what happened to "screw 911 mysteries"

Originally posted by Skibum

I am standing on a ten meter platform; on top of this platform I have two 5 kilogram bowling balls. Now to my left and right there are two separate pools of water. However, on my right side there are 5 plaster boards mounted in a tower one meter apart (vertically) starting from 1 meter above the surface water.

Now if I told you that I dropped the bowling ball in exactly the same manner on both sides (the bowling ball on the right going through the path of the plaster boards mounted in the tower) and that I managed to measure the speed of the bowling ball as it struck the water to be exactly the same on both sides, would you not be able to see the logical impossibilities of this experiment without being presented mathematical equations?

Thats nice. So how fast were the towers moving and how fast should they have been moving, roughly.

You're basically doing what everyone else is, telling me its wrong without backing yourself up.

The towers and WTC7 collapsed at near-free fall speeds, you don't see a problem with this? You don't see a problem with the floors below the impact area offering little or no resistance to the above collapsing floors?

If you're asking me to provide you with absolute proof of what happened, you’re right, I can't deliver. I don't know what happened; I'm an agnostic on the subject. But I can tell you that no official theory offered thus far can explain what happened either. This should worry you.

Originally posted by VladTheImpaler

The towers and WTC7 collapsed at near-free fall speeds, you don't see a problem with this? You don't see a problem with the floors below the impact area offering little or no resistance to the above collapsing floors?

Everything you mentioned there can easily be proven with numbers, Do it.

How fast did the tower fall?
How fast should it have fallen?
How fast would free fall speed be?
What do you consider to be "near free fall" speed?

The building accelerated at free-fall as if totally unresisted.

This is shown mathematically here:
www.studyof911.com...


How much should it have offered? More than none. That's all I have to say, and that's all anyone with much brains about them needs to know.

Hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete, when something falls into them, do not fall apart without having any energy exerted upon them. It's that simple. It only becomes complicated when you realize what this means about the world you live in, versus what you thought about it. It's not a happy thought, sure, but it's not like you can't get over it. It's not a news flash that humanity as a race tends to submit to authority, which in turns tends to be hateful and violent. Accepting it speeds up getting over it.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Skibum
I don't mean grainy pictures and videos, I don't want to hear "it defies the laws of physics". I want to see your mathematical equations proving it defies the laws of physics. You say "there wasn't enough energy", show me the proof. You say "it fell too fast", you ought to be able to show that as well. It shouldn't be that difficult, there's a lot of posters here that say physics proves their case. So prove it. Everything in physics can be expressed in numbers, prove your case to me.

I refer you to this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Where I ask the same questions as you, only I want the "physics in numbers" that it CAN happen. If we should be under the gun to prove that it can't happen, then you guys should also be under the gun to prove it can. So, where's the calculations showing that it could happen as they say?

[edit on 1/25/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Skibum
Thats nice. So how fast were the towers moving and how fast should they have been moving, roughly.

You're basically doing what everyone else is, telling me its wrong without backing yourself up.

Here, have a look at this. Some math for you to digest.

blog.abovetopsecret.com...

A portion of the 911 mysteries video was dedicated to "free fall speeds"

A test was done with billiard balls being dropped and their speeds recorded.

They fell at an avg. near 9 seconds....

Towers 1 and 2 have been reported to fall in anywhere from 8.97sec up to 30 some seconds. The gap is horrible i know and if anyone has the "true fall time” please post it. However the towers should have fallen in some 136 odd seconds. How can there be such a discrepancy?

I know these are not the "physics numbers" you’re looking for but they might shed some light.

Good troll Spawwwn, have a conspiracy cookie.

Originally posted by bsbray11
The building accelerated at free-fall as if totally unresisted.

This is shown mathematically here:
www.studyof911.com...


How much should it have offered? More than none.

Interesting article.

IMO it doesn't prove explosives though. It doesn't take into account the damage that happens prior to global collapse. The collapses of the penthouse is not a minor incident and cannot be overlooked in the overall analysis of the collapse.

IMO, when the initial structural failure occured that allowed the penthouse to collapse it created a situation where the supporting columns were pulled laterally, similar to this...



When the supporting beams on the lower floors are pulled out of vertical alignment, the rest of the building will come down as if there is little resistance.

^Yeah but pls explain what the hell pulled them out of alignment?

You can't grab all these theories from out of know where, without an explanation of what actually caused it.

Where is the evidence for your claim?

I still want to know why we have no FBi or NTSB reports on any of the 911 crime scenes.

I can find reports on other aircraft crime scenes but none on 911, its been over 5 years why can't we see the reports ?

