Gravity Can't Do This!

Those of you who may scream "7 second delay", let me explain the use of this....

In the event of profanity or the need to cut something out, broadcasters will use a delay in order to cause something to not be seen or heard. This is also used for time delay but can only be done by one station at a time. With the multiple videos being shot, it therefore is impossible because every video feed time system would have to be synced with the same time system.

News helicopters would not be synced to that small window of time. Film for movies are shot at 29.97 (30 f.p.s.) and TV film is at 24 f.p.s. But Europe uses PAL which is 25 f.p.s. The United States, Canada and Mexico are all NTSC. With live video for television, the news stations would have been using 24 f.p.s. because the interlacing of your television signal shows this better.

All tv stations have a time sync generator that coordinates the video time, but that only works per tv station. The time sync generator is in the studio. All of these multiple tv stations and helicopters would not be synced because they are not in the studio.Therefore, IMPOSSIBLE for this to be digitally altered while it is live.

reply to post by WarminIndy

"Truthers" with no video experience at all suddenly started saying the videos were digitally altered so it made it "look" like planes hit, while "bombs" were exploding. What I will say now is that is bull crap.

Once again, for the 30th time, I've never said that, and I haven't seen a single person say that.

It is impossible to edit video when the video is live, meaning that what you are seeing happening is actually happening when you are seeing it.

That's awesome, but you're arguing with yourself right now. Nobody has claimed any of those things happened in this thread, but you're arguing against it.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c6fe4ea78dbd.jpg[/atsimg] As exciting as your one way argument may seem, nobody has said any of the crazy things that you have suggested in this thread. How about you stick to the things that people have said and are actively discussing?

There is NO editing software that can do that. And I have used both Adobe Premier Pro and Final Cut Pro, both used extensively as the industry standard. If you go to any film school, you will learn to use both of them. For your film portfolio you must have when you graduate, you must show proficiency on both of these programs. Adobe Premier Pro is cross-platform, whereas Final Cut Pro has only been made cross-platform with the latest release.

Cool

But "Truthers" will have us believe that all those people who witnessed this were actually just government agents. That what they did was this...."bombs exploded, but the government created a digital image that they then streamed over the news"....do you see how retarded that concept is?

I do.

You're just thinking of the craziest conspiracy theories that you can imagine, and then lumping every single person who doesn't believe the official story in that category as if we all believe it. Do you see how retarded that concept is?

Helicopters from the news channels in New York City were flying and their cameraman captured the planes hitting, they were taken from different angles because they were in different locations. One thing that you learn in film school is this...when you are filming with a camera, the direction in which your light source comes from will change the light and color of what you are filming. That is why understanding how light works is fundamental in film production. So you see different angles and different lighting conditions. I don't think I should have to draw any pictures to get you to understand this.

Thanks for sharing your expertise, but like I have told you probably 15 times now, all of the things you are saying are pointless. Nobody is arguing for any of the things that you're arguing against, so what's the point?

So when are hearing people say "explosion"..of course, because the plane exploded. For this to be a digitally altered event from that many angles as it is streaming live....IMPOSSIBLE.

Actually there were many policemen, firemen, and so on that heard explosions going off before and during the collapses, much like what would be seen in a controlled demolition.

So if planes hit, what would the damage be?

The holes in each tower that everybody here has seen many times and aren't arguing about.

reply to post by psikeyhackr



Sorry but there is no way the towers were 400,000 tons each, 200,000 tons each would be more like it.

reply to post by ANOK


OK ANOK the North Tower was hit high up so your core columns are a lot smaller! also the plane went through almost mid elevation and almost level as well so the core would have taken a real good hit.

Also that tower had a bit more mass on the upper level/roof due to the antenna,also this cross bracing you go on about care to point out the details of it.

Also what about the floorslab connections why are they the same size on every floor any ideas why that is ANOK or will you not answer?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So how can this fuel slow down to ZERO VELOCITY to fall down an elevator shaft?

Jeeze, maybe if it splashes against walls and elevator walls it would come to a stop and then be pulled by gravity down the shafts...

Or maybe this is a difficult concept for you to understand?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Sorry but there is no way the towers were 400,000 tons each, 200,000 tons each would be more like it.

I just love this nonsense with people that don't know squat having AUTHORITATIVE OPINIONS.

The NCSTAR1 report says that the two towers had 200,000 tons of steel. So the steel alone was half the weight you claim for one building. They don't specify a total for the concrete. Curious that! Most sources from before 9/11 say there were 425,000 CUBIC YARDS of concrete for both buildings. There were two types of concrete, 110 lb/cu ft and 150 lb/cu ft. So even using the lighter concrete that would be more than 300,000 tons per building.

This is from Gregory Urich's website who says he downloaded the NIST SAP2000 database and put it into a spreadsheet.

Taking into account all source figures, the total weight of WTC 1 and 2 -- for both towers with tenant property -- should have been about 1.2 million US tons, just like the rough figure provided by the NY Times, rounded up from LERA's 1,176,000. When it comes time to compare the debris weight removed from Ground Zero, we should expect no more than 1.25 million tons for the two towers... and no less than 1.15 million.

the911forum.freeforums.org...

Almost TEN YEARS and people don't know the simple stuff. Where are the PhD physicists who have been demanding accurate data to solve this problem.

psik

Originally posted by TupacShakur

I base my opinion off of the facts, evidence, and experimentation, most of which is provided by people who are much more experienced and knowledgeable in those fields than me. Many professionals have reached different conclusions than what the official story pushes.

And how do know whether or not thry're lying to you, or did their experiments all wonky just in order to convince the conspiracy minded that their preconceived notions are correct?

For example, Jonathan Cole did an experiment where he made a big fire, put a steel beam and some drywall, etc in it, and then made the claim that he since he didn't get any eutectic corrosion of the steel, then regular office contents couldn't be the source of the sulfur that resulted in that hi temp corrosion.

How do YOU know that he faithfully reproduced the conditions inside the burning rubble fire? Cuz at first glance he didn't come anywhere close to me:

1-his fire was well ventilated (open) and as such wouldn't reproduce the increased concentration nor slow burning that would have been a feature of the rubble fire.

2-he didn't apply water to the experiment either, which is an important factor in maintaining a reducing atmosphere.

I really don't think that YOU, nor any truther have any idea if this experiment is valid, yet I see it accepted wholeheartedly.

The same goes for his thermate cutting steel video. He claims that it had a very similar result to the corroded steel. And yet, IIRC, he provides zero electron scanning photographs whereby he identifies the features that the FEMA Appx C report showed.

And yet again, it is accepted by truthers.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


So you know that people have made realistic estimates of the mass of the concrete and steel, but then you are still wandering in limbo wondering about it. But then again, I never understood your issue with the uncertainty of the exact mass anyway.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by ANOK
Pay attention to this OSers, and then try to explain how those 47 columns, tied together with numerous cross bracing, could telescope down through an increasing path of most resistance?

Straw man. Can you quote the section in the official explanation where it is stated that the columns telescoped down? (no you can't, it is a fabricated fantasy so that you can reject the official explanation).

Exactly right.

Truthers either knowingly build strawmen, or are too uneducated to truly understand what is explained to them.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


i KNOW SQUAT THAT FROM A GUY THAT BUILDS A MODEL WITH PAPER TUBES AND STEEL WASHERS

Do YOU have 30+ yrs in construction do you spec fixings test fixings and have worked for a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK COMPANY well what are your credentials.

You can look at other buildinds to get a good idea of the tonnages,

Your massive concrete tonnage is for all the SERVICES, CARPARKS ETC BELOW THE TOWERS!!!

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So how can this fuel slow down to ZERO VELOCITY to fall down an elevator shaft?

Jeeze, maybe if it splashes against walls and elevator walls it would come to a stop and then be pulled by gravity down the shafts...

Or maybe this is a difficult concept for you to understand?

Joey these guys cant think they come up with their idea how things would work then any other is wrong.

Anok psikeyhackr and others keep going on about the steel being thicker at the bottom NOW thats obvious it has to carry the loads of the wall/core colums for the full height BUT notice they wont answer why the floorslab connectors are the same all the way done well apart from a certain location but as they dont actuall have a CLUE about the buildings they are talking about they dont know that.

NOW THIS IS FROM A SITE THEY WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT

Note that the buildings are stiffened by the composite steel-concrete floors. The floors are an integral part of the structural system. Without the composite floor slabs, the buildings would soon collapse.

ANOTHER SNIPPET

The wall thickness and grade of steel in the external columns are varied in successive steps in the upward direction: wall thickness decreasing from 12.5 to 7.5 mm, yield point of the steel from 70.0 to 29.5 kg/mm2. To ensure that the floors remain plane, i.e., free from warping distortion, the external columns are so designed that the stresses, and therefore the strains, produced in them by vertical loads are equal to those produced in core columns (mild steel with yield point of 24 kg/mm2)

Big VARIATION IN STRENGTH EH ANOK AND PSIKEYHACKR !!!!

reply to post by Joey Canoli

And how do know whether or not thry're lying to you, or did their experiments all wonky just in order to convince the conspiracy minded that their preconceived notions are correct?

For example, Jonathan Cole did an experiment where he made a big fire, put a steel beam and some drywall, etc in it, and then made the claim that he since he didn't get any eutectic corrosion of the steel, then regular office contents couldn't be the source of the sulfur that resulted in that hi temp corrosion.

How do YOU know that he faithfully reproduced the conditions inside the burning rubble fire?

I don't think the conditions were 100% accurate, but it's an experiment. Where are NISTs experiments? The only one that they performed that I know of was the one with Underwriters Laboratories, in which the models of the WTC floors were exposed to fires similar to those in the WTCs before the collapse, yet after 2 hours the floors didn't collapse. However they stuck with their theory that was just proven false.

1-his fire was well ventilated (open) and as such wouldn't reproduce the increased concentration nor slow burning that would have been a feature of the rubble fire.

2-he didn't apply water to the experiment either, which is an important factor in maintaining a reducing atmosphere.

I really don't think that YOU, nor any truther have any idea if this experiment is valid, yet I see it accepted wholeheartedly.

Yeah, because it's an experiment. Have you done better experiments? Where are the experiments done that debunk Jonathan Coles experiment? Where are the experiments showing how the materials present in the Twin Towers can create eutectic steel? I sure haven't seen any, but I guess if you want to bash the only known experiment which recreates the conditions that many speculate created that eutectic steel, go ahead.

The same goes for his thermate cutting steel video. He claims that it had a very similar result to the corroded steel. And yet, IIRC, he provides zero electron scanning photographs whereby he identifies the features that the FEMA Appx C report showed.

And yet again, it is accepted by truthers.

Yeah it's accepted, because National Geographic had an experiment using hundreds of pounds of thermate and they claimed it didn't cut the steel. The Great Thermate Debate on the other hand cut steel in various ways using just a small fraction of the thermate used by Nat. Geo.

So yes, it's accepted.

reply to post by wmd_2008

Sorry but there is no way the towers were 400,000 tons each, 200,000 tons each would be more like it.

Here ya go:

The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t

The reason I keep posting the "Truther" theories is because "Truthers" have made so many of them that were proven wrong and now they post here saying that airplanes and gravity can't do it. The whole basis of the theory by "Truthers" is that there were no airplanes at all.

While you may like to try to hide behind things like "I didn't say that"...your argument is still based in your belief there were no air planes. Were there no airplanes? Of the mountainous amounts of proof, evidence, witness testimony, actual pieces of air plane parts, air planes caught on live video you now have to prove that air planes can not bring down a building.

We know the buildings were hit by planes. Explosions were heard before and during the collapse. The explosions were caused the chain of events after being hit by planes.

As many times as you say "I didn't say that"...just means you are trying to semantically inform us that the basis of your argument is invalid, but at the same time holding to the theory there were no planes. You do not have to tell us, we already know that your argument is what you imply it is.

If I ask you "Do you believe planes hit the buildings" and you say "No", then you have bought into the theory of a government cover-up. And that cover-up theory includes the entire gamut, of which so many things have been disproven.

Do you believe planes did not hit the buildings?
Do you believe there were no Jews working that day?
Do you believe that it was a digitally manipulated live stream?

If you say yes to those, then you are a "Truther". You ignore all the evidence that disproves it.

You have not provided a single shred of evidence that bombs caused it. And that is what we want you to do, show the physical evidence of a bomb from the WTC. You guys are the ones saying it, so prove it.

We who believe the truth have presented physical evidence of planes, of the cause of explosions, the eye witness testimony and the laws of physics relating to architecture and construction.

What you have is a bunch of people who ignore the same evidence. I am sorry, but if my car were parked under a building and I come out to look at it and it has a giant burning airplane wheel that has smashed it, then I have to ask where the wheel came from. Now suppose a lot of cars around mine also had various pieces of burning air planes also on them, I guess it is reasonable that it came from a burning air plane.

Suppose you are in a conference room on the other side of the building...you hear an explosion, are you going to automatically assume it was a plane or a bomb? If you did not see it but you know something happened your mind will go to the first logical conclusion, and that would be a bomb. And that is what many of these people reported, because they were in a building that had 4 sides, one of which is on the opposite side of the plane impact. But on the side of the building that was hit, those people said immediately that it was a plane because they saw it.They called their loved ones and said they were hit by a plane.

Firemen were in the lobby of both buildings because when the first tower was hit, they were evacuating the entire block of buildings. So in tower 2, the firemen did not see that it was a plane. You have to remember that these firemen where previously in their fire houses and were called to the Trade Center. So no, they did not see the first plane. Those firemen in the lobby did not see the second plane. That does not mean there were no planes, only that they knew an explosion occurred.

You "Truthers" are trying to use semantics to base an argument on. It does not work with the evidence. You may say "I didn't say it here" does not mean that you don't believe it. It does not mean you didn't say it elsewhere. That simply means you did not say a particular sentence in this thread. But by admission, you deny planes hit the towers. That is based on a theory of denial.

When challenged with the technology of video, you fall back onto the theory. Because you could not debunk the technology of video.

That merely states that no matter what evidence you are presented with, you will deny it. You ask for proof and were presented with it. So the challenge now for you is, show us proof of bombs. Show us some video evidence of someone planting a bomb. Show us bomb housings. Show us chemical evidence of bombs. Show us evidence of what rooms they were planted in. Show us the math involved in how many sticks of dynamite it would take to do this. Show us what type of bomb it was. You are the one calling for evidence, why don't you put up or shut up. Simple as that.

We are not the ones with lack of evidence, you are.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Please, just stop posting. You're embarassing yourself.

However, I will address one point made in your nonsensical, generalization filled idiotic, ignorant rant:

You have not provided a single shred of evidence that bombs caused it. And that is what we want you to do, show the physical evidence of a bomb from the WTC. You guys are the ones saying it, so prove it.

This thread I just made has tons of evidence backing up a controlled demolition, or as you like to call it, a "bomb from the WTC".

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Please, just stop posting.

You're embarassing yourself.

However, I will address one point made in your nonsensical, generalization filled idiotic, ignorant rant:

You have not provided a single shred of evidence that bombs caused it. And that is what we want you to do, show the physical evidence of a bomb from the WTC. You guys are the ones saying it, so prove it.

This thread I just made has tons of evidence backing up a controlled demolition, or as you like to call it, a "bomb from the WTC".

edit on 30-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post

Then prove me wrong.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Then prove me wrong.

You asked for proof of a controlled demolition, so I linked you to a thread that contains just that, and then you ask for proof.....so.....yeah......good talk.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Sorry but there is no way the towers were 400,000 tons each, 200,000 tons each would be more like it.

According to this site 500,000 tons is correct (and no it's not a 'truther' site).

Both towers were built out of steel frames, glass, and concrete slabs on steel truss joists. A single tower consists of 90,000,000 kg (100,000 tons) of steel, 160,000 cubic meters (212,500 cubic yards) of concrete and 21,800 windows. One single tower has a mass of about 450,000,000 kilograms (500,000 tons). The interior design of the World Trade Center contains 240 vertical steel columns, which were called the Vierendeel trusses. These steel columns maintained the tower's structure and helped to create an extremely "light"building.

hypertextbook.com...

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So you know that people have made realistic estimates of the mass of the concrete and steel, but then you are still wandering in limbo wondering about it. But then again, I never understood your issue with the uncertainty of the exact mass anyway.

edit on 30-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

Where did I say I considered the estimates to be reasonable?

I have told Gregory Urich that his DISTRIBUTION of steel was wrong. He has the perimeter wall panels at the 9th floor weighing 19 tons. There is an article from 1970 which says it was 22 tons. Urich admits he did a linear extrapolation. But if you try to do a linear extrapolation with 22 tons the panels at the top would have to have NEGATIVE WEIGHTS. That is impossible. In fact the distribution cannot be linear. We don't know what it was.

This was Urich's response:

the911forum.freeforums.org...

So the total mass and the distribution of mass are two different things. But that distribution is relevant to the conservation of momentum in analyzing the behavior in a sequence of collisions in a supposed gravitational collapse. So people like Frank Greening and Gregory Urich are doing the same thing as the NIST by rehashing insufficient information which won't allow an accurate analysis. Urich does not complain about inadequate data from the NIST.

So the people that have chosen to believe can convince themselves that the information is adequate even though they don't bother trying to understand enough grade school physics for themselves.



psik

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Note that the buildings are stiffened by the composite steel-concrete floors. The floors are an integral part of the structural system. Without the composite floor slabs, the buildings would soon collapse.

ANOTHER SNIPPET

The wall thickness and grade of steel in the external columns are varied in successive steps in the upward direction: wall thickness decreasing from 12.5 to 7.5 mm, yield point of the steel from 70.0 to 29.5 kg/mm2. To ensure that the floors remain plane, i.e., free from warping distortion, the external columns are so designed that the stresses, and therefore the strains, produced in them by vertical loads are equal to those produced in core columns (mild steel with yield point of 24 kg/mm2)

No link? Never mind I found it for you...911research.wtc7.net...

Notice what your second 'snippet' says...'The wall thickness and grade of steel in the external columns are varied in successive steps in the upward direction'. So not only did the core taper in size, so did the external mesh.

A building soon to collapse, is not the same as a building collapsing through a path of increasing most resistance.
The laws of motion apply regardless of someones claims. If you can't address the laws of motion you have no argument, you just keep appealing to authority.

I'll ask once again, how did the core columns telescope down through a path of increasing most resistance? How did 15 floors crush 95 floors? How does less mass crush more mass? You have not even come close to answering these questions, but keep trying...