Mancman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,008
1) What causes smoke?
2) Are walls transparent?
3) Did firemen report that there was flame visible on at least 14 floors? Yes or no?
Fire, steel, and 911.
- Thread starter Dazed
- Start date
1) What causes smoke?
2) Are walls transparent?
3) Did firemen report that there was flame visible on at least 14 floors? Yes or no?
28th Kingdom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 947
"In WTC 1, the aircraft impact caused damage to the north and south walls, floors, some core columns, and insulation. The subsequent fires caused sagging of the floors on the south side of the office area, where insulation was damaged, and inward bowing of the south wall. The damage to the core columns resulted in local load redistribution to the remaining core columns. The subsequent fire-induced high temperatures caused the core to displace downward from plasticity and high creep strains in high stress and high temperatures. The downward displacement of the core resulted in load redistribution from the core to the exterior walls. With continuously increased bowing, the entire width of the south wall buckled inward. The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the south as instability progressed horizontally to the adjacent east and west walls. Global collapse occurred as potential energy of the falling upper structure exceeded the strain energy capacity in the deforming structural members."
Okay...this is starting to get insane. So no one had any questions about this? Like what energy force caused all of the concrete in the building to simply pulverize in mid air? You know, I'm sure there's a scientific explanation for that, right? The concrete didn't simply fall in on itself...it was catapulted outwards...and turned into dust....what force caused this?
"Global collapse occurred as potential energy of the falling upper structure exceeded the strain energy capacity in the deforming structural members."
Are they referring to a pancake-like collapse here? Are they saying the weight and falling force of the upper floors helped collapse the structure below?
Okay...this is starting to get insane. So no one had any questions about this? Like what energy force caused all of the concrete in the building to simply pulverize in mid air? You know, I'm sure there's a scientific explanation for that, right? The concrete didn't simply fall in on itself...it was catapulted outwards...and turned into dust....what force caused this?
"Global collapse occurred as potential energy of the falling upper structure exceeded the strain energy capacity in the deforming structural members."
Are they referring to a pancake-like collapse here? Are they saying the weight and falling force of the upper floors helped collapse the structure below?
Last edited:
Also, what happened to the 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel from the basement storage tanks?
More details here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2163747#post2163747
The dust is much more likely to come from wallboard than concrete. Please provide evidence to back up your assertion that the building pulverised in mid air.
It's obvious that a large mass falling on columns will contribute to their collapse. However, NIST does not refer to this as "pancaking".
28th Kingdom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 947
Sir,
What videos are you watching? All we can see is an outward rolling cloud of debris and dust. And BTW...how can NIST or anyone else give 100% accurate detailing of how the buildings collapsed...when there is not sufficient evidence to study? How do they know what was happening inside the buildings? And, no...me disagreeing with NIST or anyone else...doesn't imply they (the other party) are lying. They could just be wrong... God forbid...an authority figure is actually wrong....or even lying about something...now that's just a CT to end all CTs.
Spins
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 702
Yes...28th Kingdom said:
http://www.911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
Also analysis of the dust has shown that about 60% of it was gypsum drywall, only about 15-20% was concrete...
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/meeker-20041115.pdf Table 1. on page 5
...there was about 60,000,000 lbs of gypsum drywall in the towers. Then there is the 6,000,000 lbs of ceiling tiles and the millions of pounds of fire insulation etc etc etc, all materials that could have been easily pulverized into fine dust by the collapse.
The forces involved in the collapse were immense and way and above anything anyone has seen before.28th Kingdom said:
28th Kingdom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 947
What do you think the cloud of dust is raining down from the collapses? Smoke? Just to let you know...Smoke ALWAYS goes up...cus heat rises. Everything falling from the buildings...are dust particles. What evidence do I have that things pulverized in mid-air? Um, they're already turned into dust and they're still in the air...does that answer your question?
Last edited:
The photographs of the rubble pile are sufficient to ensure me that the building fell mainly down. Plus there are no convincing calculations of the size of the cloud that would be created if a large part of the building was turned to dust; no hypothesis that plausibly accounts for the energy required to do this (a controlled demolition doesn't pulverise a building, it simply weakens supports to initiate a gravity powered collapse); and no explanation of why, if this energy was generated, the dust cloud wasn't hot enough to kill the people caught in it.
Videos aren't the be-all and end-all of this.
If NIST are wrong on this then the vast majority of the world's structural engineers, demolition experts (and scientists in general) aren't seeing it. What makes your perception so special?
Now you're just getting nonsensical. I didn't say fire, I said drywall.
Edited to add:
Replacing fire with smoke in line with your edit to the post I've quoted:
Now you're just getting nonsensical. I didn't say smoke, I said drywall.
No. I asked for evidence that the building pulverised in mid air - not just part of it. Can you account for most of the building doing this?
Last edited:
28th Kingdom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 947
Really? And what exactly was crushing things into dust? Remember, the NIST isn't saying there was a force crushing down from above...they are saying that each floor just decide to cave in on it self...perfectly in sequence...floor by floor....but, none of this was caused by weight or pressure from above...lest we not forget the catapulting of pulverized debris outwards several hundred feet.
Floors buckling and caving inwards...doesn't seem very consistent with the video we have...of floors exploding outwards. Are we gonna believe some half-witted conjecture in the NIST...over what our own eyes tell us...
Maccy....read a few posts back...I meant Smoke...not Fire. I edited it.
Last edited:
Wrong.
NIST says the collapse was initiated by inward bowing of the outer columns which lead to their failure.
The collapse sequence from then on is patently obvious to all except the wilfully ignorant.
Heavy steel columns, floor pans, concrete floor decks, furniture collapsed down one on top of the other, causing those lower floors to give up the connections with the inner and outer columns.
It's so simple and easy to see.
That's not what NIST is saying. They account for load on the columns. They also assume that once collapse is initiated there is not sufficient structural integrity to resist the huge kinetic energy of the falling block above the impact point of each tower.
It's clear that you don't have even the most basic understanding of what NIST are saying.
Each time you post, your post is more idiotic than the last.
Again, why should anybody take you seriously?
I think most here have stopped. lol
28th Kingdom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 947
See how this debate is actually getting somewhere? It's virtually impossible for me to address 50 people at one time...while having things flow and make any sense. I strongly suggest you all select 3-5 of your finest...to debate me in a thread. I can assure you...that I will make an unbelievably compelling case for a CD-like collapse of the buildings. I wasn't even given a chance yesterday....I didn't even apply myself. And there certainly wasn't any type of rolling dialog...with points and counterpoints...like we have here.
I'm out. You're too willfully stupid to make this worth my time and I think I'll spend my afternoon more constructively.
You could try PMing R.Mackay and see if he wants to join in.
28th Kingdom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 947
Really? What about the WTC collapse, where we can clearly see ALL of the floors above the impact point topple over and off to the side right after the collapse begins? So basically on that collapse...the 70+ floors below the impact point had NO weight or pressure bearing down on them...yet the remaining 70+ steel-structured floors just managed to explode into dust one by one...with NO kinetic energy weighing down on them whatsoever. Almost like magic.
Last edited:
If you actually posted something that hasn't been said in the conspircacy threads already, people might bother, but since you're parrotting the same stuff (if you'd bothered to read the other threads, you'd know you're just repeating the same old stories), you might have something to discuss. Endlessly repeating stories doesn't may them any truer
Pulease!! Just what the hell do you think was holding up the structure above the impact? Sky hooks?
Jesus, this one is denser than chritopheras chocolate core.
Spins
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 702
I've just posted two papers explaining the forces involved in the collapse, do you really think that 2 buildings each weighing 500,000+ tons wouldn't pulverize a significant amount of drywall, man made fibers, and concrete (etc etc etc) as it collapsed?
http://www.911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf