Quote from Boris Lozac :

I don't know, i see what you're saying but still doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't in that case be a slower collapse, not instantenous? I mean they fell like there was nothing bellow the upper part On what evidence can people be basing this if nothing similiar ever happened?

read this mate, it will explain all the math behind it. It did not fall like there was nothing below the upper part. Or don't, not my problem.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

What? When did I ever ask you to explain what happens in a pancake collapse?

lol whatever, I'm just answering the questions you put forth. I have answered them all, in detail, with facts to back me up, and the official response to them seems to be 'I don't believe it' without ever disproving a thing I say with evidence.

Quote :

I'll ask again, what part, below or above the impact zone, is that debris from in the video I linked to... here it is again, it's at 1min 16secs... - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2VcxDzWk4

There are two plausible explanations I see, either that is a bit from above that has been sheared off by the lower part (it's on the right angle that we see the top half of the building fall at) or it is the section just below the blast zone and has been pushed out by the top half of the building. Unfortunately, I can't see inside the dust cloud.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

Ok, now tell me what are the chances of that upper part that is already tilted heavily, falling straight down, and crushing everything, and not just falling on one side, leaving at least a 3rd, or half a building standing?

It's the upper part of the building vs. the floor below. upper part wins. then it's all that combined energy vs. the next floor down and so on.

Quote :

I hope you're making yourself feel better by using that language... hahaha

I do enjoy a good insult guilty

Quote :

And you don't have to explain anything, as I already told you. I do know what happens in a pancake collapse.

then stop asking questions if you don't want answers.

Quote :

Anyway, tell me where the piece is from, because it's important. Thanks. Or to be more specific for you. Is it from above or below the impact zone?

in placement, immediately below the impact zone. It is unclear whether it is a section from the wall from below or above the impact zone, as it may be a section of the wall from the falling upper half that has been torn off.

Quote :

Hey RAM, just to make things clear and avoid all this tech talk, are we saying here that buildings would still collapse even if the upper part that was cut off fell to the side of the building? i mean if we just removed the upper part, would it still fall like it did because it lost some integral strenght or whatever? Or did the upper part 'pushed' the rest of the building?

Well it would depend on the specific construction of the building, but generally no, the building would not fall over. In this case, the upper part of the building crushed the rest of the building

Quote :

Also, just to bring back the CGI story for a bit, this is pretty interesting

ah but where are those images from? anybody could have manipulated them with photoshop, for a number of reasons, many of which are not malicious.

Quote :

It seems to me that you were taught different physics to what I understand, AND also these other engineers understand. How? I don't know...

Because you have the brain capacity of a banana slug in a lead mine.

Like I said these are a few engineers, there are bound to be a few wackos in any profession. I tend to believe the many, many articles from the professionals who are much more professional than these people, and write peer-reviewed papers on the subject. There have been no conspiracy papers that have made it through the peer-review process to be published in a reputable scientific journal, whereas the peer-reviewed papers on my side of the argument are numerous.

You don't have the majority of physicists on your side, you don't have engineers, architects.

Quote :

I know it's a piece of the outer wall, that is blatantly obvious. Where on the building did it come from? Roughly. Was it from the falling section or the section below the impact zone?

Edit: Think about the pancaking theory, before you answer, because this section is roughly 6-7 floors in height, probably more...

I have already explained this in detail, the floors offer less resistance, so they progression of the collapse is further along on the inside. Thus the wall sticks up over the collapse going on in the inside, and when it breaks off it falls out of the cloud.

Quote :

You don't need to explain to me how it happened, I understand what you are saying, you don't need to simplify your explanation and you don't need to tell me to watch videos or interviews, I've seen them all. It has been a long time since this happened and I have already discussed everything you are saying in this thread. You are doing a poor job of convincing me that what you say is true.

I can't help it if you don't understand simple physics taught to 14 year olds. Seriously, physics is a non-negotiable science, until you start to get down to the atomic level or as big as the universe. You can't just not believe in it, this is not philosophy. You can't just make up your own physics, there are facts that must be observed, and things act according to the laws of physics.

Quote :

Here's a video for you to watch, and I'd like your expert opinion on what you see. At exactly 1minute 16seconds of the video there is visible debris being ejected through the smoke, could you explain to me what part of the tower that is exactly, please. This footage was released by NIST under the Freedom Of Information Act.

It would appear to be some of the outer support columns that are still attached in a large chunk of wall, if we are seeing the same thing. Looks a lot like the section of wall still left standing on the left here:

Quote :

Where did I say buildings can't sag? I was saying building 7 didn't sag at that kink like you suggested. I've seen enough footage and pictures to know what happened. If you think it sagged to create that kink then you are a crackpot... Watch the footage, the small structure at the top of building 7, can't remember what exactly it's called, but that disappears into the building, then the kink and within milliseconds the rest of the building is falling to the ground and is completely destroyed in 6-7 seconds. All this with very little movement to the north, south, east or west. I watched it and seen the pics from afterwards, it swayed very little on the way down. And it only slightly damaged the buildings close to it, which it towered over. So if, as you say, it leaned throughout the day, then I would imagine at least one of the buildings beside it(in which ever direction you suggest it was leaning. I presume it was in the direction of the towers as that's where the damage would be.) would have been heavily damaged.

Clearly I am doing a poor job explaining WTC7 - it is a much more complicated collapse than the two towers. let's try a different tact, letting someone else explain it for me. Pay special attention to the NIST video and the simulation images.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... re=player_embedded#at=67

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... nRBIw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... SqEsc&feature=related

Quote :

And just one more thing, you mentioned pancaking. I haven't seen one piece of evidence to prove this pancaking you speak of in the towers. If the towers did pancake then there would be irrefutable evidence of it. There would be lots of floors stacked on top of one another, it would have taken longer to destroy itself AND the core would still be standing... it's a bull sh!t theory...

Like I said it's commonly referred to as 'pancaking.' To think of what I'm describing as true pancaking (floors stack up on top of eachother) is a fallacy because the floors get pulverized by everything above it and add to the debris falling onto the next floor down. If you watch the videos, you can watch the debris be exploded out the side of the building slightly below where the support columns are still standing. This is because the support columns are the strongest thing in the building so they can withstand the debris a little longer and they are on the outside of the building so there is less material directly above them. Thus the pulverization of the floors outpaced the crushing of the support columns. It did not fall at free fall speed, it did take longer to destroy itself. Watch any video, look at any picture of the collapse of the two towers, and you can see rubble that is outpacing the fall of the tower.

Sections from the side falling past the building as it comes down - this is because the collapse of the building is slowed by hitting iteslf on the way down over and over:

Quote from Boris Lozac :

That theory would be great if the plains hit at the middle. Your shoulders example doesn't add up, more acuratelly would be that a small dog stands on your shoulder, if the dog slips he wouldn't bring you down, would he?

It was an analogy to display the underlying physics in an easy to imagine scenario... I used people simply because in my experience most people have a more intuitive grasp of the physics of their own body than physical objects. I'm guessing this is because we (hopefully) move our body every day, and can feel the muscles moving to provide forces... now the rest of the system, specifically for the collapse of the lowers section is quite different, as I made a point to note. our joints are our weak spots in terms of sustaining a vertical force from above. In a building it's a different story, the weak sections are the floors first, followed by the structure. Now in terms of why we would be able to withstand a dog vs a human, that comes down to biomechanics. Our body is capable of producing an upwards force through the contraction of muscles. Put a weight bar on your back, your legs get tired faster because you are using muscles to push upwards. A building is incapable of producing an upwards force. Furthermore, it is not as flexible a system as our bodies, which would help dissipate and deflect some of the energy.

It is not a problem of whether the exact ratios of weight are right in the analogy - it is a matter of whether the weight above the lower object is enough to break the weakest link in the lower object.

Quote from J@tko :

text towers

essentially yes, that is what I'm saying. Of course the diagrams you drew are a much simpler version of the building structure, but I think that's about the best anyone can do illustrating with a keyboard Important to note that those rows are around the entire perimeter of the floors, with another set of supports in a column in the center of the building.

