Self Evident. Proof of Twin Tower CD = Remote Controlled, Swapped-in, Military Drone Aircraft on 9/1

reply to post by randyvs


Oh, so the "bug on a windshield" analogy WASN'T saying that?

reply to post by leostokes


So what, in the old days they could go through buildings, but now they can't?

Zaphod58
reply to post by leostokes

 

So what, in the old days they could go through buildings, but now they can't?

No no. It is a good example of just what you suggest. Your example has convinced me. I have changed my mind. Thanks for the nice info.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Oh, so the "bug on a windshield" analogy WASN'T saying that?

No Zaph, that's not what I meant at all. I'm sorry you gave that so much focus.

reply to post by Zaphod58

And where has anyone said that they wouldn't be destroyed, and would go through intact? They would do exactly what they did on that day, and punch very large holes in the building while being destroyed in the process.

Text! I blame text. Of course I agree because that's all I've been saying.
The bug was potentially misleading but wasn't the only analogy I used there.



What we see here in this video provided by NAM
is the aluminum facade (curtain wall) of one of the towers.
The curtain wall provides a metal capture for the glass
that encloses the building the lenght there of on all four sides
of the building. We see the plane pass right thru the ALUMINUM
curtain wall as it should. Except for where the planes spans the
concrete floors of the building. That doesn't mean the buildiings
Structured iron skeleton suffered any damage at all.
And I would argue with malice against any one saying it was.

While we're at it. Does the positioning and also the movement of the camera
that provides the video seem a little suspicious to anyone ?
Find that cameraman and you'll find someone who knows a lot.
I would imagine.

reply to post by randyvs


Your point Randy is essentially made by the fact that the plane impacted the building on an angle, not straight on in the middle, yet still did not pass through the building, although a few plane parts may have, meaning that the plane was in fact shredded by the steel.

The NIST Report, which is the "official story" regarding the destruction of the buildings indicated that while there may have been some damage to some of the structural support beams, that this was not the cause of "collapse initiation", which they claim resulted from first, the loss of fireproofing protection on impact and second, with the weakening of the steel supports, at that level of the building, by fire. According to them it was a fire-induced only collapse initiation, the threshold of which was reached 56 minutes later, where what resulted thereafter was "inevitable".

The fundamental problem with the NIST Report, and this is what you guys don't seem to be grasping, which makes the point you're trying to argue, moot, is that it was a "collapse" initiation hypothesis only, and did not actually deal with, or attempt to model the actual destruction of the buildings, (which they refer to only as the "global collapse"), themselves, once that threshold for "collapse initiation" was reached.


NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
of the Crime of the Century

Which leads us to look back on items one and two offered in the OP, while paying particular attention to this little item.

_BoneZ_

Kevin Ryan, formerly of Underwriters Laboratories (UL) (Edit by NAM: who was fired for asking questions about the steel he was involved in testing and certifying as it related to the twin towers), made a post back in January of 2008 at 9/11 Blogger showing that the floors of the WTC that had the fire-proofing upgraded, matched almost exactly to the floors that were impacted and failed in both towers:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f2896139143b.jpg[/atsimg]

www.911blogger.com...

It now turns out the company that did those upgrades is Turner Construction company.

i224.photobucket.com...

Turner Construction Company also helped plan and oversee the demolition of the Seattle Kingdome in 2000:

seattlepi.nwsource.com...
www.stadium.org...

Turner Construction Company also occupied the 38th floor of WTC 1:

en.wikipedia.org...

Turner Construction Company particpated in the collection and disposal of the steel wreckage of the WTC towers following September 11, 2001:

en.wikipedia.org...

relative to this



Within the context of the difference between free fall time for any freely dropped object from the same height, in air alone = 10+ seconds, and the actual time of destruction (through the path of maximal resistance) = 13-15 seconds, leaving ONLY the difference in time, and less than that since we're talking about a drop only from the point of impact to the ground, for every single welt and bolt to have it's sheer strength exceeded. One, two, three, four. Break break break break.

Absent the use of explosives, removing all structural integrity along the descending explosively ejecting debris wave, as seen, the official story (beyond the point of "collapse initiation") amounts indeed to "the foot of God hypothesis" (although God would never do such a thing and as we know doesn't work that way).

randyvs
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

Because you claim that there's no way that a plane the size of a 767 can possibly have gone through the WTC. But yet we've seen much smaller lighter planes, going much slower, go into, and through buildings. So why couldn't the 767 do it, when they could?

