9-11….. Startling New Evidence of a Conspiracy

[LA RAM FAN]

And here's my answer to you. As layers collapse the weight of materials of each floor add up. If you will recall, the planes didn't hit the top floors. The first collapse was a combination of many floors. Plenty of weight to collapse the remaining floors in succession as the weight quickly climbs with each pancaked layer.

And where does the energy come from to crush each level? What is the kinetic energy of the falling mass?

If what you say is true then it should not be difficult to model. Here is a model:



The falling mass looses kinetic energy faster than the mass increases so eventually it no longer has enough energy to crush more levels and so it arrests.

But in FIFTEEN YEARS no engineering school has built a model to demonstrate what you say. Curious that!

psik

He is hopeless,he wont even take you up on a challenge to watch a SHORT video that proves beyond a doubt oswald was innocent and there were multiple shooters.he is in denial obviously we live in a banana republic.

 

[PredFan]

And here's my answer to you. As layers collapse the weight of materials of each floor add up. If you will recall, the planes didn't hit the top floors. The first collapse was a combination of many floors. Plenty of weight to collapse the remaining floors in succession as the weight quickly climbs with each pancaked layer.

And where does the energy come from to crush each level? What is the kinetic energy of the falling mass?

If what you say is true then it should not be difficult to model. Here is a model:



The falling mass looses kinetic energy faster than the mass increases so eventually it no longer has enough energy to crush more levels and so it arrests.

But in FIFTEEN YEARS no engineering school has built a model to demonstrate what you say. Curious that!

psik

Where's the energy? Really? It's called gravity.

Engineering schools won't waste time building models that cannot possibly recreate the event because they are smart enough to know what is true and what isn't.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Where's the energy? Really? It's called gravity.

Engineering schools won't waste time building models that cannot possibly recreate the event because they are smart enough to know what is true and what isn't.

Gravity is not Energy. It is only force. The force has to be applied over a distance to be Work, or Energy.

But where has anyone specified the amount of Energy to crush a Level of the WTC?

Our Scientists and Engineers have sent their Curiosity to Mars. Curious that!

psik

 

[PredFan]

Where's the energy? Really? It's called gravity.

Engineering schools won't waste time building models that cannot possibly recreate the event because they are smart enough to know what is true and what isn't.

Gravity is not Energy. It is only force. The force has to be applied over a distance to be Work, or Energy.

But where has anyone specified the amount of Energy to crush a Level of the WTC?

Our Scientists and Engineers have sent their Curiosity to Mars. Curious that!

psik

Dude, all it needed was gravity to fall. You can call it energy, or whatever you want to, it still fell because of gravity.

Weight crushed the levels of the WTC.

Curiosity us one thing, knowledge is another. They have the knowledge to know who to believe about what happened and they don't believe the Truthers.

 

[SAYIT]

Where's the energy? Really? It's called gravity...

Gravity is not Energy. It is only force. The force has to be applied over a distance to be Work, or Energy...

You may be quibbling about semantics.

While the NIST does indeed reject the pancake theory of collapse, they do say - as many of us witnessed - "that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors." That "downward movement" was aided and abetted by gravity.

That may not technically be a pancake collapse but the result was the same. The floors below the point at which the towers were impacted were weakened by fire and crushed by the floors above (about 17 stories for the north tower and 30 stories for the south tower).

Note that both buildings burned for some time before collapsing. Do you propose that unseen demo-rigging survived those chaotic fires?

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation
8. Why didn't NIST consider a "controlled demolition" hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation like it did for the "pancake theory" hypothesis?

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation that included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the WTC towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests, and created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.


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). 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.


NIST's findings also do not support the "controlled demolition" theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

• the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
• the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST or by the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department, or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[PredFan]

The jet fuel doesn't have to actually melt the steel beams. It only has to heat them up high enough to weaken them. As a welder in the US Navy, I can tell you that I have heated steel high enough that I can bend it to the shape I want to by hand.

 

[westwall]

Here is the building collapsing in Tehran. Please pay attention to the pressure blowing the windows out in the lower floors as the internal structure collapses. This is called PHYSICS. No cleverly disguised bombs, no secret conspiracy's, just gravity winning this latest battle with mans creations.

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

 

[Wyatt earp]

Just thinking

No skyscraper has ever survived a direct hit from a jetliner

How many times has that happened?? Did you watch the film? What are you guys so afraid of? Finding out that Republicans were involved??

It has happened twice with identical results

Show me a skyscraper hit by a jet airline that didn't collapse

Looks like you lose

You stupid a bomber hit the Empire State building

 

[Wyatt earp]

Let's do an experiment

Take a hundred story skyscraper and fly a jet airline into it and see if it causes the building to collapse

Then, take an identical hundred story skyscraper and fly a jet airline into it to see if the results are repeatable.

