9/11

They are both correct, FEMA and NIST, its just context.

If UA 175 had hit a lot further up the south tower, would have at least taken a lot longer for either tower to collapse.

Imagine if it took 24 hrs rather than 90 mins or so for them to collapse, enough time for 300 firefighters to find away around one of the blocked stairwells, maybe even only a matter of 4 hrs or so to get half those 1300 out.

Now on to wtc 7, thermal expansion is the official reason, what impact did the mini earthquakes that were the collapse of wtc 1 and 2 have on on jolting out all those braces in wtc 7, no one was there to measure it at the time. Bankers trust building stays standing, but that was a better design, wtc 7 was the same shitty tubular , maximise office space design wtc 1 and 2 were.

Its all 4 things with wtc 7, plane debris, foundation shifting? Thermal expansion from fires, shitty building design

 

No, they are not both correct. You claimed that some FEMA report says the WHOLE structural intergrity of the North Tower, including all the columns in the core structure" were compromised by the collapse of the South Tower.

However, the NIST referred to the structure below the impact zone as intact. So there you have it.

Also, I'm still interested in seeing the FEMA report that you claim confirms that all of the core columns of the North Tower were compromised by the collapse of the South Tower, because that would definitely contradict the NIST's report.

 

Plane debris... Oh please. Shit could rain down on that building all day, and unless it's a fucking meteor it's not going to collapse like that. Foundation shifting? Your guess is as good as mine, but, UNLIKELY. Thermal expansion from fires? Don't make me LAUGH. And the worst excuse of them all...shitty building design.

But you two have a good thing going here, sorry for the interruption.

 

Not at all. Your input is welcome.

 

No, more lies


Quote directly from both reports.

Of course that would mean youd actually have to read them

 

Umm, didn't I just ask you to back your claim that that a FEMA report confirms that all of the core columns of the North Tower were compromised by the collapse of the South Tower? Yes I did. So, can you direct me to that report or not?

 

This is what you did, FEMA said, this, FEMA said that....same report man.

You read the report, or you just got it off some truther website, stuff they cherry picked from the report

 

I'm getting the impression that you can't produce the FEMA report you claim exists which confirms that all of the core columns of the North Tower were compromised by the collapse of the South Tower. Am I correct?
__________________________________________________________

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

"... the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation."

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)
___________________________________________________________

Your turn . . .

 

So, you didnt even read that page

 

This: "From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse" has nothing to do with the FEMA report that you claim confirms that all of the core columns of the North Tower were compromised by the collapse of the South Tower. Where is that FEMA report??

And why are you bringing up the issue of melted steel?

Also, given your understanding of air resistance, how far would the upper block have fallen in 5 seconds without the rest of the Tower below to impede it?

Anyway, even if we allow for the impact of the descending upper block to crush the lower block directly below it, it can't crush it while maintaining the downward acceleration seen in videos, and that's because an increased force on the lower block of the Tower must be accompanied by a decrease in the momentum and speed of the falling upper block, owing to the intact core structure below it. But we don't see that.

 

the recovery videos are fascinating .. what building is this tho.. its not one or two. 2:36

 

Yeah, you never read the thing, came out in 2002. Chapter 2. That bit about the 60 stories taking 25 seconds, you just said has nothing to do with the FEMA report, its in the FEMA report. Google Fema wtc, tell me how many results you get. Read at least the WHOLE of chapter 2. Theres only one fema report on wtc

It didnt goddam impede it, the BUILDING COLLAPSED. Yes, it was supposed to go through it like custard, 4 million kilograms of weight just for one floor, 44 million kilograms for 11 floors. That drops 6 floors, the force is already 50 times the load the floor it drops onto can carry

Arrrrghhhh, acceleration isnt godammn velocity, nothing is going to change acceleration due to gravity

No it doesnt!!!!!!

"Must be" why? Why? Why?


There is that phrase again, your imaginary singular immutable " intact core structure"

Why dont we see that? You mean like at the end of the incredibles when the plane falls on the family, the dust clears and we see Violet put up her force field just in time?


17 years!!!!, 17, goddamn years

 

I said: According to the FEMA, the extent of the damage to the core columns in the North Tower is unknown.

You said: "And that would be the same FEMA report that says the WHOLE structural intergrity of wtc 1, including all the columns in that " intact core structure" were compromised by the collapse of wtc 2."

I said: "I'd be interested in seeing the report that confirms that all of the core columns of the North Tower were compromised by the collapse of the South Tower."

You said: ". . .video evidence shows that significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse."

I said: "that has nothing to do with the FEMA report that you claim confirms that all of the core columns of the North Tower were compromised by the collapse of the South Tower. Where is that FEMA report??"

You said: "That bit about the 60 stories taking 25 seconds, you just said has nothing to do with the FEMA report, its in the FEMA report.

So now I'm reminding you again that you were being asked to produce the segment from the FEMA report that confirms that all of the core columns of the North Tower were compromised by the collapse of the South Tower. So where is it?
___________________________________________________

And then you say that ". . . nothing is going to change acceleration due to gravity."

And that is true, unless, of course, something is in the path of the accelerating object that would interfere with its acceleration, which, in this case, is the rest of the core structure below it. In order to drive this point home, I've asked you how far the upper block would have fallen in 5 seconds without the rest of the Tower below to impede it, allowing for air resistance. Still waiting for that, too.

 

If I cut and paste you arent going to read the report, I want you to at least have to read through chapter 2 or the report to find it.Google "fema wtc" you will get only 1 result from fema.gov, READ chapter 2

No no no no no no no!!!!!! Godamn no!

Interfere with its velocity, not its acceleration due to gravity. Your "intact core structure" is getting accelarated towards the earth at 9.8 m/s2, every skyscraper on currently on the planet is getting accelerated towards the earth at 9.8 m/s2. Every vat of custard, every bowling ball


"Inertia is an intrinsic characteristic of the object related to its mass. Inertia tells you how much force it will take to cause a particular acceleration on the object. Momentum is a function of an object's mass and velocity. Momentum is a measure of the kinetic energy of the object."


This is where the whole 911 truther movement comes from (collapse of the towers part at least ), bunch of (something that rhymes with the chemical element with an atomic number 5) dont get newtons laws for 17 years

First law: Is about inertia/momentum, p=mv

2nd law: is F=ma. well thats not really what he said,but it'll do

3rd law: Whether its 60 floors or 92 floors of a skyscraper, its not one single entity, theres a squillion pairs of opposing newton forces working on all component parts. And he never bloody said direction was conserved, only magnitude anyway

 

I copy and pasted the segment of the NIST report that was relevant to the issue of the core structure below the impact zone being intact. And then I provided the link to the source. You need to copy and paste the segment of the FEMA report that tells us that "the WHOLE structural intergrity of wtc 1, including all the columns in that " intact core structure" were compromised by the collapse of wtc 2." You made this claim, and you are being asked to provide citation. So, provide it! If you don't, I'll just assume that you made it up.

Now, if the core structure, the floors, and the perimeter columns offered continual resistance as expected, the collapse would have been significantly--not slightly--slower than free fall, if not arrested outright at some point in the upper floors. There is also the immediate lateral ejection of contents which reduced the mass--thereby reducing available energy. There is also the force required for content-pulverization to consider in the momentum equation.

So, your entire "momentum" sentence is misleading and ignores significant factors besides the presence of an intact core structure, like the lateral ejection of material and the pulverization of contents; all of which would reduce the momentum and left-over energy to affect the lower portion of the towers.

Also, I've been asking you to tell me how far the upper block would have fallen in 5 seconds if there was no intact core structure below it to impede its progress. And I've been asking that for a reason. So give me your answer to that.

 

Expected by who? Santa Claus?

 

Again, solve for d, show me you can do it the calculation,. The answer you want, I'm just going to put those numbers in that equation

I also want you to copy and paste the part of the FEMA report so I know you have read it

 

So, taking air resistance into consideration, how far would the upper block have fallen in 5 seconds unimpeded by a solid structure below it?

Also, I assume you couldn't find the segment of the FEMA report that you said will tell us that "the WHOLE structural intergrity of wtc 1, including all the columns in that " intact core structure" were compromised by the collapse of wtc 2."