Explosive News

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by bsbray11

 

WTC7 DIDN'T FREE FALL.

So there you go.

wtc7 freefell for 2.6 seconds. this is what the NIST reports, and it is easily measurable, as it was by the high school physics teacher that forced the 200 "experts" at the NIST to admit it and correct their final draft of the report on seven.

man, you are the king of trolls. you need to start arguing with more than brash statements of what YOU believe. there is a thing called science, and it's obviously not your strong point. there is a thing called civility, and it is also not a strong point. there is a thing called ignorant, and you are all about it.

so, PLEASE, correct yourself, read the NIST report, and stop trying to spread misinformation.

wtc7 DID fall at freefall acceleration!

and, more, some events travelled down the twin towers FASTER than acceleration due to gravity.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d59d9048871e.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/953da5e3d453.gif[/atsimg]



and, rather than rehash all the lame arguments, here is a link to the faster than freefall thread, so you can read it and not repeat the mistakes of previous "debunkers"......

Faster than Freefall




[edit on 24-2-2010 by billybob]

reply to post by bigyin
Review your post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


You were referring to me as a non engineer, you calling me out, when you are not an engineer yourself.

Now you want my quals?
No college.
30 years experience in industrial combustion technologies, upper level management.
I also have enough wits to know how a building can collapse without explosives, and have beams fall 100 yards away from it. Even though I keep hearing that WTC buildings fell in their own footprints!
I am sorry, but it is truly laughable.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by bigyin
but I did go to coolege and got other certificates in Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and also in Naval Architecture.

Yet you didn't know what "PE" stood for or about professional licensing?

Something about that just doesn't line up for me.

I'm not sure what your trying to imply. Presumably you think I'm lying. But that would be typical of a sad person unable to conduct a reasonable discussion. Instead of bringing factual evidence you try and discredit anyone with a different view. SOP for your type.

I'm not worried though, carry on with your delusions.

As for the term PE, I belive that is used in certain countries including USA.

In the UK we use the term Chartered Engineer The Engineering Council UK grants the titles Chartered or Incorporated Engineer, and declares them to be "professional engineers." [13]]source

I worked on the Polaris system which will let you know that that was during the 1970 and 1980's quite a while ago. Its not an industry I'm in now.

But I dont know why I'm having to expalin myself..... non of those from the other side of the argument have told us if they are knowledgable in the matters or simply full of sh1t

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by bigyin

 

Review your post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


You were referring to me as a non engineer, you calling me out, when you are not an engineer yourself.

Now you want my quals?
No college.
30 years experience in industrial combustion technologies, upper level management.
I also have enough wits to know how a building can collapse without explosives, and have beams fall 100 yards away from it. Even though I keep hearing that WTC buildings fell in their own footprints!
I am sorry, but it is truly laughable.

Again you are incorrect. It is possible to be an engineer without being a Chartered Engineer. I used to be referred to as a Technician Engineer.

In my experience dealing with problems, I have come to a conclusion. If the subject is getting heated bring in a moderator. People in the US are too hotheaded about this subject to make any real conclusion. My suggesting is bring in a team from different countries to settle this dispute.

As a Canadian (who loves America), I feel that 9/11 was fabricated because there was monetary gains. I have taken insurance adjusting courses and know for a fact that a thorough investigation should have happened. A red flag should have went up when Silverstein started collecting.

It seems Al Qaeda has nothing to gain from this, unless of course they were in on the money. Just follow the money and see who gets paid, if you aren't allowed to follow the money, than you know important people people are in on it.

I know most of you guys have picked your sides, but sometimes you just gotta step back to find the truth.

Getting back to wtc 1 and 2, the OS changed to rule out pancacking. I belive this was because once it was realised that the towers had very substantial steel central columns from which concrete floors hung on the outside, whilst it might be possible to have pancacking of the floors the central core would not have been affected and would remain standing.

So another theory is required to explain what happened to the central core.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by bigyin]

reply to post by bigyin
I am sure you have been called plenty of things!

I have wasted enough time trying to show you people the fallacies you are all laboring under.
One of them is staring you all in the face a couple of posts up the page.
Video of debris falling..... is that debris falling in the 'footprint' of the building?

Of course not, the bottom of the building is still standing at that point.
Yet, how many times has it been posted on this short thread alone... the buildings fell in their own footprint!

Wake up....... some of you are delusional. imo
Have a good day! Waiting for snowstorm here.

reply to post by redgy


Again i will refer to the Mandarin Hotel in Hong Kong, it was totally engulfed in flames and there was NOTHING left but the steel substructure and IT DIDIN"T FALL!!!
What do you not get there. And explain to me, after reviewing the drawings of the building, how 2 steel "X" beams structures on each side gave way due to fire that was not near them and could not have possible heated them to melting temps?

reply to post by bigyin


It was dropped FIRST, the Willie Rodgriguez testimony stated just that, the guy who was badly burned when the doors blew off the generator room, which according to the blueprints, was near the center of the towers in the basement, is obviously why there was a vacuum created to cause the freefall speeds.

Originally posted by bigyin
I'm not sure what your trying to imply. Presumably you think I'm lying. But that would be typical of a sad person unable to conduct a reasonable discussion. Instead of bringing factual evidence you try and discredit anyone with a different view.

Actually it's just the fact that on the internet you can say whatever you like about your own credentials, which is a very natural reason to be skeptical of these kinds of anonymous claims. I'm sure you can understand that. Especially when you say you have "certifications" in CE and ME yet don't know what a PE is.

