#1 Reason To Believe...

Originally posted by CameronFox

The collapse of WTC 2 began with a tilting or rotational motion of the upper section of the Tower about a “hinge” at the 80th floor. This rotational motion, which commenced at a tilt angle  2, was caused by an almost instantaneous multi-column failure that eliminated the structural support on one side of WTC 2 near the impact zone. Once set in motion, the upper block moved with a nearly “free” rotational trajectory of a body
pivoting under the constant force of gravity. This behavior was sustained at tilt angles up to about 25degrees. Thereafter the motion of the block changed somewhat although the suggestion that the tilting suddenly stopped is not correct.

First of all, CameronFox, if you want to do your own thinking, please do your own thinking.

Greening may have good intentions but the dude is a total idiot. At least when it comes to physical systems, he is an idiot. A chemist, to be precise. (Just kidding, chemists )

Thereafter the motion of the block changed somewhat although the suggestion that the tilting suddenly stopped is not correct.

The motion of the block didn't just change, it momentarily ceased, at least in an angular sense. This is when the block dropped as a whole, 90 degrees straight down. Note that Greening fails to even describe how the "motion of the block changed"; he simply states that a sudden cease of motion is incorrect and leaves it at that.

What appears to happen is that the tilting upper section was continuously crushed near the 80th floor by its own momentum so that the rotation was no longer that of a rigid body.

This is bull, because if such a capacity-breaching load was reached, it would have been focused on the columns onto which the upper floors were leaning, not all of the columns across the whole floor at the exact same time, which is what is required for a vertical drop.

Cameron, this is the same problem as WTC1 starting to fall with symmetry, except WTC2 had started leaning before this symmetrical drop began. That's basically it. After the vertical collapse began on a lower floor, the block did begin to move at an angle again on top of this new collapse sequence.



PS -- If you want evidence that Greening is an idiot, look at his momentum transfer analysis. He assumes all the mass stayed within the footprint, that there was only resistance at the trusses, that all of the total mass of the building was focused onto the same trusses, and he ignored all energy losses in the process.

Then he declares that his analysis, while admitting not 100% accurate (as in, not accurate at all), is still evidence that the towers could come down on their own.

Do you see how wrong/dishonest that is?

[edit on 17-3-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by CameronFox
So Anok...I ask you to explain to me your "basic physics" as to how this Dr. Greening is wrong.

BTW I explained it all in my post on the South Tower Tilt, but you didn't come by to share your wisdom in that thread, I wonder why?

First off Greenings explanation is not complete. He explaines what appeared to happen but he doesn't explain why. Under that upper pivoting section was the undamaged building. So how did the top have the energy to crush the building that was still in one sold piece unerneath it?

The top should have continued it's motion, as in Newtons 1st laws of motion (Inertia) and the law of conservation of angular momentum.

Objects executing motion around a point possess a quantity called angular momentum. This is an important physical quantity because all experimental evidence indicates that angular momentum is rigorously conserved in our Universe: it can be transferred, but it cannot be created or destroyed.

What caused the angular momentum to stop and transfer it too vertical momentum?

A body at rest remains at rest, and a body in motion continues to move in a straight line with a constant speed unless and until an external unbalanced force acts upon it...An object that is in motion will not change velocity (accelerate) until a net force acts upon it.

What was that external unbalanced force? Gravity isn't the answer. I think we can all agree that the lower undamaged floors had the energy to hold the mass of the top. From what I've read the WTC was designed to take 2.5 times it's own mass. So what force caused the top, which was in motion, to change it's velocity?

He says...

the motion of the center of gravity is predicted to become vertical, causing a shift in the rotational axis

Why would it do that? It makes no sense at all. Look at the video, you can see the bottom falling away from underneath the top, infact the vertical collapse was faster than the top was tilting, that's what cause it to stop tilting and fall. If the pivot point failed and bottom stayed pretty intact, as it should, then the top would have continued it's motion and slid off, probably taking some of the corner with it.

How did the top suddenly become a piston strong enough to crush the 80 undamaged stories, when it wasn't even sitting true. How can that make sense to you?

How does a gravity driven collapse cause pieces of facade, weighing tons, to be ejected up to 600 ft? Or cause the lower undamaged columns and floors to offer no resistance? Or cause everything to turn into a fine dust?
Or make cars burn up but leave paper, and a pasport, untouched?

I know you know these questions, I'm sick of repeating myself.

[edit on 17/3/2007 by ANOK]

Originally posted by CameronFox

The collapse of WTC 2 began with a tilting or rotational motion of the upper section of the Tower about a “hinge” at the 80th floor. This rotational motion, which commenced at a tilt angle  2, was caused by an almost instantaneous multi-column failure that eliminated the structural support on one side of WTC 2 near the impact zone. Once set in motion, the upper block moved with a nearly “free” rotational trajectory of a body
pivoting under the constant force of gravity. This behavior was sustained at tilt angles up to about 25degrees. Thereafter the motion of the block changed somewhat although the suggestion that the tilting suddenly stopped is not correct.

The official story believer's hang over the most stupid stuff I swear... Put a few large words that they hardly understand, and they will think they know what they are talking about and believe every word lol. You know the biggest problem about the quote above? Let me show you...

"was caused by an almost instantaneous multi-column failure that eliminated the structural support on one side of WTC 2 near the impact zone. "

This guy claims to know exactly what columns failed huh? He was up in the building on 911 and saw multi-column failures with his own eyes? Here is the part thar really gets me.... "instantaneous". How do you have "instantaneous" aka "instant" multiple column failures??? OH I KNOW!!! EXPLOSIVES!!!

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Connected]

This guy claims to know exactly what columns failed huh? He was up in the building on 911 and saw multi-column failures with his own eyes? Here is the part thar really gets me.... "instantaneous". How do you have "instantaneous" aka "instant" multiple column failures??? OH I KNOW!!! EXPLOSIVES!!!

Actually, that analysis comes from the frame by frame viewing of the collapse video.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Actually, that analysis comes from the frame by frame viewing of the collapse video.

Oh wow, and those videos show multiple failed columns?? NO.

Also, I am fully aware that NIST and FEMA/ASCE's explinations are based on video and photos also. So please tell me, how can they be correct? Oh thats right, they cant.

Actually, you would need to prove that it DIDNT happen that way. It is hilarious the steps some will take to try to prove that its some sort of colossal US conspiracy.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Actually, you would need to prove that it DIDNT happen that way. It is hilarious the steps some will take to try to prove that its some sort of colossal US conspiracy.

No see you dont get it..

You must prove that it DID. I'm not the one sitting here and believeing every bull crap word that some idiot scientist came up with by looking at video evidence that shows NOTHING. YOU ARE. YOU have to prove it DID happen. You can't.


Of course, we all know something failed in the building.... BUT HOW?!! You so called scientist even admitted it was an "instant failure". So what caused this instant failure huh? The building survived the jet impacts, thats on video evidence. The only thing left is fire. How does fire cause an "instant failure of multiple columns"???? AT THE SAME TIME?!!? Come on man.... you are the one believing bull crap. Not me.

It is hilarious the steps some will take to try to prove that some random scientist can know exaclty what happened internally on a building with only external video.



Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Connected]

Until you get it through your head that it wasnt just the fire and it wasnt just the damage that caused the collapse, its useless to try to discuss this.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Actually, that analysis comes from the frame by frame viewing of the collapse video.

The analysis doesn't come from the video. The video evidence does. Where has it been shown that steel will fail in such a manner in the given circumstances from overloading alone?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Until you get it through your head that it wasnt just the fire and it wasnt just the damage that caused the collapse, its useless to try to discuss this.

I never once claimed it was "just fire" EVER. I never once claimed it was "just damage" either. So what are you talking about?

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Connected]

So maybe the gentleman in question should have used a different word to to describe the instant that the support columns gave way. Doesnt change the fact that they did give way at the same time.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
So maybe the gentleman in question should have used a different word to to describe the instant that the support columns gave way. Doesnt change the fact that they did give way at the same time.

No the gentlemans that believe this guys writing should wake up. Instant was correct, but there is no explination as to why it was instant. Do you see what im talking about?

Heres an anology..

A guy dropped dead, due to instant failure of multiple body organs.

This is only partial explination that most official story beilievers are happy with. There are unaswered questions though..
1: which orgrans?
2: how did they instantly fail?
3: what caused them all to fail at the same time?





[edit on 17-3-2007 by Connected]

Steel beams, cast at the same time, to the same requirements, subjected to the same stresses, giving away (or extremely close to) at the same time? Yes, it happens.

Try studying some engineering failures.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Steel beams, cast at the same time, to the same requirements, subjected to the same stresses, giving away (or extremely close to) at the same time? Yes, it happens.

Really, like in 3 huge buildings on one day? That happens? OK when? Where? On what Planet?

I'd love to see something that has any similarity to the failure of the 3 buildings on 9-11, are you going to provide that or just make wild claims and hope they stick? lol

I'd love to see something that has any similarity to the failure of the 3 buildings on 9-11, are you going to provide that or just make wild claims and hope they stick? lol

Well wouldnt that be nice? Having another incident in which terrorists crashed airliners into high rise buildings, just so we could compare 9/11? I mean that is the only way that would satisfy your need to see something similar.

An iceberg hadnt ever sank a ship..till the Titanic
A blown tire had never destroyed an airliner...till the Concorde
And yes, I could go on with engineering/human failures

In other words, there is always a first time.....

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Well wouldnt that be nice? Having another incident in which terrorists crashed airliners into high rise buildings, just so we could compare 9/11? I mean that is the only way that would satisfy your need to see something similar.

An iceberg hadnt ever sank a ship..till the Titanic
A blown tire had never destroyed an airliner...till the Concorde
And yes, I could go on with engineering/human failures

In other words, there is always a first time.....

But we do have another steel building that have had a plane hit and it did not collapse, and we also have had steel buildings with major fires and major structural damage that did not collapse.

Do you need me to list them ?



[edit on 17-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Steel beams, cast at the same time, to the same requirements, subjected to the same stresses, giving away (or extremely close to) at the same time? Yes, it happens.

Try studying some engineering failures.

The failures you have in mind are caused by support loss; they aren't the initial support loss itself.

For example, if a whole wall of perimeter columns begins falling in the same direction instantly, then all of the spandrel plates bolted/welded to them would have to, too! And any lateral beams if any were connected, of course.

But, when you're talking about columns themselves failing in such a manner, they have to either have had their capacity to take gravity loads failed simultaneously, or else have to be yanked out simply by another column's connection via the spandrel plate, lateral bracing, etc.

The latter is impossible because the connection to a column is going to go before the whole column itself. Yanking as hard as you need to on a spandrel plate is only going to rip off the spandrel plate. For a lateral beam you can start to really tug on a column but you'd need a lot of load relative to what the column was built for (not relative to how big you are and how much YOU can hold ).

The former is the cause for consideration. What caused all of the actual support columns to fail simultaneously? As in, apparently, by gravity loads only?

Huge coincidence?

[edit on 17-3-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Well wouldnt that be nice? Having another incident in which terrorists crashed airliners into high rise buildings, just so we could compare 9/11? I mean that is the only way that would satisfy your need to see something similar.

An iceberg hadnt ever sank a ship..till the Titanic
A blown tire had never destroyed an airliner...till the Concorde
And yes, I could go on with engineering/human failures

In other words, there is always a first time.....

But we do have another steel building that have had a plane hit and it did not collapse, and we also have had steel buildings with major fires and major structural damage that did not collapse.

Do you need me to list them?

I have to go with the overwhelming body of sceintists, engineers, and architects on this matter.

