At least i'm starting my sentences with capital letters.

But forget to capitalize an I.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote from Boris Lozac :

At least i'm starting my sentences with capital letters.

great that totally makes up for the 33% (not even counting the double error on ridiculous) speeelling mistake rate in a 9 word sentence (thats gotta be some kind of world record or something)

Quote from PMD9409 :

But forget to capitalize an I.

Since when do you capitalize "i" in "i'm" in the middle of a sentence?
I'm giving as much respect as possible for your stupid language with all the 3 o's there, 2 e's there, stupid.

Quote from Shotglass :

great that totally makes up for the 33% (not even counting the double error on ridiculous) speeelling mistake rate in a 9 word sentence (thats gotta be some kind of world record or something)

Piss off.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

Since when do you capitalize "i" in "i'm" in the middle of a sentence?

"I" is always capitalised. No exceptions.

I told ye Boris, people like Shotglass just like stirring the sh!t. They think they are more intelligent than everyone else and the only thing they can do when they run out of ideas is belittle people, I've been here before, just let him say whatever, ignore him and he'll get bored and go away...

being more intelligent than people who still believe in conspiracy theories is hardly an achievment

and you still havent answered my question

Who's judging this intelligence contest btw? You? Haha.... go away...

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 from RiseAgainstMe! :

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.

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...

Quote :

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....

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...

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?

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

Oh no, that looks all wrong... even the building in front doesn't look right. How anyone could fall for that is beyond me...

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.

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

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

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?

Boris, where did that picture come from? The editing job is borderline satirical.

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.

@ rappa

From September Clues forum, apparently those are official photos or snapshots of some video, can't find the source.

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 from Boris Lozac :

@ rappa

From September Clues forum, apparently those are official photos or snapshots of some video, can't find the source.

Is there any proof that these pictures are from the original footage captured live when the building fell? Can you find that footage anywhere else than in the documentary you mentioned? There's nothing easier than doctor some footage ex-post and claim it's "T3H PROOF". If I can question the authenticity of the official version, then I guess I can do the same with these conspiracy proofs, right?
I admit these images look a lot like a CGI thing though.

Quote from RiseAgainstMe! :

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

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?

@ madcatx

I agree, this is nothing until proven, which i currently can't find that it was from the original fall..

And one more, the second frame is when it fell further down, those 3 beams somehow magically repairing themselves

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.

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?

Quote from RiseAgainstMe! :

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

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

Quote :

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.

Holy sh!t, you sound like Donal Rumsfeld when he was asked where are the weapons of mass destruction... "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

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


And to Boris, it would help this discussion if you didn't bring in altered or edited pics or vids. Makes it harder to discuss the facts....

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 RiseAgainstMe! :

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.

But the thing is I never asked you anything about pancaking, or to explain anything to me... and this is what I said in response to you first mentioning the pancake theory - "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..."

Quote :

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.

"blast zone", I like your wording, hehe...

Anyway, where the debris comes through the dust/smoke is actually above the impact zone, put your finger on the screen where the impact zone is and play the vid from the 1.07 mark in the description, you will be able to see the debris above your finger, not very scientific but it'll work, the camera doesn't move much once the collapse begins. So, that leads us to only one conclusion, the top (1/3) section of the tower falling was breaking into pieces as it passed the impact zone, which then begs the question: How the fcuk can a section of a structure that's breaking into pieces, have the structural strength to crush the remaining (2/3) section of the building, completely, but not actually demolish any other building it falls onto? (see WTC 4, 5 + 6)