New aerial photos of 9/11 released

Originally posted by ANOK

Your answer is just a cop-out and proves my point about debunkers, you can parrot what you read but when challenged to explain it you can't...

I find it odd that you cannot understand that my own words are not those of someone else's nor is it a "cop-out". My original statement speaks for itself: relying solely on the photos and not requiring the scientific evidence you demanded. Again, I am not making an alternate claim, you seem to be though, and it's not my responsibility to disprove whatever your notions are. It's up to you to prove them on your own. It's fairly unsophisticated of you to avoid this point by employing namecalling and questioning others' credentials.

reply to post by ANOK


Sorry, you keeping mentioning that "Pentacon" drivel. You have no credibilty. Compound that with your "global steel failure" and you sound like someone who just graduated from Google University.

Yes, we can test steel and fire in a laboratory. But unless you absolutley know the field conditions all the lab test results are quite meaningless.

You are trying to sound authoratative and are failing quite miserably. Stick to what you know. If you are citing something that is your opinion then just say so, there is nothing wrong with having opinions, but when you try to pass them off as indisputable facts then you are going nowhere.

reply to post by ANOK

there has been lots of steel building fires, and they acted the way we expected by known physics.

Yes, there have been steel fire buildings, but did all of the buildings have the exact same structure? Let me guess, "No steel building has ever collapsed from fire". Well, no building of that size was ever destroyed from explosives, starting from the top, either. No building has ever been destroyed using thermite. No 110 story building has ever been hit by a fully fueled and loaded 747 going around 450 mph, dislodging fireproofing on the steel, then burned for an hour around unprotected steel.

The towers and the pentagon didn't. We KNOW how hot fire burns, we KNOW how thermal energy is transferred. We KNOW how steel reacts to fire.
All these things are known and TESTABLE in a lab

What did the fire do that was unexpected? Hot fire + steel without fireproofing = weak steel. Are you saying NIST did not test any of their claims? I'd like to know how your thoughts on how fire effects steel, it it just totally immune?

If it's a 2x safety factor, the building is designed to hold twice it's own weight, or twice the load applied. Often the materials used exceed that but only indicate the figure required. If the building by code required a 2x margin, it could exceed that but they will only quote the 2x as that is the met requirement.

You really should learn these concepts before making uninformed replies.
That way we could go on with the debate instead of having to school you all the time...

Are you implying there is no difference between static and dynamic loads?
If the structural steel on the 80th floor collapses, causing the the floors above it to fall onto the 79 floors below, what will happen? The building has held the static load, the 31 floors above the 79th floor, for quite some time before the attack, but can you really expect the dynamic load of those 31 floors meeting the 79 floors, at around a 12 foot drop, to act the same way? No.

Maybe you should learn these concepts before making uninformed arguments.

[edit on 11-2-2010 by Whyhi]

reply to post by Whyhi


Since you are implying that you know about static vs. dynamic loads, please address this: if the toppling part of the building did not fall to the left, what stopped its momentum (i.e. dynamic load off center from the rest of the tower)? If it disintegrated, what crushed all the floors below?

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
OK no bites from OS(pielers). How about this for another common sense OS problem:

How does the top section of the WTC south tower that is toppling, turn into rubble and pulverized concrete with pyroclastic flow? The angular momentum of the top floors with all their weight should have kept going to the left in the pictures. Instead the whole section was pulverized just like the rest of the lower floors with steel core columns. If explosives were not involved, why didn't this huge piece of building simply fall into the streets below?
See frame by frame sequence. Why did all of the exploding concrete and steel shoot out to the side of the building when it was supposedly fire and gravity at work?

Multiple photos:





Source

ATS link
ATS link

reply to post by 1SawSomeThings

if the toppling part of the building did not fall to the left, what stopped its momentum (i.e. dynamic load off center from the rest of the tower)?

Yes, the building did fall in that direction for however long, as indicated by the picture below, part A obviously had no support and is falling downwards, dragging side A of the building into where there was no support, causing it to lean. However, part B was still attached for about 1 second, again shown in the picture, which was the culprit of this 'leaning' scenario. Gravity pulls down, as indicated by part A falling downwards and pulling the building into the gap, but as part B was still part of the structure for the time being, the above floors fell where there was no resistance and leaned towards A. As side B failed a second after A, the building had no reason to continue to lean, as part B was the only reason it was leaning, gravity took over again, pushing the leaning structure straight down.






As shown by my awesome MS paint skillz, the building could not 'tip over' unless it was held or anchored by something holding the other end ( Part B in first picture, blue circle or C in second picture ) to the structure. Just like a tree falling in one direction because it is rooted on the opposite side. Gravity, or G / red arrow in the picture, is always pulling vertically downwards, once side B gave out, it continued to pull down. Part D, showing a rough example of I guess what you think would should have happened, but really doesn't make much sense when you think about it. The top portion of the building is leaning yes, but it's still falling down, it cannot just be ejected outwards in a direction as shown in D unless for some reason the top portion met the underlying structure and bounced off like Richard Gage's free fall cardboard boxes would then fell that way.

The only reason it was leaning was because of part B, once that gave out, there was no reason it continue an extreme lean ( like D ) while falling as there wasn't anything pulling it in a direction.

Hopefully I didn't explain that too bad

Edit: I doubt anyone is going to check it out, but this link talks about the leaning and will probably answer your questions if you're interested enough to go to a debunking website.

[edit on 11-2-2010 by Whyhi]

reply to post by Whyhi


That was clever! So why wasn't that whole mass of the top of the building sitting on top of the rubble pile? What forces broke it into the neat pile of cr*p that we all saw produced with no whole human corpses, nor office furniture, nor anything bigger than a thumbnail?

Statics vs. Dynamics, remember? Keep going.

[edit on 11-2-2010 by 1SawSomeThings]

reply to post by 1SawSomeThings


What did you expect it to do? Fall into triangles? The amount of energy coming down would have pulverized anything it came in contact with, including the massive portion doing the pulverizing that was also falling apart.

Why are you saying the building basically just exploded like a bomb rather than act like a controlled demolition which basically just initiates a gravity driven collapse. Nothing is blown out, nothing is turned into molten slag, nothing is tilting, nothing is exploded into dust in the air. Controlled demolitions do not start at a spot near the top of a building, blowing out a section, allowing the top section to fall for 1-2 seconds before blowing it up as well, and then blow every floor below that around the same rate the debris and dust from above is falling to cover the explosives.

Things that fall down usually land in the same spot.

... so sawsomethings is proposing that one part of a building falling through another part of a building should leave one part intact? Did I get that right? OK...

But the real question is this:
ABC filed a FOIA with NIST.
NIST complied, checking for copyright first.

Where was the Truth Movement during this?

reply to post by debunky

proposing that one part of a building falling through another part of a building should leave one part intact? Did I get that right?

Either that, or that the falling portion should have landed on the structure below, causing it to bounce or slide off to the side of building and continue to fall at an angle then crush some other building.

Basically, after bombs took out the steel causing it to fall, it was then exploded mid air

reply to post by Whyhi


Nope. The toppling portion of the building should have kept toppling to the left. Only other energies supplied aside from gravity could have made the top portion disintegrate into the lower portion of the building, and then cause the rest of the building below to turn to pyroclastic flow and neatly chopped up steel core beams.
Come back when you have a clue.

reply to post by 1SawSomeThings

The toppling portion of the building should have kept toppling to the left

No it shouldn't have, as there is no reason for it too continue tilting. This is what you're not understanding. I literally just explained that in my earlier posts.

There is no external force, once both sides of the titling portion broke their supports from the columns, to be pushing it over like you suggest. Even if it did continue to lean, it still would fell straight down, albeit horizontally, while it crushed the remaining building below.

made the top portion disintegrate into the lower portion of the building

No, it didn't disintegrate, it fell into the cloud of dust and debris.

Unless you can tell me why it should continue to lean, why it wouldn't just crush the building below, or why it would fall completely off the building and onto a surrounding building...

I literally explained this earlier, and all you come back with is a basic 'you're stupid'?

[edit on 13-2-2010 by Whyhi]