Reasons I can no longer believe the "Truth Movement's" stance:

My own research, occams razor, and the fact that "believers" want to compare the events of 9/11 to other events to support their claims. There are no such events that can produce the conclusion of a certain outcome.

For example: What happens to a large aircraft when it is deliberately rammed into a building? No data to support a certain outcome.

What happens to the building? No data to support a certain outcome.

What happens to a tall steel-framed building when it is structurally damaged severely, then burns out of control? No data to support a certain outcome.

I see people trying to compare, say, the wreckage/debris field of Flt 93 to other plane crashes. This is illogical in my mind, Because the pilots of the compared crashes were doing everything in their power to STOP the collision from occuring. While the pilot of 93 was intentionally trying to ram it into the ground, or was being forced from the controls while it collided with the ground. IF 93 was shot down, THEN you would have that debris field everyone (for some reason) feels the need to see. This would be because the plane would have lost it's integrity in mid-air, then fell to the ground. Instead of being purposefully and aerodynamically rammed into the ground at full speed.

Same can be said when the comparisions are made with the B-25 and the Empire State building to a 767 and the Twin Towers. There is a huge discrepency between the size, speed of the craft, the intention of the pilot, and the structure itself.

Same can be said when comparing the Madrid fire to WTC 7. The Windsor never had a large amount of structral damage done before the fires, it was also mostly comprised of steel reinforced concrete, the "steel only" portion of the building failed. WTC 7 and controlled demolitions? There were no sychonized explosions on any audio, nor demolition spikes on any seismograph reading the area when WTC 7 fell.

Since none of these comparisions can be made on equal footing, yet try to be presented as "proof" or evidence to substanciate a claim; it brings out the skeptic in me. I start asking "Who" is making these claims as fact. "Why" do they want people to believe this is factual. And "What" is their motivation. ... Then I start looking into "How" they are building their circumstantial, faith-based movement.

Sorry, I would want to be a part of that about as much as spending a summer at Jesus Camp.



[edit on 17-3-2007 by GwionX]

Originally posted by GwionX

Same can be said when the comparisions are made with the B-25 and the Empire State building to a 767 and the Twin Towers. There is a huge discrepency between the size, speed of the craft, the intention of the pilot, and the structure itself.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by GwionX]

Well if you look at the size of B-25 compared to the size of the Empire State building and look at the photos and discription of the damage done, you can do some comparison.

Ther are also more steel buildings that have had major fires and structural damage then just the Madrid towers. I can name at least 4 and looking at the photos and reading the discriptions of damage you can do some comparison.

Also the firemen on the scene of the twin towers only reported isolated fires. The firechiefs on the scene did not expect the towers to fully collapse, only the upper floors above the crash if the fires would have burned for several more hours. Which it did not.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 18-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Connected

No see you dont get it..

You must prove that it DID. I'm not the one sitting here and believeing every bull crap word that some idiot scientist came up with by looking at video evidence that shows NOTHING. YOU ARE. YOU have to prove it DID happen. You can't.

Here's the thing...I hate to break it to you but the burden of proof really is on the CTers.

You can sit there and call us "believers" morons and sheep and whatever other neat cliches you scoop up from prisonplanet, but here is a VERY IMPORTANT concept that you need to warm up to:

People like us...people like esdad and swamp and CameronFox and me...we're the only people keeping the damn truth movement alive. If people like us stop arguing with you, you know what you are? Completely IGNORED.

The truth movement does not have the undeniable information and, even more important, the BASIC SOCIAL SKILLS to deliver a message of the magnitude you aspire to.

So please, hone your arguments. Improve your delivery. Fill in the holes.

But don't treat "believers" like we're expendable. We're all you've got because the GENERAL PUBLIC sure doesn't listen to a damn word you have to say.

When we, the stupid worthless believers, get tired of waiting for you to produce something substantial and stop clicking on your threads...

POOF

You're a footnote in the Encyclopedia Conspirica.

You're welcome.