Reply With Quote
(note that at free fall, and if you bother to do the calculations, that 50 pound bag has a momentum of over a ton and a half or so after 35 feet)
I have a policy where I don't discuss the technical aspects of the twin towers, until WTC 7 is resolved.
Sorry.
:-(
(note that at free fall, and if you bother to do the calculations, that 50 pound bag has a momentum of over a ton and a half or so after 35 feet)
Translation:
"My vagina hurts."
The structure below provided minimal resistance because explosives blew away the structure. This is all very simple. The Twin Towers had no fires or structural damage below floor 76.
The NIST report does not address this at all.
You are quoting from a press release statement written by NIST political managers, not by NIST scientists. The NIST report says nothing about this.
That's ok, I understand.
The twin tower explosive demolition bit has been so thoroughly debunked, that the conspiracy s have mostly abandoned that ship, and concentrated on the thing they think they can "win".
Throwing at a wall to see if it sticks...
your math is BS and not accepted by NIST scientists. Again, you quote from a statement written by Bush political appointees, not written by NIST scientists.
This is a common technique used by governments to manipulate science, having summaries written by politicians after scientists write a report. Political appointees also frequently re-write any summaries actually written by scientists in the reports themselves. The Bush administration does it with reports on secondhand smoke and global warming as well.
I already know the difference between static loads and kinetic loads.
If the top of WTC 1 or 2 actually did fall several feet into the lower portion of the tower, it would crush the top and then fall off to the side. It would not fall through the path of most resistance which is the rest of the building.
The NIST scientists are well aware of this, and nowhere in their report do they analyse the behavior of the building after in ial conditions for collapse begin.
Have you read the whole report?
It would fall off to the side?
What force would cause that?
Last time I checked, gravity works only one direction.
Do tell.
If it is false, then do the math to tell me why it is wrong.
I have provided the math and you have made a counter claim.
The burden of proof is on you now.
Show proof as to why the math is wrong.
Here's what the NIST report has to say on this:
6.14.2 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 1
...
The inward bowing of the south wall caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels, and these columns became unstable. The instability spread horizontally across the entire south face. The south wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed these loads to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels. The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the south as the columns on the east and west walls rapidly became unable to carry the increased loads. This further increased the gravity loads on the core columns. Once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued. (p 144-5/194-5)
6.14.3 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 2
...
The south exterior wall displaced downward following the aircraft impact, but did not displace further until the east wall became unstable 43 min later. The inward bowing of the east wall, due to the inward pull of the sagging floors, caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels and resulted in the east wall columns becoming unstable. The instability progressed horizontally across the entire east face. The east wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed them to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels.
The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the east and south as column instability progressed rapidly from the east wall along the adjacent north and south walls, and increased the gravity load on the weakened east core columns. As with WTC 1, once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued. (p 145-6/195-6)
Please note that that all your BS about free-fall and dynamic loads is never mentioned. That's because if a collapse near the top started where the planes hit, the whole building would not fall down. The top part would fall into the lower part, crush it, and then fall off to the side to the ground.
The lower portions of the building had no structural damage from fires or plane impacts, according to your theory.
What really happened is that explosives below the failure point blew the core outward and the building fell.
tell NIST to do the math, that's why I pay taxes.
Many people are trying to get their do ents regarding the collapse of the building after collapse initiation, and NIST will not release them.
Post something that demostrates that you understand what I'm talking about.
are you daft?
if something falls and hits the top of something and then falls off to the side, that's gravity.
drop a small rock onto a tin can. The rock will hit the can, dent it, and then deflect off to the side from gravity.
BZZT.
Wrong answer. That displays exactly the level of knowledge of physics I would expect.
You don't even know why you are wrong here, and that is the sad part.
Do your research, and you tell me where you went wrong here.
I read the entire part dealing with the behaviour of the towers after the conditions for initial collapse were reached, and substantial protions of the rest of the report. The whole report is over 10,000 pages long.
I also read several papers regarding the report, from both sides of the argument.
Have you read the whole report?
You said my math was wrong. The burden of proof is on you to show how.
This is the logical fallacy of falsely attempting to shift the burden of proof.
Please show how my math was wrong.
The main report is only about 300 pages. You are likely talking about the ancillary do ents.
I have read that entire do ent, yes.
Your math doesn't explain why the top chunk would fall straight through the bottom portion of the building to the ground, rather than deflecting to one side where it only encountered air resistance.
If your math was correct, would it not be in the NIST report?
I will give you credit for trying, but you must beware of disinformation from the debunkers.
If I dropped a large rock from 20 feet onto your cranium, it would dent it, and then deflect off to the side to the ground. Your IQ might go up as well from this experiment.
That is precisely where the collapse started. Perhaps you have some footage that shows the bottom floors started moving before being impacted by debris?
That would be something, wouldn't it?
Glad to hear you read the report.
Do you remember a part where is explains the global collapse of the entire structure?
The way they put out this information is all very clever.
er
I remember how you haven't shown me how my math is wrong, yes.
I'm still waiting.
some witnesses say the collapse started a few floors below where the planes hit, preceded by a giant explosion.
None of this is in the NIST report.
The NIST report says nothing abut what happens after the collapse starts, besides saying "global collapse ensued"
Building a Better Mirage
NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
of the Crime of the Century
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, Dec 8, 2005
a critique of the
Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team
on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers
by the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/
your math is two-dimensional, and does not consider asymmentries.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
