9/11

You guys still arguing about the two towers that fell down after big fucking planes hit them ?

 

You're taking for granted that the upper block fell for six floors unimpeded by anything before colliding with the intact core structure below. However, since the core and perimeter columns were supporting the upper block right up until the beginning of collapse, we know that the upper block had to first crush whatever structure was supporting it after impact before it even reached the structure below the impact zone. So the resistance of the core and perimeter columns was there from the beginning of collapse. Therefore, the upper block did not have the chance to accelerate for the distance of six floors umimpeded.

 

Lol Even better: storch is still repeating the same question

 

Whoever gets the last word wins

 

OK ! (is OK a word or an acronym )

 

If my question receives an answer, I'll move on to another.

You're not discussing the topic, so what are you here for?

 

I'm reading the discussion. And you repeating that question over and over again to another poster who already reacted to it just is remarkable

But if you think VG is gonna react to that question in a more serious or in depth way than he did before keep going on.

 

VG 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 asked him to back up that claim. He failed. And you, having read the discussion, are ignorant of his failure, which is just . . . remarkable.

VG brought up the issue of air resistance. So I asked him: taking air resistance into consideration, how far would the upper block have fallen in 5 seconds unimpeded by a solid structure below it? He failed to answer. You are also ignorant of that fact.

And then there's this: 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.

That, too, was not answered.

And neither was this addressed:

You're taking for granted that the upper block fell for six floors unimpeded by anything before colliding with the intact core structure below. However, since the core and perimeter columns were supporting the upper block right up until the beginning of collapse, we know that the upper block had to first crush whatever structure was supporting it after impact before it even reached the structure below the impact zone. So the resistance of the core and perimeter columns was there from the beginning of collapse. Therefore, the upper block did not have the chance to accelerate for the distance of six floors unimpeded.

 

It is impossible, storch. But people are going to believe whatever their televisions tell them to believe. They don't have the capacity for critical thinking.

 

on top of the trade center, all covered with smoke
we lost our poor trade center, cause our governments a joke..

 

Me too...

 

This one is the kind of video they talk about in the Fema report, some of those centre columns about the bottom 50, 60 floors or so taking another 20 seconds or so to collapse.

Not great resolution but you can see them

From about 0:21 through to about 0:40 for the initial collapse, and when he zooms back in you can see some of columns that are left after the initial collapse, collapsing up to about 0:50





And this one that keeps zooming into a section, about 1/3 of the way across from the left, what actually looks about the 90th floor to what NIST says is the 98th floor; that gives way about a second before the rest of it starts to collapse

 

Theres is no mention, no claims in NISTS NCSTAR1 final report (2005) as to the timing of the building collapse.What appears on there website in the FAQ section, the 11 secs refers to the time of the first exterior panels reach the ground, which yes, would have been at freefall with air resistance:-

Thats IS NOT a claim the buliding collapsed in 11 seconds. Any talk on "virtual freefall" is nonsense, building takes at least 20 seconds to collapse. In 12 yrs you never read the NIST report, just being going by the mistakes F R Greening made, which are regurgitated on truther webistes. You have gone 40 pages of replies now, not getting what appears on NISTs FAQ isnt referring to the building collapse

 

You are being deliberately obtuse. The question is not how long the Tower took to collapse.

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??"
_____________________________________________________________________________________

So why are you not producing the quote from FEMA that you claim supports the idea 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"?

 

The question to you was how far the upper block would have fallen in five seconds in consideration of air resistance. The video evidence shows that the upper block fell 360 feet in 5 seconds. Now, just answer the damn question of how far the upper block would have fallen in consideration of air resistance!

And all of this still stands:

VG 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 asked him to back up that claim. He failed. And you, having read the discussion, are ignorant of his failure, which is just . . . remarkable.

VG brought up the issue of air resistance. So I asked him: taking air resistance into consideration, how far would the upper block have fallen in 5 seconds unimpeded by a solid structure below it? He failed to answer. You are also ignorant of that fact.

And then there's this: 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.

That, too, was not answered.

And neither was this addressed:

You're taking for granted that the upper block fell for six floors unimpeded by anything before colliding with the intact core structure below. However, since the core and perimeter columns were supporting the upper block right up until the beginning of collapse, we know that the upper block had to first crush whatever structure was supporting it after impact before it even reached the structure below the impact zone. So the resistance of the core and perimeter columns was there from the beginning of collapse. Therefore, the upper block did not have the chance to accelerate for the distance of six floors unimpeded.

 

Becuase I want you to actually read the thing

 

That makes no sense.

it had to first crush what ever structure was supporting even though whatever was supporting it wasnt there a split second later any more becuase it gave way?

 

Storch and I never finished our little tete a tete on 100% of all the concrete being pulverized..., but that would have eventually led to "The Meteorite"

This exact same video is what some of the truthers use to say there is proof there was molten steel, and the guy in the video, forget who he is, but one of the guys that worked on some of the reports, an "expert" who at the time actually did get it wrong. Its got nothing to do with molten steel. Just the gigantic force coming down as the building collapses that force growing exponentially, and it wouldnt have been directed down evenly, got to a point near the bottom of the building, I'm guessing probably just above the lobby, where there was like any epicentre of that gravitational force, and at least three floors, however wide of steel and concrete just got fused and all within maybe 1/10 of a second. This thing has nothing to do with jet fuel or planes or molten steel, or the temperature of the fires just the immense pressure from that gigantic force. Increase of pressure that quick is going to increase the temperature of it though. Lobby was 6 stories high, so this is maybe floors 7,8,9, nothing to do with the fires, but paper gets turned into carbon instantly

A little hard to wrap ones head around, but if anyone was in the vicinity of where this thing came from, they wouldnt even had time to turn to dust

 

Okay, I've read chapter 2 of the FEMA report. Relative to this discussion, the only thing it proves is that you lied when you claimed it said, ". . . the WHOLE structural intergrity of wtc 1, including all the columns in that " intact core structure" were compromised by the collapse of wtc 2."

No wonder you didn't want to copy and paste the relevant segment; it doesn't exist. So now that we know that you're not above fabricating information in order to support your "opinion," how will anyone know when you're being honest and when you're not?

 

I said:

You're taking for granted that the upper block fell for six floors unimpeded by anything before colliding with the intact core structure below. However, since the core and perimeter columns were supporting the upper block right up until the beginning of collapse, we know that the upper block had to first crush whatever structure was supporting it after impact before it even reached the structure below the impact zone. So the resistance of the core and perimeter columns was there from the beginning of collapse. Therefore, the upper block did not have the chance to accelerate for the distance of six floors unimpeded.

Your answer to this is basically:

Whatever was supporting the upper block up until the beginning of collapse wasn't there anymore because it gave way.