The support columns were not constructed the way many large buildings are. The columns were not concrete encased, which would have been a more effective method of fire prevention than the 2-hour-rated spray on fireproofing they used. If the columns had been concrete encased, I think there would have been a much less chance it came down, all other things being equal.

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

Mr Turkey.

It's a picture of my cock

Quote from logitekg25 :

what i think you need to do to prove your qualifications (lying on the Internet is like...pointless anyways), is have a post saying what you think generally in terms everyone can understand, then make another half with engineer terms you talked about (that nobody would understand i believe you said)

Have you ever tried to type the necessary variables and math equations on a computer? it's tedious, I try to avoid it as much as possible. Besides, I could fake that too if I was really determined to live a charade on this forum and this is taking me quite enough time already.

Last edited by RiseAgainstMe!, Wed 25 May 2011, 06:53.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

Mate you are talkin nonsense, serioulsy. "A slightly asymmetrical collapse caused a symmetrical one underneath it..." What utter BS, I seriously cannot believe a civil engineer student is actually saying that.

why? how the flying **** can you not understand that, I am trying to lay it out as simple as possible... ok, to use a very oversimplified analogy... imagine someone standing on your shoulders. Their foot slips off your shoulder. what happens? they fall. pause. at this point they are falling, you are not... yet. They are slightly tilted in the air because their foot slipped off and they have rotated ever so slightly. Now resume. they fall on top of you, and your knees buckle or you bend at the waist and you hit the ground too. Buildings do not have knees though, so the overwhelming weight will cause the weakest points of the building below them to collapse. In this case, the building is symmetrical, so the floors collapse in an effect commonly referred to as "pancaking" in these arguments.

Now the foot slipping off is not precisely the same sort of collapse, because it rotates from a different point, but the effect is still the same.

Quote :

More BS coming up... "There is a kink in the middle where the structure has sagged and was the first place to buckle..." It sagged? Wtf man... come on, you seem to have no sense of mechanical structures and your going to be a civil engineer? It was instantaneous that kink, then within milliseconds the rest of the building followed, not "a few second later it was followed by the building". The whole building was on the ground in a few seconds...

You think mechanical structures can't sag with enough pressure? lol ok, this is getting laughable now. The construction of this building leaves it particularly vulnerable to sagging, as it is not a concrete structure. It is like a giant erector set, and when the steel heats up enough and is supporting enough weight... bye bye

Get a longish steel rod of a certain width and you can bend it with your hands. If the force is great enough on any bar or floor, it can and will bend, causing sagging of the floors first and the visible kink when the structure lets go.

Quote :

So, after reading all that I'm going to call it a day with you, really, I cannot go on. And as for the crackpot label, well, lets just say I'm starting to think you are the crackpot. Some of the things you have come out with are ludicrous, seriously. And it makes it even worse when you claim to be a civil engineer student, you should know better, or actually you should have been taught better, if indeed you are what you say you are.

Your entire argument seems to be that I can't possibly be who I say I am and that you know so much better without ever having done any of the math or even attempting to consider my input. I was trying to make this as easy to undestand as possible for you, and then when you complain about that and I give you a more in depth post you just laugh it off. wtf
Look up the college if you doubt the quality of the teaching there.

Last edited by RiseAgainstMe!, Tue 24 May 2011, 21:38.

So it's hard for pilots to hit the runway every time? just to be clear that is roughly the width of the buildings, and they didn't have to land on them, just run into it.

Quote from ACCAkut :

isnt that the normal case, that girls (in their teens) tend to like older guys? Haven't witnessed it the other way around.

I think it's more of a case that older girls don't like teenage boys

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

I think I know more than you on this subject, and you the one who's almost graduated as a civil engineer? eh?
Well, judging by the rest of what you said you have NO CLUE what you are talking about.... I will explain. And I never said anyone was speaking for anyone else and I'm sure they, as fully qualified engineers, would never dream of speaking for all engineers. And it's not your writing style, it's the language you use that makes me think you are not what you say you are...

if there was a good way to prove it to you, I would. But I'm at home in Michigan this semester, makes it pretty hard to take a picture with the civil engineering building and a written card that says 'RiseAgainstMe!.' Could give you a pic in my GT gear... but lots of people could have GT gear and not go to school there, so that doesn't really prove anything.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

So building 7 leaned for hours, then collapses straight into it's own footprint but it wasn't symmetrical? Seriously? If a building sags and leans for hours due to fire then it will fall over! Not collapse into it's own footprint. Here's another engineer, civil and structural in fact, speaking about building 7 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WCcSHpvAJ8

Just because it was leaning doesn't mean it toppled. It did fall slightly out of its footprint, to the south. The first side to fall was the South, and then the North. You seem to be operating under the impression that the building fell in one piece, when it fell in sections, collapsing, not toppling. This is shown in the photos of the wreckage, as the north wall lays on top of the rest of the wreckage, as well as the videos. you can watch the East and West suites fall first, followed a few second later by the rest of the building. It looking like it is falling straight down is a trick of the most widely used camera angle.


looking at this image, wt7 doesn't seem to be falling so nice and symmetrical. There is a kink in the middle where the structure has sagged and was the first place to buckle. It is not falling straight down, but rather the top section is falling sideways through the rest of the building. The rest of the building had no choice but to follow.

Quote :

It is physically impossible for an asymmetrical collapse to change to a symmetrical collapse without an outside force acting upon it. Conservation of momentum. Simple. I thought any type of engineer would know that... even I understand that and I'm no engineer.

An asymmetrical collapse did not change into a symmetrical one mid-fall. A slightly asymmetrical collapse caused a symmetrical one underneath it.
To solve this problem you have to think of the tower as two seperate objects once that random point in the middle that is holding everything else up buckles. The top object falls randomly, probably slightly sideways. It is no longer attached to the bottom object, but it is still in contact with it, as gravity is accelerating the object downwards. this extra force on the lower sections is enough to buckle the supports on the lower floors, causing the symmetrical collapse of the lower section in a chain reaction.

Quote :

Steel doesn't break when heat is applied, what type of terms are you learning in this college? As one of the engineers said, steel in buildings is designed to go through a few stages before it will actually fail, elastic and plastic are two stages iirc. They are designed to sag and the connections are designed to withstand the sagging of the beams. This is for any steel frame building, not just the WTC buildings.

The steel broke after intense heat softened it and enormous amounts of weight it wasn't designed to hold were supported on it. Sorry I left a little bit out because I had already explained it, and I have been using very basic terms, because I know that a lot of the people I am talking to on forums and stuff are not engineers. If I start rambling on about Fstatic, no one will understand me or pay attention. Structural steel loses strength very quickly at a certain temperature, but it melts at a much higher temperature. this is because it is not an element, so it doesn't have a single melting point like say water does. It's an alloy, meaning there are several elements mixed up in there (different concentrations and treatments are used for different applications) - each with its own individual melting point. This causes the steel to have different phases as it heats up, and there is a rapid drop off in the strength of structural steel at a much lower temperature than the actual melting point. look up the yield curves on various types of steel if you don't believe me, they drop off very quickly.

Quote :

Also, the jet fuel burned up after the first 15mins according to the official story, so how could it possibly have enough time to weaken the steel? Check out the Cardington fire tests, this is what happens to non-fireproofed steel subjected to hours of high temperature fire.

The jet fuel burned up, yes, but by that time it had already set a lot of other things on fire - carpet, desks, walls, floors, ceilings.

Quote :

And of course the heat wont dissipate immediately from the furnace through the floor, but it would pass through any steel/metal structure physically attached to the furnace quicker than through the floor, and also because heat wants to rise in the absence of a good conductor.

metal is an extremely good conductor. this is why metal usually feels cold to the touch, that is the transfer of heat energy from your skin to the metal. That is it absorbs heat. Air is a bad conductor. The heat would have been absorbed by the metal easily, and stayed there for a long time. Air is a bad conductor.

