9/11

Also keep in mind that there's really no reason to believe anything in NIST's report has any basis in fact. How can you say people don't know how to build a skyscraper and at the same time think people can somehow deduce, after it's a pile of rubble, what happened after it was hit by two planes? I don't believe anything in that report. I don't believe that the planes severed any core columns for sure. They should have been pulverized practically on impact. Our government is so inept on all levels and I'm supposed to believe that the folks from NIST are really smart and capable...I don't think so.

The buildings collapsed because they were rigged with explosives. It makes zero sense that buildings designed to withstand the impact of airliners of practically the same size traveling at an even greater velocity with a greater calculated impact should have failed so utterly and completely. And then, of course, Building 7, not hit by any planes, falling because...oh, I don't know, "When the towers fell it was like an earthquake" or "a beam hit the building."

For the first time in history in one morning, after a matter of hours, buildings collapsed due to fires. If you think the planes just cut through the center of the buildings like a fucking buzzsaw I'm afraid you're sorely misinformed. To put it another way, if the planes had struck and there had been no fire (somehow) they wouldn't have collapsed. Obviously. And the fires wouldn't cause them to collapse either.

Unless they were built so fucking poorly that their utter devastation really could have come from anywhere. As likely by chance as a terrorist attack. In which case, why trust these professionals at all? I'm supposed to respect the authority of engineers and yet...yeah...they clearly don't know what they're doing. No.

 

Eulers formula for critical loads, thats about as tough as it gets, the rest is just trig, some materials science for relative densities. Etc

It isnt anywhere near as hard say something like statistics

 

They dont have to melt, or severe or shear, hell most of those centre columns didnt even bend. Just need the thing to shift, twist in the right places. All of a sudden you have one part handling 30% more load along x,y,z or axial axis.

Those centre columns are in sections, they break off, fall on the floor side. Then you have a giant girder falling through what is only 4 inches of lightweight concrete and steel tubes for each floor.

 

*epic eye roll*

 

cuts in steel before iron workers were on site. hum.

 

Oh, I should have dug deeper, so you have been going off K Kuttler this whole time, both with the concrete thing and the initial fall

He makes the same mistakes, takes the 11 seconds off the NIST faq site, doesnt realise its not talking about the main collapse. References Greening without realising Greening didnt realize 9.8 m/s2 is for a vacuum, and then 100 micrometers for the pulverized concrete size, really????

He also puts the highest speed of the collapse at 12mph???

This is a guy with a Ph D in maths, although there is no admission to any wtc stuff on his website

 

18:50 who did it..

 

A lot of talk about people here, but you forgot that my issue is with the beginning of collapse. The antenna, which was supported by the hat truss, which was tied into the core and perimeter structures, dropped 360 feet in 5 seconds--which is 40 feet shy of freefall--right through the rest of the Tower below it without even a jolt.

So far, your response to that is:

"There was no internal intact structure pushing upwards. The external steel columns were holding the load, once they gave way, KABOOM . . ."But of course there was an intact structure below; even the NIST acknowledges that. So . . .

And you should at least take a stab at how far the upper section of the building would have fallen in 5 seconds if there were no intact structure below it to slow it down, allowing for air resistance, of course.

Core columns break and fall on the floor? You really need to produce something to back up that claim.

 

I'm sure that there's a logical explanation for that . . . which VG is sure to share with us in due time, right after he produces the FEMA report that says 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.

 

Actually, John Skilling, the head structural engineer said: "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

 

They all are bud.

 

Yeah,LOL, there is, traffic to truther sites doubles when you get a Republican President voted in

 

Ok, and what is the next step after that?, this all started page 18, its now page 63, so we have taken 45 pages to not even get past your first step

I think you and I are the only two people that have read all of the last 45 pages. I doubt even neonsptoast has read it all, he just likes his conspiracy theories

If you have 10 steps in your theory ( which I knew from page 18 was the piledriver theory didnt get what you were trying to do with the whole 2mm pulverized concrete thing until a day or two ago) its going to take 450 pages to get to a conclusion. Which at the first step is based on an antenna that detaches before the building collapses and doesnt fall straight

I dont believe you have any intention of getting through your whole theory, which isnt yours to begin with anyway, just stalling, becuase everyone else isnt going to read it anyway, they will just see 63 pages so far, oh it looks like some kind of rebuttle. Even though in 45 pages you havent gotten past what happens after the antenna drops 360 feet


But I'm guessing it would have gone something like this: Kuttlers 100 micrometres for the pulverized concrete is too ridiculous and you couldnt find anywhere other than the concrete recycling website that says how much energy it takes for that, so move up to 2mm. You know full well NIST gives some rough figures for the load each floor can handle. 80 pounds pr sq ft FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation. One floor can handle 11 floors placed in it, half that, the weight of 6 floors dropped on it. And even then thats assuming all vertical columns are as intact as they were the day before the attack. So you need all the concrete to be pulverized to get a result for the energy calculation that you think will prove the top part couldnt have dropped.

The simple question is however, well why did anything drop? You say the structure below was intact, and that 6 columns from the initial aircraft impact werent enough. So then why did anything drop? Forget about 360 feet in 5 seconds, why did the Antenna drop at all?



The quick and easy explanation of why this is rubbish:



Is that as soon as the top part falls just one floor, that "new" floor is added to the top part of stuff coming down and the associated force. or the even simpler question, well why does it even fall in the first place?

And you will notice in that video, they give the length of the collapse as 11.5 seconds "which is close to the observed collapse time ", which NIST or no one ever said 11 seconds was correct, it takes at least 19 seconds. 2018 that video is still up on the net, with that obvious error, and with ae911truths name still attached to it

If the antenna falls 360 feet in 5 seconds, whats the next step?

 

the structures would've sustained their integrity a few floor below impact zones. collapsed would stall out, unless assisted. cia.

 

i told you, next year maybe for that, september 2019

Its a trap. to test truthers and non-truthers alike

Theres a paragraph in the Fema report, there is nothing in the NIST final report.

wtc 1 and 2 were 200 ft apart

A 110 storey, 500,000 ton skyscraper fell 200 ft away from wtc 1, 29 minutes before wtc 1 collapsed

I dont even need to link any studies. for most people to think.....errr yeah hang on a minute, how come I have never heard anyone point that out?.....in 17 years

In addition:

1. What was the force of the 1993 bombing, what needed to be replaced
2. What is under ground level of both towers

 

The antenna was supported by the hat truss. The hat truss was tied into both the core and perimeter columns. You need to explain how the antenna detaches. What did it detach from?

You believe that I am offering a theory as to what happened. But so far, I'm only pointing out the impossibility of the upper block accelerating through the intact core structure below it to the tune of 40 feet shy of freefall through the first 360 feet of descent. You say that point is not my own, but after seeing the video (which I provided), I did notice that the collapse speed could be measured by the drop of the antenna, and so I did it. And it's glaringly obvious that you are avoiding answering the question of how far the upper block of the building would have fallen in five seconds without the intact structure below it to slow it down. Go ahead and make an estimate.

Then you ask why the antenna dropped at all. Yeah, that's what my point has been. The NIST doesn't make any claims as to what happened after the collapse began. And even their claims of what initiated the collapse are hypothetical. The 41 remaining core columns, and the 205 remaining perimeter columns were holding up the Tower just fine, until--as the NIST puts it--global collapse was inevitable. Pretty scientifically arrived at fact, eh? Obviously, some of us are more curious than others.

The NIST tried to explain the collapse by approaching the problem by starting with the conclusion and working backwards. They simply made whatever claims were necessary to explain what was observed, even though those claims are not supported by evidence. In fact, they make clear that they don't make any claims about anything that occurred after the beginning of the collapse. And that's a good thing for them since they did acknowledge that the structure below the impact zone was intact. They would have had a hard time accounting for a virtual freefall of the upper block for the first 360 feet in consideration of the intact Tower below. They would also have been forced to explain how every connection within the remaining core and perimeter structure below failed all at once.

The antenna that was supported by the hat truss, which was tied into the core and perimeter columns, dropped 360 feet in 5 seconds. And your response to that is to ask what the next step is. For you, the next step would be to answer the question of how far the upper block of the building would have fallen in five seconds without the intact structure below it to slow it down, taking air resistance into account. And then we can compare your answer to what was observed, and continue on from there. But if you refuse to answer yet again, that should be a clue to you as to why I repeat my questions to you.

And speaking of unanswered questions, could you to produce the segment of the FEMA report that you claim says 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." Then I won't have to repeat that question, and we can finally put that issue to rest. Wouldn't that be great.

Which brings us to your contention that "There was no internal intact structure pushing upwards. The external steel columns were holding the load, once they gave way, KABOOM . . ." But of course there was an intact structure below which even the NIST acknowledges. But now we can scratch what the NIST says about it because you presumably have sources that trumps their findings. Interesting. So do us all a favor and reveal the source where you found that "There was no internal intact structure pushing upwards. The external steel columns were holding the load . . ."

 

Oh, so no theory

Oh, I didnt know you were there that day. Did you get yourself a hotdog? New York Hot dogs are world famous

Is that both personalities, who am I talking to now?

Yeah, so it didnt drop, as everything else was intact. End of step one. You said you didnt have a theory, no more steps So we can all go home now

Isnt that the same as the antenna though, you said the antenna was attached to the upper block anyway

I will say 348 turtles to see what happens next. a turtle is a accepted unit of measurement in Vanuatu. 1 turtle being equal in length to 350,000 micrometres

 

Seismic data from seismograph 34 km away

ML refers to the Richter scale, not the Moment magnitude scale. It is a logarithmic scale, a 0.2 difference translates to twice the energy


Twice the amount of energy was transfered to the ground with North Tower Collapse compared to the South Tower Collapse

South Tower collapse was basically a 2.1 magnitude quake with its epicentre at ground level 200 ft away from the North Tower

 

Instead of responding to the points and questions in my last post, you've decided that publicly reducing yourself to a class-clown character will serve your purposes here.

Very good.

 

Uh huh.

"The towers were designed to resist a combined S/P-waved earthquake up to magnitude 5. Buildings tend to be the most vulnerable to S-wave type earthquakes, especially when they are close to their natural frequency."

9/11 - Why Natural Collapse Was Mathematically Impossible
_________________________________________________________________________

"There were approximately 10,000 viscoelastic dampers installed in each tower to reduce wind-induced vibrations and S-waved vibrations from earthquakes. The earthquake of magnitude 4.0 in October 19, 1985 went by unnoticed. The towers had, as expected, no problem handling this, as most other buildings by the way.

". . . Collapses of the two WTC towers generated large seismic waves, observed in five states and up to 428 km away. The North Tower collapse was the largest seismic source and had local magnitude ML 2.3. From this we infer that ground shaking of the WTC towers was not a major contributor to the collapse or damage to surrounding buildings.

". . . The perception of people in the vicinity of the collapses as reported in the media seems to be in full accord with the notion that ground shaking was not a major contributor to the collapse or damage to surrounding buildings."

Report On Seismic Activity Due To WTC Collapse.
__________________________________________________________________________

And now, could you to produce the segment of the FEMA report that you claim says 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."