It's Japan with more plastic surgery and harder drinking

[Wage Slave]

Hmmm. And listening to some of the voices on the radio and the fact it is Friday and the weather is good it's looking like there may be some riots and looting this weekend. Again.

It is all going wrong. And in a hurry.

[Coligny]

Same kind of cladding on a building in 2015 in France...

wonder how much gift monies had to be spend to get that shitfest approved for construction and retrofit use....

[wagyl]

It is all going wrong. And in a hurry.

Ridiculous! It could not be stronger, nor more stable.

[Takechanpoo]

its a matter of time that the same incident will happen in some j-tower mansions as well. and in japan those tower mansions are pretty popular among the elders who dont like to go up the stairs for gonalgia and lumbago. and and who breaks out the fire is mostly elders...hell yea
im sorry for the tower mansion dwellers. really...

[Coligny]

Isolation cladding...

On a japanese building...

This country can not be safer from these kind of issues if the locals wre still dwelling in caves... which despite what the overall IQ and behaviour would let you think is actually no longer the case...

Nigga whut ? Go back to your blue tarp under the bridge...

[Wage Slave]

BBC now saying, based on people reported still missing, that they think 76 people died.

[Coligny]

Entering the "i don't want to know" part of the event...

[Tsuru]

But look how much money these people are saving in heating costs!

[Coligny]

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.

Crap... Dead at 66 in 2015

[Coligny]

Also...

IMG_8910.PNG

And

IMG_8911.JPG

Phear of being thrown rotten eggs and tomaitoes...
Which... is pathetic remember that even Francois Hollande barely flinched with gunshot going on during a speech...

[Tsuru]

She It was probably built in a lab somewhere. I mean, can you imagine this woman thing being younger, growing up in a loving family and doing something fun or exciting? I sure can't... I think she's probably actually John Major V2.0, new and improved, but sadly with a bit of regression back towards the uncanny valley.

[wagyl]

doing something fun or exciting?

Even John Major was a surprising dark horse.


Good Lord, she's been made a laughing stock!

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

I find her attractive and would willingly do naughty things with her...

[wagyl]

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.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

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.

Cheap

[Russell]

My heart goes out for all the victims of this tragedy.

It's been called May's Katrina moment, and rightly so.

Now being reported that a firefighter assumed the whole building would collapse like WTC. This false assumption may have caused some firefighters to hold back, thus making their work less effective. If that's not a reason to conduct a proper investigation of the three WTC collapses, what is?

[Russell]

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.

Show us the pic then of the other side of the building. Actually, it was not that heavily damaged. What you see in the video of the WTC7 collapse is the center of the building caving in first, like is customary in controlled demolition.

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.

Correct analysis. As far as broomsticks go. BTW, the broomstick will collapse laterally, unlike WTC7.

WTC 7 was not a broomstick, though. If you really like to talk broomsticks, think 50 or so broomsticks that are laterally connected. Now try to take that whole box down in one sweep. Not as easy, and certainly not as easy to take it down with free fall acceleration.

It is extremely significant that the WTC7 was in free fall for at least a few seconds. This means that the structures below the ones in free fall were not there to slow the fall. In other words they had to have been removed directly prior to the fall. It is impossible that these lower structures were removed due to the weight of what was above them, because that would have taken away energy to destroy the structures below. The free fall shows that no such energy was taken away.

The hypothesis (brought forward by NIST) that the lateral connections somehow helped to bring down the building in the way it was is incorrect, because that would not have allowed for free fall. Again, there would not have been enough energy available to do that.

A realistic scenario of how a building disintegrates due to a fire is that small parts will drop off of it little by little, and if there is a collapse, it will be partial and asymmetric.

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.

We were talking about WTC7, and I focus on that one because it is the collapse that opens lots of people's eyes.

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.

Now about the rising temperatures in WTC1 and WTC2. I do not dispute that temperatures rose locally in WTC1 and WTC2, I do question what the cause of these rising temperatures was. The amount of fuel in a plane is insignificant compared to the huge mass of steel and concrete of the towers, and so was the mass of office furniture and paper. Also, note that there was a lot of smoke, indicating that the fires were not very hot.

Now about Mr. Newton: I assume you mean to say gravity, so I will not ask you which of Newton's three laws of motion you are referring to.

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.

This is not a scientific argument. I think, though, it is perfectly possible to bring down a building by controlled demolition that has been damaged before. Has been done before many times. Your so-called random factors are not really an issue. Important is to destroy the supporting columns of the building, and down it will come.

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.

Nope. There is nothing here for science to do analysis on. Apparently, authorities are unwilling to tell us who were involved in those trades, so no analysis can be done. I prefer to focus on the laws of physics. The fact that it has never become clear who traded those stocks should be a red flag in itself, though.

[Russell]

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?

Yanpa, science cannot really resolve these issues.

What would convince you that something funny is going on?

Would you become convinced if it was shown there existed technology at the time to let a drone or missile (or an airplane) home in on a transmitter placed on a target?

Would you become convinced if it was shown that the company in charge of security of the three WTC buildings was connected to the Bush family?

