WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

Corsair 115 said:
That shouldn't be that hard to establish. All you need to do is dig up the ratings for ABC's Good Morning America on the morning of Sept. 11th, since it was the program which, if I recall correctly, broadcast live the impact of the second jet. Once you have the ratings you'll know how many people were likely watching.

Good Morning America is a popular morning show, so I would expect a viewership in the millions was easily attainable.
Click to expand...


The impact of United 175 was live on all three broadcast news networks and all three major cable news channels.
 
SpitfireIX said:
The impact of United 175 was live on all three broadcast news networks and all three major cable news channels.
Click to expand...

After the first impact, there was no broadcast TV, at least for the folks in Teaneck NJ, or thereabouts. I witnessed the second plane (United 175), and the subsequent collapses, via the Beeb, (BBC) online.

ETA

I saw the first plane hit whilst sitting on a bus crossing the George Washington Bridge, in bound (east bound). I was planning to travel to 100 Center Street, but when I got to the train (metro) station, it was already shut down, and I immediately returned to my flat.
 
Last edited:
adoucette said:
But, as the collapse progressed, the collapse became fairly symmetrical and thus floors clearly pancaked, which NIST mentions several times in their report and is also evident in some of the debris (like the "meteorite"), and from the predominance of the truss seats that failed downward below the collapse zone.
Click to expand...

Speaking of the "meteorite", I've looked and been unable to find a fact-based description of it. Does anyone have a URL?

Thanks
 
Myriad said:
No, it's just happy to see you.
Click to expand...

I think it's waving and saying 'look at me....there's no rigid structure here to hold me upright ' and ' I'm still here but my brothers are all gone - what makes me so special'
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Ha, ha, ha. So when the upper block misses the primary load structure (columns) of the lower structure below and instead hits air and a weak floor it increases the power of the impact.

Is this some type of NWO physics? Pls, start a new thread about it.
Click to expand...

It's actually very simple , I'm surprised you can't comprehend it.
Imagine the top half of the structure crashing down on the bottom half, the exterior panels on the top of the bottom half of the structure are going to bend and be hurled out elastically initially by the impact. Once the exterior panels on the top section of the bottom half get hurled out/peeled away guess what is left? Floors....
When the top half of the structure comes crashing down on the floor below, the mass is now equal to the top half + 1 floor. That mass then smashes into the floor below it, which is now equal to the top half of the structure + 2 floors. That mass then crashes down into the floor below it, which has a mass equal to the top half of the structure + 3 floors, Should I continue? Do you realize now why it's called a "progressive" collapse? This is not NWO physics, it is the easiest thing to understand in the world.
 
Last edited:
SkepticOfLies said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
Meh, a whole bunch of people tried to explain that to him a couple years ago (he's been banned for a long time). He never hesitated to talk about pizza boxes and lemon stacking... poor soul was weirder than the rest of his crowd...
 
SkepticOfLies said:
It's actually very simple , I'm surprised you can't comprehend it.
Imagine the top half of the structure crashing down on the bottom half, the exterior panels on the top of the bottom half of the structure are going to bend and be hurled out elastically initially by the impact. Once the exterior panels on the top section of the bottom half get hurled out/peeled away guess what is left? Floors....
When the top half of the structure comes crashing down on the floor below, the mass is now equal to the top half + 1 floor. That mass then smashes into the floor below it, which is now equal to the top half of the structure + 2 floors. That mass then crashes down into the floor below it, which has a mass equal to the top half of the structure + 3 floors, Should I continue? Do you realize now why it's called a "progressive" collapse? This is not NWO physics, it is the easiest thing to understand in the world.
Click to expand...

But then imagine the real scenario of the top assembly of 13 single floors falling onto the lower assembly of 97 single floors. First pair of floors meet..BANG,,two down, Now it's 12 versus 96. Soon the remaining few floors in the top assembly are arrested by the much larger lower section. Just as you would expect
 
No. The twin towers were not a block of wood. Think of it this way: Have you ever seen someone break a stack of boards? Ever notice how there is always a space between the boards? Why do you think that is?
 
bill smith said:
But then imagine the real scenario of the top assembly of 13 single floors falling onto the lower assembly of 97 single floors. First pair of floors meet..BANG,,two down, Now it's 12 versus 96. Soon the remaining few floors in the top assembly are arrested by the much larger lower section. Just as you would expect
Click to expand...
You have no arresting mechanism.
 
bill smith said:
But then imagine the real scenario of the top assembly of 13 single floors falling onto the lower assembly of 97 single floors. First pair of floors meet..BANG,,two down, Now it's 12 versus 96. Soon the remaining few floors in the top assembly are arrested by the much larger lower section. Just as you would expect
Click to expand...
Heiwa was banned years ago, you wanna discuss his theory with him then I know where you can find him. He's over at September Kooks with the rest of the VicSim supporting filth... Oh wait, you'd fit right in bill you're a VicSim supporter too!
 
bill smith said:
But then imagine the real scenario of the top assembly of 13 single floors falling onto the lower assembly of 97 single floors. First pair of floors meet..BANG,,two down, Now it's 12 versus 96. Soon the remaining few floors in the top assembly are arrested by the much larger lower section. Just as you would expect
Click to expand...

I like how the lower floors just swarmed up to support the upper floors.
 
tsig said:
I like how the lower floors just swarmed up to support the upper floors.
Click to expand...

No, it was a small crunchy piece of the building (not much more than 10%) falling a short distance onto the progressively more strongly built lower crunchy part of the building (not far short of 90% in fact). So the small crunchy piece falls on the much l;arger and stronger crunchy piece . Crunch crunch crunch- both parts are equally damaged but the lower and fully intact part can afford it and the upper and heavily damaged part can't Soon the upper crunchy piece is too small and eroded and ends up sitting on the top of the larger cruchy piece.
'...Or that's how it would be without the covert controlled demolition.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
No, it was a small crunchy piece of the building (not much more than 10%) falling a short distance onto the progressively more strongly built lower crunchy part of the building (not far short of 90% in fact). So the small cruncy piece falls on the much l;arger and stronger crunchy piece . Crunch crunch crunch- both parts are equally damaged but the lower and fully intact part can afford it and the upper and heavily damaged part can't Soon the upper crunchy piece is too small and eroded and ends up sitting on the top of the larger cruchy piece.
'...Or that's how it would be without the covert controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

I like how the mass of the crunched floors disappears magically. Or is it gravity that stops working?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom