answer.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Sorry, but someone giving their opinion about the towers collapsing from the plane impacts, and describing images and videos of molten steel, are two totally different things.

The "someone" you speak of is the same someone you said you would listen to. His "opinion" was backed by his experience in controlled demolition and his "opinion" turned out to be a fact.

So now you are left with a conundrum. Either there really was molten steel, which would be virtually impossible in a normal office fire, or his opinion is correct about the collapse of the towers from the impacts.

Take your pic. I'll await your answer.

I never said there wasn't molten materials at GZ. Nor did I state that molten steel can be caused by a "normal office fire."

So allow me to ask you a hypothetical question. If you were at ground zero and a CDI expert was there and warned of the building collapsing, would you stick around?

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I never said there wasn't molten materials at GZ.

Most debunkers have stated that there was no molten steel found at GZ, despite the images and the dozens of witnesses to the contrary.

That means that either the president of CDI is mistaken about the molten steel, or he's mistaken about the collapse of the buildings. If there was no molten steel as most debunkers claim, then he cannot be correct on both accounts.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
If you were at ground zero and a CDI expert was there and warned of the building collapsing, would you stick around?

That's a rhetorical question. Nobody would stick around, regardless of what may or may not happen. If a car was on fire and a firefighter told everybody to get back because it could explode, then everybody would get back, regardless if the car actually exploded or not.

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I provided a link to Ryan Mackey running his mouth.

How does the conservation of momentum apply when the stationary mass has to break its supports to move?

911blogger.com...

An excellent question. Although I would not ask it here and get someone's un-expert opinion. I would ask a physics professor about that video.

But that is the absurd thing about this entire situation.

That is why I call it the Piltdown Man Incident of the 21st century.

The physics professors should have been pointing out within six months of 9/11 that the scenario was IMPOSSIBLE. At the very least they should have said we must have accurate information on the distributions of steel and concrete in the buildings to even begin the analysis. Now to keep everyone believing this nonsense they have to keep them NOT UNDERSTANDING Newtonian physics.

www.youtube.com...

psik

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I never said there wasn't molten materials at GZ.

Most debunkers have stated that there was no molten steel found at GZ, despite the images and the dozens of witnesses to the contrary.

All I know definitively is that there were witnesses to molten materials. None of the molten material were analyzed for their chemical composition.

That means that either the president of CDI is mistaken about the molten steel, or he's mistaken about the collapse of the buildings. If there was no molten steel as most debunkers claim, then he cannot be correct on both accounts.

No, he was 100% correct with his prediction of the collapses. He stated they would collapse, and they did, in the order he predicted.

He stated an opinion as to the material he saw the picture of. He has admitted on at least a couple occasions that he personally did not see any molten steel at GZ.

reply to post by GreyFoxSolid


Maybe you would care to 'look smart' and show how WTC-7 was in any way instrumental in bringing down WTC-1 & WTC-2 ?

Maybe you could further show how Flight 77 or 93 can also be construed as 'central' to this discussion which deals with the twin towers ?

Whatever happened at WTC-7 played no part in bringing down the twin towers , therefore , WTC-7 is irrelevant to this thread .

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I am still hoping that you can offer some clarification on what your position is , exactly .

You have stated that you didn't believe thermites/thermates were involved.
You have shown that you lean towards conventional explosives having brought the towers down . And now you favor the 'molten' metals claim.

My question still is ... What type of conventional explosives do you propose was responsible for the 'molten metals' ?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/539834a09446.jpg[/atsimg]

So how hot would you say that this "dripping steel" is?

911research.wtc7.net...

1700-1800F ?????

Then it wasn't steel, was it?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

That means that either the president of CDI is mistaken about the molten steel, or he's mistaken about the collapse of the buildings. If there was no molten steel as most debunkers claim, then he cannot be correct on both accounts.

Explain this leap in logic.

The 2 issues are clearly not interconnected.