Quote :

But I don't understand why you need to personally attack them by calling them names? I wouldn't do that here so why do you choose to? Why not use your education and knowledge on the subject to disprove what they say? I'll tell you why you don't, because you haven't got the knowledge to. I would love to see you debate one of these "crackpots" on this.

I call them like I see them. I'm not going to say I respect them when I don't . Not everyone associated with this movement gets the crackpot label, it has to do with the thought process they lay out before me. If a person has achieved my label of crackpottidom, I believe them incapable of listening to my side of a debate, and thus unworthy of a debate. Hence why you got this entire response, and Racer X I don't pay attention to, should he ever choose to come back around here. Not all these talking videos I've seen have achieved that status - that last guy, Obeid or whatever I didn't think was too bad. I still disagree with his final conclusion though.

EDIT: ah ha! I see Racer X is back hehe

Last edited by RiseAgainstMe!, Tue 24 May 2011, 15:43.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

why, all I do know is what we are being told is not the truth...

You don't KNOW anything. you think we aren't being told the truth.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

You don't seem to me to know what you are on about though, you don't describe the situation in the towers the way other engineers have, be them civil, metallurgical or structural. And you certainly don't come across as, to me anyway, as someone with an education which you say you have, but I'll have to take your word for it, wont I. And to resort to name calling, wtf, this is what people who have no argument resort to. It shows a very low intelligence level to start calling people names, why not prove your point with valid information?

A few engineers do not speak for us all. I would be quite surprised if they are anything near half the population of 'experts'.
I am an engineer, not a writer. Not my strength, but I do know what I'm talking about.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

Again, you don't know what you are talking about, which again brings into question your qualifications. If, as you say, it was a symmetrical collapse, describe how, from a random amount of damaged exterior and core columns, the two towers and building 7 could end up having a symmetrical collapse? And of course I know you'll take into consideration the time and amount of weight each connection has to take before it will fail. Also, each connection will have to fail simultaneously for a symmetrical collapse. Which, imo, would be impossible in a collapse due to fire.

Building 7 was not a symmetrical collapse, but we weren't talking about that. It leaned to the side for hours before it collapsed. It was known that it would collapse long before it did. The lower sections of the two towers were symmetrical collapses, (weight falling on them) while the upper sections weren't, as the pieces that collapsed and bulged underneath them were asymmetrical (due to fire)

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

Name calling again, yeah, keep it coming. Heat cannot be trapped in a steel framed office building, please, even a furnace looses heat through dissipation. You're trying to tell me a 110 storey highrise with fires on approx. 10 of those floors will not dissapate heat in an hours time? And you're calling other highly qualified individuals crackpots? The heat would have dissipated very quickly into the floors above and below the fires.

Of course a furnace loses some heat through dissipation. But stick your head in the thing and tell me it's not hot in there. That is literally the exact same idea. Fire inside a container. Jet fuel burns well past the temperature that is needed to weaken steel. The heat was transferred to the steel, and it broke it. And yes I'm trying to tell you that a 110 story highrise with fires on ten of those floors will not dissipate heat in an hours time. A small furnace for pottery can take hours and hours to cool, why doesn't the heat dissipate immediately into the floor?

Yes, I am calling them crackpots. This doesn't mean they don't have the qualifications, it just means they are crazy.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

@RiseAgainstMe! Sorry mate but you obviously have no understanding of what you talk about, the heat had the whole building to dissipate into, the whole tower wasn't burning was it? And, if a structure begins in an asymmetrical collapse it physically can't change to a symmetrical collapse, it's physically impossible, listen to the experts, they know what they're on about. Here's a couple of structural engineers explaining some more
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4y6cweaegI - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7oti6KGEf4

Oh I'm sorry, maybe I should clarify. I'm a civil engineer from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Very soon I will have every bit of the school time as these people, in a relevant field

It is my expert opinion that they are crackpots. got it?

The structure didn't begin an asymetrical collapse ffs. That's what I've been trying to explain to you. The collapse was a symmetrical one, the damage from the plane did not cause the collapse directly, the supports softened and buckled.

And the heat can't dissapate immediately you dolt, it doesn't work like that. It was trapped. Eventually it will yes, but there was also an intense heat source in the building that was creating more heat faster than the rest of the heat could dissipate. to dumb it down somewhat.

Last edited by RiseAgainstMe!, Mon 23 May 2011, 19:18.

She was likely beaten on the ACT by a walnut. Metallurgical Engineer - who cares, she clearly lacks expertise in critical thinking skills.

She thinks that was an "office fire"? but a blast furnace is a different story? what does she think a fully fueled 747 crashing into a skyscraper creates? She dismisses it like it's a normal office fire, as if any office fire is normal.

The building falling straight: The building didn't collapse from the damage of the plane, she said that herself when she was talking about the melting steel. It fell because the steel structural supports were put under enough intense heat to cause them to lose structural strength and they eventually buckled under the weight of the floors above them. when the top floors fell The main supports are in the middle of the building which is why it fell symmetrically. on top of the bottom floors it set off a chain reaction and the building fell through itself. The spheres are consistent with this, as for all the metal to weaken that much, I'm guessing some of it had to be molten.

"Heat will not migrate towards itself" she seems to think that this a completely open system. The heat can't dissapate like it normally would, it's trapped inside a building with a raging fire. Seriously, this is some of the worst 'science' I have ever heard.

"Doesn't take an expert to see..." All it takes to believe her is a complete suspension of the laws of physics and common sense. She has my utter contempt as a human and as an engineer.

they had flight training and you can fly a plane with no flight training. Landing is the hard bit, and they didn't exactly have to worry about that.

Mythbusters proved that even never having flown a plane, the tower can talk you down safely. Pretty sure that having instruction before hand makes things even easier.

Quote :

*I *find it sickening that people have construed the facts into some of these quite ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Word.

I've always wanted to get married since I was a little kid... Never like "oh my god I need to start looking for a wife in high school" or anything, even though it's starting to look more and more like that's what happened... There's just something comforting in that status for me, even if I'm an atheist (technically catholic). It's just home. I'm not one for big ceremonies and religious stuff though, so I don't know which type of wedding it would end up being...

I'm guessing the religious ceremony type is what's expected of me by my parents and would be by my current girlfriend's parents, seeing as they both sent us to Catholic school. I'd prefer to just shotgun the whole thing and just run away and turn up two weeks later and be like "hey we're married!" Guessing that's not gonna fly.

But to be honest there's no reason why someone has to get married, save for maybe tax reasons. It really shouldn't change how you feel about someone, but it can be comforting to many people. It's just an extra commitment to that bond, and if you don't feel the need to make that commitment, great.

Last edited by RiseAgainstMe!, Sun 22 May 2011, 14:52.

^ ditto.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

As for the live images, apparently all were aired with about ~15 seconds delay, and if you watched nose in/nose out video (where the nose of the plane looks exactly the same exiting on the other side of the building), there was a black frame on the moment of impact, presumably to cover any inconsistenties and bad montage, but nose in/out slipped away (and it is prety redicolous footage, no one can deny that).
So the videos with clearer visible planes were released later that night.. (can't check for thruth, going by 'trusting' these videos).

because they could remove one frame exactly in 15 seconds.

that footage looks ok to me, almost like something is crashing through a building. that's my theory anyways

hahaha Carl wrecking his car on the grass after the win... looked like he nearly flipped it by the replay... oops

nice tv :O

Quote from SidiousX :

Looks like we've got another one that caught the bug.

and another one here

in the last year or so anyways, but it's still not part of my regular routine to watch it... yet.

what happened to Force India in Q2? so much slower than Q1... Kovalainen thrashed them with way less laps

Quote from BlueFlame :

I'm probably the most insulted person on this forum. Don't see no red cards flying around, you should feel lucky.

If I had a nickel for every time you said something stupid, I'd be able to buy off the mods and avoid the red.

webber, vettel is faster than you...

ffs no he's not I qualified on the pole dammit

Quote from DevilDare :

You shouldnt need to marry someone to show how much you love them.

but at the same time, it's a good way to show someone how much you love them.

To each their own, find what works for you, no point preaching at people who have actively chosen a different lifestyle.