Ground Zero Footage

a reply to: Flatcoat

Ten's of thousands of tons of material falling on /around it.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Flatcoat

Ten's of thousands of tons of material falling on /around it.

A totally generic response that explains absolutely nothing, but one we've come to expect from defenders of the OS.

a reply to: Flatcoat

Well we have obviously to keep it simple if we answer questions like you asked !

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Flatcoat

Well we have obviously to keep it simple if we answer questions like you asked !

Another totally unexpected response....and lithely evaded answering the question too. Kudos.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: MALBOSIA


The second most important thing to remember is that there was ZERO structural damage to any floors below the impact. There was no heat below impact

It was not necessary for any of the lower structure to have heat or structural damage. After collapse initiation the floors failed one on top of the other and sheared these thingies (called truss seats) off of the exterior columns. This is what held the floors in place.

Its easy to tell this was the failure point that caused the progressive collapse because when you look at the photos of the exterior columns, all of the truss seats are bent broken or missing.

This is how NIST describes the collapse and the physical evidence obviously backs it up.

NIST
Immediately after collapse initiation, the potential energy of the structure (physical mass of the tower) above the impact floors (94th to 99th in WTC 1 and 77th to 85th in WTC 2) was released, developing substantial kinetic energy. The impact of this rapidly accelerating mass on the floors directly below led to overloading and subsequent failure of these floors. The additional mass of the failed floors joined that of the tower mass from above the impact area, adding to the kinetic energy impinging on the subsequent floors. The failure of successive floors was apparent in images and videos of the towers’ collapse by the compressed air expelled outward as each floor failed and fell down onto the next. This mechanism appears to have continued until dust and debris obscured the view of the collapsing towers.
As the composite floor decking was most likely quite rigid due to the continuous concrete floor, the transverse bridging trusses, and the intermediate deck support angles, failure of the floor as a whole would be expected at the connections attaching the floor to the exterior wall and core.

The truss seats were designed to hold up only one floor not 15+,

With magic fire and forces strong enough to pulverize concrete to dust... maybe.

Before the collapse, almost all of the steel in the building was covered with spray on fireproofing. After the collapse, almost none of the steel was covered with spray on fireproofing. It doesn't take a genius to figure out where most of the dust came from.

Are you claiming that ALL the angle iron supports were bent down exactly the same? I have to ask since you made the outlandish claim that "most of the dust" came from fire retardant fibres that were only applied an inch thick before 9/11.

Besides I never asked what the dust consisted of, I made a comment expressing my surprise that so much concrete was reduced to dust since there is so little of it in the debris pile.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Are you claiming that ALL the angle iron supports were bent down exactly the same? I have to ask since you made the outlandish claim that "most of the dust" came from fire retardant fibres that were only applied an inch thick before 9/11.

Besides I never asked what the dust consisted of, I made a comment expressing my surprise that so much concrete was reduced to dust since there is so little of it in the debris pile.

He said that the angles are either bent, broken, or missing. There is also bolt breakage and tearout.

So how much concrete - presumably in chunks? - should there have been, and how did you come to this conclusion? Why do you find it incredible that there was so much concrete dust? There WAS a lot of insulation dust. Also, drywall dust, etc.

originally posted by: lexyghot


So how much concrete - presumably in chunks? - should there have been, and how did you come to this conclusion?

About 212,500 yards of concrete. As per THIS source. 160,000 cubic meters for my commonwealth friends.

That is a LOT of concrete. Do you claim it was mostly accounted for?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: lexyghot


So how much concrete - presumably in chunks? - should there have been, and how did you come to this conclusion?

About 212,500 yards of concrete. As per THIS source. 160,000 cubic meters for my commonwealth friends.

That is a LOT of concrete. Do you claim it was mostly accounted for?

You expressed incredulity at how much concrete turned to dust. I asked why that is

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: lexyghot


So how much concrete - presumably in chunks? - should there have been, and how did you come to this conclusion?

About 212,500 yards of concrete. As per THIS source. 160,000 cubic meters for my commonwealth friends.

That is a LOT of concrete. Do you claim it was mostly accounted for?

You expressed incredulity at how much concrete turned to dust. I asked why that is

That is up to a credible investigation. Are you trying to lay a trap? You should step up your game cause that *snip* was weak sauce.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

You're paranoid buddy. Every time someone asks you for an opinion you say they are trying to trap you. Just give an opinion.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

That is up to a credible investigation. Are you trying to lay a trap? You should step up your game cause that *snip* was weak sauce.

Well, I don't know what to make of your response.

You expressed what I thought was incredulity at the amount of concrete that turned to dust. This implies that you have done, or have seen, an investigation into this and came to the conclusion that there should have been more concrete in chunks.

Apparently, this is not the case?

Personally, I don't recall details about this. But then again, I'm not questioning nor expressing what looks like incredulity about the amount of concrete that is in chunks, or dust, or in every sized fragment in between.

But I DO know that if I wanted to call something into question, then I would have done the research to provide credible evidence as to WHY I am expressing that opinion. To not do so just seems amateurish.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You're paranoid buddy. Every time someone asks you for an opinion you say they are trying to trap you. Just give an opinion.

Why do you need my opinion? It is irrelevant what I think. I come here to question official claims and gauge responses. Asking what I think seems like all the OS believers look for and my opinion on THAT is that any guess or opinion as to what happens only takes away from need for a proper investigation. OS believers constantly point to outlandish claims and use it to justify the OS. NO WAY. 9/11 commission are the ones who made the claims, THEY are the ones that need to answer the questions.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

So 160,000m3 of concrete would only create a tower 40m tall within the actual footprint of the individual tower. Assuming the material extended a measly ten metres beyond the.footprint the stack of concrete would be half this tall again.

Sometimes when you crush concrete cubes in the lab you get them failing with the edges cracking off, sometimes the split into chunks, sometimes the create an incredible mess as the fail into hundreds and hundreds of pieces. I'm claiming it was mostly accounted for. Notice how I'm willing to venture an opinion.

Give us your best opinion as to what you believe happened to the concrete?

originally posted by: scottyirnbru


Give us your best opinion as to what you believe happened to the concrete?

Aliens and sun spots.

Happy?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Why do you need my opinion? It is irrelevant what I think. I come here to question official claims and gauge responses. Asking what I think seems like all the OS believers look for and my opinion on THAT is that any guess or opinion as to what happens only takes away from need for a proper investigation. OS believers constantly point to outlandish claims and use it to justify the OS. NO WAY. 9/11 commission are the ones who made the claims, THEY are the ones that need to answer the questions.

Well, you seemed to think that your opinion upthread (or in another thread?) was relevant cuz you were the youngest manager for some steel stud manufacturer. Or something similar.....

But ok. I personally will follow your advice. Your opinions are irrelevant. Therefore your questions are equally irrelevant cuz they are ill researched and do not follow any recognizable chain of logic.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Not to any floors below the impact.

Like BoneZ YOU seem to have a memory problem as well, remember this a few posts back!

Progreesive Collapse

There was NO DAMAGE to the floors below the floors that failed on this tower yet the collapse still made it to ground level!

Don't worry we will keep you guy's right when you all forget important things regarding 9/11 !!!

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Not to any floors below the impact.

Like BoneZ YOU seem to have a memory problem as well, remember this a few posts back!

Progreesive Collapse

There was NO DAMAGE to the floors below the floors that failed on this tower yet the collapse still made it to ground level!

Don't worry we will keep you guy's right when you all forget important things regarding 9/11 !!!

I think if a video of this incident surfaced, it might shoot the OS right in the foot.

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Why do you need my opinion? It is irrelevant what I think. I come here to question official claims and gauge responses. Asking what I think seems like all the OS believers look for and my opinion on THAT is that any guess or opinion as to what happens only takes away from need for a proper investigation. OS believers constantly point to outlandish claims and use it to justify the OS. NO WAY. 9/11 commission are the ones who made the claims, THEY are the ones that need to answer the questions.

Well, you seemed to think that your opinion upthread (or in another thread?) was relevant cuz you were the youngest manager for some steel stud manufacturer. Or something similar.....

But ok. I personally will follow your advice. Your opinions are irrelevant. Therefore your questions are equally irrelevant cuz they are ill researched and do not follow any recognizable chain of logic.

Thank you for taking away any mystery regarding your character. I was getting tired of giving you the benefit of the doubt. You have no concern for the truth; your not after that, your after ME. No more for you. Good day.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: lexyghot


So how much concrete - presumably in chunks? - should there have been, and how did you come to this conclusion?

About 212,500 yards of concrete. As per THIS source. 160,000 cubic meters for my commonwealth friends.

That is a LOT of concrete. Do you claim it was mostly accounted for?

Your source for mass is WAY off

96,000 tons of steel per Tower but the concrete is no where near the mass quoted, the figures were calculated using the number of truck loads of concrete used on site but a very large part of that was for the BATHTUB.

The towers had a floor mix of 150lb/cft floor area was 42,000 sq ft at 4.5 inches which works out at around 15,750 cft of concrete per floor.

So 15750 x 150 = 2,362,500 or 1181.25 American short tons, 107 floors at that iirc = 126,393.75 tons

Any other concrete above foundation level would be in the service floors or staircases.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Not to any floors below the impact.

Like BoneZ YOU seem to have a memory problem as well, remember this a few posts back!

Progreesive Collapse

There was NO DAMAGE to the floors below the floors that failed on this tower yet the collapse still made it to ground level!

Don't worry we will keep you guy's right when you all forget important things regarding 9/11 !!!

I think if a video of this incident surfaced, it might shoot the OS right in the foot.

Please explain why you think that