9/11 Fourteen Years Later

[fuji]

Where'd you get this cockamyme story from. There is is no way these floors could have damaged the massive cores on these buildings, let alone bring the both buildings down at free fall speed. DO you even understand what free fall means - NO RESISTANCE !! It means that everything was conveniently destroyed underneath that falling mass = NO resistance = Free Fall.

Do you have any idea how much the WTC weighed? Half of it started falling, and accelerating as it fell. Before you say incredibly stupid things like this again you should stop and do the math.

Hint: that much mass falling that fast delivers many times more force then the bombs you imagine...

 

[TESLAMotors]

Where'd you get this cockamyme story from. There is is no way these floors could have damaged the massive cores on these buildings, let alone bring the both buildings down at free fall speed. DO you even understand what free fall means - NO RESISTANCE !! It means that everything was conveniently destroyed underneath that falling mass = NO resistance = Free Fall.

No resistance = free fall.

The towers below the impact site for WTC 1 and 2 seemed to have no floors and core below it.
Just poof! Gone and the top floors above the impact site meet no resistance and fall at the speed of freefall.

WTC 7 a little fire, nothing so big that the fires are coming out the windows raging like crazy, you don't see that all around the building at all.


2 planes hit 2 buildings.
The buildings fall SYMMETRICALLY down at freefall speed with ZERO resistance below the impact sites.

A third building falls SYMMETRICALLY down because of fires which in the videos from all angles are not raging, there is no major smoke show as can be seen in the videos.

.....ANNNND the building falls SYMMETRICALLY.

2 planes, 3 buildings, all perfectly straight down.
If you believe that.....lol

 

[TESLAMotors]

Watch this video to get an understanding of thermodynamics, he's some "youtube expert" who has dabbled in some science in the past.

4:30 he keeps it very simple, but if you watch before that, it leads up to his explanation of it all.

Fuji, here you go. The guy in the video explains the laws of thermodynamics.
I found a site to keep it very simple for yourself and others, which the "youtube expert" as you would call him, he's stating scientific facts.

Physics for kids http://www.physics4kids.com/files/thermo_laws.html

If you want here's a more "adult" site for you.
https://www.boundless.com/chemistry...23/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics-496-3601/

 

[Titalian]

Maybe you should learn more about how the building was built. There were less than five buildings built that way worldwide. With respect to most buildings you would be right but in this case you are just wrong.

Unlike most buildings in which the floors are supported by internal columns the floors in the WTC were hung from a frame, like a suspension bridge.

When one floor finally broke free from the frame it fell, damaging the frame further and knocking the next floor off, which then both fell. Before long the frame itself was destroyed by the falling floors and then the entire building above the failure point was falling and crushing ("pancaking ") the rest of the building below.

But hey no need to take my word for it because add I have said a dozen times now on this thread YOU CAN GO SEE THAT FOR YOURSELF by looking at any video of the collapse that shows the building both above and below the impact site. You can SEE that the bottom of the building is motionless as the top collapsed on to it.

You don't need to be a scientist to go to YouTube and just fucking look.

Where did you come up with this crap, Suspension Bridge ???

This is a suspension bridge. These structures with re-enforced cables are built to support roadways in high wind areas, making the roadways more flexible during these conditions. The floor pans of WTC 1 and 2 were attached (bolted) from
the front steel columns to the inner re-enforced steel cores. No cables in sight. Why would you ever compare this to a suspension bridge ??? You have no clue what your talking about.

 

[GPIDEAL]

This was your reply to the point that the publishers of professional journals do not all collectively work for the CIA.

In other words, you had no reply. You lost the point.

Not to say that all those publishers are on the CIA's payroll, but there are a few examples of journalists or corporations that are or suspected of being CIA assets.

 

[GPIDEAL]

lol bet you keep a notepad on your computer and keep track, in your imaginary world, sure.
But until you can give some logical explanation to WTC 7's collapse besides the bullshit NIST (government) theory, the firefighters and other EXPERTS (not youtube celebs) that saw molten metal "flowing like lava" at ground zero.
Unless you can in some very reasonable manner other than the bullshit story of NIST who said a fire caused the collapse because of ONE COLUMN being compromised (LOL btw) and caused it to fall PERFECTLY straight down on its own footprint, I'll take 20 points away from you for believing such idiocy.
Larry Silverstein said to "pull IT" (he said he was referring to the firemen Lol.... why not "them", anyways) so the fire department tell him they can't save it.
So they "pull IT" (referring to people, not the building ) and then the fire spreads and causes a PERFECT collapse?


Fuck it, 40 points taken away from Fuji.....and the pencil, no more games for you. Go to your roo, err basement.

Building 7 is a big mystery. It could not have been weakened by burning jet fuel.

 

[GPIDEAL]

You don't believe a falling object accelerates as it falls?

Or that two floors weigh more than one?

Umm.......

Fuji, that's not a responsive answer.

You talked about FORCE, not weight or acceleration.

My point is that there's a distinction albeit academic here.

As I also pointed out, an increasing force (as you imply when you say multiple floors and weight) might not have been necessary for the WTC collapse since the minimum threshold of force or critical mass was sufficient in the top part of these buildings to have crashed down on the floors below to break them away from the exoskeleton as you've stated.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Here you go. 0:50 but the video is only 3 minutes, watch NIST "making our case" (meaning the expert's case). lol

Good video.

Interestingly, the physicist Alberto Miatello shows in video links within his article that many controlled-demolitions cause collapse at about HALF the rate of free fall acceleration (~5 metres per second per second). The free fall rate is not necessary (and perhaps dangerous?).

This would suggest that controlled-demolitions do not strive to bring down a building at free fall but something less. Perhaps this means that Building 7 had some external cause other than explosives which caused it to free fall?

 

[GPIDEAL]

falling into it's footprint... doesn't matter where the collapse starts... top or bottom... if, at the end, it is a pile of rubble within the confines of the original structure, then it has fallen into it's footprint.
you are welcome for clarifying that unusually difficult piece of controversy.

I think he means that the base does not collapse but that the top crashes down through it.

In a controlled-demolition, the explosive charges go off in synchronous fashion within a fraction of a second for the entire height of the building. What you see next is a collapse in an orderly fashion but almost simultaneous (top and bottom parts both begin to collapse or cave in).

You don't see this in the video of the WTC's collapse. It simply is a top part crashing down through the bottom part.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Great, now go find a video that shows the whole WTC and not just the part above the impact site and you will be ready to apologize for believing that garbage.

Game. Set. Match.

I agree with what you're saying for WTC 1 and 2, but # 7 collapsed in a different way.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Free fall didn't happen except with chunks of the building from above. Thousands of pictures and videos show the pieces falling faster than the building.

Then again, thousands of pictures and videos clearly show the failure happening at the point where the planes crashed, not at the bottom like in a controlled demolition yet you guys still hold to that fantasy.

That article I posted by Miatello has him stating that it was actually half the free fall rate, and that many other controlled-demolitions happen at half the rate too, but I can't buy the controlled-demolition theory.

Incidentally, the core was a massive and strong steel frame one. I can't understand how that came crashing down too, but guess the core in the top part hammered down on the core below?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

 

[GPIDEAL]

This other article describes the simple 5/8" bolts holding the floor trusses.

Also discussed is the reinforced core. How the hell did the core collapse too?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/trusstheory.html

 

[Titalian]

I want to bring across four very important points.

What kind of energy -

1 - Can pulverize two buildings into minute powder and dust ?

2 - Can turn the foundation into molten rock and metal ?

3 -Can fuse different materials into one solid mass ?

4 -Can sustain heat to the point of melting steel, for three months ?

Look it up and you'll find your answer. But don't insult my intelligence by telling me it was the mere falling of buildings.

 

[basketcase]

Dont mince words literally, here's the original reply I had and all you quote is "you don't"? lol

You don't like "youtube experts"...

Damn right. If they have no actual expertise in the topic but blather on I sure don't like them. I have at least as much qualification as most of the 1700+ architects and engineers. Unlike them, I don't claim to be an expert on buildings like the twin towers.

And yes, all you have are word games.l

 

[basketcase]

Yes. -took a page out of your how to reply book-



Never. I'm ready if/when you are.
...

So why don't you try explaining how no explosives were visible on the exterior structural members or why the collapse started at the point the planes hit, not at the base where controlled demolitions begin.

 

[basketcase]

yep... freefall... caused by demolition. buildings don't just collapse into freefall... thanks for disqualifying your biased opinion.

Take a look at any of the photos or videos of the two towers you will clearly see pieces falling at free-fall past the rest of the building.



p.s. if the building fell exactly into its footprint, then what was it that hit and damaged all the other nearby buildings?

 

[basketcase]

Where did you come up with this crap, Suspension Bridge ???
...

Well to be fair, comparing the two towers to a suspension bridge is about as accurate as comparing them to a tradition building design.

 

[basketcase]

Building 7 is a big mystery. It could not have been weakened by burning jet fuel.

Not jet fuel. The building had a large heating oil tank that ruptured and caused the fire that the NYFD couldn't put out.

 

[basketcase]

That article I posted by Miatello has him stating that it was actually half the free fall rate,...

If you take a look at actual reports and because of the debris and buildings around, there is no way to actually measure the time it took.

But photos clearly show debris falling past parts of the intact building so the building wasn't collapsing at free-fall.

 

[basketcase]

This other article describes the simple 5/8" bolts holding the floor trusses.

Also discussed is the reinforced core. How the hell did the core collapse too?
...

I don't design buildings but I do know that the vast majority of the strength in a building is to deal with vertical forces. Horizontal forces such as caused by the plane crash, the weakening of the fire heated beams, and the elements above it collapsing will easily shear the bolts.