|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 62)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
evidence of nothing :haha: i like it how the fact that steven jones' research a) hasn't passed peer review and b) is rejected by the world's engineers isn't included in that story. what a load of crap.
especially this part
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
The collapse took just 6.5 seconds, only a half-second more than the free-fall time a ball bearing would take when dropped from that height. That simply couldn't take account of the normal resistance of steel columns and concrete that should have slowed the collapse by at least a few seconds, he said, but it did fit the model of a controlled demolition |
bull.
| quote: |
This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates thatparts of the building were hitting were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down. |
source
repeating fallacies ad nauseum doesn't make them any more true. should we now have a pissing contest where i line up all the structural engineers to disagree with a physicist who isn't qualified enough to tackle the complexities of building collapse in the first place? and let's not get onto his work in nuclear fusion shall we? :haha: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
interesting tidbit i came across randomly.
| quote: |
Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.
CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
...
At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building ever imploded, eclipsing the record held by CDI since 1975 with the felling of the 361 ft. tall Mendez Caldiera Building in Sao Palo, Brazil.
At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest structural steel building ever imploded, eclipsing the record CDI set in 1997 with the felling 344 sq. ft. tall #500 Wood Street Building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
At 2.2 Million square feet, Hudson’s is the largest single building ever imploded.
|
source
is someone going to argue that this smaller building would take more time to wire than the WTCs 1,2, & 7?
24 days to place the charges. 36,000 feet of detonating cord. if the administration really did wire those towers, it must've been the most efficient use of government time in the history of public service :haha: |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: |
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (Global Security)
No one exemplifies the model of the terrorist entrepreneur more clearly than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks. Khalid followed a long path to his eventual membership in al Qaeda. Highly educated and equally comfortable in a government office or a terrorist safehouse, KSM applied his imagination, technical aptitude, and managerial skills to hatching and planning an extraordinary array of terrorist schemes. These ideas included conventional car bombing, political assassination, aircraft bombing, hijacking, reservoir poisoning, and, ultimately, the use of aircraft as missiles guided by suicide operatives.
Like his nephew Ramzi Yousef (three years KSM’s junior), KSM grew up in Kuwait but traces his ethnic lineage to the Baluchistan region straddling Iran and Pakistan. Raised in a religious family, KSM claims to have joined the Muslim Brotherhood at age 16 and to have become enamored of violent jihad at youth camps in the desert. In 1983, following his graduation from secondary school, KSM left Kuwait to enroll at Chowan College, a small Baptist school in Murfreesboro, North Carolina. After a semester at Chowan, KSM transferred to North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University in Greensboro, which he attended with Yousef’s brother,another future al Qaeda member. KSM earned a degree in mechanical engineering in December 1986.
|
|
|
|
| venomX |
Very interesting, they do look like explosions, and they're preceding the collapse. Is there any way that the explosion like squibs could happen from the sheer pressure of the top collapsing on the rest of the building? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
Jones points to something he says are demolition squibs on WTC 7.
Note the dark area in the right hand corner. (South west corner. This video was taken from the north west.) Jones and the conspiracy theorists call these demolition squibs.
But had the "Scholars" done a little research, they would have uncovered this photo of the south side...
Note the damaged south west corner. (This photo was taken from the south west.)
Now look at them together.
Squibs? Or a damaged window area doing what a damaged window area would do during a collapse, falling apart...
debunking 911.com |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
Very interesting, they do look like explosions, and they're preceding the collapse. Is there any way that the explosion like squibs could happen from the sheer pressure of the top collapsing on the rest of the building? |
Nothing personal, but I find it interesting how all the emerging evidence that fits with control demolition theory like a glove is desperately crammed in the pancake theory box, where much of it doesn't fit and keeps popping out.
[EDIT]
Some examples
Seismic evidence:
- spikes in seismographs preceding collapse of eigther tower
- difference of almost twice in total energy (hence potential energy) of two vitrually identical systems (Laws of Physics: Conservation of Energy & Potential Energy = Kinetic Energy). Obvious conclusion: Additional Kinetic Energy increasin Potential Energy in other collapse.
Witness testimony on explosions:
- by Firemen, Policemen, and civilians at the scene
- by WTC staff memebers of explosion in the basement preceding collapse
Rate of fall:
- far too short for pancake theory to be scientifically plausible. Only few second over free fall speed. Pancake theory would require atleast 45 seconds due to resistance to fall offered by each sussesive floor and law of conservation of momentum.
- Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane, have any significant fires, or significant damage. It fell down at virtually free fall speed. Inwards dip and collapses on it's footprint, signature controlled demolition.
Structural Integrity:
- fire has never caused a modern steelframed high rise to collapse (for an excellent example, check out Madrid Fire lasting almost a day)
- airplane crashes have never caused a modern steelframe highrise to collapse (B52 bomber, which has a few tousand KGs of explosives, in Empire State Building)
- Twin Towers designed to be able to withstand atleast one 707 hit, architects and engineers said it could easily withstand multiple hits as the structure was over engineered (which takes into account jet fuel btw)
Video Evidence:
- dust clouds shooting out of floors below collapsing towers
- dust clouds rising from bottom of tower before collapse
Molten Steel discovered eight weeks after collapse at ground zero
Typical control demolition features:
- taking out core structure by planting explosives in base of a structure (especially for larger and stronger structures)
- fast collapse speed and accelerated fall
- explosives need careful placement to ensure structure collapses on footprint
Thermite, Phosphorus, and Manganese found in samples of columns by BYU Physics PHD & Prof Steven Jones; Thermate (which can be made with the three) is a typical demolition explosive that easily cuts through structural steel |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Nothing personal, but I find it interesting how all the emerging evidence that fits with control demolition thoery like a glove is desperately crammed in the pancake theory box, where much of it doesn't fit and keeps popping out. |
It's a sincere question. I don't have time to do research right now, I have a final tomorrow. I'm pretty much staying neutral on this topic and you guys here post a lot of useful information on both sides. I just wanted to know if anyone knew if it was a possibility. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
Very interesting, they do look like explosions, and they're preceding the collapse. Is there any way that the explosion like squibs could happen from the sheer pressure of the top collapsing on the rest of the building? |
thats exactly what occured. explosive "squibs" are very particular, and do not fit into the pattern shown in any 911 video. explosive squibs explode instantly, ie their maximum "volume" shall we say, is expended immediately- they dont get bigger with time. so if you look at the various collapse videos of all towers, where the so-called squibs get bigger and spew out more debris, they can't possibly be explosive squibs because this is not how explosions occur. what youre seeing spewing out due to collapse and pressure.
theres a ridiculous amount of evidence in this thread and others relating to the collapse of WTC7, and the massive, terminal fires the building had. it was creaking and groaning and bulging before its collapse, all documented by testimony by fire fighters at the scene. the building collapsed due to fire, pure and simple. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
It's a sincere question. I don't have time to do research right now, I have a final tomorrow. I'm pretty much staying neutral on this topic and you guys here post a lot of useful information on both sides. I just wanted to know if anyone knew if it was a possibility. |
That's cool. There needs to be an expressionless smiley for a nuetral tone so people don't take it the wrong way :p. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
So basically, I don't find the pancake theory even remotely plausible as the evidence hardly fits with it. The FEMA investigation conluded in their report that it only had a low probablity of occurance (and that's the only hypothesis for collapse they considered btw). Doesn't sounds like a very scientific approach at all, to confine yourself to a single theory that has a very low probability. Also keep in mind how the steel columbs were immediately shipped and sold to Asia (India & China) as scrap metal, where they were melted down.
1) That's illegal; removing evidence from a crime scene.
2) If it did indeed collapse due to "structural flaws," it's impossible to investigate that with out the (essential) evidence. So how can that assertion be made in the first place without verifying it?
3) It makes any investigation into the cause of collapse very difficult.
So the question is, what would give anyone the motivation to do that? I think the answer shouldn't be very difficult to determine.
[EDIT] "should" changed to "shouldn't" |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
So I'm kind of curious, how many of the advocate for the pancake theory have acutally taken physics, probability, and logic courses? Most of them seem to demonstrate a serious lack of understanding in any of those areas.
(@ colonelcrisp: I'm not taking a stab at you here. I'm aware of what your area of study was.) |
|
|
|
|
