Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It seems that it is more then just shoddy or shitty jobs. It is being called unscientific, and in some cases actual lies.It is far from accurate we can agree. They should be held to account for the discrepencies though. They should be more forthcoming in addressing the complaints too, as well as
release their computer simulation on 7 for replication as well. It is narrative based on assumptions that discredits their theory, and if it can be discredited by others, then the theory is false and has to be reconsidered, re analyzed and done again.
There are other independent analysis that have been done, and the people that have done them have been ignored by NIST, even though some are in the same fields of study.
Many of their papers are available for study, that point out specifically where the NIST analysis is lacking.
This is just one example that suggests an 11 sec. total collapse time based on the initial speed of the one of the top sections. We have been given
estimations anywhere from 10 to 15 secs. FF is 9.22. This suggests that all of the mass, steel, connections, concrete that comprised the towers
provided only a minimal amount of resistance.
You must look at the buildings, and take into consideration the amount of mass that is being pulverized, and ejected away from the collapse fronts
that can not be added into the equation. This further contradicts and calls into question why there is only a (estimated) 1 to 5 seconds difference
from FF (an object falling through air only).
The alternative theories suggest that something else had to have been used to remove the mass out of the way, and the analysis done by the independents seem to side with this, and against a fire and gravity ONLY theory provided from NIST.
Downward Acceleration of the North Tower - YouTube
Again, you're poking holes in the NIST report.
Are you saying that that is the only point you are trying to make? That the government did a shitty job investigating?
Here is a page for you to look at if you're interested that better explains it.
Review of 'A New Standard For Deception' A Presentation by Kevin Ryan
I also would expect to see a hesitating, at times halting collapse front. Why? Because this is supposed to be a gravity collapse that was kick started by a local fire damaged components that gave out, and collided with UNDAMAGED HEAVIER COMPONENTS.
Cmon stop being so blind, we can all see it, it is obvious enough. You are at least admitting that there were "other items" but leave out HUGE items in your definition that would be more appropriate.
Yes, watch any video to see this.Are you trying to tell me that huge pieces of steel were "ejected" with grate force (explosion) to land away from the tower?
It certainly wouldn't land hundreds of feet away and imbed itself into the side of another building unless you shot the thing out of a cannon would it?Do you understand parabolic trajectories are? If so, can you explain how a heavy object, 1000 ft in the air might topple/fall sideways with a little bit of horizontal force applied at the top?
If I rolled a bowling bowl off the top of one of those towers, how far away from the base do you think it would land?
No I do not, and again you are assuming that ALL of the debris from the damaged components are to be included so as to crush down and provide more energy for the collapses. This is a false assumption especially given that there is video evidence!You don't think that the descending debris pile, after shearing the floors from the perimeter columns, could have pushed those perimeter columns sideways, landing hundreds of feet from the base?
What is still in question is why the rapid collapse fronts, and why only minimal resistance, and also what implications does FF for 2.25 secs in WTC, that suggest mass removal of 8 stories? It is obvious that these were not fire and gravity only 'collapses"
And this should tell you how much force and therefore TIME should be required to overcome the mass you described.No, it's NOT in question. The force/load of the debris pile impacting each floor, as has been shown to you numerous times,
You are describing the pancaking of floors yes?was WAY OVER the designed load of each floor and could not resist it.
And this assumes that no debris was pulverized, or ejected away from the collisions..You are not being reasonable.o the debris pile hits the first floor below, shears the floor from its floor truss connection, and continues down WITH the floor it just sheared added to its mass.
Onward to the next floor.
So you are saying that these were perfect collisions?The perimeter columns were not crushed in the collapse. The were pushed outward after being sheared from the floors that helped hold them up.
a perfect inelastic collision assumes that no mass is lost during the collision, which we know is not the case as, during each collision, concrete was pulverized and and ejected AND outer columns were ejected resulting in a loss of mass for each floor.
I thought you just mentioned how they did?The floors tied the perimeter columns and the core columns together (along with the hat truss). Nether "tube" (box create by the perimeter columns or the box created by the core columns) could stand on it's own.
a perfect inelastic collision assumes that the collided floors stick together, which is highly improbable. Further, we know that this is not the case as, during each collision, concrete and interior contents were pulverized, creating a significant barrier of debris between floors.
most fatally, by its very nature, a perfect inelastic collision model cannot take into account the resistance from the supporting columns below when calculating the final velocity. Another problem is that Bazant does not show any calculations revealing the mass he is using for the upper colliding mass and what mass he is using for the lower mass. In fact, as far as I can tell, the collapse equations are derived indirectly, by a series of equations that calculate an overall collapse energy balance and that rest on dubious propositions
What should be done- in collision calculations using two equal masses, as the two floors that initially collide are similar masses! But as far as I can tell, the model he uses the complete mass of the upper tower here, which will give a much faster final velocity, in order to obtain a rapid collapse time and a complete crush-down. In reality, floor A colliding with floor B at velocity V should result in a final velocity of V/2 and this is under perfect conditions!
This halving of momentum would slow down any collapse greatly.
This is what you are failing to comprehend.
there should also be a great amount of crush UP during the crush down phase that you are implying, and completely ignore in an unrealistic analysis that favors a fast collapse time, while also ignoring the collisions of the 2 masses, the level of equal resistance for at least a reasonable amount of time for the upper mass to overcome the undamaged, and unweakened lower mass.
You leave alot out of your assuming LOL!
Where is your the energy required to eject outer facade columns hundreds of feet in all directions around the towers, and the energy required to expel pulverized concrete for thousands of feet all around the WTC complex. Do you not realize that energy expended doing these things can not be used to also crush down with such force as to reasonably expect such rapid descents?
the official accounting of the WTC collapse by NIST are so flawed that they in essence prove implosion by CD by default!
Are you saying that the upper mass was only destroyed at the very end of the sequence?
It seems that it is more then just shoddy or shitty jobs. It is being called unscientific, and in some cases actual lies.Again, you're poking holes in the NIST report.
Are you saying that that is the only point you are trying to make? That the government did a shitty job investigating?
Here is a page for you to look at if you're interested that better explains it.
Review of 'A New Standard For Deception' A Presentation by Kevin Ryan
Well if that's your only point then I have no issue.
Lacking a plausable alternative explanation, I have to go with the conclusion that Al Queda hijacked planes, flew them into the towers and they fell. The true details of what happened can probably never be known.
Is the amount of ejected and pulverized mass not visibly apparent to you?
The AMOUNT???
Tell me how much debris, weight-wise, is in those clouds of dust.
What is impossible to determine is what that dust consists of. Do you mean to tell me from photographs you can discern if that's gyspum planking dust, concrete dust, ceiling tile dust, etc?
You trying to tell me the AMOUNT is immense is incredible. The size of a dust cloud is not indicative of the mass of the substance that created it.
Go think about that for a bit and come back.
But it's OK for NIST to say the same thing and you believe them?
Look first of all, IMO, it appears from watching videos that we are seeing an explosive collapse, NOT a slow gravity induced one, as I at least would have expected.
From reading about conservation of momentum, I also would expect to see a hesitating, at times halting collapse front. Why? Because this is supposed to be a gravity collapse that was kick started by a local fire damaged components that gave out, and collided with UNDAMAGED HEAVIER COMPONENTS.
What do we see? Parts that are exploding even in the beginning of the "collapse". We also can trace explosive, expulsions all the way down the buildings, WAY ahead of the collapse fronts...
Look why haven't you posted any of NIST figures regarding what you are asking of me?
I am not the expert, rather I am trying to be as an astute observer as I can given what I know, and have learned from others.
So are you having trouble figuring out which top section would be expected to arrive on the ground sooner? One that would travel through 90 stories of mass/steel or one that goes through air?
I also would expect to see a hesitating, at times halting collapse front. Why? Because this is supposed to be a gravity collapse that was kick started by a local fire damaged components that gave out, and collided with UNDAMAGED HEAVIER COMPONENTS.
I can not believe you just said this!!! Holy shit dude, you are one delusional person. What you are saying here just denies conservation of momentum, and other physics laws.Nope.
Dead wrong. You cannot take the weight of everything below a certain area of a structure and tell anyone that it will resist the section above falling onto it. Total fail on your part.
No wonder you can't understand what the objections are about. You are hopelessly lost.
That's right, they could and add in the safety factors, conservation of momentum, and other important known factors and you would have a different outcome, in times and acceleration....The numbers are right there. The floor connections could resist a certain load.
You fail to grasp anything of what I mentioned above.The descending debris was WAY higher than what those floors could hold.
Your first sentence explains your insanity, there is no use going any further with you on this. To say that mass of a lower structure has no bearing is just plain ignorant.When the floors were sheared, the integrity of the perimeter facade and core were comprised. They need those floors connected to help keep the towers. That's how they were designed.
Also, some of the tower structure DID initially resist the debris pile. That's why you see the partial core in the previous photo I posted.
How much information have you gotten wrong in this discussion over the past few days? Information that you use to come to a conclusion.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ySarJI-87g]WTC 911 pancake theory against the laws of physics - YouTube[/ame]
I also would expect to see a hesitating, at times halting collapse front. Why? Because this is supposed to be a gravity collapse that was kick started by a local fire damaged components that gave out, and collided with UNDAMAGED HEAVIER COMPONENTS.
Nope.
Dead wrong. You cannot take the weight of everything below a certain area of a structure and tell anyone that it will resist the section above falling onto it. Total fail on your part.
The numbers are right there. The floor connections could resist a certain load. The descending debris was WAY higher than what those floors could hold. When the floors were sheared, the integrity of the perimeter facade and core were comprised. They need those floors connected to help keep the towers. That's how they were designed.
Also, some of the tower structure DID initially resist the debris pile. That's why you see the partial core in the previous photo I posted.
How much information have you gotten wrong in this discussion over the past few days? Information that you use to come to a conclusion.
The AMOUNT???
Tell me how much debris, weight-wise, is in those clouds of dust.
What is impossible to determine is what that dust consists of. Do you mean to tell me from photographs you can discern if that's gyspum planking dust, concrete dust, ceiling tile dust, etc?
You trying to tell me the AMOUNT is immense is incredible. The size of a dust cloud is not indicative of the mass of the substance that created it.
Go think about that for a bit and come back.
But it's OK for NIST to say the same thing and you believe them?
Look first of all, IMO, it appears from watching videos that we are seeing an explosive collapse, NOT a slow gravity induced one, as I at least would have expected.
From reading about conservation of momentum, I also would expect to see a hesitating, at times halting collapse front. Why? Because this is supposed to be a gravity collapse that was kick started by a local fire damaged components that gave out, and collided with UNDAMAGED HEAVIER COMPONENTS.
What do we see? Parts that are exploding even in the beginning of the "collapse". We also can trace explosive, expulsions all the way down the buildings, WAY ahead of the collapse fronts...
Look why haven't you posted any of NIST figures regarding what you are asking of me?
I am not the expert, rather I am trying to be as an astute observer as I can given what I know, and have learned from others.
So are you having trouble figuring out which top section would be expected to arrive on the ground sooner? One that would travel through 90 stories of mass/steel or one that goes through air?
Mr. Jones, here's a more layman's explanation of what I think is being discussed regarding the hesitation you expected during the collapse :
The problem is that during the collapse, it was not a matter of the top portions impacting with the entire lower portions. Instead, you must think of it as the upper portions falling and impacting with a single floor below them. Now, if there is enough mass/momentum in those upper portions, the amount of resistance from that single floor they hit is so minimal that there is very little noticeable hesitation. That then progresses from floor to floor, and because each floor is unable to provide significant resistance, you don't see the hesitations, the stop/start collapse you are expecting.
Or, put another way.....think of dropping a bowling ball onto paper. Now, if you drop the ball onto a solid stack of paper, such as a sheaf of printing paper like you'd buy in a store, the bowling ball will hit that and be stopped. It might break through the first few sheets, scatter some sheets around, but for the most part the papers will remain intact.
However, with the collapse of the towers, it was more like getting a bunch of sticks and taping those papers inside a square frame, with an inch of space between each sheet of paper and the next sheet of paper. In this scenario, even if the frame is strong enough to remain upright, the bowling ball will easily pass through the sheets of paper. The individual sheets won't be able to create enough resistance to significantly slow the bowling ball, so that is maintains plenty of momentum to go with it's mass to pass through the next paper, and the next, etc..
I realize that's an inexact analogy, but I think it is close enough to the issue in contention and works as a simplified analogy, without worrying about the math involved.
As I've said, I too would have expected much more visible resistance from the collapse when I saw it. I think this shows why, at least according to the NIST report, we didn't have that. Whether or not it's true, it DOES have a common-sense kind of reasonableness to it when looked at this way.
Your first sentence explains your insanity, there is no use going any further with you on this. To say that mass of a lower structure has no bearing is just plain ignorant.
another false assumption.no none at all..I was just pointing out how irrelevant your post was by presenting a real life example..Still having comprehension problems, daws? The original proposition was loose gravel vs. a rock. I conceded the point that if the gravel remained in the bag it would do more damage than being poured loose, but it still wouldn't equal the damage caused by a single rock.
Pour 5 pounds of gravel on someone's head and at most they'll need some shampoo and eyewash.
Your only point is hidden by your baseball cap.
Would you care to wager on the burning capabilities of gypsum?
Is the amount of ejected and pulverized mass not visibly apparent to you?
The AMOUNT???
Tell me how much debris, weight-wise, is in those clouds of dust.
What is impossible to determine is what that dust consists of. Do you mean to tell me from photographs you can discern if that's gyspum planking dust, concrete dust, ceiling tile dust, etc?
You trying to tell me the AMOUNT is immense is incredible. The size of a dust cloud is not indicative of the mass of the substance that created it.
Go think about that for a bit and come back.
now this is funny ..sister jones is attempting to pass off A&E for twoof as credible lolololol!It is far from accurate we can agree. They should be held to account for the discrepencies though. They should be more forthcoming in addressing the complaints too, as well asThe problem with the CT people is that they really have nothing to support their theory so all they can do is try to disprove the NIST report. That report isn't perfect, no one is arguing that.
release their computer simulation on 7 for replication as well. It is narrative based on assumptions that discredits their theory, and if it can be discredited by others, then the theory is false and has to be reconsidered, re analyzed and done again.
There are other independent analysis that have been done, and the people that have done them have been ignored by NIST, even though some are in the same fields of study.If you want me to believe that it happened another way, you need to stop trying to dispute the official investigation and try to support your theory. No one seems to want to do that.
Many of their papers are available for study, that point out specifically where the NIST analysis is lacking.
This is just one example that suggests an 11 sec. total collapse time based on the initial speed of the one of the top sections. We have been given
estimations anywhere from 10 to 15 secs. FF is 9.22. This suggests that all of the mass, steel, connections, concrete that comprised the towers
provided only a minimal amount of resistance.
You must look at the buildings, and take into consideration the amount of mass that is being pulverized, and ejected away from the collapse fronts
that can not be added into the equation. This further contradicts and calls into question why there is only a (estimated) 1 to 5 seconds difference
from FF (an object falling through air only).
The alternative theories suggest that something else had to have been used to remove the mass out of the way, and the analysis done by the independents seem to side with this, and against a fire and gravity ONLY theory provided from NIST.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk&lr=1]Downward Acceleration of the North Tower - YouTube[/ame]
A&E again hahahahahahahahahahahHere is another video explaining how acceleration was calculated. NIST has admitted FF for WTC 7, but "has refused to address the obvious implications".
Which questions how the lower mass of a huge structure would simply move out of the way to allow FF. This would not occur, and never has occurred in a building with fires that are spread out unevenly within the building, like WTC 7.
Acceleration + Serendipity - YouTube
You're trying to use thermite, a substance you all deny was anywhere near the towers, to try and demonstrate that gypsum burns?another false assumption.no none at all..I was just pointing out how irrelevant your post was by presenting a real life example..
Your only point is hidden by your baseball cap.
Would you care to wager on the burning capabilities of gypsum?
Catch It/ Keep It: Burning Drywall : Video : Science Channel
no kidding this last one is so chicken shit the maker did not even use his or hers own voice!Bullshit videos..........gotta love em.........
You're trying to use thermite, a substance you all deny was anywhere near the towers, to try and demonstrate that gypsum burns?another false assumption.Your only point is hidden by your baseball cap.
Would you care to wager on the burning capabilities of gypsum?
Catch It/ Keep It: Burning Drywall : Video : Science Channel
Really?
And just so you know, the thermite didn't actually ignite the gypsum, it just got it hot enough to burn off ALL it's H2O content and cause it to fall apart. The ONLY part of drywall that burns is the paper that encases it, about 5% of it's total mass.
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire77/PDF/f77002.pdf
You're trying to use thermite, a substance you all deny was anywhere near the towers, to try and demonstrate that gypsum burns?
Really?
And just so you know, the thermite didn't actually ignite the gypsum, it just got it hot enough to burn off ALL it's H2O content and cause it to fall apart. The ONLY part of drywall that burns is the paper that encases it, about 5% of it's total mass.
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire77/PDF/f77002.pdf
Nowhere in that boring .pdf does it say that gypsum ignites. ONLY the paper burns, gypsum is NON-COMBUSTIBLE.
You're trying to use thermite, a substance you all deny was anywhere near the towers, to try and demonstrate that gypsum burns?
Really?
And just so you know, the thermite didn't actually ignite the gypsum, it just got it hot enough to burn off ALL it's H2O content and cause it to fall apart. The ONLY part of drywall that burns is the paper that encases it, about 5% of it's total mass.
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire77/PDF/f77002.pdf
Nowhere in that boring .pdf does it say that gypsum ignites. ONLY the paper burns, gypsum is NON-COMBUSTIBLE.
just what I expected .
are you always this stupid or just on week days
only in your twisted pov the first thing you comment on was the imaginary rub your nose in thermite nonsense.
I used that clip to show that gypsum does burn if it did not it would not fall apart the heat breaks down it structural integrity.
your answer is just as stupid your false question in post # 1361.