Originally posted by ANOK
^Yeah but pls explain what the hell pulled them out of alignment?

Suppose that the cantlever beam over the coned station is what initiated the whole shebang. Everything else above it is going to sag, pulling whatever is connected towards the sag.

You can't grab all these theories from out of know where, without an explanation of what actually caused it.

Okay I see how it works. You get to pull stuff out of your you know where and I can't. You get to pull explosives, global hawks, star wars beam weapons, pods, missiles etc., out of there, and others can't.
Whatever.

Where is the evidence for your claim?

Same place you keep yours.

Originally posted by Skibum
Okay I see how it works. You get to pull stuff out of your you know where and I can't.
Same place you keep yours.

How rude, how typical...

LOL so you feel because ppl make educated guesses about what might have happened you can just make wild claims and expect to get away with it? You're not debating with kids here, some of us have a lot of life experience and can see the obvious quite clearly.

Do you see me arguing the things you claim?

But that's not the point, you have made a claim here and all I ask for is something to back it up. A little common sense and an understanding of basic physics should tell you what you're claiming is not possible in the context of the collapses. prove me wrong with more than a few words and a drawing that really has no relevance to how the towers were constructed.

You want to talk about something that is really relevant to the whole collapse? Then I invite you to participate in my South Tower thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

No guessing, no wild claims, just simple basic physics.

I really don't think that was pulled out of my 'you know what'. If it was then I'd love to hear your explanation.

Originally posted by Skibum

IMO, when the initial structural failure occured that allowed the penthouse to collapse it created a situation where the supporting columns were pulled laterally, similar to this...

When the supporting beams on the lower floors are pulled out of vertical alignment, the rest of the building will come down as if there is little resistance.

Huh?? So you mean columns just up and disapeared? Look at your drawing... first you draw 4 colums, then you take 2 out in the second drawing? Where did the two go? I don't think steel can just disapear like that.

Also, how did the columns get "pulled" laterally?? Are they made of rubber? Are they not attached to the floor with rivets and welds? Why and how did the penthouse get "structural damage"???.

The penthouse looks perfectly fine in these pictures... no fire... no visible damage....



..minor.. a.k.a. cosmetic...




So whats your theory? A piece of concrete fell and chopped a 6inch steel beam in half? Fireproofed steel melted by invinsible fire? .... huh???

Originally posted by ANOK
How rude, how typical...

Like you guys are never rude. I'm was happy to see BSB edit his post of rudeness. You have your moments too, so get off your high horse.

LOL so you feel because ppl make educated guesses about what might have happened you can just make wild claims and expect to get away with it? You're not debating with kids here, some of us have a lot of life experience and can see the obvious quite clearly.

Educated guesses? Whatever, most of what you guys post is pure fantasy.

Wild claim? Its simple physics, if you overload a span in the center to the point it deflects downward, it will shorten its effective length therefore pull whatever its attached to towards the center. If you have this effect on a large area of a building it will have a greater effect.


Life experiences? Yea explosives and controlled demolition is obviously the first thing people should jump to in the absense of evidence.

Do you see me arguing the things you claim?

In this thread no.

But that's not the point, you have made a claim here and all I ask for is something to back it up. A little common sense and an should tell you what you're claiming is not possible in the context of the collapses. prove me wrong with more than a few words and a drawing that really has no relevance to how the towers were constructed.

Exactly how is it not possible for a large load bearing beam near the bottom of WTC 7 to fail and cause the floors above to sag and not pull what is connected to that area towards it? Once those columns are out of vertical they tend to be pretty close to worthless as load bearing members.

You want to talk about something that is really relevant to the whole collapse? Then I invite you to participate in my South Tower thread...

Why? So you can dazzle me with your superior "common sense", understanding of "basic physics" and life experiences?

No guessing, no wild claims, just simple basic physics.

So we won't be talking about explosives then? Sounds boring to me.

I really don't think that was pulled out of my 'you know what'. If it was then I'd love to hear your explanation.

Ah I better leave that one alone.

Originally posted by Skibum
Ah I better leave that one alone.

Well why am I not surprised? Can't deal with the difficult stuff, eh?

Getting a little defensive aren't we? How telling...

Originally posted by 1150111


Huh?? So you mean columns just up and disapeared? Look at your drawing... first you draw 4 colums, then you take 2 out in the second drawing? Where did the two go? I don't think steel can just disapear like that.

Just using it as an example of how it works, not to be taken literally.
But if a large load bearing beam over the ConEd station were to fail it would react similarly, Everything above would sag and it would pull everything attached inwards.

Also, how did the columns get "pulled" laterally??

Easiest way I can explain it would be to take a string about 18 inches long and tie it between the tops two soda bottles. Place soda bottles upright as far as the string will allow. Push down on center of the string, thats what I mean by pull laterally.







Are they not attached to the floor with rivets and welds? Why and how did the penthouse get "structural damage"???.

Are they made of rubber?

Of course not, steel does bend you know.

The penthouse looks perfectly fine in these pictures... no fire... no visible damage....


..minor.. a.k.a. cosmetic...

No need for fire or damage to the penhouse itself when the 40 or so floors below it are collapsing.

Fireproofed steel melted by invinsible fire? .... huh???

What is with you guys and melted steel. Steel doesn't need to melt to lose its load bearing capabilities.

Invisible fire? You must be looking at too many conspiracy sites where they show you only what they want you to see.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Skibum
Ah I better leave that one alone.

Well why am I not surprised? Can't deal with the difficult stuff, eh?

Getting a little defensive aren't we? How telling...

No not defensive, first thing that came to my mind was offensive.

Originally posted by Skibum
When the supporting beams on the lower floors are pulled out of vertical alignment, the rest of the building will come down as if there is little resistance.

I don't think we're understanding each other properly.

There wasn't "little" resistance. There was no resistance. And even what you suggest would take its toll considering the building was 47 stories tall and this is all over time.

First off, you have to explain how debris from WTC1 and 2 can make a 6 inch thick steel beam fail. Did it cut it? Dent it? What did it do? What hit it to make it fail? Concrete? No, because concrete would shatter on impact. Another steel beam? Sorry but no steel pieces appear to fly 2 blocks over to WTC7 in any videos... Fire? No.. No office fire on earth is strong enough to even weaken the steel. Why? Because of thermal spread. All the steel in the building is touching each other, and heat spreads, like a heat spreader a.k.a. heat sink on the CPU of your computer.. The more surface area of metal, the more cool the metal stays...

Originally posted by Skibum

Just using it as an example of how it works, not to be taken literally.
But if a large load bearing beam over the ConEd station were to fail it would react similarly, Everything above would sag and it would pull everything attached inwards.

No it wouldn't... sorry... to many welds and rivets, and to many cross members and angled braces. You claim that a meaning one load bearing beam over the ConEd station could cause the entire building to sag? You mean the engineers of WTC7 didn't plan for this? You got to be kidding. These buildings were designed to withstand multiple beam and column failure due to earthquakes, and ultra strong winds pushing the building.

Originally posted by Skibum
Easiest way I can explain it would be to take a string about 18 inches long and tie it between the tops two soda bottles. Place soda bottles upright as far as the string will allow. Push down on center of the string, that's what I mean by pull laterally.

Ok so what would happen if the soda bottles were riveted and welded to the table/floor? What if there was a cross brace, going from the top of one bottle to the bottom of the other bottle? Kinda like this picture:



...your are forgetting a lot of things, and it makes me sick that you are even trying to pretend to know anything about structural engineering and physics.

Originally posted by Skibum
Of course not, steel does bend you know.

Not for no reason it doesn't.

Originally posted by Skibum
No need for fire or damage to the penhouse itself when the 40 or so floors below it are collapsing.

So you are saying all 40 or so floors under it are collapsing? All 40? really? So all 40 or more floors, and their steel beams, columns, braces, and welds and rivets just failed? None of them even slowed down the collapse?

Originally posted by Skibum
What is with you guys and melted steel. Steel doesn't need to melt to lose its load bearing capabilities.

The official explanation of WTC7 is that fire melted the steel. Are you saying the official story is incorrect? I sure hope so, because it is wrong. Meaning they made it up, and are lying to cover the truth. Also, please explain to me how much strength is lost in the steel during its rise in temperature.. I would like to know if you know.. I've herd from professors it doesn't lose its strength until it is near molten.

Originally posted by Skibum
Invisible fire? You must be looking at too many conspiracy sites where they show you only what they want you to see.

Um no, I'm talking about zero fires reported under the penthouse. Also, I type WTC7 in google images, and all I see are weak office fires, on 4 or 5 floors. Please show me a steel building that has collapsed do to fire.. PLEASE.


[edit on 25-1-2007 by 1150111]

I had a long post typed up for you but accidentally hit the wrong button and lost it.
I answer a couple points now and the rest tomorrow if I get a chance.

The official explanation of WTC7 is that fire melted the steel.

Really? Would you mind telling me where? I'm fairly certain you are wrong.

Please show me a steel building that has collapsed do to fire.. PLEASE.

Seriously?
I would answer you , but like every other CD guy that has had that exact same question answered you will move the goalpost.