Wait a minute....we did that

It should not be difficult to get accurate data on an experiment. So it should not be difficult to get accurate data on the amount of steel and concrete on each level of the buildings.

But wait, the NIST can write a 10,000 page report without specifying the amount of concrete in the buildings. But they did it for the steel, though not the distribution.

Americans are so hilarious with their general incompetence t science.

psik

Show me where a 100 story skyscraper has ever been taken down with a controlled demo with no detectable explosions

Not only no detectable explosions, but the building was rigged to go with an untold number of charges, all without anyone seeing it (not even building security) or punching holes in dry wall, or moving furniture or equipment, or anyone seeing miles of electrical wires strung about.

Given that they would have no idea where an airplane would strike or even if one EVER would strike, they would have had to wire every floor

And there is a very good reason why they totally strip down buildings before they implode them. Non-load bearing walls, furniture, equipment, etc would disrupt the explosions and risk the building toppling instead of collapsing.

I also have to laugh at the memes people post saying that jet fuel can't melt steel beams. They are right but the extreme prolonged heat weakens them and they carry a whole lot of weight. Those two factors equal collapse. It's not rocket science.

Do you see the jet fuel still burning?. Oh check it out its cold enough for a woman to walk around

 

[Wyatt earp]

Not only no detectable explosions, but the building was rigged to go with an untold number of charges, all without anyone seeing it (not even building security) or punching holes in dry wall, or moving furniture or equipment, or anyone seeing miles of electrical wires strung about.

Given that they would have no idea where an airplane would strike or even if one EVER would strike, they would have had to wire every floor

What makes you believe a beam must melt before it reaches the point of failure?

There have been many skyscraper fires and none collapsed except for the WTC.

Secondly, if you really think a fire on a few floors of a huge building like the WTC could result in their pancaking into their footprint in less than two hours, you are f-ing nuts. Maybe if they burned for a few days or weeks...maybe.

Remember Payne Stewart?...when air traffic control got no response from his plane, within minutes the Air Force had an F-16 making a visual. The Air Force does intercepts all the time...well except for 9/11, the Air Force did exactly NOTHING.

Our big huge absurdly expensive military...did nothing on the day we were attacked...and yet statists like you want more government. Have you gone mad?

Show a fire the equivalent of WTC with a huge hole knocked in the building and an accelerant like jet fuel

And a woman walking around minutes later

 

[westwall]

Where's the energy? Really? It's called gravity.

Engineering schools won't waste time building models that cannot possibly recreate the event because they are smart enough to know what is true and what isn't.

Gravity is not Energy. It is only force. The force has to be applied over a distance to be Work, or Energy.

But where has anyone specified the amount of Energy to crush a Level of the WTC?

Our Scientists and Engineers have sent their Curiosity to Mars. Curious that!

psik

It's not? Step off of a tall building and let us know how that non energy affects you.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why would it fall like a tree?

Why would it fall like a tree, or how could it fall like a tree? A building is make up of a skeletal frame and the rest is window dressing. How many skeletal "corners" does a build have? Four? Four with cross structures? If you apply a force to the skeletal structure of a chair or table (I am speaking about its legs, of course) breaking it ..... on how many legs will it remain standing before it "falls"? Will it fall "over" or will it fall "straight down"? That would depend upon how much (and at what side) the damage is. Yes? And then why is it that pyrotechnic demolishing of buildings require explosive charges placed all round the building and set off at the same moment .... in order for the building to fall "straight down"? Is it because they don't want it to "fall over" like a tree?

Nice try but WTC was not built that way

It did not have a box like frame like an Erector Set
It had an inner core with floors added like a stack of records
That is why it pancaked as those stacks collapsed on the floor below

Why didn't the core stay up? That theory is wrong

 

[Wyatt earp]

This was always interesting..

 

[Wyatt earp]

This was always interesting..

 

[PredFan]

It should not be difficult to get accurate data on an experiment. So it should not be difficult to get accurate data on the amount of steel and concrete on each level of the buildings.

But wait, the NIST can write a 10,000 page report without specifying the amount of concrete in the buildings. But they did it for the steel, though not the distribution.

Americans are so hilarious with their general incompetence t science.

psik

Show me where a 100 story skyscraper has ever been taken down with a controlled demo with no detectable explosions

Not only no detectable explosions, but the building was rigged to go with an untold number of charges, all without anyone seeing it (not even building security) or punching holes in dry wall, or moving furniture or equipment, or anyone seeing miles of electrical wires strung about.

Given that they would have no idea where an airplane would strike or even if one EVER would strike, they would have had to wire every floor

And there is a very good reason why they totally strip down buildings before they implode them. Non-load bearing walls, furniture, equipment, etc would disrupt the explosions and risk the building toppling instead of collapsing.

I also have to laugh at the memes people post saying that jet fuel can't melt steel beams. They are right but the extreme prolonged heat weakens them and they carry a whole lot of weight. Those two factors equal collapse. It's not rocket science.

Do you see the jet fuel still burning?. Oh check it out its cold enough for a woman to walk around

And what do you think that proves?

 

[PredFan]

Where's the energy? Really? It's called gravity.

Engineering schools won't waste time building models that cannot possibly recreate the event because they are smart enough to know what is true and what isn't.

Gravity is not Energy. It is only force. The force has to be applied over a distance to be Work, or Energy.

But where has anyone specified the amount of Energy to crush a Level of the WTC?

Our Scientists and Engineers have sent their Curiosity to Mars. Curious that!

psik

It's not? Step off of a tall building and let us know how that non energy affects you.

Apparently he's never heard of kinetic energy.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Show me where a 100 story skyscraper has ever been taken down with a controlled demo with no detectable explosions

Not only no detectable explosions, but the building was rigged to go with an untold number of charges, all without anyone seeing it (not even building security) or punching holes in dry wall, or moving furniture or equipment, or anyone seeing miles of electrical wires strung about.

Given that they would have no idea where an airplane would strike or even if one EVER would strike, they would have had to wire every floor

And there is a very good reason why they totally strip down buildings before they implode them. Non-load bearing walls, furniture, equipment, etc would disrupt the explosions and risk the building toppling instead of collapsing.

I also have to laugh at the memes people post saying that jet fuel can't melt steel beams. They are right but the extreme prolonged heat weakens them and they carry a whole lot of weight. Those two factors equal collapse. It's not rocket science.

Do you see the jet fuel still burning?. Oh check it out its cold enough for a woman to walk around

And what do you think that proves?

It proves your no welder....as you claim.. How the fuck could she walk in there if it was so hot it was bending steel?

 

[westwall]

Not only no detectable explosions, but the building was rigged to go with an untold number of charges, all without anyone seeing it (not even building security) or punching holes in dry wall, or moving furniture or equipment, or anyone seeing miles of electrical wires strung about.

Given that they would have no idea where an airplane would strike or even if one EVER would strike, they would have had to wire every floor

And there is a very good reason why they totally strip down buildings before they implode them. Non-load bearing walls, furniture, equipment, etc would disrupt the explosions and risk the building toppling instead of collapsing.

I also have to laugh at the memes people post saying that jet fuel can't melt steel beams. They are right but the extreme prolonged heat weakens them and they carry a whole lot of weight. Those two factors equal collapse. It's not rocket science.

Do you see the jet fuel still burning?. Oh check it out its cold enough for a woman to walk around

And what do you think that proves?

It proves your no welder....as you claim.. How the fuck could she walk in there if it was so hot it was bending steel?

The fuel cascaded to a lower level and that is where the heat built up to weaken the steel beams. There were localized fires on the floors that were hit, but the hundreds of thousands of pounds of fuel didn't stay on those floors. It pooled at a lower level and burned. The heat got high enough to turn the steel beams orange hot, not enough to melt them, but just getting them that hot dropped their strength by at least 25%, and that was all that was needed based on the design of the building.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Given that they would have no idea where an airplane would strike or even if one EVER would strike, they would have had to wire every floor

And there is a very good reason why they totally strip down buildings before they implode them. Non-load bearing walls, furniture, equipment, etc would disrupt the explosions and risk the building toppling instead of collapsing.

I also have to laugh at the memes people post saying that jet fuel can't melt steel beams. They are right but the extreme prolonged heat weakens them and they carry a whole lot of weight. Those two factors equal collapse. It's not rocket science.

Do you see the jet fuel still burning?. Oh check it out its cold enough for a woman to walk around

And what do you think that proves?

It proves your no welder....as you claim.. How the fuck could she walk in there if it was so hot it was bending steel?

The fuel cascaded to a lower level and that is where the heat built up to weaken the steel beams. There were localized fires on the floors that were hit, but the hundreds of thousands of pounds of fuel didn't stay on those floors. It pooled at a lower level and burned. The heat got high enough to turn the steel beams orange hot, not enough to melt them, but just getting them that hot dropped their strength by at least 25%, and that was all that was needed based on the design of the building.

WTC2

Molten metal.. It's also in that video above from the firemen