And even if you can work CE problems, finite analysis and all that, you don't have all the structural documents to do relevant work anyway. Only offer an intuitive opinion no different than anyone else.

There is nothing new in that article that has not been discussed to the point of insanity. Thats why this thread turned into people ranting at each other, calling each other liars. 9/11 fatigue.

There is an interesting angle to this though because of who published this. What is behind that? No way does the Publisher believe in what the article contains, so why is it there? What purpose does it serve?

Lets see now, what else is going on this week

Health Care! Could that be it? How does it relate?

The "Bi-Partisan" meeting is coming up. Almost nobody beleives it is actually going to be a meeting where anything the other side says will be listened too, even if they are allowed to speak. It will be another lecture by Obama for the publics consumption, pretending bi-partisanship, even though the Bill is already written before the meeting takes place.

How does that relate to this? Smoke and Mirrors. They need a group of powerful distractions to pull the media's attention away from that meeting. They know they are playing games and don't need the media's eye on them this week. So, ask your buddies to start publishing any wild-eyed story (in the eyes of the public).

Truthers, you guys, are a tiny group that has garnered a lot of attention. What better way to divert attention?

I think you are being used. We can expect to see other sensationalistic articles pop up in the print media and the network broadcast news. Maybe lots of them, building to a crescendo about the time of the meeting and discussions.

When you are playing a game to get a Bill passed that over 75% of the voters don't want, you don't want those same voters paying attention. This has the added plus of being a back handed jab at the Bush Administration, which the Obama team takes particular pleasure in. One crook, pointing to another crook to deflect attention from how crooked they both are.

I expect something even more eye catching than this by morning DC time.

reply to post by butcherguy


well, there are many misinformed truthers out there, for sure. as there are many engineers who still think the steel melted because of the jet fuel. it's because they don't continue their education on the matter.

but you are right. it is clear that the buildings exploded outside their footprints, leaving only a fraction of the debris within the footprint, and that the majority of the mass was therefore unavailable to crush anything.

no mass to crush with = extra energy source

extra energy source = ?

also:

drop and smash = jolt
no jolt was observed
no jolt = no smash

no jolt = extra energy source (because there was obviously smash).

extra energy source = ?

I'm not a "truther" or a "truster"; I'm an "on the fencer".

What I will say, is the 9/11 debate has been on-going for quite some time now, and it doesn't seem like either side of the debate is really winning the argument. There's points and counter-points constantly thrown back and forth, and neither is 100% convincing.

That said, I don't see any reason NOT to do a new investigation. What's the harm? If anything, the hesitance in doing so is only fueling the "truther" side of the debate. If there's nothing to hide, then why not look into the situation?

reply to post by billybob


So it free fell for 2.6 secs, but it did not all come down in one free fall.

Which is what all of the people on this thread are saying.

I wouldn't dispute that at some point in it's collapse it was free falling, once the weight above made the structure below it essentially meaningless, then yes, it might have briefly free fallen.

But, if you go and watch the last few secs of this:

www.youtube.com...

you can clearly see the debris falling, at free fall and it easily out pacing the collapsing building.

So, the building wasn't free falling.

My issue with the free fall argument is that people say that because it was demoed it free fell, which IS what you see in demos, but not at the WTCs.

reply to post by daddio


This is the nonsense I'm talking about.

Originally posted by seethelight
So it free fell for 2.6 secs, but it did not all come down in one free fall.

So what is your point? Are you saying the building stopped collapsing for 2.6 seconds or do you believe it was still "collapsing" during that 2.6 seconds when it was free-falling straight down?

reply to post by rainfall

How did 200,000 tons of steel disintegrate and drop in 11 seconds?

It didn't all disintegrate, and neither at freefall speeds all of the time. Once the mass above became so great, then freefall speeds were likely.

What's else is supposed to happen to the 1000's of tons above the impact zone when the beams failed, except provide a large downwards force that increases after each floor collapse, and so pulverizes most of the contents of each floor.

Ironically enough, the towers lean to the side of the impact zone just as they collapse.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by john124]

reply to post by seethelight


and how do explain the faster than freefall phenomena that i pointed out?

what you see in the animated gif is debris blowing out from inside the building well ahead of the leading edge of the debris outside the building (ie. the first thing to fall from the top). this means that somehow the inner "collapse" is outpacing the outer freefalling debris. this means the building is somehow offering less resistance than thin air.

and, how do explain ANY freefall of seven. if you passed your physics class, you will no that mere momentum transfers of impacting bodies will slow the descent. freefall means that for 2.6 seconds, there was nothing to hit (ie. the bottom of the building was being blown out ahead of the descent).

EVEN IF the exterior was just a box and the entire insides managed to collapse without the exterior deforming at all, the walls would STILL offer enough resistance from themselves to fall slower than freefall. the ONLY way for there to be "freefall speed" (properly, acceleration due to gravity) is if there is NOTHING below to impact.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by billybob]

Originally posted by bigyin
I'm not claiming to be an expert, I'm going on what I learned at college.

Another poster with engineering knowledge has just posted to say he agrees their something wrong with the OS.

So thats 2 engineers here disputing the OS.

Can we hear your technical analysis please ?

Try 3. And I DO possess a PE license in Civil Engineering.

reply to post by billybob

if you passed your physics class

Here come the ad-hominem attacks, as usual.