9/11

Thanks for the link to the report from seismologists that says -errr we dont know

"From this we infer that ground shaking of the WTC towers was not a major contributor to the collapse or damage to surrounding buildings, but unfortunately we also conclude that from the distance at which our own detections were made (the nearest station is 34 km away at Palisades, N.Y.) it is not possible to infer (with detail sufficient to meet the demands of civil engineers in an emergency situation) just what the near-in ground motions must have been."


What was recorded were neither s or p waves. A wave with a frequency of 1hz, closer to a sine wave, with an amplitude of what? That only made it to that first station.

What is the difference of the vertical vector between what they calculate as a 2.3 ML at ground level compared to a 2.1 ML earthquake with epicentre 7.1 km underground and an undisclosed , on that report anyway, lateral distance from the base of the tower

Why the difference between 2.1 for wtc 2 and 2.3 for wtc 1.


You actually want answers dig deeper, do your homework. If you just want to hate at the US goverment regardless, well continue.

That first link i' m not going to bother with, someone else has already online gone through it, pointed out all the errors he made, from memory he was yet another that misread 11s for the length of collapse

 

I gave you the answer, 348 x 350,000 micrometres, what is that in feet?

 

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 mentioned the antenna detaching. So what did it detach from? Then we can move on to the other questions from my post that you avoided.

 

Oh, my god

348 x 350,000 micrometers, google can help you with half of that. Google micrometers to feet type in 350,000 then whatever google tells you, multiply by 348.

 

Yeah, I already know the answer. One can only wonder why your answer is kind of ambiguous, as if you don't care to put it in terms readily recognized by readers. So, how many feet will the upper block fall in 5 seconds--accounting for air resistance--without an intact core and perimeter structure below it to slow it down?

Also, You mentioned the antenna detaching. So what did it detach from?

And just a reminder: Have you had any luck locating the segment of the FEMA report that you claim says that "the WHOLE (emphasis yours) structural intergrity of wtc 1, including all the columns in that " intact core structure" were compromised by the collapse of wtc 2"?

 

You said you knew the answer then you asked me again.

348 x 350,000 micrometres

Now lets move on to the next step, your ridiculous energy calculation thats not going to prove there wasnt enough energy for the upper block that disintergrated before 5 seconds to pass through the not very intact lower 91 floors at half the speed of freefall

 

Okay, for the record, you don't care to go on record as to how many feet the upper block dropped in the first five seconds with no intact structure below it because you're uncomfortable with the idea that I'm going to compare that distance with what was observed.

And what are you referring to with your mention of half the speed of freefall?

And did you overlook my question to you regarding you locating the segment of the FEMA report that you claim says that "the WHOLE (emphasis yours) structural intergrity of wtc 1, including all the columns in that " intact core structure" were compromised by the collapse of wtc 2," or are you deliberately avoiding any reference to it for reasons you don't care to talk about?

 

why is the hat truss not just sitting there on a pile of rubble. I can not believe a aluminum can with a fiberglass nose cut cores alone.

 

Well, as you can see, it looks pretty flimsy.

 

damn the French!!

 

Stop stalling, get on with it

 

You were asked to estimate how many feet the antenna would have dropped in 5 seconds without the intact structure below it to slow it down so that we can compare that number with what was observed. You answered: 348 x 350,000 micrometers.

One can only wonder why your answer is kind of ambiguous, as if you don't care to put it in terms readily recognized by readers. So, how many feet will the upper block fall in 5 seconds--accounting for air resistance--without an intact core and perimeter structure below it to slow it down?

Also, you mentioned the antenna detaching. Given that the antenna was supported by the hat truss, and the hat truss was tied into both the core and perimeter columns. You need to explain when the antenna detached, why it detached, and what did it detached from?

And just a reminder: Have you had any luck locating the segment of the FEMA report that you claim says that "the WHOLE (emphasis yours) structural intergrity of wtc 1, including all the columns in that " intact core structure" were compromised by the collapse of wtc 2"?

 

Hmmm . . .

I put up a pic of the hat truss, and you respond with this.

*shrugs*

 

You posted a photo of something being put together at montague-betts. Hat truss was 4 stories high, 107 to 110 floors. The workers dont have harnesses on you will notice

But thats just another way of stalling. Post the pictures of the design, the hat truss looks like a bunch of matchsticks glued together, easier for the layman to think it can easily crumble

 

Yeah, and that something happens to be the top of WTC hat truss.


This photograph shows the top of the hat truss of one of the towers during its construction. credit: the Skyscraper Museum


And this photo shows the core and perimeter structures that the hat truss was tied into.

What the hell was your point?
____________________________________________________________________________________

Anyway, you were asked to estimate how many feet the antenna would have dropped in 5 seconds without the intact structure below it to slow it down so that we can compare that number with what was observed.

Also, you mentioned the antenna detaching. Given that the antenna was supported by the hat truss, and the hat truss was tied into both the core and perimeter columns, you need to explain when the antenna detached, why it detached, and what did it detached from?

And just a reminder: Have you had any luck locating the segment of the FEMA report that you claim says that "the WHOLE (emphasis yours) structural intergrity of wtc 1, including all the columns in that " intact core structure" were compromised by the collapse of wtc 2"?

 

Intentional broken link copy and pasted from your truther website to the Skyscraper museum. That may be consrtuction of PART of the hat truss, but its not at the wtc, that big block that says montague-betts isnt part of the hat truss, the hat truss, if it is, is those flimsier smaller girders. Again, hat truss is 4 stories tall. Do you want to post a design image of the flimsy match stick looking hat truss. Not that it matters, every thing underneath it gives way, the floor trusses pulling the entire south wall in. When that hat truss falls, the more heavier and sturdier it is, the bigger of a missile it becomes, the more likely it is to slamn through the floors below.

As for that second picture, I was unaware they started construction on the wtc in the 1930s

 

What did it detach from? itself by the looks of things. As well as ripping out part of that hat truss. Since it fell sideways pretty much instantly, im guessing 3 or 4 seconds after the floor trusses pull the south wall in initiating collapse, the antenna detach about 1 second after the outside observation of the building collapse

I told you thats a trap, there is one paragraph in the Fema report that refers to the effects of the collapse of wtc 2 on wtc 1. There is only one Fema report, only one chapter on wtc 1 and 2. Thought you would have found it by now to show us what it really says. Of course if you post it.....there goes your intact core structure of the lower block

 

Ah, so you believe that the photo of the structure below is from the 1930s?

 

No one said it was the entire hat truss. And what difference does it make where the photo was taken?

And that antenna detached from itself? I see . . .