Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
April 19, 2014, 12:34:48 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: interesting footage of south tower collapsing  (Read 1244 times)
sandycoosworth
Guest
« on: December 15, 2006, 09:32:38 AM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2swbDMADcgw

watch thsi a couple times over and pay very close attention to the closest corner of the south tower at a bout 6 seconds in, look at how fast the smoke/dust is shooting out of the corner, you have probably 100 feet of tower exploding at the same time .... that cant happen with pancaking Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
a_joker10
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1928


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2006, 09:35:32 AM »

Ummm...
The NIST report conclusively proved that the buildings progressively collapsed.
Report to moderator   Logged

Z
sandycoosworth
Guest
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2006, 09:44:09 AM »

super

now explain to me how multiple floors can explode at the same time with a progressive collapse

also explain how the progression of the collapse move faster downwards than the top of the tower

then explain why there wasnt a stack of 110 floors found at the base of each tower, youd think that would be the case no?

i know, it was all that potential energy right Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
a_joker10
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1928


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2006, 09:59:23 AM »

Read the NIST report.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

It was potential energy. Gotta love it.
That Newton what a genius.

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, 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. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
Report to moderator   Logged

Z
sandycoosworth
Guest
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2006, 10:02:01 AM »

read about the people who approached the 911 comision and NIST (with testimony about explosions and unusual WTC activities prior to 911) getting stonewalled before you quote their largely incomplete findings again Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
Old_Rooster
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2381


SquadFathers mom gave me a BJ


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2006, 10:05:17 AM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2swbDMADcgw

watch thsi a couple times over and pay very close attention to the closest corner of the south tower at a bout 6 seconds in, look at how fast the smoke/dust is shooting out of the corner, you have probably 100 feet of tower exploding at the same time .... that cant happen with pancaking Smiley
Damn straight, I have a new idea.  I think Bush was in on this with the Russians.  This all had to do with the distribution of Wheat.  Keep it on the downlow but I heard bush was seen on the 82nd floor of the south tower wiring explosives the day before this happened , he was seen September 10th but the most startling of all is after he was seen wiring the explosives, he was having lunch with Bill Clinton , two mouseketeers and the guy that dots the I for Ohio State marching band.  I haven't been able to piece those pieces of the puzzle together but i'm thinking the guy that dots the I is a spy for the Chinese.  I'll figure it out and get back with you.
Report to moderator   Logged

Benjamin Pearson-Pedo
a_joker10
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1928


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2006, 10:19:17 AM »

read about the people who approached the 911 comision and NIST (with testimony about explosions and unusual WTC activities prior to 911) getting stonewalled before you quote their largely incomplete findings again Smiley

Or, find me a group of experts that are more aware of construction than the American Society of Civil Engineers. Since this the group that helped to write the reports for NIST. Also argue with the Education facility of MIT since they lead part of the investigation.

Also, although there were people that reported hear the sounds of explosions the vast majority never reported this. Also a building collapse would have many sounds that sound like explosives, since there was oil and natural gas piped to many of the floors.

But hey, trained experts and over 1200 witnesses back up the NIST report.

Extensive details are found in the 42 companion reports. (The final report on the collapse of WTC 7 will appear in a separate report.)  Also in this report is a description of how NIST reached its conclusions. NIST complemented in-house expertise with private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs, and videos of the disaster; established baseline performance of the WTC towers; performed computer simulations of the behavior of each tower on September 11, 2001; combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence for each tower; conducted nearly 1,200 first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; and analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in the two high-rise buildings.
Report to moderator   Logged

Z
sandycoosworth
Guest
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2006, 10:30:47 AM »

ever hear the expression "fox watching the hen house" ... doesnt it strike you as odd they managed flatly ignored anyone who had somehting else to say? studies and reports always have mandate/an agenda this was no different... they started with a conclusion and worked backwards, that is not science

http://www.jonhs.net/911/improbable_collapse.htm
this isnt some childish piece of shit like loose change .... start this video 10 minutes in and hear dr jones getting into the specifics of the collapse ... i wouldnt say this video is as objective as it could be, but i would say its far more so than the 911 comission report i read of the bits of NIST
Report to moderator   Logged
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18897

If you're reading this you have too much free time


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2006, 10:36:31 AM »

What a waste of time. I forgot you're the guy who thinks it's cool to drive dangerously while staring at people in their cars. Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
a_joker10
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1928


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2006, 10:39:09 AM »

Dr Jones is not credible. His opinions aren't even worth discussing since he doesn't understand or even work in the construction demolitions or structural engineering field.

You base your opinions from him. Maybe try to find someone more credible. Wink
Report to moderator   Logged

Z
sandycoosworth
Guest
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2006, 10:51:06 AM »

Dr Jones is not credible. His opinions aren't even worth discussing since he doesn't understand or even work in the construction demolitions or structural engineering field.

You base your opinions from him. Maybe try to find someone more credible. Wink

watch teh video and he will outline his expertise, particularily with regards to chemical reactions... or check

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

to be sure, he has more expertise than you ....

aside from that, yours is the sort of summarily dismissive attitude that was used to rationalize the progressive collapse theory(which wasnt the first one they tried out btw Wink), you should try thinking for yourself sometime Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
sandycoosworth
Guest
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2006, 10:51:45 AM »

and if you are wondering why more people dont "speak out" ... where does jones work now ?? Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
a_joker10
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1928


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2006, 12:24:52 PM »

Jones retired before he was fired for not following academic protocol and I know he has less building experience then me.
Thanks though.

I will trust my engineering degree and the opinion of my wife who happens to be structural engineer.

I had this debate with 240 about 4 months ago.

Dr Jones should spend more time working on his cold fusion project and maybe get it to be reproducible before he moves onto engineering and materials science.
Report to moderator   Logged

Z
sandycoosworth
Guest
« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2006, 12:36:19 PM »

jones retired amidst a paid leave to lookinto his theories to be sure Smiley

and i highly doubt anyone with a "potential energy" theory to explain molten metal has more expertise than dr jones Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
a_joker10
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1928


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2006, 12:53:58 PM »

Yes potential energy. The basis of the NIST sounds improbable.

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Unlike the thermite explosives that don't explode as postulated by Dr Jones.

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.
Report to moderator   Logged

Z
sandycoosworth
Guest
« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2006, 01:13:46 PM »

"NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."

jones did and he found evidence of a thermite(or thermate) reaction ... remember what i said about the report starting with a conclusion and working backwards ... "antiscience" Wink

ive already discussed the unusual and unprecedented power downs in the weeks leading up to (and in particular on the weekend before) 911, wtc employees reporting very unusual construction and dust being shot out of the ventilation systems every morning ... the fact the securacom has very close ties to the bush family ... the opportunity was there

i do not understand how one can so readily accept the potential energy theory and completely dismiss the possibility of explosives, especially considering the massive amount of fireman testimony about secondary explosions, the video evidence of large basement level explosions just before both towers fell, the seismic data, the fact all the glass and concrete were reduced to dust, no piles of floors being found to help support the pancake theory ...
Report to moderator   Logged
a_joker10
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1928


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2006, 01:24:42 PM »

You misread what I say.
I don't categorically deny anything.
If a different hypothesis is put forward by the scientific community then I will look into it.
Until then the best and only credible theory has been released by NIST.

The problem I have with Dr. Jones is that his experiments weren't peer reviewed and he was acting outside of his expertise. He should have had a credible scientist that has a background in 1. Explosives and 2. in Structural engineer approve his paper.
Report to moderator   Logged

Z
sandycoosworth
Guest
« Reply #17 on: December 15, 2006, 01:42:31 PM »

thats fair, but at the same time i wouldnt hold my breath waiting for anyone to speak out...

http://www.jonhs.net/911/improbable_collapse.htm ... there is a great deal of discussion about NIST in this link Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
sandycoosworth
Guest
« Reply #18 on: December 15, 2006, 02:18:15 PM »

good to have you back Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
sandycoosworth
Guest
« Reply #19 on: December 15, 2006, 02:30:31 PM »

youre full of shit
































you came back for meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!