• 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.

Look at this collapse

defaultdotxbe said:
do you (you as in docker) thing GPE contained enough energy to collapse the towers in the manner observed?

if so, why do you believe explosives were needed?

if not, how much energy would be needed?
Click to expand...

I dont deny the GPE was huge, but you can't get a symettrical collapse like that unless all 47 core columns fail simultaneously.
 
gumboot said:
It didn't, but never mind. We know for a fact the core didn't fail first, because in video of the collapses most of the core remains standing for as much as 20-30 seconds after the rest of the building has collapsed.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

The antenna fell first, its visible in the video. Please stop lying.
 
Docker said:
I dont deny the GPE was huge, but you can't get a symettrical collapse like that unless all 47 core columns fail simultaneously.
Click to expand...

The structure of the tower was meant so that all columns have the same weight pressed on them.

Is it a possibility that not all the columns were destroyed at the same time? That once each column was unable to handle the weight, the weight was transferred to the other columns and once the weight was too great for the remaining "intact" columns that the tower fell? At that point the tower would most likely fall "symettrically" even though that wasn't the case with the south tower.

Docker said:
The antenna fell first, its visible in the video. Please stop lying.
Click to expand...

The antenta did not fall into the building. The top collapsed, and the antenna fell with it. Not liek the antenna was going to wait around in midair.
 
Docker said:
The antenna fell first, its visible in the video. Please stop lying.
Click to expand...

If you had read the NIST report (which you claim you have) you'd know that the movement of the antenna was due to the asymetrical collapse initiation - in other words the roof initially rotated towards the initial collapse point.

In addition, as I have said, the core can be seen standing after the rest of the structure has collapsed. Therefore it could not have collapsed first.

Your lack of knowledge is becoming staggering.

-Gumboot
 
Docker said:
Wait till the caller comes on and asks him at the end.
Click to expand...

The hell? All he says is that the experts don't think there was anything unusual about the fall. (The caller discussed freefall).

Give the exact words.
 
kookbreaker said:
The hell? All he says is that the experts don't think there was anything unusual about the fall. (The caller discussed freefall).

Give the exact words.
Click to expand...
i think i found what hes talking about, about 33mins, the caller says the towers were held up by the steel outside, and the elevator shafts, and goes on to say theres no internal columns, and the PM guy just agrees "right, right"

my assumption is he just didnt catch what the guy was saying (and/or assumed he meant the steel core when he said the elevator shafts)
 
OK, I found it. The caller was 'Kevin'

Kevin points out the cause of ther buckling, and notes again that the strcutural bearing points are the 'elevator shaft' and the exterior columns. He states that 'like you said there's no internal columns holding that building up'. Reagan says 'yeah'.

In context, especially given Reagan's description I posted above, it is OBVIOUS THAT 'KEVIN' IS TALKING ABOUT A LACK OF COLUMNS BETWEEN THE CORE AND THE EXTERIOR COLUMNS. There is no denial of columns here, and its Kevin's comment (which is not the clearest said) that was made, not Reagan's.

The liar here is not Reagan.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
i think i found what hes talking about, about 33mins, the caller says the towers were held up by the steel outside, and the elevator shafts, and goes on to say theres no internal columns, and the PM guy just agrees "right, right"

my assumption is he just didnt catch what the guy was saying (and/or assumed he meant the steel core when he said the elevator shafts)
Click to expand...
I think the "no internal columns" is referring to the fact the floor space was completely open. It wasn't like a typical skyscraper with a steel box grid.
 
Where's the boom, Docker?

If there were explosions, why no boom?

Why do the walls bend in on both videos?

Why is the debris pattern exactly what we would expect from a collapse?
 
defaultdotxbe said:
i think i found what hes talking about, about 33mins, the caller says the towers were held up by the steel outside, and the elevator shafts, and goes on to say theres no internal columns, and the PM guy just agrees "right, right"

my assumption is he just didnt catch what the guy was saying (and/or assumed he meant the steel core when he said the elevator shafts)
Click to expand...

Which is a fair assumption given that he mentions them as being load bearing. He also is commenting on Reagan's previous description of the building's load bearing points.

This doesn't even come close.

Docker is full of it.
 
kookbreaker said:
Which is a fair assumption given that he mentions them as being load bearing. He also is commenting on Reagan's previous description of the building's load bearing points.

This doesn't even come close.

Docker is full of it.
Click to expand...

Also the 911 commision describes th core as a hollow steel shaft.

Face it, the core was 47 huge steel box columns, embedded in the bedrocked and interlocked with lots of lateral beams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom