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

[Gamolon]

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?

This picture?

If that's the one you're talking about, that was a photo taken during construction of the towers.

Here is a perimeter section with the floor truss connections sheared off.

 

[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.

To further illustrate my point, and your lack of comprehension, watch this video paying attention at :05.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iedoXvTvO18&playnext=1&list=PL2EB6DAA9C5931382&feature=results_video]WTC 1 Peels open - Columns outpace Debris Cloud - YouTube[/ame]

See that perimeter column panel on the left, outside the towers footprint? Now look at the "white corner" of the tower in the middle. How can you say that the towers collapsed at free fall speeds when the perimeter column panel in that video is AHEAD of the collapse front?

THAT perimeter column panel is what NIST says hit the ground at freefall, not that the towers collapsed at free fall.

 

[Gamolon]

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...

This is correct (from what I understand). Gypsum itself doesn't burn. It's the paper covering on drywall/sheetrock that burns.

 

[PredFan]

The 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.

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.

 

[Mr. Jones]

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!

The point I was trying to make you comprehend..dumbass...is that FF of an unimpeded object (except air) is 9.22 or so...NIST was accurate for the first panel, but a little off on the other towers, first panel/piece...

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?!

I explained above..

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

No shit idiot..estimations have been anywhere from 10-15 seconds. It is telling that NIST spokesman in one of the briefings,says "essentially at FF"
when speaking concerning the towers..Why does he say this?

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.

FWIW, there has been some debate on the core still standing of one of the towers. It actually looks like a lower perimeter, and a posted video appears to show this structure...disintegrating, for lack of a better word.... I will try to post the pic when I can find it, but regardless...The estimations in the collapse times still do not jive with what conservation of momentum should dictate would occur.
Still too fast of decent rates. Still trying to use tons of mass that was NOT falling onto the undamaged lower.
And I'm still waiting for you to post up any calculations from NIST regarding the actual collapse, instead of UP TO COLLAPSE INITIATION AND ASSUMPTIONS.

I'll clue you in tho...You wont find it. NIST admitted they didn't do any assessments for the actual collapses..And that is thee problem.

So you know FF would have been 9.22 or so. NIST says preliminary parts fell in 9-11 secs. Which is what I was trying to point out to you, and we have collapse time estimations from 10 to 15 secs, with absolutely nothing to quantify such rapid decents, especially taking into account the mass/weights of some of the floors you posted directly from NIST themselves...
Independent analysis studies have estimated at least 60 secs. or a little longer, if indeed the extreme office fire temps were even sustained locally, at the core, that caused the antennae that was connected to it, to start its downward movement, as witnessed in the videos.
None of the extreme temps can be quantified, especially at the core.
And no analysis has been done by NIST regarding the actual collapses.
Did you have fun trying to find any info from NIST about them?

 

[Mr. Jones]

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.

I explained what I was trying to present already.
Do you understand my point? I do not agree that the towers collapsed at FF times. We know FF is 9.22 secs or so. Estimated collapse times ranges vary, but the point of contention is that given the amount of mass of the lower undamaged structure, and taking into consideration the amount of the upper's mass that was either ejected away from the collapse fronts, or was pulverized, the collapses were still too rapid.

I have been asking you to post whatever you have, that convinced you that it is reasonable to expect collapse times that are just a tad faster then FF, even after you take what I mentioned above regarding the towers into consideration.

There is no doubt that there was some "minimal resistance"...I totally agree with NIST on this, the question is...why.

Why do you not answer the question regarding the 2 identical uppers hoisted by a crane and one dropped through air and another dropped on the remaining 90 stories?

Which one would be expected to arrive on the ground first?

 

[Mr. Jones]

The 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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Gamolon]

So you know FF would have been 9.22 or so. NIST says preliminary parts fell in 9-11 secs.

BULLSHIT!!!

Now you want to spin it huh because you got your ass handed to you?! What a lying asshole you are! NIST said nothing of "preliminary parts". They say the "exterior panels". That's the perimeter column sections. And yes they fell at freefall because the were OUTSIDE the tower's footprint. The floors were sheared from them and nothing was holding them up. They fell outward.

Which is what I was trying to point out to you, and we have collapse time estimations from 10 to 15 secs,

Wrong yet again! I can't believe the friggin' lies that you post. The tower's did not collapse in 10 to 15 seconds you ass. Part of the damn cores from each tower stood for 15 to 25 seconds AFTER collapse initiation. And you want to claim differently?

with absolutely nothing to quantify such rapid decents, especially taking into account the mass/weights of some of the floors you posted directly from NIST themselves...

*sigh*

For the last time. Look at the load ONE floor could could support and then tell me the load that impacted that first floor. How mush difference is there between the two? If you don't post the answer to this question, I will know for a fact you're being deceitful.

Independent analysis studies have estimated at least 60 secs. or a little longer,

WTF Mr. Jones? Was there a revision to your "proper calculations" that you sited earlier in this thread:

They should have according to proper calculations taken around 55 seconds.

Then you said, in the same damn thread:

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.

So which is it? 50? 55? 60? Longer? I see a pattern here. The more information that shows up proving your claim of freefall collapse in 9 to 10 seconds to be completely idiotic, the more time you seem to add to these "supposed estimates". How quaint eh? It would be because you've been shown that the complete collapse of each tower was getting kinda close to your 50 seconds huh? Maybe 30 seconds for total collapse?

So there was resistance huh?

if indeed the extreme office fire temps were even sustained locally, at the core, that caused the antennae that was connected to it, to start its downward movement, as witnessed in the videos.
None of the extreme temps can be quantified, especially at the core.
And no analysis has been done by NIST regarding the actual collapses.
Did you have fun trying to find any info from NIST about them?

For the intelligent, the information is all right there in black and white. Unfortunately for you, you have been living on incorrect information as has been pointed out to you many times. That is why you believe this demolition garbage.

 

[Gamolon]

and left out the shear studs in WTC 7 in 2008?

I read this and had to laugh. Watching gerrycan's videos huh Mr. Jones?

Do you want me to hand your ass to you regarding this crap? I dare you to ask me.

gerrycan doesn't know how to read construction drawings and made a HUGE blunder about the shear studs and NIST supposedly "leaving them out"...

 

[Gamolon]

Why do you not answer the question regarding the 2 identical uppers hoisted by a crane and one dropped through air and another dropped on the remaining 90 stories?

Which one would be expected to arrive on the ground first?

What the hell are you talking about?

I can only guess.

NIST's reference was to a perimeter panel higher up in the tower that the floor connections were sheared from due to the upper section coming down and fell OUTSIDE the towers footprint to the ground. FREEFALL1

The collapse front/debris pile fell WAY behind that perimeter panel piece as evidenced by the video I posted showing the panel on the left, and the still intact perimeter facade in the middle. The collapse front/debris pile hadn't gotten that far yet inside the perimeter columns. NOT FREEFALL! That means SOME RESISTANCE!

 

[PredFan]

The 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.

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.

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.

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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk&lr=1]Downward Acceleration of the North Tower - YouTube[/ame]

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?

 

[Gamolon]

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.

Mr. Jones,

You need to clarify what you are applying this 11 seconds of total time to.

There is 100% verifiable proof that the total collapse of the towers was not 11 seconds. From the time of collapse initiation to when the entire structure was no more was almost double that 11 seconds. That's because the parts of the core of each tower was standing 15 and 25 seconds AFTER collapse initiation.

 

[Gamolon]

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.

How much Mr. Jones?

I suppose you can quantify the amount ejected away through all the dust generated by the gypsum paneling, ceiling tiles, and other items?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Here 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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJf7pWVyvIw]Acceleration + Serendipity - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr. Jones]

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.

How much Mr. Jones?

I suppose you can quantify the amount ejected away through all the dust generated by the gypsum paneling, ceiling tiles, and other items?

Is the amount of ejected and pulverized mass not visibly apparent to you?
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.

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"

 

[Gamolon]

So which is it? 50? 55? 60? Longer? I see a pattern here.

Hey Mr. Jones?

Why wasn't this study, from a mathematics professor nonetheless, mentioned in your above bullshit?

Mr. Ken Cutler, a professor in mathematics has studies it though-and he agrees with the mechanical engineer Gordon Ross, that the time to total collapse would be much larger then 10 secs, he gives a time figure estimate of 36 secs.

36 seconds huh?

So from you touting 36 seconds back in 2011, you're now at 60 seconds or longer.

Not looking to good for you and your deceitful ways...

 

[Gamolon]

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.

 

[Mr. Jones]

The 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.

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.

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.

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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk&lr=1]Downward Acceleration of the North Tower - YouTube[/ame]

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?

It seems that it is more then just shoddy or shitty jobs. It is being called unscientific, and in some cases actual lies.

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

 

[Gamolon]

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.

Are you trying to tell me that huge pieces of steel were "ejected" with grate force (explosion) to land away from the tower?

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?

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"

No, it's NOT in question. The force/load of the debris pile impacting each floor, as has been shown to you numerous times, was WAY OVER the designed load of each floor and could not resist it. So 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.

The perimeter columns were not crushed in the collapse. The were pushed outward after being sheared from the floors that helped hold them up. 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.

 

[Mr. Jones]

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?