• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC Discussion: Core Column Temperature & Failure.

28th Kingdom said:
NIST member straight out says the buildings fell in virtual free fall speeds...even though you all claim the NIST doesn't say that.
Click to expand...

28th Kingdom said:
"The entire top of the building came down ... pretty much in free fall because of the kinetic energy that was unleashed was just huge." NIST member
Click to expand...

Nice try. You got caught in a lie....I suggest you dont link to evidence that proves that fact.

I'm sure they did write one thing in the NIST report while saying a completely opposite (and contradictory) thing in person...those pesky Doublespeakers. You've got to be careful...they will try and warp yer mind.
Click to expand...
Just in case you are being honest in believing that NIST is saying contridictory things, I'll clear it up for you.

top of building = top of building
entire building = entire building
top of building *DOES NOT* = entire building
 
Last edited:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Awq6q5ZZUO4

Pause at 0:25 - notice the image of WTC 2 on the left. Play, now look at the computer simulation on the right (of the upper mass' calculated path) I have talked about this in my Language Award Nominated post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2171773#post2171773

At 0:25 in, they describe how the physical proportion of the upper mass of floors on WTC 2 (shortly after collapse initiation) has shifted it's momentum away from the lower floors.

The vid goes on to discuss how it is physically impossible for this upper mass of floors to turn back around onto the lower structure....and, without this upper mass exerting force down upon the lower structure of floors, the lower floors will cease collapsing. (because if they continued to collapse without the extreme force from above, they would violate one of Newton's laws of motion) Is this not enough scientific proof for you? Isn't this scientifically proving why the collapses are impossible according to NIST? If not, please explain.

Thank you very much.
 
Last edited:
apathoid said:
Nice try. You got caught in a lie....I suggest you dont link to evidence that proves that fact.


Just in case you are being honest in believing that NIST is saying contridictory things, I'll clear it up for you.

top of building = top of building
entire building = entire building
top of building *DOES NOT* = entire building
Click to expand...

I encourage you to put me on ignore. Thanks.
 
CurtC said:
So the guys are standing there, looking at a column that has been bent into a U shape, and they mention that where it bent, it doesn't have the little buckles on the inside edges that they expected. This in no way is saying that buckling columns are not what precipitated the collapse.

28IQ, it seems your M.O. is to find a word or phrase that gets used in different ways in different contexts, and to see a conspiracy in that. I have to say that it's original!
Click to expand...

You've nailed it Curt.
 
28th Kingdom said:
...The vid goes on to discuss how it is physically impossible for this upper mass of floors to turn back around onto the lower structure....and, without this upper mass exerting force down upon the lower structure of floors, the lower floors will cease collapsing. (because if they continued to collapse without the extreme force from above, they would violate one of Newton's laws of motion) Is this not enough scientific proof for you? Isn't this scientifically proving why the collapses are impossible according to NIST? If not, please explain.
Click to expand...
Stating something is true doesn't make it true, please show your work.

For example, I could say 28IQ never completed high school and show the following quotes as proof, but while they do present a persuasive case for my claim to be true, it is not sufficient.


28th Kingdom said:
Oh, right....the video footage of OBL saying he hates America and wants to attack it. Does OBL speak english? How do you know what he's saying? He could be talking about making grits and eggs for all you know. You trust what the media tells you he's saying?
Click to expand...

28th Kingdom said:
At the sake of sounding like a genius...you could hammer an asteroid from outer space straight down on one of the (undamaged) twin towers...and it would not cause a chain reaction of floor failures from top to bottom. If anything, it would drill the vertical columns into the ground like a nail.
Click to expand...
 
28th Kingdom said:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Awq6q5ZZUO4

Pause at 0:25 - notice the image of WTC 2 on the left. Play, now look at the computer simulation on the right (of the upper mass' calculated path) I have talked about this in my Language Award Nominated post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2171782#post2171782

At 0:25 in, they describe how the physical proportion of the upper mass of floors on WTC 2 (shortly after collapse initiation) has shifted it's momentum away from the lower floors.

The vid goes on to discuss how it is physically impossible for this upper mass of floors to turn back around onto the lower structure....and, without this upper mass exerting force down upon the lower structure of floors, the lower floors will cease collapsing. (because if they continued to collapse without the extreme force from above, they would violate one of Newton's laws of motion) Is this not enough scientific proof for you? Isn't this scientifically proving why the collapses are impossible according to NIST? If not, please explain.

Thank you very much.
Click to expand...
That video contained no "scientific proof". It was, as always seems to be the case, half-assed interpretation of video footage by someone who doesn't bother to support their claims with any actual math.
 
28th Kingdom said:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Awq6q5ZZUO4

Pause at 0:25 - notice the image of WTC 2 on the left. Play, now look at the computer simulation on the right (of the upper mass' calculated path)
Click to expand...

Due to the design of the world trade center towers, the official pancake theory is not plausible. Even if the pancake theory were correct, total collapse time for the WTC towers should be a minimum 96 seconds. Both towers collapse in under 15 seconds.
Click to expand...

From the description of that Youtube video. This guy expects us to believe that the collapse should have taken more than a minute and a half?

And that seems reasonable to you, huh?

I don't suppose you could show us any collapse, anywhere, that took at least a minute and a half?

And did you notice in his "simulation", he's modeling the entire upper third of the building as one block, as if it were a single, unitary structure, and not a composite of various materials that will fracture, and begin to fall in their own, individual paths?

Science =/= Coyote&Roadrunner, you know.....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom