9/11 Proof: Basic Physics. Can you handle it?

[eots]

[

QUOTE=Liability;3153479]Both of the only two buildings in the world to ever be built like the twin towers fell in a very similar way under the conditions (plane strikes, uncontrolled raging fires, weakened trusses, floors hung on those trusses supporting the outer walls, etc., etc., etc.) and there is no other basis for valid comparison.

wtc 7 was not hit by a plane

Much of the claimed circumstances for the collapse of both buildings made by troofers are simply untrue.

For example, the lying troofers claim that the buildings fell at free fall speeds. They did not.

NIST admits free-fall for a portion of the collapse

Discussing logic, facts, physics or anything else related to the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers with these dishonest Troofers has always been quite pointless.

dishonesty is pretending the windosor tower collapsed or there was no free fall admitted by NIST

 

[DiveCon]

[

QUOTE=Liability;3153479]Both of the only two buildings in the world to ever be built like the twin towers fell in a very similar way under the conditions (plane strikes, uncontrolled raging fires, weakened trusses, floors hung on those trusses supporting the outer walls, etc., etc., etc.) and there is no other basis for valid comparison.

wtc 7 was not hit by a plane

Much of the claimed circumstances for the collapse of both buildings made by troofers are simply untrue.

For example, the lying troofers claim that the buildings fell at free fall speeds. They did not.

NIST admits free-fall for a portion of the collapse

Discussing logic, facts, physics or anything else related to the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers with these dishonest Troofers has always been quite pointless.

dishonesty is pretending the windosor tower collapsed or there was no free fall admitted by NIST

dipshit, he never said a thing about WTC7 in that post

 

[eots]

Several of the floors did collapse. Just not the entire structure.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Myths - Madrid/Windsor Tower

pieces of a structure failing and a 47 flr skyscraper completely collapsing are two very different things

and you also ignore the DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION

show me where building codes have been changed as a result of the 9/11 collapses

 

[Liability]

Several of the floors did collapse. Just not the entire structure.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Myths - Madrid/Windsor Tower

pieces of a structure failing and a 47 flr skyscraper completely collapsing are two very different things

and you also ignore the DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION

FROM that very link:

This fire is one of the fires Conspiracy theorist like to point to when talking about high raise office fires. This fire lasted 26 hours. But what they don't tell you is that the first collapse happened only 2 hours and 30 minutes after the fire began. But why didn't the building fall completely? It was on fire for 26 hours. The answer is very simple. The building were constructed very differently than the WTC. Reinforced concrete was used in the core and under the 17th floor. Below are detailed descriptions of how the Madrid tower was constructed and the reason for it not collapsing...

Damn sure LOOKS like a partial collapse.

And then there's THIS:

Yeah. That IS a partial COLLAPSE.

 

[DiveCon]

pieces of a structure failing and a 47 flr skyscraper completely collapsing are two very different things

and you also ignore the DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION

show me where building codes have been changed as a result of the 9/11 collapses

you keep asking that as if it actually MEANS something
it doesnt

 

[eots]

pieces of a structure failing and a 47 flr skyscraper completely collapsing are two very different things

and you also ignore the DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION

This fire is one of the fires Conspiracy theorist like to point to when talking about high raise office fires. This fire lasted 26 hours. But what they don't tell you is that the first collapse happened only 2 hours and 30 minutes after the fire began.

on the part under construction still

But why didn't the building fall completely? It was on fire for 26 hours. The answer is very simple.

yes steel framed skyscrapers do not collapse from fires

The building were constructed very differently than the WTC.

Reinforced concrete was used in the core and under the 17th floor. Below are detailed descriptions of how the Madrid tower was constructed and the reason for it not collapsing

WHAT ABOUT WTC 7

Damn sure LOOKS like a partial collapse.

And then there's THIS:

Yeah. That IS a partial COLLAPSE.

yes the Windsors indeed was a partial collapse and the building indeed stood tall

SO YOU BELIEVE NIST WAS WRONG IN STATING WTC 7 WAS THE FIRST BUILDING IN HISTORY TO COLLAPSE PRIMARILY DUE TO FIRE ?

 

[Liability]

WTC7 had a HUGE hole knocked out of it and the raging fires did the rest.

So, the "question," pointlessly asked by id-eots remains a matter of some mild interest, for reasons id-eots doesn't consider. Yes. What about WTC7?

 

[DiveCon]

WTC7 had a HUGE hole knocked out of it and the raging fires did the rest.

So, the "question," pointlessly asked by id-eots remains a matter of some mild interest, for reasons id-eots doesn't consider. Yes. What about WTC7?

he will counter with "but but but NIST said...."

 

[eots]

WTC7 had a HUGE hole knocked out of it and the raging fires did the rest.

So, the "question," pointlessly asked by id-eots remains a matter of some mild interest, for reasons id-eots doesn't consider. Yes. What about WTC7?

So you are in disagreement with NISTs findings that damage played no signifgent role in the collapse and it was a primarly due to fire ?

 

[eots]

WTC7 had a HUGE hole knocked out of it and the raging fires did the rest.

So, the "question," pointlessly asked by id-eots remains a matter of some mild interest, for reasons id-eots doesn't consider. Yes. What about WTC7?

he will counter with "but but but NIST said...."

Yes how ignorant of me to ciite the findings of the official report...this usually
offends the diveconspiracy theorist that do not "give a rats ass" about any official reports and their findings

 

[DiveCon]

WTC7 had a HUGE hole knocked out of it and the raging fires did the rest.

So, the "question," pointlessly asked by id-eots remains a matter of some mild interest, for reasons id-eots doesn't consider. Yes. What about WTC7?

he will counter with "but but but NIST said...."

WTC7 had a HUGE hole knocked out of it and the raging fires did the rest.

So, the "question," pointlessly asked by id-eots remains a matter of some mild interest, for reasons id-eots doesn't consider. Yes. What about WTC7?

So you are in disagreement with NISTs findings that damage played no signifgent role in the collapse and it was a primarly due to fire ?

LOL did i call it or what?

 

[Muhammed]

the Windsor tower never collapsed wtf are talking about

Several of the floors did collapse. Just not the entire structure.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Myths - Madrid/Windsor Tower

pieces of a structure failing and a 47 flr skyscraper completely collapsing are two very different things

The Windsor tower collapsed. What do you suppose caused that collapse?

 

[eots]

WTC7 had a HUGE hole knocked out of it and the raging fires did the rest.

So, the "question," pointlessly asked by id-eots remains a matter of some mild interest, for reasons id-eots doesn't consider. Yes. What about WTC7?

he will counter with "but but but NIST said...."

WTC7 had a HUGE hole knocked out of it and the raging fires did the rest.

So, the "question," pointlessly asked by id-eots remains a matter of some mild interest, for reasons id-eots doesn't consider. Yes. What about WTC7?

So you are in disagreement with NISTs findings that damage played no signifgent role in the collapse and it was a primarly due to fire ?

LOL did i call it or what?

yes ...good job a pointing out your own willful ignorance

 

[eots]

Several of the floors did collapse. Just not the entire structure.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Myths - Madrid/Windsor Tower

pieces of a structure failing and a 47 flr skyscraper completely collapsing are two very different things

In other words, the Windsor tower collapsed. What do you suppose caused that collapse?

if you are a complete moron I suppose the word partial makes no difference but clearly to engineers and all those who died in the collapses the difference is highly significant

 

[DiveCon]

he will counter with "but but but NIST said...."

So you are in disagreement with NISTs findings that damage played no signifgent role in the collapse and it was a primarly due to fire ?

LOL did i call it or what?

yes ...good job a pointing out your own willful ignorance

you mean your own stupidity and paranoid delusions

 

[eots]

LOL did i call it or what?

yes ...good job a pointing out your own willful ignorance

you mean your own stupidity and paranoid delusions

citing NIST is a paranoid delusion ?

 

[Muhammed]

pieces of a structure failing and a 47 flr skyscraper completely collapsing are two very different things

In other words, the Windsor tower collapsed. What do you suppose caused that collapse?

if you are a complete moron I suppose the word partial makes no difference but clearly to engineers and all those who died in the collapses the difference is highly significant

A "partial" collapse is still a collapse. What do you suppose caused the collapse of that part?

 

[DiveCon]

In other words, the Windsor tower collapsed. What do you suppose caused that collapse?

if you are a complete moron I suppose the word partial makes no difference but clearly to engineers and all those who died in the collapses the difference is highly significant

A "partial" collapse is still a collapse. What do you suppose caused the collapse of that part?

fire

 

[Liability]

The NIST report does not make that exact claimed conclusion. It does make the tentative conclusion, but that's hardly the same thing especially considering how they originally didn't even grasp how much of the building had been so extensively wrecked from the debris of the collapsing Towers

The 7 WTC investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers."[39]

In its progress report, NIST released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA.

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (I hate wiki, but it does serve a purpose as a point of departure, only.)

The ACTUAL "conclusions" from the NIST report are found HERE (starting at p. 89 of 130 and listed under section 4.2): http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

 

[eots]

The NIST report does not make that exact claimed conclusion. It does make the tentative conclusion, but that's hardly the same thing especially considering how they originally didn't even grasp how much of the building had been so extensively wrecked from the debris of the collapsing Towers

The 7 WTC investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers."[39]

In its progress report, NIST released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA.

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (I hate wiki, but it does serve a purpose as a point of departure, only.)

The ACTUAL "conclusions" from the NIST report are found HERE (starting at p. 89 of 130 and listed under section 4.2): http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

Why don't you try citing the NIST final report Iinstead of wikki then ?


Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.



"column 79 the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events"


NIST and the World Trade Center