Hot Topics | |
---|---|
Wage Slave wrote:It is all going wrong. And in a hurry.
Terry Pratchett Quotes. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Tsuru wrote:doing something fun or exciting?
Screwed-down Hairdo wrote:I find her attractive and would willingly do naughty things with her...
wagyl wrote:Screwed-down Hairdo wrote:I find her attractive and would willingly do naughty things with her...
Standing shoulder to shoulder with members of the Northern Irish community, I see.
Tsuru wrote:The collapse is not symmetric, it's a cascade. As you can see in the video, a structure on the roof disappears first indicating that something has happened on the (already heavily damaged) other side of the building. I remember seeing pictures of the other side of building 7, think Oklahoma federal building. The steel lattice is not only weakened due to temperature, but now also gets pulled inward horizontally toward this collapse, which triggers further buckling because too many of the the continuous vertical components and load paths of the lattice that carry the weight of what remains of the building are now being interrupted.
Tsuru wrote:If you put a bucket of water on a broomstick, it can carry the weight just fine. If you take a hacksaw to it in the middle and put the pieces together perfectly again, it will still stay up. But if you give it the slightest push horizontally in the same spot the broomstick will suddenly collapse very quickly.
Tsuru wrote:It's the same with the pancaking collapse of the second WTC tower: Temperatures keep rising, yield strength of the remaining structure keeps falling and then suddenly, in the blink of an eye at one point or node in the structure the stress is higher than the yield strength at that particular point. And then Mr Newton takes it from there.
Tsuru wrote:There were too many unpredictable factors for the collapse to have been planned. How would you even do this? Even collapsing a stable structure during a normal demolishing operation by a professional company that does this all day every day has a lot unpredictable factors, and takes weeks of planning and preparation. Now imagine trying to perfectly and professionally bring down a structure damaged by random debris two another structures falling into it, which themselves were knocked down by jets impacting in random locations from different directions. Within a few hours.
Tsuru wrote:If I were you I'd focus on the people who had prior knowledge of this and dumped unusually large volumes of UAL and AAL stock on september 10.
yanpa wrote:Has anyone done a serious study on what would be involved in wiring up all 3 buildings so they could be brought down in a coordinated manner after having airliners crash into two of them in an unpredictable manner (unless of course those airliners were also somehow crashed in a precisely coordinated manner), and how that presumably quite extensive work could be covered up and hidden so that no-one would accidentally stumble across it and need to be disappeared in an unsuspicous way, and how that all those involved could be relied upon to provide absolute secrecy for ever?
Tsuru wrote:What are these similarities?Russell wrote:Coligny wrote:Can't bither to find the Russell's FAO thread...
So I'll just dump here an "holy f00king shit" news...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -block.htm
Still didn't find time to reply to the previous postings, but I too couldn't help noticing possible similarities with WTC7, except that the current fire is much more vigorous.
So, who of you thinks that this building will come down demolition-style?
1. It's a tall building
2. It's on fire
3. ???
Might I suggest you take a look at the NIST WTC7 report and their other 911 reports? They are very enlightening as to how extensive the mechanical damage was to the structure of WTC7 before it collapsed. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2 ... ion-report
Russell wrote:yanpa wrote:Has anyone done a serious study on what would be involved in wiring up all 3 buildings so they could be brought down in a coordinated manner after having airliners crash into two of them in an unpredictable manner (unless of course those airliners were also somehow crashed in a precisely coordinated manner), and how that presumably quite extensive work could be covered up and hidden so that no-one would accidentally stumble across it and need to be disappeared in an unsuspicous way, and how that all those involved could be relied upon to provide absolute secrecy for ever?
Would it be possible to shut someone up who was involved in the destruction of the WTC buildings through threats?
Wage Slave wrote:Russell wrote:yanpa wrote:Has anyone done a serious study on what would be involved in wiring up all 3 buildings so they could be brought down in a coordinated manner after having airliners crash into two of them in an unpredictable manner (unless of course those airliners were also somehow crashed in a precisely coordinated manner), and how that presumably quite extensive work could be covered up and hidden so that no-one would accidentally stumble across it and need to be disappeared in an unsuspicous way, and how that all those involved could be relied upon to provide absolute secrecy for ever?
Would it be possible to shut someone up who was involved in the destruction of the WTC buildings through threats?
It would be possible to silence someone, ie a single person. But that's not the point Yanpa was making and it is a very strong argument. All conspiracy theories involve a conspiracy and that means a number of people are involved. If you are going to organise something as big as the conspiracy you are postulating then a very large number of people have to be involved at some level and a very large number of operations and facts have to be kept hidden and kept hidden forever. You can't even afford deathbed confessions never mind someone briefing a journalist off the record or facts accidentally discovered by people not involved with and unaware of the conspiracy.
It is very difficult to imagine that it is possible given that governments and companies struggle to keep anything secret for long. Leaks and accidents always happen when consciences are troubled. Even totally ruthless and murderous regimes like successive Russian regimes haven't been able to stop at least some truth leaking out.
WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed in a different way. It has been described as pancaking, but this is an incorrect hypothesis. Newton's 3rd law tells us that for every force there is a reaction force in precisely the opposite direction. That means that the block of floors above the floor of plane-impact would experience just as much force from below as the block below it experienced from above. In other words, the block at the top would disintegrate as much as a similarly sized block below it, and this would mean that at a certain point there would not have been any mass left to destroy what was below it. You may also have noticed that much of the mass of WTC1 and WTC2 was ejected laterally, so that was not there to destroy what was below it. In a realistic scenario, the collapses of both WTC1 and WTC2 would have stopped at a certain point, if it would have collapsed at all, assuming no explosive charges would have been involved.
Coligny wrote:WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed in a different way. It has been described as pancaking, but this is an incorrect hypothesis. Newton's 3rd law tells us that for every force there is a reaction force in precisely the opposite direction. That means that the block of floors above the floor of plane-impact would experience just as much force from below as the block below it experienced from above. In other words, the block at the top would disintegrate as much as a similarly sized block below it, and this would mean that at a certain point there would not have been any mass left to destroy what was below it. You may also have noticed that much of the mass of WTC1 and WTC2 was ejected laterally, so that was not there to destroy what was below it. In a realistic scenario, the collapses of both WTC1 and WTC2 would have stopped at a certain point, if it would have collapsed at all, assuming no explosive charges would have been involved.
Did you just write off gravity from the event parameters ?
Block above: event force - gravity
Block below: event force + gravity
Which might account for the fact that building collapse mostly downward. Even if it is after a limited upward motion.
Tsuru wrote:My point was that you waste too much time trying to explain things you clearly don't understand well enough. Time which could better spent trying to understand why these planes got to where they ended up, who had prior knowledge and who benefited. It's a bit like the story of the Dutch sub spotting the Japanese fleet heading to Hawaii and calling it in only to have the allied leadership sit on the intel because an attack would provide the US with a reason to join the war.
You won't be the first person on the internet with a tenuous understanding of something technical and ending up earnestly believing he knows better than institutes, agencies or corporations who employ hundreds or thousands of world class engineers and scientists. The fool thinks himself to be wise, the wise man knows himself to be a fool and all that.
Russell wrote:Oh, the personal attacks have begun.
You lost the argument already!
Russell wrote:As a scientist
wagyl wrote:Russell wrote:Oh, the personal attacks have begun.
You lost the argument already!
Look, I really want to reserve comment until you finish your argument, but.....
You made this personal yourself from the beginning with yourRussell wrote:As a scientist
Tsuru wrote:My point was that you waste too much time trying to explain things you clearly don't understand well enough. Time which could better spent trying to understand why these planes got to where they ended up, who had prior knowledge and who benefited. It's a bit like the story of the Dutch sub spotting the Japanese fleet heading to Hawaii and calling it in only to have the allied leadership sit on the intel because an attack would provide the US with a reason to join the war.
You won't be the first person on the internet with a tenuous understanding of something technical and ending up earnestly believing he knows better than institutes, agencies or corporations who employ hundreds or thousands of world class engineers and scientists. The fool thinks himself to be wise, the wise man knows himself to be a fool and all that.
Russell wrote: I rest my case.
Russell wrote:wagyl wrote:Russell wrote:Oh, the personal attacks have begun.
You lost the argument already!
Look, I really want to reserve comment until you finish your argument, but.....
You made this personal yourself from the beginning with yourRussell wrote:As a scientist
Nope.
I am a scientist, and prefer to use scientific arguments. Nothing personal about that.
It seems discussions about the collapses of the three WTC towers always end up away from scientific arguments. My point is that the science does not support the conclusions brought forward in the US reports about the causes of these collapses, and that a new investigation is required to resolve these issues. I rest my case.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest