9/11: FDNY Member Says "Definitely" Bombs in Towers?

[R.Mackey]

Adding to pt 6, was WTC 7 not an air-rights building and therefore the major structural support on the sixth floor consisted of cantilevered support beams?

Once again, going back to the NIST interim WTC 7 report, the lower floors were cantilevered over a ConEd substation (see pp. 9-11).

A failure of a column there would have affected a very large floor area and rapidly distributed loads, leading to what Christopher7 calls a "previously unknown global collapse," and what NIST calls a "classic progressive collapse." (ibid, pg. 6)

 

[Gravy]

I have shown that there was no 20 story hole that would have taken out the lobby and damaged columns 69, 72 and 75. That was a misinterpertation of Boyles' statement, so i hope we can put that puppy to bed.

I must have missed this. Who misinterpreted Boyle's statement to mean that those columns were damaged by debris?

 

[Gravy]

Your refusal to acknowledge the possibility that WTC7 could have been a CD is neither reasonible or logical.

Your refusal to acknowledge the possiblilty that WTC7 could have been brought down by giant tunneling fire-breathing worms is neither reasonable nor logical.

 

[R.Mackey]

For the record, Gravy, I didn't say that, it was Christopher7. The "quote" function put in an extra tag. I saw it too in my reply.

Also for the record, my rejection is both reasonable and logical. I reject the GTFBW hypothesis on the grounds that if I don't keep my mouth shut, they'll eat my house.

 

[Belz...]

Since you're not talking about precedence, you're completely wrong. Fire, sinkholes, earthquakes, meteors, potentially collision with ground vehicles, improper design, fraudulent building practices, and gross material defects are also known causes of global collapse. We have safeguards to deal with nearly all of these, but it can happen.

Dammit. Forgot the meteors.

 

[kookbreaker]

Your refusal to acknowledge the possiblilty that WTC7 could have been brought down by giant tunneling fire-breathing worms is neither reasonable nor logical.

Worm hugger.

 

[Gravy]

For the record, Gravy, I didn't say that, it was Christopher7. The "quote" function put in an extra tag. I saw it too in my reply.

Oh, I know, believe me, I know! I had fixed the tag: our posts got crossed.

 

[pgwenthold]

Your refusal to acknowledge the possiblilty that WTC7 could have been brought down by giant tunneling fire-breathing worms is neither reasonable nor logical.

I was the one who pointed out that his 4 big observations (which I don't remember all of but were something like "it fell straight down" and "it started to fall in the middle") were perfectly consistent with having a helicopter drop one of the great pyramids on it. He never responded.

If you are going to ignore a bunch of evidence, you have consider ALL the possibilities.

 

[Sentinel]

2 Qusetions

What is the G-force equivalent= to 10.000 ft per minute?

Wouldn't the people including the alledged hi-jackers on board the plane passed out from such high G-force?


P.s. The President will be at Ground Zero for the Memorial. Looks like the so-called Cointel Truth Movement will not be in attendance anywhere near the families and Mouners. Thank GOD


Have a nice day?


Sentinel

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What is the G-force equivalent= to 10.000 ft per minute?

Wouldn't the people including the alledged hi-jackers on board the plane passed out from such high G-force?


P.s. The President will be at Ground Zero for the Memorial. Looks like the so-called Cointel Truth Movement will not be in attendance anywhere near the families and Mouners. Thank GOD


Have a nice day?


Sentinel

10 000 (feet per minute) = 50.8 meters per second
Now, assuming they are talking about acceleration, and not speed (therefore looking at 50.8 m/s^2) we are looking at ~5.13 g.

and I think R. Mackey also replied at some point on this issue.

 

[R.Mackey]

and I think R. Mackey also replied at some point on this issue.

No, I didn't. You may be right about there being a typo in the units, but I'm guessing it's simply a fundamental misunderstanding about velocity and acceleration. I'd wait for clarification from the questioner.

 

[Hellbound]

What is the G-force equivalent= to 10.000 ft per minute?

Wouldn't the people including the alledged hi-jackers on board the plane passed out from such high G-force?

Sentinel

If you mean 10,000 ft per minute, the G force is 1G (the Earth's gravity, nothing else). And you need to re-read your high school physics books.

If you mean 10,000 ft/minute squared (an acceleration), which works out to the more scientific 50.8 m/s², then that's 5.18G (more accurately, 4.18G to 6.18G, depending on vertical direction of acceleration). However, I don't see how this applies, becaue the only time the planes underwent anything at or above 5G was during impact. Even assuming they did, 5 to 6 Gs is about where loss of vision begins (tunnel vision effects), but blackout takes some time at this threshold.

For comparison, see http://www.iaapa.org/modules/MediaNews/index.cfm?fuseaction=Details&iid=1050:

Sneeze: 2.9G
Cough: 3.5G
Slap on the back: 4.1G
Ploppong into a chair: 10.1G

THe amount of Gs and the duration are both important in considering effects. You'd need about 3 to 6 seconds at 5G for unconsciousness (see this faa site).

And even in the second case, you need to reread some physics books, because if you think a 727 or 767 underwent a 5G manuever (without pieces breaking off), well, you just don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Belz...]

What is the G-force equivalent= to 10.000 ft per minute?

At a constant speed ? 1G.

 

[Mancman]

I believe Sentinel is referring to the rate of descent for Flights 11 and 175, which both dropped approx 30,000ft in the 3 minutes before impact.

 

[T.A.M.]

Didnt I read somewhere that the effect of that drop would have been horrible on the passengers, but not on the people in the cockpit...or am I dreaming that one?

 

[GlennB]

Again, were there any signs of explosives or thermite reported, before and after the collapse?

Yes, in appendix C to the FEMA report. The sulphur would suggest thermate rather than thermite

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yes, in appendix C to the FEMA report. The sulphur would suggest thermate rather than thermite

Er, no. Sulpher would suggest sulpher. Now, if it was sulpher, iron slag, aluminum, and barium nitrate byproducts you might have something.

 

[GlennB]

Is that so.

You didn't make it clear -- you were talking about NIST. Nonetheless, substitute "hit by thousands of tons of falling debris" for "hit by aircraft," and the logic still stands. Nobody has ever done a CD starting with dumping another building on top of it, ever.

Despite never having seen the NIST report photos of structural damage to the S. side of #7 before today, I'd still have to say that "dumping another building on top of it" is a massive exaggeration.

WTC #3 was very close to #! and #2 and, truth be told, suffered massive structural damage from falling debris from both, yet stayed up (in a way). The photos are freely available on the net. As a newbie here I can't post links, but 911research.wtc7.net shows #3 after impact from each of the Twin Towers.

Very different size+design, granted.

 

[T.A.M.]

Despite never having seen the NIST report photos of structural damage to the S. side of #7 before today, I'd still have to say that "dumping another building on top of it" is a massive exaggeration.

WTC #3 was very close to #! and #2 and, truth be told, suffered massive structural damage from falling debris from both, yet stayed up (in a way). The photos are freely available on the net. As a newbie here I can't post links, but 911research.wtc7.net shows #3 after impact from each of the Twin Towers.

Very different size+design, granted.

Your last sentence saves you, as it is the key. The false assumption that because another building having similar variables involved, didn't fall, means that WTC7 shouldn't have either, is a classic argument made by the CT community.

eg:

Person A: 6'6" tall, 160 lbs, normal footwear
Person B: 5'0" tall, 200 lbs, cement shoes

If I were to attempt to tackle both persons, would you assume that if I could not knock down person B, that Person A should also be impossible for me to knock over?

 

[Mancman]

Despite never having seen the NIST report photos of structural damage to the S. side of #7 before today, I'd still have to say that "dumping another building on top of it" is a massive exaggeration.

WTC #3 was very close to #! and #2 and, truth be told, suffered massive structural damage from falling debris from both, yet stayed up (in a way). The photos are freely available on the net. As a newbie here I can't post links, but 911research.wtc7.net shows #3 after impact from each of the Twin Towers.

Very different size+design, granted.

Come on, it's a huge exaggeration to suggest that WTC3 'stood up, in a way'. The building was crushed to a 3 storey pulp.