More 9/11: failure of progressive collapse theory to explain WTC collapse

jas wrote:

 

 

And yes, Heywood. Fire burns up. It was burning in the upper fraction of the building. It was the upper fraction of this building that burned for the hour before this still leaden weight of burnt, 80%-air, fraction of a building plummeted downward through the 70 or 90 intact floors at near free-fall speed. This is your scientific argument.

Forgive me Jas as I still don't understand your position re the fire. Are you saying that the fire burned up (or should have burned up) enough of the structural steel and concrete to lighten the load of the floors above the impact and fire site?

Another question to ponder is...Why bother?

Even if the truth movement is right about everything else, why would the NWO?  CIA?  Mossad? Saturnalians? Take this extra step and feel the need to bring the buildings down? What did they gain by it?

Thanks to one of Fidel's links, we now know that the US was planning on going into Afghanistan anyway, so that can't be it. Maybe it was to ram through the Patriot Act, but I can't see it, they would have the attacks as the reason for that thing, so bringing the towers down and risking the "extra" high risk of discovery operation for a few sound bites isn't worth it. And Silversten, Why cut him in on it? Then we can go crazy stupid and bring up the media, NYPD, Mayor's office, FDNY etc ALL of em, have to be on board 100% to make the CD scenario workable.

 

I'm liking this nukes idea, that's new to me but it totally screws with the thermite scenario.

Who am I to say that the three thousand engineers that say planes could not have brought the towers down are wrong? Who am I to say that the 2/3 of NYNY people think it was an inside job are wrong? I followed the buildings as they were built; earth-quake, fire and pancake-proof by a factor of two. Who said they needed a 'pearl-harbor' to deconstruct democracy? Would someone show me the plane flying into building 7?

Bye the bye, I'm not related to that dean Houle at U of O.  Ann Coulter. dog droppings.

I think that one great things that came out of the Twin Tower horror is that one can no longer discredit accounting by throwing up the conspricacry theory towel. Yes, spy agencies do horrible things and hide them as other events like say, a murder in Dubai with 26 stolen pass-ports by the Mossad; it's beyond comprehension but possible in Jerusalem.

E.P.Houle wrote:

I think that one great things that came out of the Twin Tower horror is that one can no longer discredit accounting by throwing up the conspricacry theory towel. Yes, spy agencies do horrible things and hide them as other events like say, a murder in Dubai with 26 stolen pass-ports by the Mossad; it's beyond comprehension but possible in Jerusalem.

And there were warnings from Mossad about impending terror attacks. The neocons ignored them.

Then warnings came in from spy agencies all over the world and falling on deaf ears in Warshington.

Then the Mossad appealed to the Russian GRU to warn the Americans. And nothing was done.

NORAD didn't put a single jet fighter in the air for upwards of an hour while air attacks were carried out in America, vicious empire central. Sound fishy?

One former cold warrior for the CIA says there must be a real inquiry into what was at the root cause of this ongoing global war on terror. And he says it should be undertaken by a world court of law independent of the US Government and people involved. The 9/11 Commissioners themselves have stated that they were lied to by state department, Pentagon, CIA and FBI officials. Constantly.

Heywood, with respect to post #53.  It seems to me that jas is not suggesting that the fire was consuming the material of the building.  Instead it's being suggested that fire travels up not down so it was the top that was being weakened not the bottom.  Not that I think it really matters since this still means that the entire building was being destabilised for an hour before it finally gave way.  Yes the damage was close to the top but the stress was felt troughout the building.

jas wrote:

Yes, I am saying that. In the case of WTC 1, the plane created a hole between the 92nd and the 98th floors. Fires started on those floors. Fire burns upwards, and the fire burned for 90 minutes or so. Therefore, the 12 floors above floor 98 would be affected by the fire, but not the floors below the impact zone (according to the progressive collapse explanation).

Popular Mechanics:

Quote:

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel — and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5071]9/11: Looking for Truth in Credentials: The Peculiar WTC “Experts[/url]

Quote:

But science is not about popularity, and PM’s “poll” of “structural engineering/building collapse experts” actually consisted of only about 33 people, some of them listed as photographers, media-relations staff and spokespersons. Of those that were engineering-related, most were in some way related to OKC, FEMA, NIST or DOD, and many were responsible for the Weidlinger report, the Pancake Theory, or the NIST report.[17] It turns out that, when it comes to scientific explanations for terrorist acts, it’s a small world after all.

Popular Mechanics a science journal? This month's PM has a good one about the TV character "Sawyer" from LOST! WTF?

[url=http://911lies.org/popular_mechanics_911_lying_traitors.html]Popular Mechanics Owned By War Profiteer[/url]

Four more wars!

Thank you HF. That was the point I was trying to make. It's been 30 years since I took a physics course.

We're talking one floor at a time.

jas wrote:

If you were on a scaffold washing windows on a highrise, and your scaffold broke and you fell, breaking through the scaffold below you, would you continue falling, through scaffold after scaffold?

Absolutely. Mass density doesn't factor into anything in at least one parallel universe according to some theoretical physicists.

This is masochistic.  Why even bother trying to talk to these people.

jas wrote:

It's not a comparable analogy. We are not talking about one floor. We are talking about 91, in one case. Energy is expended in displacing one level, so momentum is reduced at each level.

Some of the energy is expended sure. But enough remains to crush that floor by various means (shear the anchor bolts etc).

In any case, the collapsing floors didn't hit a solid mass 91 stories tall designed to take an impact like that. They hit one floor. It seems like a simple calculation really. Calculate the momentum and mass of the collapsing 12 floors and compare that to the maximum possible load that the floor below can hold. If it is greater than what the floor can hold, it collapses. Then that whole mass accelerates for one floor height before impacting the next floor. If the cumulative mass and momenutum of the 13 floors is greater than what the floor can hold, it collapses.

And so on.

 

Now don't ask me to do you math for you. The case above is what I believe happened.

Quote:

Since there are 91 lower floors in the way of our plummeting mass of 12 upper, fire-ravaged floors...

You don't seem to be taking into account that you then have 13 floors crashing through one floor, then 14, then 15...until you have 80+ floors crashing through a single floor.

 

 

Fidel wrote:

[url=http://911lies.org/popular_mechanics_911_lying_traitors.html]Popular Mechanics Owned By War Profiteer[/url]

So what you're trying to say, in your limited way, is that jet fuel could not fall down elevator shafts and cause fire damage below the point of impact? Gravity doesn't apply to jet fuel?

Not to mention the eye-witnesses who saw flames erupt from the elevators in the lobby, and keep in mind now that your crowd has actually accepted these eye-witness accounts, claiming that they "prove" a bomb was set off at the base of the tower.

15.5 seconds? Wait what ?

The building collapsed faster than physical laws allowed, assuming no supports, like the floors had little downward pointing rockets attached to them ?

It doesn't matter that jet fuel is stored in the wings, the aeroplanes themselves were holograms, which were designed to mask the explosions.

Quote:

It doesn't matter that jet fuel is stored in the wings, the aeroplanes themselves were holograms, which were designed to mask the explosions.

Agent al-Qa'bong
The NWO has expressly prohibited us from mentioning the H word, didn't you get the memo?
Anyways, what do you think of their plan to pay us for making these posts in Ameros? I'm still partial to the gold myself.
Agent Salsa.

Y'see how GeeDubya's image has been altered in that photo?  The same technology was used to make the hole in the side of the Pentgra- er, Pentagon.