Ground Zero Footage

a reply to: hellobruce

What is so hard to understand about that? Planes hit buildings, buildings damaged, building had unchecked fires, buildings collapsed....

so did the planes hit the top of the building or the bottom ?

there is no reason for the integrity of the base of the building to have been compromised is there ?

originally posted by: auroraaus
Hey Guy - in the original plans/designs the towers were designed to withstand aircraft impact

Slightly smaller jets back in the 1970s but the architect factored in a bit more.

The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength.

www.nae.edu...

That was written by Leslie E. Robertson, the lead structural engineer for the WTC.

So it was designed for a low speed airliner, low on fuel looking to land. Not a high speed ramming by a heavier jet airliner heavily loaded with fuel.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
there is no reason for the integrity of the base of the building to have been compromised is there ?

You seem very confused - who claims that the base was compromised?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
there is no reason for the integrity of the base of the building to have been compromised is there ?

You seem very confused - who claims that the base was compromised?

really the buildings free fell like a house of cards...i think you may be confused

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
really the buildings free fell like a house of cards...

You really are confused then - again, who claims the base was compromised?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
really the buildings free fell like a house of cards...

You really are confused then - again, who claims the base was compromised?

round the merry go round we go..

why did the the base of the building collapse if the base was not compromised ?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
why did the the base of the building collapse if the base was not compromised ?

Obviously because the rest of the building fell on it....

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
why did the the base of the building collapse if the base was not compromised ?

Obviously because the rest of the building fell on it....

my bad i did not realize you were a structural engineer who specialists in steel structured high rise buildings...please do explain to the rest of us how the rest of the building falling in caused the free fall

a reply to: hellobruce

Cheers for clearing that up dude

2nd line of something.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
my bad i did not realize you were a structural engineer who specialists in steel structured high rise buildings...please do explain to the rest of us how the rest of the building falling in caused the free fall

You are not making any sense at all. Exactly which building at the WTC are you talking about? Please show some evidence the base of a building was damaged, like you appear to claim.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Do you want to explain this image below.

Progreesive Collapse


If you cant dont post in threads with subjects you obviously dont have the experience to understand.

People are still bleating about 'free fall' collapse speeds? If that's true why does debris clearly fall faster than the rate of collapse?

It's incredible seeing on here and online in general how many people are now actually physics experts after completing the "Truther's course in imaginary Physics and Engineering". It seems to be a warped version to degree level physics, is it a special version of physics to back up imaginary theories?

originally posted by: AgentSmith
People are still bleating about 'free fall' collapse speeds? If that's true why does debris clearly fall faster than the rate of collapse?

They do not stop and actually think about things like that , they just believe the truthers and their silly websites that posted that it fell at free fall speed - you expect them to think for themselves?

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Do you want to explain this image below.

Progreesive Collapse


If you cant dont post in threads with subjects you obviously dont have the experience to understand.

That is a concrete building, you have been told that many times in this thread.

Hi,
Can anyone locate pics of floorpans left-over from the debris piles?

I want to see that they too did not become dust particles...

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Do you want to explain this image below.

Progreesive Collapse


If you cant dont post in threads with subjects you obviously dont have the experience to understand.

That is a concrete building, you have been told that many times in this thread.

You really need to be spoon fed everything it was to show that a progressive collapse can go from top to bottom something truthers claim can't happen.

The top floor fell onto the next and in continued to ground level SOUND FAMILIAR and that's with no fire and no impact damage.

Now do you understand

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
why did the the base of the building collapse if the base was not compromised ?

Obviously because the rest of the building fell on it....

And "the rest of the building" never slowed down while it plowed through the base. How come the collapse never slowed down in the face of resistance.

Here is some pics of the collapse for members that still think.








I'm not sure how you can call something "progressive", when it finished the same way it started...

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

And "the rest of the building" never slowed down while it plowed through the base. How come the collapse never slowed down in the face of resistance.

Stuff falls on floors, not on the columns. The only way you can have any basis for incredulity is to continue on with the erroneous belief that the resistance to falling stuff from the floors and their connection systems got progressively stronger down lower. But we all know by now that wasn't the case. The floors and their connection systems are basically similar. Only the columns got progressively stronger.

And besides, pics of the spires proves that they didn't provide any resistance.

originally posted by: loveguy
Hi,
Can anyone locate pics of floorpans left-over from the debris piles?

I want to see that they too did not become dust particles...

There's pics of mangled floorpans all over the interwebs.

I'm not aware of any intact. There ARE pics of several floors "pancaked" together, and interviews of the cleanup guys that found them.

originally posted by: loveguy
Hi,
Can anyone locate pics of floorpans left-over from the debris piles?

I want to see that they too did not become dust particles...

Have a look

HERE

and

HERE

and

HERE

and

HERE