9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...

[daws101]

Until all available fuel was consumed, however long that may take.

Really? How did the authors of that now 6 decade old study know how much fuel (combustibles) would be in the Towers on 9/11/2001 and how long and hot they would burn? I have been unable to access that study at all. Could you provide the link?

Just guessing here, Princess, but 'typical office contents' of furniture, carpets and paper wouldn't change much over 50 (not 60) years. It would be reasonable to assume that they expected full occupancy of the building, wouldn't it?

Then consider that on 9/11/2001 those buildings were at less than full occupancy, empty rooms having much less flammable materials in them than full ones.

another extremely wrong assumption by GP... in most offices complexes when an old tenant moves out the space is refurbished and the new tenant would supply it's own newer furnishings.
you assuming the empty space would cause some sort imaginary fire break.

 

[daws101]

Paying attention helps to complete the picture, something you try very hard NOT to do.

Your 707-120 was discontinued by 1960.

The 707-320 continued production through the 1980's.

The WTC towers were in design in 1964, long after the demise of the 120, and in the heyday of the 320.

Which plane do you think they designed the building to withstand again?

Once more for the belligerently ignorant:
The first flight of the −[707]-120B was on June 22, 1960 and American carried the first passengers in March 1961; the last delivery was to American in April 1969. Maximum weight was 258,000 lb (117,025 kg) for both the long and short body versions.
I believe it was your brain that was discontinued in 1960 but this conversation would go better if we could stop guessing and judge the actual facts. Did you find a link to that study?

What are you hoping to gain or prove with this. The fact is the towers were hit with a comparable aircraft, that were not fully loaded with fuel. The jetfuel/kerosene was consumed in the fireballs. The buildings still stood. NIST admits only minimal structure was taken out.
That leaves the fires as the main reason, and we've tried to explain to you how that theory is lacking but you people evade the points with worn out talking points and ols material.

nist admitted nothing as pointed out before .
they stated fact..

 

[daws101]

Fires testing by NIST to prove this guess, failed. The tests are results are available in the NIST link some pages back. The truss theory is a fail. Whatever failed them could not have been the temps from the kerosene fires.

Fire as the cause is doubtful, if they even bowed. So which is it bowed in, or bowed out?

Get your shit straight. NIST clearly says in their paper that they aren't sure if the results scale up to the actual size of the floor trusses.

Also, was there any deflection of bowing of the trusses at any time reported in their report?

What caused the perimeter columns to pull inward?

According to them it was fire.
Here is a major problem in their report-

"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 increases, further increasing the demand of the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass. (p 146/196)

There is no explanation as to why there was only "little resistance"
Nothing mentioned, measured, or otherwise that quantifies the "tremendous energy released",
They said themselves that the "the building section above came down essentially in free fall" as "seen in the videos".
They state "as the stories below sequentially failed"-This alludes to the fact that the stories below would be failing one by one, and thus take time to be overcome "sequentially".
None of this NIST actually can substantiate, and it is telling how they found the need to involve "essential freefall" when explaining this part of the collapse initiation.
Yet again they go against what they were saying in regards to mass providing resistance and no FF or close to FF was possible.

It doesn't matter it the truss failed, for the sake of making my point. What is in great doubt is that the lower parts were to be expected to arrest, halt, and severely slow the collapse fronts.
Estimates have them somewhere in the 10,12-15 second range and some maybe 20 seconds. This is too fast for the energy to overcome against the more robust, lowers.
Estimates have suggested times in the 50 to 60 second range if not more for a collapse of buildings without the assistance and use of other means, to remove the underneath mass.
This is the main problem, that NIST has not addressed. But the fire temperatures that they say initially cause the weakening of the steel is also in question, as steel by its nature spreads heat around to other attached parts, thus actually cooling the effects, unless something is used to apply rapid, intense local heat, and we all know that kerosene, office combustibles, burns at much cooler temps then the construction grade steel is able to withstand.

So there is the problem with the heat, and the intensity, and the problem with the potential energy of the falling mass even when gravity is taken into account. It seems to come up short, in the NIST narrative.
Why is this?



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 increases, further increasing the demand of the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass. (p 146/196)

This does not explain either why the structure below failed to arrest the falling mass or how the structure failed to appreciably slow the falling mass. As in the preceding paragraphs, NIST begs these questions using a kind of circular argument: The towers fell rapidly because the stories below could not resist the tremendous energy of the falling mass. Videos clearly show that the upper section fell essentially in free-fall. Therefore the structures below offered minimal resistance to and were destroyed by the falling mass. The argument pre-supposes the conclusion that the force that overcame the resistance of the structures below was the falling mass, not some other force such as energy of explosives.

The fact that there is not a single example of total top-down progressive collapse outside of the alleged examples of the Twin Towers makes it entirely unscientific to pre-suppose that the alleged phenomenon was operative here.
NIST Conceals the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers

speaking of total bullshit sites....

 

[GuyPinestra]

It is clear that the top block, far from being a rigid hammer, was disintegrating and cannot possibly provide the impact which Bazant and Zhou/NIST have calculated and depended on. There was a mass of fragmented material falling, which can deliver many very small blows but we can predict that it will be unable to deliver a blow representing its total mass, as the official story requires.

Really? So if I dropped a pile of gravel on your head, it wouldn't hurt a bit because the pile was composed of fragmented material?

That is correct, actually. Dumping a 5 pound bag of gravel on someone's head would hurt them a lot less than dropping a 5 pound granite rock on their head. Leave the gravel in the bag and it would do more damage, but it still wouldn't equal the damage of a single rock.

Don't believe me? Try it on someone you don't like...

 

[GuyPinestra]

Yes, I'm VERY sure. 'Building mechanics' has not a flipping thing to do with structure, building mechanics is the HVAC, power delivery and plumbing.

You need to get a clue.

Building mechanics, structural mechanics. Same thing.

Mechanics of Building Structures - Kyoto University, Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering
Civil and Environmental Engineering - Structural Mechanics

I have a clue, buddy. Skilling was THE foremost expert in structural engineering. The mention of 'building mechanics' was in regard to the smoke from the '93 bombing not clearing out of the building through the HVAC system. THAT was the 'building mechanics' they were talking about.

Don't believe me? Go back and read the linked article for yourself.

 

[Mr. Jones]

**** common sense will tell anyone with the capacity to think, that these "collapses" should have taken much longer then what was observed.

Common sense???

Is that what you're using???

Tell you what. Instead of you and I going ground and round about 50 million different things in our posts, let's focus on your quote above shall we?

So, provide me a link that provides a model, calculations, and an explanation each of the following points...

This is what I have been asking from YOU for pages now. It is YOU that is adhereing to the NIST theory, and it is ME that has been asking you to post their calculations, and specific explanations that substantiate the theory YOU defend!!
Instead, you posted a reference to estimations for how much mass/weight each floor had etc.., but never an explanation that specifically details anything that has to do with the said mass...of each floor, being overcome, in the short times that they were.

You seem to imply that because of such mass, it is reasonable to conclude that all the lower undamaged connections, would fail an an almost instantaneous manner to produce such rapid rates of descents. When I ask you to post the specifics, from NIST you remain silent, and then try to turn it around on me...when I am the one that is contesting their LACK OF EXPLANATION!!!

1. Explaining how the building components SHOULD have held together when the massive load of the descending upper block/debris pile impacted each floor. Show me where ANYONE from the truther side of things that has explained how this should have been possible.

NIST made an assumption. You back it up. I ask that you provide details...of WHY WE SHOULD EXPECT ALL THE CONNECTIONS, AND LOWER MASS TO FAIL... in such short times....You provide none. Only posting a estimation from NIST relative to mass/weight of floors...This is what you base your belief on NIST about? The angle/supports and that is all there should be to it? ******* idiot...you just posted how much mass each floor had!
Decent through air would have been in 9.22 seconds dumbass! They fell according to NIST in 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. Now explain how this is calculated given the mass/weight estimations you posted? Or are we to assume that the mass
did not count in any calculation to obstruct the collapses??? Explain you belief in this absurdity please...

2. Please provide your proof that the floors should have added time to the total collapse. How much time and which components come into play.

Please provide your proof that substantiates how the lower mass should have provided seemingly no resistance, and I quote NIST "Essentially fell in FF". My question above remains unanswered by you, throughout many pages of requests.

You see, the explanation I had in red from NIST explains how the descending debris sheared each floor in succession. Fire is what initiated the the collapse, gravity and the massive load is what tore through the two towers. When you remove the floors, you have no structural stability anymore.

What you posted is an assumption...a guess..with no data to back up the actual collapse..It is all pre collapse estimations of mass/weight. Which is rather ironic actually, because all the weight/mass of each floor would have to be overcome...by smaller mass from above them! As I highlighted above in your statement "in succession"
This is a concept of TIME that you conveniently are leaving out of the sequence, and want us to assume that because the floors had X amount of mass/weight is means collapse times in just short of FF as in through air? Where are your calculations?
Where are the hesitations that physics dictate would occur when 2 masses meet?

So Mr. Jones. The floor is yours. How would the lower section resist the descending upper section, adding time and jolts.

I can't believe you are so purposefully obtuse. Have you not considered the question I posed to you and your idiotic cheerleaders?
I will ask you again...
If you took 2 identical top halves of the tower, that was said to have been severed from the lower...
Hoisted them from a crane..
Dropped one on top of the remaining 90 story undamaged structure..
Dropped the other through nothing (air)...How about water?
Which one should be expected to hit the ground first??
What should be the expected outcome of this experiment?

Answer this simple question before I waste anymore time with you.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Yes, I'm VERY sure. 'Building mechanics' has not a flipping thing to do with structure, building mechanics is the HVAC, power delivery and plumbing.

You need to get a clue.

Building mechanics, structural mechanics. Same thing.

Mechanics of Building Structures - Kyoto University, Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering
Civil and Environmental Engineering - Structural Mechanics

I have a clue, buddy. Skilling was THE foremost expert in structural engineering. The mention of 'building mechanics' was in regard to the smoke from the '93 bombing not clearing out of the building through the HVAC system. THAT was the 'building mechanics' they were talking about.

Don't believe me? Go back and read the linked article for yourself.

Are you kidding? This idiot thinks football players can walk through multiple hinged, locked doors as tho they weren't even there!

 

[GuyPinestra]

Really? How did the authors of that now 6 decade old study know how much fuel (combustibles) would be in the Towers on 9/11/2001 and how long and hot they would burn? I have been unable to access that study at all. Could you provide the link?

Just guessing here, Princess, but 'typical office contents' of furniture, carpets and paper wouldn't change much over 50 (not 60) years. It would be reasonable to assume that they expected full occupancy of the building, wouldn't it?

Then consider that on 9/11/2001 those buildings were at less than full occupancy, empty rooms having much less flammable materials in them than full ones.

another extremely wrong assumption by GP... in most offices complexes when an old tenant moves out the space is refurbished and the new tenant would supply it's own newer furnishings.
you assuming the empty space would cause some sort imaginary fire break.

Daws, what burns in an EMPTY space?

 

[GuyPinestra]

I have a question regarding the photo posted of the floor joist connections.

Why do they appear completely undamaged if their failure was the cause of collapse?

 

[Mr. Jones]

You will swear that a 10 story block will travel through 90 stories of WTC building, in just a tad over FF time? seriously is this what you are saying?

So show us your numbers and calculations fuckstick.

You obviously have them somewhere to back your idiotic claim. Let me guess. Common sense?

I've posted a few common sense examples that you avoid responding to..Probably because you lack the common sense to understand them..I have also posted throughout my visits here on the USMB examples from credible folks with calculations, and a few that directly challenge Bazant...
I challenged you to post what you had that reinforces your adherence to a theory that is based on unprovable assumptions, and guesses, and highly extremely, over exaggerated data..and you have failed to meet this challenge before posing your own counter challenge.....Why is this? Have you nothing that substantiates any of your assumptions?

In summary NIST estimated the towers "collapsed" in 9-11 secs.
FF in NYC would have been around 9.22 or so....The tops of the severed towers did not fall through air, they fell through massive steel components, with all the numbers you posted for each floor a few pages back....All I'm asking is for you to explain and substantiate how this could have happened is all...And so far you are getting very defensive, and posing a counter challenge to me, without rising to your own task at hand...
You must first overcome your mental barriers that are thus preventing you from even engaging in any of the common sense examples that have been posted...So how long would it take your football player to to fall through 90 stories of metal, hinged, locked/welded doors AGAIN LOL???

 

[daws101]

It is clear that the top block, far from being a rigid hammer, was disintegrating and cannot possibly provide the impact which Bazant and Zhou/NIST have calculated and depended on. There was a mass of fragmented material falling, which can deliver many very small blows but we can predict that it will be unable to deliver a blow representing its total mass, as the official story requires.

Really? So if I dropped a pile of gravel on your head, it wouldn't hurt a bit because the pile was composed of fragmented material?

That is correct, actually. Dumping a 5 pound bag of gravel on someone's head would hurt them a lot less than dropping a 5 pound granite rock on their head. Leave the gravel in the bag and it would do more damage, but it still wouldn't equal the damage of a single rock.

Don't believe me? Try it on someone you don't like...

still wrong !
a 5 pound sandbag or a 5 pound pig iron (stage weights)do different damage.
I know because I've dropped both from similar heights, a pig iron will make a hole approximately the same size it is.
on the other hand a sand bag because it's more flexible will spread the damage out over a larger area and weaken the whole structure.

 

[daws101]

Just guessing here, Princess, but 'typical office contents' of furniture, carpets and paper wouldn't change much over 50 (not 60) years. It would be reasonable to assume that they expected full occupancy of the building, wouldn't it?

Then consider that on 9/11/2001 those buildings were at less than full occupancy, empty rooms having much less flammable materials in them than full ones.

another extremely wrong assumption by GP... in most offices complexes when an old tenant moves out the space is refurbished and the new tenant would supply it's own newer furnishings.
you assuming the empty space would cause some sort imaginary fire break.

Daws, what burns in an EMPTY space?

whatever encloses it.
besides an empty space would help a collapse not hinder it .
path of least resistance and all.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Really? So if I dropped a pile of gravel on your head, it wouldn't hurt a bit because the pile was composed of fragmented material?

That is correct, actually. Dumping a 5 pound bag of gravel on someone's head would hurt them a lot less than dropping a 5 pound granite rock on their head. Leave the gravel in the bag and it would do more damage, but it still wouldn't equal the damage of a single rock.

Don't believe me? Try it on someone you don't like...

still wrong !
a 5 pound sandbag or a 5 pound pig iron (stage weights)do different damage.
I know because I've dropped both from similar heights, a pig iron will make a hole approximately the same size it is.
on the other hand a sand bag because it's more flexible will spread the damage out over a larger area and weaken the whole structure.

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.

 

[GuyPinestra]

another extremely wrong assumption by GP... in most offices complexes when an old tenant moves out the space is refurbished and the new tenant would supply it's own newer furnishings.
you assuming the empty space would cause some sort imaginary fire break.

Daws, what burns in an EMPTY space?

whatever encloses it.
besides an empty space would help a collapse not hinder it .
path of least resistance and all.

Gypsum board and metal studs don't burn, genius...

 

[daws101]

You will swear that a 10 story block will travel through 90 stories of WTC building, in just a tad over FF time? seriously is this what you are saying?

So show us your numbers and calculations fuckstick.

You obviously have them somewhere to back your idiotic claim. Let me guess. Common sense?

I've posted a few common sense examples that you avoid responding to..Probably because you lack the common sense to understand them..I have also posted throughout my visits here on the USMB examples from credible folks with calculations, and a few that directly challenge Bazant...
I challenged you to post what you had that reinforces your adherence to a theory that is based on unprovable assumptions, and guesses, and highly extremely, over exaggerated data..and you have failed to meet this challenge before posing your own counter challenge.....Why is this? Have you nothing that substantiates any of your assumptions?

In summary NIST estimated the towers "collapsed" in 9-11 secs.
FF in NYC would have been around 9.22 or so....The tops of the severed towers did not fall through air, they fell through massive steel components, with all the numbers you posted for each floor a few pages back....All I'm asking is for you to explain and substantiate how this could have happened is all...And so far you are getting very defensive, and posing a counter challenge to me, without rising to your own task at hand...
You must first overcome your mental barriers that are thus preventing you from even engaging in any of the common sense examples that have been posted...So how long would it take your football player to to fall through 90 stories of metal, hinged, locked/welded doors AGAIN LOL???

again the national inquirer version of events what massive steel components are you yammering about now?
like all steel structures, the towers and wtc7 were mostly empty space, all the "heavy" steel was in the core and the perimeter.
lighter steel and concrete made up the acre square floors.
the massive components you yammer about collapsed in in on the weaker steel and had no problem over coming their résistance.

 

[daws101]

Daws, what burns in an EMPTY space?

whatever encloses it.
besides an empty space would help a collapse not hinder it .
path of least resistance and all.

Gypsum board and metal studs don't burn, genius...

yes they do they also transfer heat.. hydrocephaly head.

 

[daws101]

That is correct, actually. Dumping a 5 pound bag of gravel on someone's head would hurt them a lot less than dropping a 5 pound granite rock on their head. Leave the gravel in the bag and it would do more damage, but it still wouldn't equal the damage of a single rock.

Don't believe me? Try it on someone you don't like...

still wrong !
a 5 pound sandbag or a 5 pound pig iron (stage weights)do different damage.
I know because I've dropped both from similar heights, a pig iron will make a hole approximately the same size it is.
on the other hand a sand bag because it's more flexible will spread the damage out over a larger area and weaken the whole structure.

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.

no none at all..I was just pointing out how irrelevant your post was by presenting a real life example..

 

[GuyPinestra]

still wrong !
a 5 pound sandbag or a 5 pound pig iron (stage weights)do different damage.
I know because I've dropped both from similar heights, a pig iron will make a hole approximately the same size it is.
on the other hand a sand bag because it's more flexible will spread the damage out over a larger area and weaken the whole structure.

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.

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?

 

[Gamolon]

Decent through air would have been in 9.22 seconds dumbass! They fell according to NIST in 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. Now explain how this is calculated given the mass/weight estimations you posted? Or are we to assume that the mass
did not count in any calculation to obstruct the collapses???

HEY STUPID!!!!

Read the quote of yours above REAL slow, paying particular attention to the part you bolded from NIST.

THE FIRST EXTERIOR PANELS TO STRIKE THE GOUND...

That would be the first perimeter panels to strike the ground dumbass! It ties into EXACTLY what I have been explaining to you. The upper section/debris pile sheared the floors from the perimeter columns, which, because they were no longer connected and ripped apart, FELL TO THE GROUND!

Holy shit man!

COMPREHENSION!

If there was zero resistance for the debris pile descending, then please explain why the above mentioned perimeter panels feel AHEAD of the collapse front?!

The whole of the towers, from collapse initiation to a end was not 11 or 9 seconds you dolt.

Here is the part you left out:

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.

Almost DOUBLE the time for freefall.

 

[Gamolon]

In summary NIST estimated the towers "collapsed" in 9-11 secs.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

This says it all dumbass. This is TOTALLY incorrect!!!!

Read my post above.

No wonder you believe all this conspiracy horseshit. You parrot the lies and incorrect information of the ignorant.