WTC Collapses

[Headspin]

assymetric?(sic)

asymetric damage from wtc1 rubble. there was limited damage to the south face. we are told that the south west corner was damaged also.
there was no damage to the north face. there is plenty of photographic evidence confirming this.

freefall speed?

yes it fell at freefall speed, even NIST acknowledge this now.

so how did it fall at freefall speed?
this would require the simultaneous catastrophic falirure of ALL support columns.

 

[Headspin]

NIST finally admits absolute freefall.

NIST caught drylabbing and shamed by a physics high school teacher.

http://video.google.com/videosearch...efall&www_google_domain=www.google.com&emb=0#

 

[John99]

freefall speed?

yes it fell at freefall speed, even NIST acknowledge this now.

so how did it fall at freefall speed?
this would require the simultaneous catastrophic falirure of ALL support columns.

Not the simultaneous but consecutive\consistant failure.

This is a non issue because explosives could not be planted in the building that would have caused this damage. People would have known and seen the explosives long before the event happened. This would have required a great deal of effort and planning. Obviously would have taken a very long time.

in any event simultaneous is not the right word to use.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simultaneous

 

[John99]

NIST finally admits absolute freefall.

so what? if i drop a feather of a tall buillding isnt it freefalling?

perhaps you should spend more time studying rudimentary subjects.

 

[leopold]

hmmmm....you were asking for speculation, i gave you a link by a mechanical engineer on how it might have been done, but you respond with "that's not proof". did you see what you did there? had you originally asked for proof (rather than speculation) of where explosives/bombs/incendaries were placed. I would have said "i don't know, and there would be no way of knowing without an investigation". the technique you used is known as "raising the bar", "bait and switch", or "moving the goalposts".

where did i ask for the information you posted?
i ask you where and how were the "bombs" placed in the buildings.
you never responded but instead posted someone elses explanation.

this is why i am curious why people agree that wtc7 looks exactly like a demolition, but believe it could not have been a demolition without any data to support that view. that is very curious.

again, i did not say "it could not have been a controlled demolition".
i stated why i feel the way i do.
stop putting words in my mouth headspin.

 

[leopold]

NIST finally admits absolute freefall.

where?

 

[Headspin]

where?

http://video.google.com/videosearch...efall&www_google_domain=www.google.com&emb=0#

 

[Headspin]

This is a non issue because explosives could not be planted in the building that would have caused this damage. People would have known and seen the explosives long before the event happened. This would have required a great deal of effort and planning. Obviously would have taken a very long time.

what about the apartment blocks blown up in moscow in 1999?
what about the 1993 wtc bombing.
how are those events any different?

 

[John99]

how are those events any different?

all events are different, dont see what that post has to do with anything though.

 

[scott3x]

NIST finally admits absolute freefall.

NIST caught drylabbing and shamed by a physics high school teacher.

http://video.google.com/videosearch...efall&www_google_domain=www.google.com&emb=0#

Nice. I must admit I'm curious as to who wrote that 'constant speed' bit, laugh . Good to know they finally admit some free fall speed.

 

[leopold]

http://video.google.com/videosearch...efall&www_google_domain=www.google.com&emb=0#

this makes the third time that i've told you, now pay attention, i cannot view videos on the machine i'm currently using.

ah yes, after doing a quick search i find this "admission" to be in relation to building 7

 

[Headspin]

This is a non issue because explosives could not be planted in the building that would have caused this damage. People would have known and seen the explosives long before the event happened. This would have required a great deal of effort and planning. Obviously would have taken a very long time.

you are claiming that it is impossible for bombs to have been planted in wtc7 because:

1. People would have known and seen the explosives long before the event happened.
2. This would have required a great deal of effort and planning.

yet conditions (1) and (2) did not transpire in the 1999 moscow apartment bombings and the wtc 1993 bombing.

so why do you believe (1) and (2) apply to wtc7, but do not apply to 1999 moscow and 1993 wtc?

 

[Headspin]

this makes the third time that i've told you, now pay attention, i cannot view videos on the machine i'm currently using.

ah yes, after doing a quick search i find this "admission" to be in relation to building 7

i guess you'll have to take my word for it or fix your computer then. in the video NIST are seen fumbling over a simple question, and their latest report was changed after their fumbling response with the admission that wtc7 fell at freefall speed.

 

[John99]

you are claiming that it is impossible for bombs to have been planted in wtc7 because:

1. People would have known and seen the explosives long before the event happened.
2. This would have required a great deal of effort and planning.

yet conditions (1) and (2) did not transpire in the 1999 moscow apartment bombings and the wtc 1993 bombing.

so why do you believe (1) and (2) apply to wtc7, but do not apply to 1999 moscow and 1993 wtc?

i was not referring to building 7. it is bocoming clear that you cannot bs your way out of WTC collapse so now you will split hairs over building 7. that is as far as i can make out because it looks like a lot of rambling you are doing here.

 

[John99]

this makes the third time that i've told you, now pay attention, i cannot view videos on the machine i'm currently using.

ah yes, after doing a quick search i find this "admission" to be in relation to building 7

it is a hs teacher looking for a pat on the back because of discrepancies of a few seconds. supposedly that since the building fell 2 seconds faster then none of this actually happened or something like that...not really sure though.

 

[Headspin]

To cause a steel structure to fail, you do not need to cut the steel with anything, all you have to do is heat it till the structural strength is compromised.

Steel is nothing more than a frozen liquid, at temperature it is molten liquid, and flows, in between it's liquid state and frozen state is a zone where steel is elastic and can be stretched and formed by blow, or stress, so why do you believe that the impact damage, and fires didn't cause the fall of WTC 1
and 2, or that the debre slide from those collapses didn't destroy WTC 7.

Watch a avalanche and see what the debris from one does to buildings, and towns.

There is strong evidence that steel actually melted to a liquid state at the wtc. from what you are saying in your post, the building should have collapsed well before the temperatures were high enough to actually melt steel into a liquid state. would the presence of liquid steel or iron concern you?

a high tech unreacted incendary nanothermite capable of melting steel was found in the wtc dust in large quantities, if this is true would you consider this worthy of investigation?

there is more, but here is a start:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

 

[John99]

nanothermites were discussed and debunked at another forum you visit. did you forget, or didnt like the responses there?

 

[Headspin]

it is a hs teacher looking for a pat on the back because of discrepancies of a few seconds. supposedly that since the building fell 2 seconds faster then none of this actually happened or something like that...not really sure though.

much as you'd like to think that i am a school kid, i assure you that is not the case.

freefall is the maximum (rate of) speed any object can fall to the earth.

if the building fell at freefall at any point during the collapse then there is no resitance to the collapse. it would be like all the strength of the steel turned to the strength of wet spaghetti at a single instant. any buckling of columns would provide resitance to the collapse, therefore the speed would be less than freefall.

the implication of this admission is obvious, all support columns internal and external failed catastrophically without buckling, all at the same time. this can be achieved with explosives. i do not see how it can be achieved with asymetrical superficial damage and fire.

 

[Headspin]

nanothermites were discussed and debunked at another forum you visit. did you forget, or didnt like the responses there?

eh? no it wasn't. you saying something doesn't make it so.

ooh right, i forgot we are in the world where "debunked" has been changed to mean "responded to". sorry mr orwell.

 

[scott3x]

The intensity of the twin tower fires and the constituent(s) of the falling molten metal.

This is in response to the 6th part of shaman_'s post 393 in this thread.

The only 'raging inferno' i saw was where molten metal (quite possibly molten iron) was coming out:

As I believe you know, there's no way that an office fire could have produced molten iron.

As for the rest, here's a good picture of how the fire was shortly before (WTC 1) collapsed:

[And here's a good link:]
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc1_woman.html

Not exactly a 'raging inferno'.

Then you should probably watch some videos of the event.

I have.

Then to claim that you didn’t see any large fires is dishonest.

shaman_, you frequently seem to be of the view that if when I disagree with you, I'm being dishonest. You may want to gather some evidence before making such a claim in the future, as not doing so makes it appear as if you have little regard for actually proving your assertions.

Many believe it was most likely to be iron. It certainly wasn't pure molten aluminum. I can't currently counter your idea that it was a combination of the 2, but even if it was, the office fires could not have accounted for the iron part. Thermate would have done quite a good job of it, though. Steven Jones deals with 4 possibilities in his paper "Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method", which you can currently download from NIST itself.

Those possibilities are:
1. Perhaps the structural steel in the buildings melted and is flowing out.
2. Perhaps it is molten aluminum from the aircraft that melted and is flowing out, perhaps with
added organics from burning office materials.
3. A mix of the two (above) including office materials, etc.
4. Molten metals (e.g., molten iron) produced by highly exothermic chemical reactions (e.g., aluminothermic/thermite reactions)

Or it could be something he hasn’t listed there such as a mixture of lead from batteries or partly dissolved iron (from temperatures near 1000C) or something else.

Alright, I'll admit that I don't have evidence counter to your claims. I certainly don't think that those claims have gone through the rigour of Steven Jones' claims, but I personally don't see anything wrong with those possibilities. Do you admit that you don't have evidence counter to the possibility that it was, in fact, "Molten metals (e.g., molten iron) produced by highly exothermic chemical reactions (e.g., aluminothermic/thermite reactions)"?

Of those, he establishes that the only one that is credible is the 4th. .

No, really!

Yep .

You sure you're not the one who's misrepresenting the truth? You and others have presented your photos as well and I have remained unpersuaded.

You are seeing what you want to see.

I could say the same to you but I find the comment pointless; whether or not there is truth in the idea that you or I are seeing what we want to see, I think we should attempt to focus on things that are more easily determined. It's not like we don't have enough of that .