9/11

If by that you mean that I didn't make clear that I was referring to the first 360 feet of drop, then I'll retrieve the relevant post. So, is that what your "got ya" is about?

And I hope the hypocrisy of you saying "got ya" when I've exposed your four or five outright lies isn't lost on you. It's not lost on anyone else, I assure you.
_____________________________________________________________

Here is the relevant post from which you took my statement out of context:

"It comes to 399 feet. So, in 5 seconds the upper block dropped 360 feet. That means that if there were a duplicate of the upper block sitting in the space right beside the actual upper block, and they both started to descend at the same time, the duplicate upper block--which is traveling through nothing but air--would be only 40 feet ahead of the actual block after 5 seconds, even though the actual upper block is having to overcome the resistance of the lower intact structure for that entire drop."

Do take note that if I had meant the entire drop, I would have said the entire drop, and not that entire drop. So . . .

 

No, i just needed both sides of that 82nd floor.

So now we are at: if you build a skyscraper same width, same breadth, same design as wtc 1, but only 28 stories (360 feet, 109m) high. And fly a 767 into what would then be the 12 to 16th floors. You believe it couldnt collapse. I will even give you the plane was carrying 1/4 the fuel american 11 was carrying. 2500 gallons not 10,000 gallons.

360 feet is just over half the height wtc 7 was

 

If the same number of perimeter and core columns are left to support the Tower, what difference would height make?

The only reason you're having a problem with this is because you believe that the photo of the WTC construction below is something from the 1930s.

 

Well, for one its going to eliminate any future silly energy calculations for the rest of the building

Secondly, for half your truther audience now and in the future, those that find it counter intuitive that the collapse of the 110 storey version should accelerate after an initial fail, lets eliminate that struggle. 28 stories thats barely larger than that Marriott hotel was at the time, crash a 767 into that, why the fuck wouldnt it collapse? The argument gets a whole lot more ridiculous, even though there is no reason it should be.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the same number of columns were left to support the structure, no one ever said that. You kept misrepresenting the NIST report saying certain floors remained intact moments after the aircraft impact as true for the 100 minutes after that

For how many more pages are you going to post that before you go back and double check what I said? And remind us all why you posted it in the first place

 

So you're denying that you thought that this is a photo from the 1930s? I'm pretty sure that you thought that this is a photo from the 1930s, which really speaks to your credibility--again--because it would mean that you don't even recognize what the core of the matter of the discussion was, but kept on talking anyway.

 

Post for us what I actually said

 

If you don't recall it, then that's on you. You hunt for it. It was your screw up. Apparently even you can't keep up with your bullshit.

I've been asking you about it for the last five pages, and for the last five pages you've been pretending that I haven't asked you. Why do you think I've been asking how your denial is coming along?

 

It wouldn't be quite as redundant as the collapse of the twin towers, but give me a break...only a terrorist with little to no training in flying a 767 could maneuver a plane to crash into a building that small.

 

Yes, that was the point, 5 pages you say, to induce 5 pages of pettyness

Your skyscraper is 28 storeys high now, with a 767 in the middle of it. Why the hell wouldnt it collapse.

Its page 70 now, do you actually have anything other than uh uh uh uh oh, the collapse never looked right

 

Whatever, you fly the plane in by remote control. But why does the scenario change in your head if its same dimensions other than height, why are those dozen floors above and below the plane not going to give way?

 

It was not 5 pages of pettiness. I asked you to back up your claim that the photo I provided was from the 1930s. When you refused to even acknowledge the question, I included it in my posts as an afterthought. Bottom line is that you made the claim, and you're now trying to turn your lie into my pettiness. Nice try at a turnaround, but you fuckin' lied and you don't want to own up to it.

 

Even if they did give way, even that far down the tower...they still would not have gotten all the way to the bottom of the tower. Towers only crumble to the ground when there is a controlled demolition. Either that, or we really have to reconsider how we feel about modern engineering. In other words, if a plane hit a tower...flee for your life... And we know that skyscrapers, or towers as I like to call them, are built with just such a scenario in mind. So they know it's a serious risk that a plane could fly into one.

But then...are we just so stupid that...planes can't avoid skyscrapers for some reason? And living in a city is really a very dangerous thing. Who lives in those skyscraper penthouses? Or is there such a thing?

 

Well, the part about them being built to withstand that kind of impact, thats bullshit, no skyscraper is built for that kind of stress.

They may not fail as completely as the wtcs did, collapse so quickly or even collapse, but its going to fuck shit up.

Some of the skscrapers in tokyo actually have giant pendulums inside them because thats a better idea than making them too rigid, for earthquakes....not the same thing. But there is always that trade off between wind (and airplanes) vs earthquake proofing.

The new world trade centre has steel fibers in the concrete that has a blast tolerance 10 times the concrete in the old buildings.

Not having concrete around the core of wtc 1 and 2 was also a bit of an issue

 

Well of course they don't want their buildings to suffer any damage in an earthquake. I guess, worse case scenario, the top floors pulverize the rest of the building all the way down to the base? But, alas, the towers were hit by airplanes. And the airplanes severed the core, which the antennae were attached to. Aided by the fire that weakened the steel. Acknowledging storch's picture of the core columns. An airplane took that out...

Or if you don't want to acknowledge that storch's picture is of the core of WTC 1, what would you, hypothetically speaking, say would happen if an airplane flew into that? What do you think would happen to the rest of the core of that building if an airplane flew into it? My thinking is that just below the impact zone virtually nothing would happen to it. So the rest is intact. What about the core itself? Well, to my way of thinking, the outer shell of steel should have pretty much pulverized the plane, and if not that, the massive explosion when it hit.

Did the explosion "rock the core"? Take another look at the core. Also consider the movie "Die Hard" or "Terminator 2: Judgment Day." There were massive explosions in buildings in those movies and it was perfectly believable to me that they didn't fall down. If you had filmed a scene in one of the twin towers with a huge explosion on one of its floors and it didn't fall down, that would be believable. So did the explosion rock the core? Certainly the plane didn't sever that. So the fire melted that? What exactly happened to that?

The twin towers, if anything, seem overly built to me. I'm just failing to see how floor after floor of that structure just dropped from the sky. Considering the state it was in immediately after the planes struck. It's not built like a bundle of sticks. The thing is completely solid. If a plane flew into that...it would simply be pulverized. The structure would remain intact.

How do you get permission to tear down a building like the World Trade Center if you want to?

 

When that independance day movie first came out many argued the white house exploded the wrong way around.

Early on after 9/11 thats where the crazier ones got the directed energy weapon idea from, empire state building explodes the same way

 

Not really necessary when all you needed was explosives and explosions were reported on site. I would say explosives more likely.

 

I'm not surprised you would ask such a question. After all, you've been arguing for pages and pages and pages without recognizing the core structure even when it's been staring you in the face for post after post. In fact, your understanding of it is such that you claimed that the photo that I repeatedly stuck under your nose was a photo of something from the 1930s; you couldn't even recall making that claim. And your reaction to being exposed as someone who didn't even recognize the very thing being discussed was to accuse the one who exposed you of being petty.

For future reference, this is what you believe would offer about the same resistance as air:

 

YES!

You have presented a picture of what looks like 3 floors of just the centre columns atop about 5 floors of completed floors. thats not going to fall over by itself. But if they tried to build even another 10 floors of just the center columns without the rest of the floor. it would collapse, and for the most part downwards "into its own footprint" where else is it going to go?

Once it starts to collapse, each floor is only as strong as its weakest joint between steel components, if the force of the weight coming down exceeds that, then its going to collapse

The second part of that sentence "about the same resistance as air" for the 100th freakin time, the collapse of wtc 1 never took 11 seconds, no US government rep ever said that.

It took minimum of 19 seconds, more than twice the avearage time freefall would have taken

Those centre columns were never designed to stand up on their own for even about 15 storeys, let alone 110

 

I left this one alone too long also.

This is incorrect also BTW

 

It's good to know that you've finally admitted that that photo is not something from the 1930s. What changed your mind about that? And more importantly, what makes you think that your credibility is worth anything now that you've shown that you didn't recognize the WTC core structure even when it was biting you in the ass. I mean, you were arguing about its sturdiness without even knowing what it looked like. Do you know what I'm saying to you? Rest assured everyone else does.

Anyway, your belief that the core structure would collapse in on itself if it was built another 10 floors is yet another idea that you've pulled out of your ass. And to make that abundantly clear to everyone, I'll ask you to prove it.

And why are you bringing up the issue of the collapse time for the entire Tower. I've never mentioned anything about that. In fact, I've told you on more than one occasion that my issue is with the first 5 seconds of the collapse; specifically, that the upper block dropped 360 feet in 5 seconds, which means that if there were a duplicate of the upper block sitting in the space right beside the actual upper block, and they both started to descend at the same time, the duplicate upper block--which is traveling through nothing but air--would be only 40 feet ahead of the actual upper block after the first 5 seconds, even though the actual upper block is having to overcome the resistance of the lower intact structure for that entire drop.

And yes, when a moving body collides with a body of the same composition, two things happen. The moving body is slowed down, and the stationary body is moved. I'm afraid you're going to need more that a "this is incorrect" to explain how no energy is consumed during the collision. So you go ahead and explain how the stationary body is moved, but the moving body is not slowed down.