What was left of those planes ? I rest my case.

What was left of the planes that hit the towers, the problem here is to many people on here believe comments made on here and other forums/web sites about this event I have seen the following on here too many times.

1) That plane(s) could not have brought the tower(s) down or

2) The fires could not have brought the towers down

What brought the towers down was the following a combination of

The plane impact: result structural damage and partial removal of fire protection: the fires which resulted in thermal loadings to a structure which was damaged due to this the MASS above the impact point could no longer be supported which allowed the floors above to collapse and result in HUGE dynamic loads on the structure below.

The South Tower FELL FIRST although hit second the LOAD ABOVE the impact point was greater the structure could no longer support it, the North Tower although hit first fell second because the LOAD ABOVE the impact point was less.

THERMAL loads due to fire were not fully calculated when these and other structures were built it wasn't until a few years after this the loadings due to fire were calculated in greater detail..

If you bother to look at the impact areas you will see that the outer columns are separated were column trees joined.

The fires didn't melt steel they weakened it, once the THOUSANDS of tons of mass above the impact point dropped GAME OVER.

Now as for all the BS claims re dust sheetrock (gyproc) , sprayed on fire protection, paint ,THOUSANDS OF SQ MTRS of each dust in uncleaned areas of the building, concrete from the floor slabs,glass that's the dust cloud NOT STEEL.

reply to post by wmd_2008


i have done a bit of fireproofing in my time and have tested a beam that was painted with a waterproof coating minutes before .

i spent 30 minutes in 1983 with a large rosebud on the beam at full on it used the whole bottle in 30 minutes and when it was turned off the beam did not even glow you would never tell i had been there barr some black marks .

not possible my grey matter thinks

geobro
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

i have done a bit of fireproofing in my time and have tested a beam that was painted with a waterproof coating minutes before .

i spent 30 minutes in 1983 with a large rosebud on the beam at full on it used the whole bottle in 30 minutes and when it was turned off the beam did not even glow you would never tell i had been there barr some black marks .

not possible my grey matter thinks

First job design/drawing office of a structural STEELWORK company,30+ years on site in,under on top or hanging from the side of buildings , if the sprayed on fire protection was removed then enough of a temperature rise could happen to weaken the steel.

Look for the cardington fire test.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


That's exactly where I was going. The free fall speed equals exactly zero resistance
from the 48 mid section VERTical risers ( columns ). And that is impossible for
those risers not to offer any resistance at all. What we should see, is the top initiating
floors come down a floor and stop and it would be any ones guess from there.
Anything from staying there, to a collapse of the outer facade only. To some sort
of slow crumble.
But IMO the risers would do exactly what they were meant to do. Which is prevent
exactly what we do see, from happening. It's truly as if those risers aren't even
there at all.

I've said my piece.

geobro
i have done a bit of fireproofing in my time and have tested a beam that was painted with a waterproof coating minutes before .

One of the important points of the 1972(?) New York Times article, re-examined by NY1 on 9/13/2001, was that most of the fireproofing was poorly done (several construction workers interviewed)… and that by the time the city sent new inspectors, only a few joints could be inspected, and one required re-treatment… but they still passed the building.

I would imagine the story is only available at the NYT main archive and/or the NY Main Library micro-fiche archive.

randyvs
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

That's exactly where I was going. The free fall speed equals exactly zero resistance
from the 48 mid section VERTical risers ( columns ). And that is impossible for
those risersnot to offer any resistance at all. What we should see, is the top initiating
floorscome down a floor and stop and it would be any ones guess from there.
Anything from staying there, to a collapse of the outer facade only. To some sort
of slow crumble.
But IMO the risers would do exactly what they were meant to do. Which is prevent
exactly what we do see, from happening. It's truly as if those risers aren't even
there at all.

I've said my piece.

edit on 4-12-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

The problem with the design was that the foorslabs are suspended between the outer wall and core wall on cleats so the floorslabs could drop internally also do you have any idea what the DYNAMIC LOAD of thousands of tons of material falling would be!

randyvs
That's exactly where I was going. The free fall speed equals exactly zero resistance
from the 48 mid section VERTical risers ( columns ).

What's the reference for the free fall speed claim these days?

Zaphod58
reply to post by randyvs

 

Oh, so the "bug on a windshield" analogy WASN'T saying that?

How about the paint fleck on the shuttle window maybe they will understand that!

en.wikipedia.org...

Remember that in spite of the outward, explosively ejecting building material, that even half way down, there was no appreciable loss of momentum in the debris wave, all the way down to the ground, and again, to within a few mere seconds of absolute free fall in nothing but air alone.

The building material, including steel, even showed an upward arcing motion further into the "collapse".

SkepticOverlord

randyvs
That's exactly where I was going. The free fall speed equals exactly zero resistance
from the 48 mid section VERTical risers ( columns ).

What's the reference for the free fall speed claim these days?

That the destruction of the buildings took place to within about 4-6 seconds of the time it would take for any freely dropped object if dropped through nothing but air alone, to reach the ground, which is just over 10 seconds when factoring in air resistance.

Based on that fact, "shoddy workmanship" and "bad steel" just doesn't "pass muster" (as they like to say in the military) within the context of the laws of motion, in particular the first and third law.

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Air (no resistance) vs. steel (path of maximal resistance) -> difference in time = approx 4-6 seconds (only available time within which every welt and bolt and joint would have to fail and break)

reply to post by wmd_2008

do you have any idea what the DYNAMIC LOAD of thousands of tons of material falling would be

Don't even have to know that to know that those riisers should
have broken and pushed up thru any and all of the concrete floors especially
X ten as we can see the concrete being completely pulverised in the
free fall anyway. You want me to believe both the crete and the risers
failed with no opposing force between the two?

Get out !

reply to post by randyvs


Be advised Randy, that they'll be all over you for calling it "free fall", since "free fall" would be 10 seconds from that height, for any free dropped object in nothing but air or a tiny bit more based on nothing but air resistance alone (in a complete vacuum it's 9.2 or thereabouts). Thus the buildings took "longer" than free fall time to "collapse", by about 4-6 seconds, so it's within that timeframe that all the welds and everything would have to be broken, even though, given the explosive mushroom-like nature of the destruction, about half way through the destruction, there's a lot less building above the remaining half, yet the continually ejecting debris wave continued all the way to the ground without any appreciable loss of momentum (even accelerating to free fall), which is why, absent explosives, I call the official story about it "the foot of God hypothesis", although as you know I love God and it's just a facetious statement to capture the essence of the fundamental idea.

It's a simple thought experiment really, which any rational and scientifically minded person can immediate recognize, if they're being intellectually honest with themselves, and others.

You can't really call it actual "free fall", because the debris wave followed closely behind, to within seconds of free fall, and yeah they'll actually try to get you on that, on calling it a "free fall" destruction.

Only maybe by this point in the destruction


could it be called "free fall" and even then, well, you could be off by a second or two..


So, to put this all back into it's appropriate context, from the OP

NewAgeMan

Just LOOK!

The buildings, the STEEL buildings..

Went down, from top to bottom, to within maybe three seconds of absolute free fall in nothing but air, alone..

Edit to add: I should have said 3-6 seconds.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Then let me define free fall in the context I'm using it
as being simply the fall of the towers as we see
it happening in the video.

Thanx for the heads up on that.

Besides the fact that it may as well be ndeemed a free fall because
it's that close to being one any way. And if what they were saying was true to
life, they wouldn't need split hairs like that.

Also on that shot you just provided there is no way on Gods green earth we
shouldn't be seeing the 48 mid section vertical risers sticking up thru the
pulverized concrete. Where are they ? Bending and breaking under what force ?
The pulverized concrete ? No ! Not just no but, well you know.

NewAgeMan
Air (no resistance) vs. steel (path of maximal resistance) -> difference in time = approx 4-6 seconds (only available time within which every welt and bolt and joint would have to fail and break)

I compared the YouTube video with the stop watch on my iPhone… it's about a second slow by the end. So we can't be certain about the timing, nor that the timing of the collapse wasn't modified for the purposes of the video.

However, there's no physical reference point for the top of the building because of the dust cloud. How is anyone able to accurately measure the time of the fall if there is no visible reference point and the reference videos cannot be confirmed to have the proper timing?