Fyziks 101

[Grizzly Bear]

As many of the others in this thread, you lack the ability to see the parallel of the PHYSICS in the brick analogy and link it to the construction of the twin towers.

Says the one who believes there should have been 1,000 ft of columns standing after the collapse...

Comparing the towers to bricks... you do realize that by that logic the walls of the twin towers would have been 100 ft thick?

The towers were not simply 'four bricks', they were an assembly of thousands of smaller pieces that worked as a system to provide the rigidity they had. You still can't grasp that one lone concept... Explain to me what you are trying to prove here... I'm looking at every possible angle but none gives me anything to accurately 'model' the way the towers should have collapsed under your logic

 

[WildCat]

As many of the others in this thread, you lack the ability to see the parallel of the PHYSICS in the brick analogy and link it to the construction of the twin towers.

You fail to see why your brick analogy is fatally flawed.

btw:

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're claiming that there was a progressive series of bombs planted on each floor, each one powerful enough to blast every single bit of the floor outside the building footprint? And these bombs were silent, and didn't send any material upwards?

This is what you think happened, yes?

 

[Turbofan]

You fail to see why your brick analogy is fatally flawed.

btw:

This is what you think happened, yes?

You got it dude. Just like the squibs show in the videos.

And please don't tell me it's compressing of the air...the top of the building
is gone!

 

[Shrinker]

You got it dude. Just like the squibs show in the videos.

And please don't tell me it's compressing of the air...the top of the building
is gone!

You too scared to answer my question about the video? Can you not explain how 2 storeys destroyed 15 similar storeys?

Is it because you believe...

It is scientifically impossible for both sections to be breaking apart upon descent simultaneously with a gravity induced collapse.

 

[Turbofan]

Says the one who believes there should have been 1,000 ft of columns standing after the collapse...

Where did those core columns go then? Just like the original posts asked?

Did the bend and buckle inward? Did the telescope down into themselves?

Comparing the towers to bricks... you do realize that by that logic the walls of the twin towers would have been 100 ft thick?

The towers were not simply 'four bricks', they were an assembly of thousands of smaller pieces that worked as a system to provide the rigidity they had. You still can't grasp that one lone concept... Explain to me what you are trying to prove here... I'm looking at every possible angle but none gives me anything to accurately 'model' the way the towers should have collapsed under your logic

Just give it up. You will never understand.

You see, everyone here assumes the inner core columns and outer perimeter
columns magically disappeared, and the top section had several feet to
drop onto the lower structure.

NOPE!

There were only certain columns damaged, or broken.

Normally, in the real world...when an object is in motion and strikes another
object you expect to see at least one remain. If nothing else, the top
section of the tower should have stayed intact to crush the lower section.

It did not.

It blew apart first.

It has been shown in the videos and photo sequence.

That is something you cannot deny.

 

[Shrinker]

Where did those core columns go then? Just like the original posts asked?

Did the bend and buckle inward? Did the telescope down into themselves?






Just give it up. You will never understand.

You see, everyone here assumes the inner core columns and outer perimeter
columns magically disappeared, and the top section had several feet to
drop onto the lower structure.

NOPE!

There were only certain columns damaged, or broken.

Normally, in the real world...when an object is in motion and strikes another
object you expect to see at least one remain. If nothing else, the top
section of the tower should have stayed intact to crush the lower section.

It did not.

It blew apart first.

It has been shown in the videos and photo sequence.

That is something you cannot deny.

Can you explain why, in a simple experiment a child could have conducted, a tower made of cards behaved exactly the way you are saying is impossible?

 

[~enigma~]

Where did those core columns go then? Just like the original posts asked?

Fresh Kills in Staten Island was one place they went. After 7 years are you seriously that ill informed on 9/11?

Did the telescope down into themselves?

Yes...they telescoped into 30 foot sections for easy transport away from ground zero....don't you know anything?

You see, everyone here assumes the inner core columns and outer perimeter
columns magically disappeared, and the top section had several feet to
drop onto the lower structure.

They do??????? Apparently this is one reason you ran away from answering this question...After the first 0.5 seconds of slippage IN THE AREA OF IMPACT explain what power could have prevented collapse. Also explain why a 15 story chunk of office building would not and could not have caused an overload of the remaining heat weakened columns IN THE AREA OF IMPACT?

 

[Turbofan]

Can you explain why, in a simply experiment a child could have conducted, a tower made of cards behaved exactly the way you are saying is impossible?

Did the card tower have 47 inner core columns extending from the base
to the top?

No.

So Shrinker, what did the Twin Towers do with those 47 steel columns?

Surely you have an explanation for this?

 

[eeyore1954]

Big bricks and little bricks,, trucks and trains....... Forgive me if I do not read this entire thread.


TF, I had some respect for you in the FDR thread. In this one, not so much.

For me this is the thread in a nutshel. In the FDR thread to a person ,such as myself, who does not really understand the subject matter Turbofan appeared to have some grasp of the subject. But after readinfg his arguments here I am completed convinced of what I suspected before (he was only parroting what he was told or read on the Pilots for 'Truth" site). No one with even a modicum of understanding of physics can believe the drop 3 bricks on 10 bricks analogy can be used for a validi comparison to the WTC collapse.


That brings up another subject. How can Richard Gage use the two boxes analogy with a clear conscience. Is it because he knows that the Turbofans of the world can be duped by that kind of argument and doesn't care at all about the truth or is it because he has become so convinced of his 9/11 beliefs that he can no longer think straight. Turbofan may have the excuse of ignorance of the subject but can Mr Gage claim that.

 

[Shrinker]

Did the card tower have 47 inner core columns extending from the base
to the top?

No.

So Shrinker, what did the Twin Towers do with those 47 steel columns?

Surely you have an explanation for this?

I'm not talking about steel columns, and neither were you. This thread appears to be about physics. My questions are general. You said..

Normally, in the real world...when an object is in motion and strikes another
object you expect to see at least one remain.

You also said...

It is scientifically impossible for both sections to be breaking apart upon descent simultaneously with a gravity induced collapse.

And I simply ask what is your explanation for the video I showed. How did 2 storeys destroy 15 storeys? How did the top section collapse simultaneously with the bottom? It is not rhetorical, I'd like to see an explanation from you.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"Just give it up. You will never understand."

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Did it ever occur to you , that I'm ignoring you and your repetitive useless
questions? Same goes for some of the other members.

"We've" already tried to show this on MSM. One case in particular was
Steven Jones

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ayYXNo0i_Cs

You see, they (MSNBC) didn't have the balls to show the video!

You may also recall the original MSM news broadcasts from 9/11 (which
are archived) were pulled from public view!

So keep asking your dumb questions about why we don't go to MSM!

What? No one takes you guys seriously? Gosh what a surprise! The world media body must all be in on it too! Oh noes!!!!

 

[roundhead]

Did the card tower have 47 inner core columns extending from the base
to the top?

No.

So Shrinker, what did the Twin Towers do with those 47 steel columns?

Surely you have an explanation for this?

Well, we know how the 9/11 Commision dealt with those core columns. They simply flat out lied about the tower construction, and made no mention of them.

When an investigation tasked with getting to the truth out and out lies regarding something of this importance, and allows it to stand uncorrected, how can you belive anything that commision reported?

The existance of those core columns is something the commision just flat didnt want to deal with.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Did the card tower have 47 inner core columns extending from the base
to the top?

No.

So Shrinker, what did the Twin Towers do with those 47 steel columns?

Surely you have an explanation for this?

Do the bricks have a similar ratio of wall thickness to interior space that the towers have? Do the bricks also model the column connectivity of the towers? No. That's why the analogy is a failure. A tower of cards does not model the Twin Towers accurately either, but the problem with the brick model is that it is a far more robust, and far more solid structure than the actual towers are. In that regard, the "house of cards" does indeed come closer to reflecting reality.

 

[~enigma~]

Well, we know how the 9/11 Commision dealt with those core columns. They simply flat out lied about the tower construction, and made no mention of them.

When an investigation tasked with getting to the truth out and out lies regarding something of this importance, and allows it to stand uncorrected, how can you belive anything that commision reported?

The existance of those core columns is something the commision just flat didnt want to deal with.

hmm...was the 9/11 commision suppsed to be a scientific investigation into the construction of the towers or was that something N.I.S.T dealt with?

 

[Newtons Bit]

That brings up another subject. How can Richard Gage use the two boxes analogy with a clear conscience. Is it because he knows that the Turbofans of the world can be duped by that kind of argument and doesn't care at all about the truth or is it because he has become so convinced of his 9/11 beliefs that he can no longer think straight.

Yes.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Well, we know how the 9/11 Commision dealt with those core columns. They simply flat out lied about the tower construction, and made no mention of them.

When an investigation tasked with getting to the truth out and out lies regarding something of this importance, and allows it to stand uncorrected, how can you belive anything that commision reported?

The existance of those core columns is something the commision just flat didnt want to deal with.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, a commission who has nothing to do with how WTC 7 collapsed did not cover something outside of their scope and therefore are liars. They also didn't cover NASCAR that year which shows they lied even more there.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!

Where do they find these people? If these kids don't even understand what agency is responsible for what, how can they even manage to tie their shoes? And then they wonder why no one takes them seriously. Oh it's just so sad...

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, we know how the 9/11 Commision dealt with those core columns. They simply flat out lied about the tower construction, and made no mention of them.

When an investigation tasked with getting to the truth out and out lies regarding something of this importance, and allows it to stand uncorrected, how can you belive anything that commision reported?

The existance of those core columns is something the commision just flat didnt want to deal with.

That's a red herring. Expecting a political report to deal with the engineering aspects of 9/11 is a ridiculous complaint. People serious about studying the subject understand that it's the NIST report, not the 9/11 Commision report, that speaks definitively and authoritatively about the towers. Complaining that the 9/11 Commision Report doesn't adequately describe the towers is just as benighted as complaining that the NCSTAR reports made no mention of Atta or Bin Laden.

 

[funk de fino]

Well, we know how the 9/11 Commision dealt with those core columns. They simply flat out lied about the tower construction, and made no mention of them.

When an investigation tasked with getting to the truth out and out lies regarding something of this importance, and allows it to stand uncorrected, how can you belive anything that commision reported?

The existance of those core columns is something the commision just flat didnt want to deal with.

Take your foot out of your mouth before your nexxt post please. This one is too funny.

 

[roundhead]

hmm...was the 9/11 commision suppsed to be a scientific investigation into the construction of the towers or was that something N.I.S.T dealt with?

So, your saying that the final report wasnt proofed, and those spewing the official Govt lie didnt notice the bald faced lie, and bring it up so it would be corrected, and not left as the lie it is. Surely Robertson has read the report and would have noticed it?

So, the Commision should not be trusted with anything they state, they are all politicians who had zero qualifications to deal with Norad, tower construction, etc.

All those reading this take note of the fact the Commision had nobody qualified in they're camp to find out how the towers were constructed. They instead made some bald faced lie up. Got cha