Would you become convinced if witnesses who worked in the WTC buildings would come forward and told us that in the weekend prior to September 11 there was a power shutdown, as a result of which all security was nonexistent, and that contractors carrying rolls of cable entered the buildings.

Would it be possible to shut someone up who was involved in the destruction of the WTC buildings through threats?

It is up to you to answer these questions.

[Russell]

Can't bither to find the Russell's FAO thread...
So I'll just dump here an "holy f00king shit" news...

IMG_8903.JPG

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?

What are these similarities?

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

Tsuru, never in history has a high-rise steel-frame building collapsed in the ways WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 did. It is not just the Grenfell Tower tragedy. Somehow there were conditions in place on September 11 that made these buildings collapse in an unprecedented way.

Regarding the WTC7 report of NIST, it would be helpful if you discussed in your own words, and not refer to some document of which I question the validity. The people involved in the NIST report consistently refuse to discuss their findings with scientists, engineers, or anyone. Discussion serves as a sort of review mechanism and it is indispensable in science, but no open discussion is apparently possible here. This in itself would disqualify their findings in my opinion.

[Wage Slave]

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.

PS Yanpa, a new series of Dead Ringers started this Friday and they are on form. Been lucky with the material of course but on form.

[Russell]

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.

So, the talk is now about imagination of what is possible. This is subjective, and that is why I prefer to talk about the science.

Also, even if someone leaks, is is possible to just deny it. Or the leaker can just be killed.

Regarding the Russian regime analogy, so even if some truth leaked out, it did not really have consequences.

Then there is a distinct possibility that elements from intelligence agencies were involved, and those are less likely to leak.

These are just possible scenarios, just as your scenario that thousands of people would have been involved, which may be disputed.

Anyway, it is all speculation how they pulled it off. The physics of how those buildings came down is not. There are huge red flags here.

[Coligny]

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.

[Russell]

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.

Due to the collapse of the upper block of WTC 1 or 2 there was a gravity-induced force exerted by the upper block on the lower block. According to Newton's 3rd law there should then also be an opposite force exerted by the lower block on the upper block. If the upper and lower block are made of the same materials, they will disintegrate to the same extent by these forces.

As a thought experiment, just drop a ceramic hollow brick on a stack of the same bricks, and imagine what happens. The top brick(s) of the stack will break, as will the dropped brick do, but the lower bricks will not break.

Of course, motion of the impact areas in the above scenario would be downward (though most likely not accelerated but linear because of net forces canceling each other out), since the upper block has a downward momentum that is maintained during collapse. However, motion only continues as long as there is some part left of the upper block. Once the upper block has completely disintegrated, the collapse stops.

You may be aware of the French verinage technique of building demolition, in which they push out the columns in the center of a high-rise building after which the upper block and the lower block destroy each other in the collapse. There is a reason why they weaken the building in the center and not at the top, because the latter would cause the collapse to stop somewhere along the way down.

And now I am not even talking about the massive steel columns in both WTC1 and WTC2, which would make pancaking much harder. And I am not even considering the fact that much material from above the "destruction front" was ejected laterally, reducing the mass that could destroy the lower area.

[Tsuru]

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]

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.

Oh, the personal attacks have begun.

You lost the argument already!

[wagyl]

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 your

As a scientist

[Russell]

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 your

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.

[Coligny]

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.

WHAT: you usually get it on TV few minutes into it.

HOW: oopaaa... need time... and then more time...

WHY: welcome to storry telling 101. And remember that even those with the biggest benefit from the event are not necessarily part of it. But instead the target (being called upon for weakness/war profiteering and all)

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.

Call to authority aside... with the speed of the cleanup... the main difference between Russel and the agencies and corporations is that Russell might not have any agenda... (beside picking up chicks).

We are at t+16 years with all the actors concerned still alive and on payroll. While French highschool history books still gloat about american isolationism between the world wars...

[wagyl]

I rest my case.

Do I take this as a sign that you have stated all of your arguments, and that you now invite response to your arguments? And that you will have no new arguments to give other than your own responses to the responses given?

If so, I shall, in time, prepare my response.

The reason that I seek this kind of structure is that I have no interest in never-ending discussion. Neither, I expect, do you.

[Wage Slave]

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 your

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.

Agreed that Tsuru is, as is his wont, using personal attack rather than reasoned discussion to make his case. And I agree it is invalid. I need no convincing that you have forgotten more science than I will ever acquire. However, I don't agree that science exists in it's own perfect, linearly progressive and hermetically sealed world. I am impressed by the work Karl Popper and it seems to me that scientific progress is not a linear progression but takes the form of leaps from one prevailing orthodoxy to another via a process of falsification.

I have no problem at all in accepting that further investigation may be needed into how two aircraft crashing into those towers caused their and another building's collapse. And the results of that have the potential to change our current scientific understanding in a fundamental way. Hardly the first time that has ever happened. Where I get nervous is in the suggestion that since the current scientific explanation is not robust enough that means there must have been something funny going on. That too is familiar enough from the past - things that the current scientific orthodoxy can't explain were often called witchcraft, black magic, magic or deception. If it is a deception that would necessarily involve a number of people then is a conspiracy.