Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[DGM]

It was not theirs to collect in the first place and hide from the public.

They were not forcibly collected. NIST (like any legitimate investigative agency) requested anyone that had video or photographic evidence to allow them to view it. What's wrong with that?

People have a right to keep their personal videos private. The government has no legitimate right to remove videos that were publicly broad casted.

You are confused aren't you? They didn't release them . Man this is stupid.

 

[GlennB]

wow, does he really mean the lateral motion of a falling object that isn't colliding with anything? That's so far out it didn't even occur to me that's what he might mean.

No, he knew exactly what he meant but is unable to admit the gross mistake. So he's changing the wording slightly in order - now - to give himself a way out that preserves, however pitifully, some scrap of dignity.

 

[dtugg]

It was not theirs to collect in the first place and hide from the public.

Hey genius, they were using them do do their study. I doubt anybody was forced to give up any video if they didn't want to. And it wasn't as if they were hidden from the public for some nefarious reason, it is because they are private property owned by those who shot them and the government can't just give them to the public.

People have a right to keep their personal videos private. The government has no legitimate right to remove videos that were publicly broadcasted.

Hey genius, broadcast videos are private property of the television studios that broadcast them. However, I am not aware of any that are not available. Can you name one?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No, he knew exactly what he meant but is unable to admit the gross mistake. So he's changing the wording slightly in order - now - to give himself a way out that preserves, however pitifully, some scrap of dignity.

Similarly to when he was corrected for his gross area in describing the design specifications for the towers...

 

[dtugg]

So why again did they use therm*te and explosives? Has Chris or any twoofer who believes that ever explained?

 

[Christopher7]

1- if it could account for some, then why couldn't it account for all of it? All you need to do is go higher up on the structure and/or use a longer piece.

600 feet?

2- no, you don't.

Maybe you don't think so.

But this also avoids the fact that columns would need to separate from the towers just as the collapse front reaches whatever particular column you are claiming, because once the collapse front passes, and the floors are no longer there, there is nowhere for the charges to be. They couldn't be placed against the interior of the columns either, cuz the floors stripping off would remove them, leaving multiple unexploded charges in the rubble pile.

And therein lies the rub. There are too many variables, too many details that you would have to know before you could design the best method to mask the sound as much as possible.

Your entire misdirection defense is based on sound but no one here is even remotely qualified to say what it would take to rig the buildings as that would require a complete set of drawings and specifications for every connection, a complete knowledge of every type of demolition device, a computer and about 3 months working full time with a team to accomplish.

 

[Minadin]

There is no mechanism for turning large amounts of vertical kinetic energy into horizontal kinetic energy.

Two words:

Inclined Plane


Not familiar? Here's a graphic.

 

[lapman]

Your entire misdirection defense is based on sound but no one here is even remotely qualified to say what it would take to rig the buildings as that would require a complete set of drawings and specifications for every connection, a complete knowledge of every type of demolition device, a computer and about 3 months working full time with a team to accomplish.

Well, the TM approved, super-duper demolitions expert Danny Jowenko stated that it would take a year to wire up the towers. Since the TM claims that he is The Foremost Demolitions Expert^TM, he qualifies.

BTW, how are you coming with those non-9/11 comparisons I asked for?

 

[Christopher7]

Well, the TM approved, super-duper demolitions expert Danny Jowenko stated that it would take a year to wire up the towers. Since the TM claims that he is The Foremost Demolitions Expert^TM, he qualifies.

Wire? We don't need no stinking wire!

BTW, how are you coming with those non-9/11 comparisons I asked for?

?

 

[Christopher7]

Two words:

Inclined Plane


Not familiar? Here's a graphic.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1253246af79b4934f2.gif

And how is that applicable to 4 ton framing sections 500-600 feet from where they started?

 

[DGM]

And how is that applicable to 4 ton framing sections 500-600 feet from where they started?

Crap loads of extra KE as shown with proper math.

 

[Bell]

There are many reports of the collapse being a huge roar like a freight train or words to that effect. Of the few videos that survived the purge, do any sound like a freight train?

Still similie challenged, I see.

 

[Bell]

And Heiwa, what happened here? A bit of something fell on something else. How could it have caused so much damage?

 

[RedIbis]

And Heiwa, what happened here? A bit of something fell on something else. How could it have caused so much damage?

[qimg]http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g298/grendalx/270207_wtc3fig-3-7.jpg[/qimg]

It's important to note that 5 and 6 suffered catastrophic damage from the impacting debris, but neither bldg globally collapsed, as the larger 7 did, which was farther from the towers.

 

[dtugg]

It's important to note that 5 and 6 suffered catastrophic damage from the impacting debris, but neither bldg globally collapsed, as the larger 7 did, which was farther from the towers.

Thus, INSIDE JOB! eleventy11!!!!!!!!1111!!!11EVENTY1!!111

 

[RedIbis]

Thus, INSIDE JOB! eleventy11!!!!!!!!1111!!!11EVENTY1!!111

That's clever, I don't think I've ever seen that before.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

If something falls from a height, no matter how high, it will fall straight down.
Any lateral motion is caused by something other than gravity

Which is why I said it was entirely possible it was from a collision or some other force. You're the one insisting that the force was imparted by planted explosives, which is a thesis contradicted by the weight of the accumulated evidence. That continued insistence ignores every single other possibility. It ignores collisions, for example, or some small amount of lateral motion due to a hinge effect if the top separated from its connection points before the bottom does^*. It does not need to be a large horizontal effect to cause a piece to end up that far away from that height, it only needs to be a small one. Again, Chris, WFC 3 was only about half the height of WTC 1, and the damage to it was only about halfway up (around the mid 20 storey, IIRC). The piece in the photo I provide causing the damage in the linked image hit WFC 3 around what, 300 some feet up? Maybe not even that? And again, the North Tower was what, around 1,300 feet tall?

If my ID card at work (worn like a badge) or some button on my coat falls off, if it impacts something like my belt or pants leg, it can gain horizontal motion. If it only brushes those parts of me, it might still land within inches of my feet; if it hits more solidly, it might land a foot or two away. Scale to the heights of the towers now. Is 600 feet (actually, around 540 some feet (160 meters, according to )) really that impossible when we're talking about a tower 1,300 feet tall? Think about it.

Lurkers, new folks: Christopher7 ignores the fact that this question about what the significance of North Tower debris ending up across the street has already been dealt with quantitatively. Mike W's page on this has the calculations, the point being that vertical fall with a very small amount of lateral velocity from the heights we're discussing here can easily put debris a decent distance away. On top of that, this issue has also been discussed quite a number of times elsewhere in this forum. It's worth reading. In sum, this whole notion of "ejected material" supposedly proving demolitions has already been discussed and determined to be wishful thinking. By the rational among us, I mean, not by the conspiracy peddlers.

^*And by the way, insisting that a hinge effect would only result in a lateral distance of about 100 feet is glib nonsense; when there is both a vertical and horizontal component, the ultimate distance traveled horizontally depends on the height the object fell from. Your blanket insistence means nothing.

 

[DGM]

It's important to note that 5 and 6 suffered catastrophic damage from the impacting debris, but neither bldg globally collapsed, as the larger 7 did, which was farther from the towers.

Which of your examples were truss span design?

 

[beachnut]

And Heiwa, what happened here? A bit of something fell on something else. How could it have caused so much damage?

I wonder why we don't use cards so we can rebuild each day?

It's important to note that 5 and 6 suffered catastrophic damage from the impacting debris, but neither bldg globally collapsed, as the larger 7 did, which was farther from the towers.

Wow, you discovered building with less E-mgh might not fall to the ground because there is not enough energy to do it.

With E=mgh of 130 tons of TNT, 576,214,875,000 joules, the lower sections were destroyed. Math and physics; what would engineers do with out them; OH! Build buildings out of cards!

Do you have a point with what is obvious to engineers?

Just a note, the chief structural engineer of the WTC understand the gravity collapse, why can’t 911Truth. Because they are not smart enough? Why is 911Truth so bad at 911 truth?

You post is not useful, except to expose you do not understand structures.

 

[Seymour Butz]

1-600 feet?

2-Maybe you don't think so.

3-And therein lies the rub.

4-There are too many variables, too many details that you would have to know before you could design the best method to mask the sound as much as possible.Your entire misdirection defense is based on sound but no one here is even remotely qualified to say what it would take to rig the buildings as that would require a complete set of drawings and specifications for every connection, a complete knowledge of every type of demolition device, a computer and about 3 months working full time with a team to accomplish.

1- why not? How did you determine that 100' is ok, but 500' is not. The same principles are in play, all you need to do is have a different scale. Again, why wouldn't a longer piece account for this? If a 400' piece breaks off, lands 100' away, and then - get ready for this - continues its angular momentum away from the towers, the end would be 500' away. Why is this opposed by you, other than through incredulity?

2-explain why it would be necessary to know all about explosives. Different explosives will have different detonation speeds and impulse durations, but again, it doesn't matter which you choose. There's just no way around the fact that any explosive, whether it be high explosive like RDX, etc, or low explosives, like ANFO, are loud. Info is readily available on any that you choose.

3- for you maybe. It is inescapable that the columns MUST separate from the towers as the collapse wave reaches them. otherwise, the explosives will be gone.

4- it's probably true that one would need months just to figure it all out, and probably months to rig it all. We can agree on that. However, it is inescapable that any explosive is loud. And these SPL levels CAN be determined within a reasonable degree of accuracy. I gave an example above of a reasonable SPL level of 300 kg of TNT. Note that TNT probably wouldn't be used, but something like RDX, which is even louder due to its higher detonation velocity, so my estimate is actually low.

So were the explosives there for the sole purpose of removing the ext columns? What is the purpose of that? Why would it NEED to be done?

Or are you claiming that the columns being blown are a RESULT of the concrete destroying explosives?