Ok, I'll come back to that at the end...
I was actually refering to WTC7 there, saying buildings closer survived and never collapsed, but #7 collapsed.
I didn't think you were refering to the whole bulding, that would be stupid. There's no way it done 25% of damage to the exterior of the building, I'd give it somewhere between 5 and 10%, if even that.
But fires were not burning throughout the entire floor space, a short while after the planes imapcted there are pictures of a woman standing in the hole the plane just made in the side of the building. Not sure which one, I think it was the first one hit. But there was no raging fire where she was, so it obviously spread, then obviously that steel began to cool and condcut heat from where the fires were. It wouldn't be burning in the same area for long enough to weaken the steel.
First of all a plane is built to be light, so of course they'd use as small a part as possible. So a plane is a bad comparison. A building is built to be tough/rigid/strong so why small bolts?
Second, you know how the towers were built, do you? Nice, so how did you miss those I beams used for the floor? They are quite obvious in a number of images I have rescently seen, so I'm not sure how you "know" how they were built. So who has the facts here? Have a look at some of the images here - http://www.ae911truth.org/docs/wtcconst.php And look at the attachments on this post - http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=925595#post925595
I've kind of covered the trusses but what happenes to the truss directly below which isn't heated up? It just can't hold twice the weight it already is? Anyway, as the trusses didn't actually hold the floors up (I know technically the outer walls are the final load bearing part of the structure we are talking about the floor so that's why I didn't mention that) the I beams you've seen in those photos are and in this next link you'll see steel frame buildings DO NOT catastrophically fail due to fire. I've only gone through a part of this powerpoint but already there's some good information in it - http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... show.php?i=58&hires=1 Some pages to note: 28, 29, 47 is the start of WTC7 and 57 has an interesting video. So now, you asked for some evidence, have a look for yourself.
There's more here - http://www.ae911truth.org/twintowers.php
Last edited by U4IK ST8, .
Aha I see.
Now it's all much clearer. 
Ok, I had a look, just at the first page and already I get an idea of your thoughts...
First post from you -
Second -
Now... first of all, not jet fuel in the world can melt steel, it's just not possible. An object being heated by fire cannot get hotter than the fire itself. Jet fuel can't burn at hot enough temps to melt steel.
Second, there were plenty of other buildings, some closer than WTC7, which didn't collapse? Some even had the towers fall directly onto them, WTC5 & 6. They suffered massive damage but didn't just fall down. Building 6 had to be demolished to bring it down.
Third, "when a 757 flies into a building, it can destroy 25% of the outer skeletal support structure" now that is a brave statement. 25% is a big part of the towers mate, I don't think it destroyed anywhere near that amount.
Fourth, " for cost-reasons, the steel was not correctly fireproofed and started to warp under the heat, and that the small bolts holding the trusses in place were not designed to withstand any significant amount of lateral sheer force" who decided to cut costs? Anyway, the fires could not have burned hot enough to weaken enough of the steel that there would be a catistrophic failing of almost all columns across the impacted floors. Small bolts, ha nice. Do you think people who designed a building to take a hit from a plane would use small bolts and flimsy trusses for the floors that people would be working on? And you say these small bolts were not designed for lateral forces? These towers would sway in the wind, the tops I'm sure would have alot of lateral force put upon them, how come they never failed in windy condition? Or when the planes first struck?
And finally, these trusses. The whole story balances on these. If I showed you images that proved these trusses were not the final load bearing parts of each floor, what would your reaction be? Because I can tell you now that there was more than just trusses holding up these floors.
@Dan - Nice, I like it!
But, if you have a pile(tower) of 100 cars on top of each other, you take the top 30 up about the height of 2 cars, drop them, will they crush every single car? Please don't tell me you think every car will be crushed?
So where's this engine? Or any engine from the plane that hit the Pentagon. It would be nice to see it.
I think you should go work for NIST then because they are finding it difficult to explain the collapse of the towers, "global collapse" starts and that's all they say. No official report has explained how each floor was crushed to pieces, not 1. Nobody can explain how WTC 7 collapsed. That sounds like a thorough investigation to me.
About your sum there. There are things which happen in a gravity driven pancake collapse, which is what the official story is. Pieces don't get thrown 100's meters from gravity driven collapses, 4inch thick concrete floors do not get pulverised in a pancake collapse. But on 9/11 both of these things happened, twice. Actually 3 times including WTC7.
And I can't believe you say my sources are plainly wrong without showing anything to back it up.
Last edited by U4IK ST8, .
Hmmm, nice personal attack on me there but I'll put that aside for a minute.
None of the things I say here are my own personal thought up ideas. Everything I say here is what I have heard engineers, structural engineers, firemen, professors, policemen and eye witnesses say. All alot more qualified than I am on there certain fields. Don't come here and start bashing me personally 'cos well, it wont do you any good. And because of your tone I will NEVER ask you anything. So, stick around if you like but I wont be looking to you for advice, thanks.
I know of one, Steven Jones, who found microscopic iron spheres in the dust from the WTC. A woman who was cleaning her apartment, that was in direct sight of the towers, kept a bag of dust and gave it to him. He analysed it and found the iron spheres in it, these are ONLY produced during a thermite reaction. He is also supposed to have found some grey and red flakes in the dust which have the signature of thermite, but I haven't heard it from his mouth yet, nor have I looked into it. I read it in a document by David Chandler, a member of architects and engineers for 9/11 truth.
Wrong, intercontinental? I don't think so. Fuel-laden? The towers were built to withstand a 707 which could carry twice as much fuel as a 757, so I think they took into account the fuel/fire scenario.
@Juls: The US government knew Pearl Harbour was going to happen, they faked the Gulf of Tonkin to atack Vietnam, so it is entirely possible they had a hand in 9/11. False flag terrorism isn't a new thing. I have only heard the name Lusitania, I haven't heard anything about it though.
So, Juls, what do you say to 1 gallon of fuel having about 100 million joules of energy? So if there was only 100 gallons of fuel in the planes that would be what? 1 billion joules?(not sure if thats right but it would be alot if the tank was half full, 5,000 gallons @ 100 million joules per gallon) 400 million joules doesn't sound like much now I know that.
You are calling that proof? Nice...I see smoke alright, no fires. And alot of black smoke, which indicates what? Well, firemen say it's an oxygen starved fire but anyway. I also see some windows blown out, no substantial structural damage.
What it looks like to me is, the smoke is from the towers debrit and a couple of floors you can see on the sides of WTC7 which are blackend, and the wind is coming from behind WTC7, along the side and its creating like a vortex, sucking thing(lol technical term anyone? pls?) and it's sucking the smoke into that area. You can almost see through the smoke in some parts and see that there's not that much damage at all. You can see the front of the building is ok through the smoke at the bottom.
"See that building, almost entirely on fire on pretty well every window of every floor on one side?" Blatent lie, every window? every floor? Come on Sam, don't start bullshitting.
EDIT: Sam, you also seem to be seeing what you want to see, not what's actually there.
Last edited by U4IK ST8, .
Ok....a question for you...
If the fire wasn't there would the tower collapse?
And I never said dynamic failure didn't exist, I just thought it wasn't a good example of the towers collapse.
Also, you talk about the floors as if they are flimsy/paper like structures. The trusses were not the final load bearing structure for the floors. Although we are led to believe this.(See my previous post about this it's the final part of that post) So, I find it hard to believe the floors failed as easy as they did. Anyway, the fires would never have gotten hot enough to even weaken the steel. Alot of the fuel was burned up in the initial explosion and the rest would have burned out in 10-20mins. What's left? Office furniture, which would find it extremely hard to weaken this steel. Also, the furniture would have to have a fire proof rating, since it's in a high rise building. And because there was so much steel and it was all interconnected, it would easily conduct the heat away from the heat source.
And about the bridge, I can believe what you say because I have no other choice. You built/designed and had a hand in making it fail so therefore I have no other option but to believe you. If you didn't have any input I would still believe you because bridges are a different structure and have different strengths and weaknesses. The same way if the towers oscillated so much it would obviously fail. They do not need to be particulalry bulky structures either, to hold considerable amounts of weight compared to their own.
Dynamic failure does actually sound more fitting when you speak of a bridge, don't you think?
Ok, maybe I left out some words there and didn't explain what I ment properly. What I should have said was it wasn't a collapse caused by the force of gravity plus fire.
And no thanks, I am able to find out for myself.
Not that I need to though.Hundreds? Ok, show me even 50 agencies that released documents on there tests for explosive residue.
And you say I speculate? There is absolutely NO PROOF what so ever, of extensive damage, enough to cause collapse, from the towers debrit OR from fire.
I just said what it was proof of in the previous sentences.
I don't huff like a child does, so where you got that from I don't know. YOU don't have "irrefutable" proof either so we're both on the same level. If you did, or anyone else did, we wouldn't be here having this discussion.
Anyway, read what this chap thinks and forget about what I have to say on the matter.
http://www.911speakout.org/WhyIAmConvinced.pdf
You believe what you see is a collapse, but how can you or anyone for that matter, prove it? A video alone is not proof. People believe that there were no planes because the videos of the planes hitting the buildings are not "real" looking. Does that, therefore, mean, that because the footage of a plane entering the tower has only one wing that there were no planes? Obviously not. Just because they tell you it was a collapse, you look and think it's collapse, doesn't mean it's a collapse. The video IS proof that the buildings came down, no doubts there. The video IS proof that the towers were totally destroyed. But the video IS NOT proof that they collapsed, it just isn't.
And where is this evidence? I haven't seen any. NIST only had around 250 pieces of steel to examine. You can't tell me that was a full and thorough examination of the steel from the towers. Steven Jones has found evidence of thermate reaction in the dust. Tiny iron balls which only get ejected with a thermate reaction. There was nothing else in the towers which could have caused these tiny irons balls/pellets to form.
What proof have you got mate? Show me some. Crap you call it, others may differ from that evaluation.
Ah, can't be arsed looking through stuff just to show you. Getting tired of saying the same shit and it being rejected by you lot. One day, like the Gulf of Tonkin, this will be opened up and people will find out the real reason for invading Afghan/Iraq.
Shit, I actually miss read his post there. Thought it said "I don't think the official story is" questionable. My bad...
You still need to prove how they crushed themselves. Using a report that only shows how the buildings were damaged(edit: by the planes impact), how the fires burned but not show how it physically crushed itself isn't proving anything. And there are plenty of people, well educated people, debunking the official story, so who's right?
I watched it also, as it happened. I also fell for the story that bin Ladens crew did it and that the towers crushed themselves. Why? Because I just took their word for it, I never looked into it at all. Once I did look into it and start listening to people I understood that what happened to the towers was physically impossible.
Hmmm...
What I said was... " but that is not proven to have crushed the whole building, has it? So it's actually not an example of a building being crushed. It's more speculation" I never once mentioned collapse in my response. There's a difference between crush and collapse, I'm sure you are aware of that...
Last edited by U4IK ST8, .
Well you can use it, but that is not proven to have crushed the whole building, has it? So it's actually not an example of a building being crushed. It's more speculation. We wouldn't be here having this conversation if that was proven.
Hahaha. You can't use the actual footage of an event as an example of that event. And a bad video of the event at that. Why not use this one? Posted by ae911truth (Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c You should actually look through their other videos.
You believe, without reasonable doubt, that 9/11 was planned and finally followed through by bin Laden and his mates?
Of course it would be difficult for me alone to change peoples minds here, that is quite obvious. But it's not my intention to change their minds solely on the videos or words I show them. They will have to look for themselves, I only show them some pieces. I understand that the quotes and other info I have put here is speculation, but this is speculation from highly educated people. The people who were actually authorised to investigate this didn't do a thorough job and didn't use all of their educated abilities to find out exactly what happened. How many people in the Commission report are actually structural engineers? I know NIST may have a few but why didn't they show us, even simulated, what happened to each floor as the tower collapsed? "Global collapse ensued" isn't good enough for many people, as an explination for the towers crushing themselves.
Hopefully one day someone will get the balls to come out and give us some damning evidence. Then what happens? Everyone here who believes the towers fell by themselves will go back on what they have been saying in this discussion? I'd like to see that.
Last edited by U4IK ST8, .
Ok, I'm not going through every repsonse again, since not one person has any meat in their comments.
Not one person here has shown me a reasonable, even half descent, explination for how the towers fell. If you feel I'm wrong, fair enough. Believe what the "experts" who were appointed by the government to investigate it, say to you.
Now see, nobody here seems to be picking up on my counter arguements. SamH sits back for a while and only picks what he wants to respondd to. I try respond to everything people put forward. I say that all them examples Juls showed me don't fit into this scenario and nobody says anything about that. He talks about how many jules of energy was involved, yet he fails to mention that 1 gallon of fuel produces close to one hundred million joules, so I found out. So, the explosion of the fuel could of had more energy than the actual collapse. I have also pointed out things in the video kingfag showed, nobody responds to that.
Listen, you can talk shit all you want. Show me a reasonable example of a tall building, with exterior load bearing walls, a core and that collapses to the ground, crushing everything in its path, including it's basement and I'll come back and say "ok, you've showed me a good enough example, so what I've been saying is total bullshit. I don't know what I was thinking." I am waiting for this to happen, you think I enjoy typing out responses, the same thing over and over? Of course I'll stick to my guns if I believe I'm right.
And just a quick note to Sam - Of course that's not all I got from what you wrote, but I wasn't going to respond to that with the tone I got from your post. I'm not getting involved in a slaggin match, or turning around and saying "well I'd kill you too, if you said some of that shit to my face" but that's pathectic really. Sam, you show me some evidence, that you feel, makes the case for the towers unquestionable. Come on, I'll be waiting.
And Mookie, I just noticed your comment there so I'll respond to that.
That has to be the funniest comment so far. It shows you have NO clue and no understanding. Why and How could I change the laws of physics to suit this event? They are what they are, nobody can change them. You should look them up. You are just argueing a side of an arguement to suit you. You say that you did at one stage believe 9/11 was an inside job, but I doubt you ever did because you don't seem to be able to understand aspects of this event. You will now be another person I refuse to converse with because of the shit you talk, now please go wipe your mouth becasue the shit is dripping off your face, you are talking so much of it.
From now on I'm only going to respond to posts with aspects of 9/11 in them, not conspiracy theory bashing comments. Once again, everyone seems to think the official story is unquestionable, when, in fact, it is also a theory. Not all the facts are in the final report. What about William Rodrigez(sp?)? What about his comments? He was praised by Bush & Co. until he started talking about what he heard/felt during the attacks. Don't you think the testimony from the janiter of the towers is most important? Do you think it should be in the final report? Well the "experts" didn't think so, which is another thing which amazes me.
EDIT: Ok, if you think I'm nuts, fair enough. Listen to this MIT Prof. and see do you think what he is also nuts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBPuu9o89dk (he begins at about 1min10secs)@SamH - notice how much steel NIST actually had to analyse. You laughed at me when I said not all the steel was analysed. Show me where you get your information on that from.
EDIT2: Doh! That's the wrong vid, that one is bad quality. Here's a better version of the same presentation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Son0BWduQx4
EDIT3: Instead of posting again I'll add this here. I just came across this video for the first time. Now, watch as the top section of the tower collapses, it is, in some of your eyes, crushing the tower but watch as it falls, where does all that debrit come from once the top of the tower disapears? The top section should be crushing the rest of it, those pieces of debrit seem to come from that top section. Pieces first go up/out and then fall. It doesn't make it any easier for me to believe after seeing this. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqzgs__q-GY&feature=user
Not one person here has shown me a reasonable, even half descent, explination for how the towers fell. If you feel I'm wrong, fair enough. Believe what the "experts" who were appointed by the government to investigate it, say to you.
Now see, nobody here seems to be picking up on my counter arguements. SamH sits back for a while and only picks what he wants to respondd to. I try respond to everything people put forward. I say that all them examples Juls showed me don't fit into this scenario and nobody says anything about that. He talks about how many jules of energy was involved, yet he fails to mention that 1 gallon of fuel produces close to one hundred million joules, so I found out. So, the explosion of the fuel could of had more energy than the actual collapse. I have also pointed out things in the video kingfag showed, nobody responds to that.
Listen, you can talk shit all you want. Show me a reasonable example of a tall building, with exterior load bearing walls, a core and that collapses to the ground, crushing everything in its path, including it's basement and I'll come back and say "ok, you've showed me a good enough example, so what I've been saying is total bullshit. I don't know what I was thinking." I am waiting for this to happen, you think I enjoy typing out responses, the same thing over and over? Of course I'll stick to my guns if I believe I'm right.
And just a quick note to Sam - Of course that's not all I got from what you wrote, but I wasn't going to respond to that with the tone I got from your post. I'm not getting involved in a slaggin match, or turning around and saying "well I'd kill you too, if you said some of that shit to my face" but that's pathectic really. Sam, you show me some evidence, that you feel, makes the case for the towers unquestionable. Come on, I'll be waiting.
And Mookie, I just noticed your comment there so I'll respond to that.
That has to be the funniest comment so far. It shows you have NO clue and no understanding. Why and How could I change the laws of physics to suit this event? They are what they are, nobody can change them. You should look them up. You are just argueing a side of an arguement to suit you. You say that you did at one stage believe 9/11 was an inside job, but I doubt you ever did because you don't seem to be able to understand aspects of this event. You will now be another person I refuse to converse with because of the shit you talk, now please go wipe your mouth becasue the shit is dripping off your face, you are talking so much of it.
From now on I'm only going to respond to posts with aspects of 9/11 in them, not conspiracy theory bashing comments. Once again, everyone seems to think the official story is unquestionable, when, in fact, it is also a theory. Not all the facts are in the final report. What about William Rodrigez(sp?)? What about his comments? He was praised by Bush & Co. until he started talking about what he heard/felt during the attacks. Don't you think the testimony from the janiter of the towers is most important? Do you think it should be in the final report? Well the "experts" didn't think so, which is another thing which amazes me.
EDIT: Ok, if you think I'm nuts, fair enough. Listen to this MIT Prof. and see do you think what he is also nuts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBPuu9o89dk (he begins at about 1min10secs)@SamH - notice how much steel NIST actually had to analyse. You laughed at me when I said not all the steel was analysed. Show me where you get your information on that from.
EDIT2: Doh! That's the wrong vid, that one is bad quality. Here's a better version of the same presentation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Son0BWduQx4
EDIT3: Instead of posting again I'll add this here. I just came across this video for the first time. Now, watch as the top section of the tower collapses, it is, in some of your eyes, crushing the tower but watch as it falls, where does all that debrit come from once the top of the tower disapears? The top section should be crushing the rest of it, those pieces of debrit seem to come from that top section. Pieces first go up/out and then fall. It doesn't make it any easier for me to believe after seeing this. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqzgs__q-GY&feature=user
Last edited by U4IK ST8, .
Well that's another story all together and I could go on for a long time, but I wont. Some people didn't know they were part of it and some did. That's about as much as I'll say 'cos there's alot more on that too. Watch some Webster Tarpley presentations and see what you think of him. He's on youtube.
Why such anger? If you would feel better from killing me for something I say, then that's alright with me. I ain't afraid of dieing. Get angry all you want because you know exactly what I'll do sitting here and that's laugh. Which I feel you would too if you were in my shoes. Anger gets nothing solved, it only makes blood boil, and that's not good for you.
Of course not. Listen, you gave to me, examples of collapses having similarites to the towers collapse, yet, not one of them had EXTERIOR load bearing walls, not one of them collapsed like the towers and not one had anywhere near the same materials used, apart from kingfags' one which I'll get to. But none of the came close to being strcuturally similar. The only structure which had exterior load bearing walls was the in-trays. Also, it simulated the core being destroyed by the plane because there actually wasn't one, and it only had 2 exterior walls bearing the load. So, unless you show me a building with exterior load bearing walls, collapsing like the towers, then I will never understand why you laugh at this experiment.
I'm glad I got to see that video now because, although the towers were a lot heavier, they were also a lot more robust/strong/rigid to be able to withstand that weight. This block didn't totally crush the bottom floor, also, as he gets over you can see pieces of this block still intact on the ground, there was nothing left intact from the towers, apart from the metal(although some of that got melted
), not even the top section was recognizable, as it supposidly collapsed in the "second fase of collapse" after it crushed the entire building. Another thing, you say pulverised concrete. I don't see a lot of dust/debrit and he is only yards from the collapse. I was expecting there to be a greyish color layer of dust around the collapse but I see colors so not much pulverised concrete got eject that far. Keep it coming lads, I'll look at anything you lads have to show. I'm open minded, I'll be happy when I see a good legitimet explination for the towers collapse. The laws of physics didn't change just for 9/11. Building codes were not quickly made up and missed this "progressive collapse", of course they knew about it, haven't structures been falling for years? Centuries? Decades? I know it wouldn't be called prograssive collapse but intelligent designers knew that if something falls on something, that second "thing" will move and hit the next "thing". How old are dominoes?
Come up with a physically similar, to the towers, experiment or actual building and have it collapse like the towers and I'll s t f u. Up until that point, I'm always gona be here.
And I don't see the point in getting angry, Sam, just brush it of or sit there and laugh at me, but don't get annoyed, discussions and anger just do not mix. It makes people retaliate/turn off rather than listen, don't ye think? It's also not my aim to piss people off or get them annoyed like you sound there Sam. I'm only here to discuss this.
You shouldn't stop, I mean, if a family member of yours died in the attacks and you knew what you know now, would you stop questioning? Even with the slightest doubt you would want to know exactly what happened. I feel it disrespectful to the dead that we just take the Comission Reports word for it and don't even question the inconsistancies in their story. The way they leave out eye witness reports and they don't cover all the buildings. This is in the OFFICIAL story man come on people. Wtf...
Anyway, it's totally up to you though, at the end of the day. I can't just agree to disagree on this one.
@ kingfag - Some nice footage there, I hadn't seen that. How long were the fires burning, just out of curiosity? And in the first video it does seem to destroy the floors below, but I'm not sure how far down or how much damage there is. Is there more about this anywhere? And since I get this given to me I'll say it to you. It isn't really to the scale:height:mass of the towers so technically it can't be compared to the towers.
Anyway, it's totally up to you though, at the end of the day. I can't just agree to disagree on this one.
@ kingfag - Some nice footage there, I hadn't seen that. How long were the fires burning, just out of curiosity? And in the first video it does seem to destroy the floors below, but I'm not sure how far down or how much damage there is. Is there more about this anywhere? And since I get this given to me I'll say it to you.
It isn't really to the scale:height:mass of the towers so technically it can't be compared to the towers.O....M....G.... I can't believe you used these as examples....
Bad example. Why? The conclusions on the last two pages. I can't believe you compare this to the towers yet rubbish the "in-trays" experiment. Amazing. It was incomplete, very little mild steel(I doubt there was alot of strong? steel or they wouldn't bother commenting on how little mild steel there was) so it wasn't structurally capable of holding an incomplete structure with frozen concrete and lateral soil pressure. Also, one thing I notice in this which should be present at the towers, in some form, is the concrete floors stacked on top of each other. Of course in some places the concrete would be crushed but these floors were huge spaces and to think not one section, even from the top floors, would survive the collapse is ludicrous.
Yet another bad example. Well atleast for the towers. It is exactly what happened WTC7. Columns cut near the bottom and the rest comes down. Not one part of that building crushed another part.
Now this is getting closer, but it still isn't close enough for me to believe the towers crushed themselves. Ok, the blast happened on the 18th, as you can see the damage gets less as it reaches the ground and the ground floor columns are still intact. I would have to find out more on that building because there's not much about it in that article. It says what happened and then goes off on one. I need to see more.
Interesting... It has quotes from the person who wrote the previous .pdf you linked to, so it's more of the same, a lot of talk and no meat(graphs, images, documents, quotes from other sources). Although I did get one good quote from it, "The only thing that everyone could agree on was that the World Trade Center performed very well in resisting progressive collapse," now there's a quote from Jon Magnusson, CEO of structural engineer Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Seattle, who was at a 2002 workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Science & Technology no less. NIST, the people who didn't/couldn't document how the buildings acted DURING the collapse.
They had 10,000 pages of info about how they thought the buildings got damaged, how the fire acted, everything except how each floor got pulverised, how the massive core box columns got squished. Also, not even 1 page set out for WTC7, not 1. It only got a couple of lines in a FEMA report which stated that their best hypothesis only had a low probability of happening.
But enough of that, Jon Magnusson then goes on to say, "Its collapse was progressive, but it didn't fit the traditional definition." Of course it didn't, 9/11 started a whole new list of definitions. I think the NIST official gave him a kick under the table when he heard him saying they did well preventing the progressive collapse.
Bad example. Why? The conclusions on the last two pages. I can't believe you compare this to the towers yet rubbish the "in-trays" experiment. Amazing. It was incomplete, very little mild steel(I doubt there was alot of strong? steel or they wouldn't bother commenting on how little mild steel there was) so it wasn't structurally capable of holding an incomplete structure with frozen concrete and lateral soil pressure. Also, one thing I notice in this which should be present at the towers, in some form, is the concrete floors stacked on top of each other. Of course in some places the concrete would be crushed but these floors were huge spaces and to think not one section, even from the top floors, would survive the collapse is ludicrous.
Yet another bad example. Well atleast for the towers. It is exactly what happened WTC7. Columns cut near the bottom and the rest comes down. Not one part of that building crushed another part.
Now this is getting closer, but it still isn't close enough for me to believe the towers crushed themselves. Ok, the blast happened on the 18th, as you can see the damage gets less as it reaches the ground and the ground floor columns are still intact. I would have to find out more on that building because there's not much about it in that article. It says what happened and then goes off on one. I need to see more.
Interesting... It has quotes from the person who wrote the previous .pdf you linked to, so it's more of the same, a lot of talk and no meat(graphs, images, documents, quotes from other sources). Although I did get one good quote from it, "The only thing that everyone could agree on was that the World Trade Center performed very well in resisting progressive collapse," now there's a quote from Jon Magnusson, CEO of structural engineer Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Seattle, who was at a 2002 workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Science & Technology no less. NIST, the people who didn't/couldn't document how the buildings acted DURING the collapse.
They had 10,000 pages of info about how they thought the buildings got damaged, how the fire acted, everything except how each floor got pulverised, how the massive core box columns got squished. Also, not even 1 page set out for WTC7, not 1. It only got a couple of lines in a FEMA report which stated that their best hypothesis only had a low probability of happening.
But enough of that, Jon Magnusson then goes on to say, "Its collapse was progressive, but it didn't fit the traditional definition." Of course it didn't, 9/11 started a whole new list of definitions. I think the NIST official gave him a kick under the table when he heard him saying they did well preventing the progressive collapse.
That's a better tone.
It's not personal and I didn't, and never would, attack someone personally on a forum. I haven't up to now so why would I start?
Anyway, ok so your a teenager, not much difference.
Plus, I've done alot more research, if you want to call it that, into this subject. I'd have a fair idea of what I'm on about, you don't. You troll these boards all day, not me mate. I only post here because I have looked into it and I have seen things that don't add up."Don't get me started" What a laugh... You think that's childish? Threatening? What will you do if I do get you started?
Hey kid, be quiet and go back to playing games, please.
I haven't even read what you said. Caps, bold and big font stop me reading, also seeing your name tells me it's more childish bs.
I haven't even read what you said. Caps, bold and big font stop me reading, also seeing your name tells me it's more childish bs.
See you're coming out with shit that I cannot see happening. After watching numerous videos, including the construction, it's seems alomst impossible in my mind that the top section could keep up the momentum, energy and strength to crush the whole thing. I've stated that the tower was stronger at the bottom and weaker(ie less beams and less weight) at the top, so how could this piece crush the rest of it? I can't believe it, the core columns were massive and they were crushed while being in there strongest position(in relation to the falling debrit, and I know there would have been lateral movement but not enough the bend them over because if they did it would have brought the tower over, not crush the floors and the just topple the core.), upright. The falling debrit should have either pushed them into the ground or just left them standing, atleast the last 10 to 20 floors, similar to the outer walls we seen in images, there should be big massive core columns sticking up in the center, but no, the weaker outer load bearing walls were left standing, how?
True a weekend would be nowhere near enough time to rig the whole building but something went on. All security passes/cameras/locks, all doors were unlocked and free for anyone to walk around.
Of course I have seen alot of videos but many are too long to say here, watch this and see what you think. A lot has to be done by you yourself to get the knowledge, I can only inform you, you have to research. Only if yu feel you need to, obviously if you don't care, don't bother.
They don't need a jursitiction to name Americas top 10 most wanted. Bin Laden is in there but not wanted for 9/11. Weird. They chased him alright but they were never intending to catch him, atleast the top officials knew where he was. The average solder wanted to ring his neck, or strap him to an IED.
Every video animated experiment I have seen so far, showing the collapse of a building, does not represent anything like the conditions in the twin towers nor the physical state of the towers. That experiment in the office is closer to the real thing than anything I have seen yet.
6% of the towers weight is actually alot of weight. Would work out about 6 floors I suppose? 14 floors crushed the second tower to pieces, roughly 15%? If 6% isn't really significant, the way you suggest, do you honestly think that roughly 15% of this buildings weight could actually crush the whole thing? And it being a weaker structure to begin with?
This test wasn't intended to be to scale of anything. Just a demostration of how a structure with the exterior walls bearing the load of the floors. There isn't even a core in this yet it didn't even come close to crushing. Even with the weight added.
Hmmm... I seriously cannot see the comparison. Yes, I know avalanche and yes I understand how they act but yet again this example isn't comparable. Ok, the snow builds up, the weight becomes too heavy for the slope to handle, so what happens? It follows the path of least resistance, oh no shock horror, how could it do that? It doesn't take everything last piece of snow with it, it doesn't go through the mountain, obviously, it slides off the mountain. And of course it'll gather more snow on the way but what happened the towers shouldn't have happened. The tops should have fell off. Not go straight through the path of most resistance.
That is where I cannot believe this. I understand the massive amounts of weight involved, I do realise the amount of energy involved but, not all that energy would be released as crushing, melting forces, would it? And there was far too much materials between the top section of the tower and the ground for it have an easy a passage as it did. The weight thing isn't that important in relation to the tower because, at one stage the tower was one unit, now, once the top section got going, it was 2 pieces of that unit. So 1/5 crushing the other 4/5's is something I find hard to believe. Even more so because the tower get weaker in structure as it gets higher, so the floors nearer the ground would be a lot more rigid and tough. How the weakest part of the structure was able to crush the strongest part is not in my comprehension, I can't understand it.
You honestly believe that they thought a plane would fly in and that none of the floors would give way? Give me a break...(well they actually knew they wouldn't give way, I'll come to that in a second but since you think this was it's down fall I'll go with it) A 707 has a fuel capacity of 23,000 gallons of fuel, twice that of a 757. I'm not say the 757 was full bit I am saying that if the designers of the towers were thinking of the biggest plane at the time hitting it, I'm sure they would take into account the possibility of it having a full load. A hell of alot more fuel than the 757's that hit the towers would of had.
Also, how was the building doomed just from floors giving way? Please don't talk about the trusses, I can show you pictures if you want that show, without a doubt, that trusses were NOT the only structure used to carry the load of each floor. Although that's what I always heard, and believed until rescently seeing these photos, "Never trust a truss", I've heard firemen saying it, I've seen images of them with fireproofing on, I've even watched the building of the towers and seen them being hoisted up into the air, I've watched the NIST tests when they used trusses for thier test but as soon as you see these image and look closely, you see, where there are no trusses in place yet, steel I beams connecting the inner core to the outer walls.
Ok, I've added a couple of pics to show what I mean. First is a close up of the beams, second is a copy of the first but with lines to show where the beams are, for the partially blind and the last is the original picture.
See the outer wall columns, they are 14 inches wide, so them beams are a good sized beam. Also, the trusses were not installed this way, they came part of a large section with 4 or 5 trusses attached to a large floor. I'm not sure the dimensions of these floor sections but if you want to see them just google "The building of the world trade center".
The floors should never have failed the way we are told, the trusses were not the final load bearing part of the floor. So it couldn't happen the way the said.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG