|
Post by peteetongman on Jun 22, 2013 17:49:28 GMT -5
that's all
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 22, 2013 17:57:21 GMT -5
Yeah, thanks Pete for that observation. To be more accurate though, 2 planes did hit 2 buildings and 3 fell down so that's not really all.
|
|
|
Post by peteetongman on Jun 22, 2013 18:04:45 GMT -5
Yeah, thanks Pete for that observation. To be more accurate though, 2 planes did hit 2 buildings and 3 fell down so that's not really all. you do know that airliners are big and heavy, right? and what usually happens when thousands of pounds of aviation fuel are released into the midst of sparking wires?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 22, 2013 18:34:50 GMT -5
Yeah, thanks Pete for that observation. To be more accurate though, 2 planes did hit 2 buildings and 3 fell down so that's not really all. you do know that airliners are big and heavy, right? and what usually happens when thousands of pounds of aviation fuel are released into the midst of sparking wires? Yes planes are big and heavy and the 3 buildings are even bigger and heavier and the fuel usually explodes. Did I get anything wrong here? How does that change what I posted? In this case, most of the fuel exploded on impact. The video shows a huge fireball outside the tower. Where was there any aviation fuel in WTC7? And here I thought, that's all. Are you sure? Maybe there's more, no? I think there must be because I sure posted a hell of a lot of information in this section, so I just don't think "planes hit the buildings, they fell down ... that's all". Pete, if you want "simple" stuff, here: The 9/11 Commission Report: www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdfThere's even a simpler comic book style version of the 9/11 Commission Report but I don't have the link. I'm sure you can find it yourself. NIST Final Report: www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfmThe two reports tell you everything they want you to know. That's as simple as it gets.
|
|
|
Post by peteetongman on Jun 22, 2013 18:37:15 GMT -5
What do you think happened? Give it to me in a couple sentences if you can
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 19:07:02 GMT -5
When the two towers started to collapse, did they start collapsing below the point of impact, at the point of impact or above the point of impact?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 23, 2013 3:41:24 GMT -5
Yeah, thanks Pete for that observation. To be more accurate though, 2 planes did hit 2 buildings and 3 fell down so that's not really all. To be more accurate two planes hit two buildings and FIVE fell down (because the two buildings that the planes hit, hit other buildings as they fell).
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 23, 2013 4:00:59 GMT -5
When the two towers started to collapse, did they start collapsing below the point of impact, at the point of impact or above the point of impact? Well said.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 23, 2013 9:07:30 GMT -5
What do you think happened? Give it to me in a couple sentences if you can 3 buildings did NOT collapse naturally. Over 2,000 experts agree with that (as well as hundreds of millions people around the planet) and after carefully examination the FACTS speak for themselves. All 3 buildings exhibited all the characteristics of a controlled demolition and none of the characteristics of a collapse due to fire, planes or both. If you want to know what experts know and believe, there's a lot more to it than just that. I posted numerous links in this forum. It's up to you to go through them or just accept what you've been fed by a government that LIES all the time and its puppet media. You'll find quite a bit of information at the beginning of the many threads I started here and deeper. If you're not interested, the 2 links I gave you are the official story and there's no need to ask any questions, your conclusion is "that's all", so nothing more needs to be said unless you're curious. My opinion is worthless to you because I'm just an anonymous poster and I don't claim to be an expert on any of this. This is also true of every poster here, even Shred, regardless of his claims. I suggested several times that everyone examines EVERYTHING, including the stories from government and the media and even the anonymous "debunking" sites. It's totally up to you what you want to believe happened, but certainly, you can't base it on what government and its puppet media fed you alone unless you have your head completely in the sand. And if that's the case, then no one can help you with this. That's a lot more than a couple of sentences but I tried to keep it reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 23, 2013 9:11:20 GMT -5
When the two towers started to collapse, did they start collapsing below the point of impact, at the point of impact or above the point of impact? You only asked about the two towers but WTC7 had NO impact point because it was not hit by a plane. As to the other two towers, one started collapsing at about the level where the upper tip of one wing was (the plane wasn't level when it hit) and the other quite near the impact point. Is that all you need to know?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 23, 2013 9:18:48 GMT -5
Yeah, thanks Pete for that observation. To be more accurate though, 2 planes did hit 2 buildings and 3 fell down so that's not really all. To be more accurate two planes hit two buildings and FIVE fell down (because the two buildings that the planes hit, hit other buildings as they fell). To be even more accurate, only 3 buildings collapsed in their entirety. Other buildings experienced partial collapses and none of those collapsed in the same manner as the 3 that collapsed in their entirety. WTC5 was completely engulfed in flames and severely damaged by the collapse of the towers but did NOT collapse.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 23, 2013 15:31:19 GMT -5
You're wrong again Bob sorry.
WTC3 was hit by WTC2 and WTC1 and fully collapsed.
St Nicholas was utterly destroyed also.
WTC5 being shorter had a better distribution of load and so effect of load was not critical. WTC7 was badly hit by debris and caught fire, but crucially it's design went beyond it's actual footprint so as to straddle an electrical substation, load distribution was overstretched. South side photos show an immense gash top to bottom and smoke and fire billowing from it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 16:13:28 GMT -5
When the two towers started to collapse, did they start collapsing below the point of impact, at the point of impact or above the point of impact? You only asked about the two towers but WTC7 had NO impact point because it was not hit by a plane. As to the other two towers, one started collapsing at about the level where the upper tip of one wing was (the plane wasn't level when it hit) and the other quite near the impact point. Is that all you need to know? True, I only asked about two towers. WTC7 had No impact point(s). False. It had MULTIPLE IMPACT POINTS, probably thousands. The top floors above the point of impact pretty much stayed intact for the ride down. Several hundred tons each. With each successive floor collapse pressure and weight increased causing the building to shoot thousands of tons of shrapnel out in every direction. Maybe that's to simply for you. Some times simply is best.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 23, 2013 19:25:14 GMT -5
You only asked about the two towers but WTC7 had NO impact point because it was not hit by a plane. As to the other two towers, one started collapsing at about the level where the upper tip of one wing was (the plane wasn't level when it hit) and the other quite near the impact point. Is that all you need to know? True, I only asked about two towers. WTC7 had No impact point(s). False. It had MULTIPLE IMPACT POINTS, probably thousands. The top floors above the point of impact pretty much stayed intact for the ride down. Several hundred tons each. With each successive floor collapse pressure and weight increased causing the building to shoot thousands of tons of shrapnel out in every direction. Maybe that's to simply for you. Some times simply is best. Yes the North tower's debris shot horizontally and hit WTC7 which was 300 ft. away and caused damage, but no plane hit WTC7. It didn't collapse because it was damaged by the debris, even NIST agrees with that. That fact that its debris actually shot horizontally for over 300 ft. makes no sense in a gravitational (i.e. DOWNWARD) collapse, neither does the fact that beams weighing 50-70 tons shot out at speeds exceeding 50 MPH and imbedded themselves into adjacent buildings. This has all been discussed in the various threads. Are you trying to somehow justify the fact that there never was an independent forensic criminal investigation into the events surrounding 9/11? A real investigation would get into that issue.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 19:37:50 GMT -5
Okay bob, you're old and set in your way, I get it. IYO, did we land on the moon?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 23, 2013 19:46:27 GMT -5
Okay bob, you're old and set in your way, I get it. IYO, did we land on the moon? I doubt you get it, you couldn't have gone through all that information in the time between my post and your response. I may be old but that one is OBVIOUS, even to a child. Who's "we" BTW? You and me? I certainly didn't, did you? In any case, the moon had nothing to do with 9/11, trust me on that one. Is that yet another conspiracy theory?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 19:55:19 GMT -5
Bob if you ask who 'we' is, then YOU ARE clueless. its a simple statement.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 23, 2013 20:03:11 GMT -5
Bob if you ask who 'we' is, then YOU ARE clueless. its a simple statement. I know, you already said you want to keep it simple.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 20:09:51 GMT -5
Ya know, for a mod you sure seem to be very combative
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 23, 2013 21:33:33 GMT -5
Ya know, for a mod you sure seem to be very combative Are you having difficulty with my responses/posts? The minute you post anything in this forum, it's subject to a response by anyone, including mods. Mods are here for the same reason you are, nothing more, nothing else. I'm not going to let a post go that I feel needs responding to and I will not restrict my responses just because I'm a mod. I pick and choose what posts I want to respond to or not and the manner in which I respond. As a poster here, you should have that basic understanding. As for this subject, it's quite obvious you post without doing the research so I'm certainly going to put your feet to the fire, so to speak. I told you I posted a tremendous amount of information on this subject and many others and you're bringing up issues that have already been addressed.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 24, 2013 3:10:56 GMT -5
Sorry Bob but it's quite obvious that he's done more research than you have.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 24, 2013 3:20:52 GMT -5
Yes the North tower's debris shot horizontally and hit WTC7 which was 300 ft. away and caused damage, WTC7 was in the shadow of WTC1 so it was hardly surprising that debris from WTC1 hit it and did tremendous damage altering the load distribution of WTC 7. WTC7 also caught fire and the fire weakened the structure. There was no water to fight the fire and so it was allowed to burn, it was observed to be bulging and leaning and it's firefighting operation was pulled. No remnants of explosives were found in it's debris. No cables were found indicating that it had been pulled over in a controlled manner. As WTC1 fell the floors below resisted the downward collapse of the floors above as it fell below freefall velocity. Bolts were sheared, and in the crush spandrels were flung outwards with intense force whilst inside the building the floors pancaked and thousands of square metres of air compressed and was forced down. Spandrels from WTC1 hit WTC7 and tore into it's south side, but also burning debris from WTC1 hit WTC7 and set it ablaze.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 24, 2013 7:37:44 GMT -5
Sorry Bob but it's quite obvious that he's done more research than you have. Yeah I can tell by the number and the quality of his posts. You wouldn't be just a wee bit biased because he blindly accepts the official narrative would you?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 24, 2013 7:42:20 GMT -5
"WTC7 was in the shadow of WTC1 so it was hardly surprising that debris from WTC1 hit it and did tremendous damage altering the load distribution of WTC 7"
Yeah that's some "shadow" 300 feet away. Maybe on 9/11 Newton's laws were changed and gravity worked sideways. Anyway I thought you agreed 100% with NIST, now you're saying yet again you really don't because NIST said debris damage to WTC7 had NO effect on its collapse. Always contradicting yourself.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 24, 2013 10:46:21 GMT -5
No it's not, considering how tall WTC1 was.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 24, 2013 13:50:56 GMT -5
Very close indeed isn't it Bob? Even something falling at a rate of 1 foot sideways to 1 foot down is in range there.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 24, 2013 14:05:19 GMT -5
Very close indeed isn't it Bob? Even something falling at a rate of 1 foot sideways to 1 foot down is in range there. That's the key word, FALLING (as in gravity). You do know how gravity works right? You do understand a collapse does not shoot material weighing tons a football field away (NFL football to you) horizontally and has enough momentum to damage a building that far away? Maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 24, 2013 17:00:14 GMT -5
The spandrels were flung out by equal and opposite forces from above and below. They couldn't go straight down as there was resistance, and they couldn't go up either, so they were flung outwards, evidently with enough momentum to damage the nearby WTC7 on it's south side.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 24, 2013 18:02:29 GMT -5
"The spandrels were flung out by equal and opposite forces from above and below."Spandrels? You mean steel beams weighing up to 70 tons. Flung out? By equal and opposite forces from above and below? Some measured at 50-70 MPH? Yeah right, on what planet would such natural gravitational collapsing forces from above and below cause that to happen? "They couldn't go straight down as there was resistance, and they couldn't go up either, so they were flung outwards, evidently with enough momentum to damage the nearby WTC7 on it's south side."Ah there's that little matter called RESISTANCE. So the tower collapsed at near free fall speed (less than 2 seconds slower), but we have RESISTANCE, enough allegedly to cause these massive beams to fly out at immense speeds over a football field's length and cause damage to other buildings. Some of these beams imbedded themselves into adjacent buildings. Yet with all that resistance the collapse ACCELERATED. aibafs.freeforums.net/thread/6126/11-twin-towers-common-sense
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 24, 2013 18:59:32 GMT -5
Not just gravitational forces. A dynamic load from the upper block and resistance from the lower block. It's force came from the Mass of the Upper block multiplied by it's acceleration. This is explained in far greater detail in the Bazant paper.
Dynamic load forces were considerable enough to shear the bolts holding everything together, the downward force then pushed down on the spandrels (multiple columns joined together by horizontal connection) and below were met by equal and opposite force by a resisting structure. The spandrels couldn't go up or down so they were flung outwards. Once free from the building, their mass + gravitational acceleration = the force at which they struck WTC7.
Anyway it's late here. Goodnight.
|
|