Momentum Transfer in WTC

[apathoid]

apathoid forgot

it was kevin who said

Thanks for finally answering a question of mine. I dont agree, but others are correct in saying that unless you have x-ray vision - there is no way to know whats happening to the cap as it fell onto the floors below(we know what happened to them - they got crushed).

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

twinstead clarified
The red lines do not move. They demonstrate that the roofline moves down about 6 stories, while the 98th floor and below does not move.

It is true that we cannot see what is inside, but we can see what is outside. The perimeter columns above the impact zone are failing, while the perimeter columns below that point are holding.

I can appreciate that many of you are falling back on an appeal to authority. Unfortunately, given the utterly un-scientific nature of the NIST study, and the fact that NIST did not even study the collapses themselves, only the pre-collapse, I am not willing to accept the alleged conclusions of that authority.

Then bring up specific points from the NIST report and we will discuss them and test the veracity of their (NIST's) claims on the point in question.

 

[LashL]

Show of hands. Who is tired of armchair internet sudden photo analyst expert 'investigators'?

Hand up.

And I'm even more tired of the subset of them who who purport to have X-ray vision.

 

[Pardalis]

I can appreciate that many of you are falling back on an appeal to authority. Unfortunately, given the utterly un-scientific nature of the NIST study, and the fact that NIST did not even study the collapses themselves, only the pre-collapse, I am not willing to accept the alleged conclusions of that authority.

Then...

 

[Brainster]

This is not particularly relevant to the present discussion. Observe any of the photos and videos of the twin towers. Huge amounts of very dense dust along with chunks of steel and aluminum is being projected sideways, even upwards, and is obviously does not "ricochet" off of anything.

Upwards? You're looking at too many photos and not enough film if you believe that dust, chunks of steel and aluminum were being projected upwards. It may appear so in still photographs, but that's just an artifact of the building collapsing underneath it making it appear to be moving upwards by comparison.

 

[Loss Leader]

It is true that we cannot see what is inside, but we can see what is outside. The perimeter columns above the impact zone are failing, while the perimeter columns below that point are holding.

I can appreciate that many of you are falling back on an appeal to authority. Unfortunately, given the utterly un-scientific nature of the NIST study, and the fact that NIST did not even study the collapses themselves, only the pre-collapse, I am not willing to accept the alleged conclusions of that authority.

Well, then, Truthseeker, let me ask for the third time: What conclusions are you willing to accept?

You state that the top of the building began collapsing into the floors hit by the aircraft while the bottom remains stable, you even show pictures? Does that mean that you do not believe that explosives blew at the base of the towers to bring them down? Does this mean that when the towers started collapsing, the men in black blew the explosives at the base because they saw their chance? What is your theory as to how the towers were brought down?

You seem to like to state that the generally accepted opinion of the experts isn't supported by the pictures you found. What theory of collapse is supported by those pictures?

Please answer this question. Until you do, I cannot understand your argument. In fact, nobody here can.

 

[tsig]

Pardalis whined

Pardalis, you're not keeping up. It was suggested by several that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground. It was claimed that the pictures showed only dust and that the behavior of the top portions could not be seen. The latest pictures I posted show very clearly that the top portion begins collapsing first, while the bottom part holds.

It does not require "x ray vision. Look at those two pictures and tell me what you see. Don't ignore, don't go to name calling, tell me what you see.

The top of the building grinding into the bottom until they both go down in gravity's embrace.

 

[rwguinn]

new CT term:
Fairly intact=completely whole, unchanged...

 

[apathoid]

Well, then, Truthseeker, let me ask for the third time: What conclusions are you willing to accept?

You state that the top of the building began collapsing into the floors hit by the aircraft while the bottom remains stable, you even show pictures? Does that mean that you do not believe that explosives blew at the base of the towers to bring them down? Does this mean that when the towers started collapsing, the men in black blew the explosives at the base because they saw their chance? What is your theory as to how the towers were brought down?

You seem to like to state that the generally accepted opinion of the experts isn't supported by the pictures you found. What theory of collapse is supported by those pictures?

Please answer this question. Until you do, I cannot understand your argument. In fact, nobody here can.

Hey, he's just asking questions.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Loss Leader and others demanded

What theory of collapse is supported by those pictures?

Here is your answer. Please read this. I concur with this study, as it proceeds scientifically, trying to construct a demolition theory which is consistent with the observations.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

You will note in this paper a number of observations which are not dealt with in the "official" reports. I think we all agree that ignoring observations that conflict with the hypothesis is bad science.

 

[Gravy]

Unfortunately, given the utterly un-scientific nature of the NIST study, and the fact that NIST did not even study the collapses themselves, only the pre-collapse, I am not willing to accept the alleged conclusions of that authority.

Got it. NIST is out. Just trashed my 10,000 pages of files. Thanks for giving me more space on my hard drive!

 

[Gravy]

I think we all agree that ignoring observations that conflict with the hypothesis is bad science.

You haven't pointed any out.

 

[Pardalis]

I think we all agree that ignoring observations that conflict with the hypothesis is bad science.

OK, so you would also have to consider this theory?

 

[tsig]

Loss Leader and others demanded

Here is your answer. Please read this. I concur with this study, as it proceeds scientifically, trying to construct a demolition theory which is consistent with the observations.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

You will note in this paper a number of observations which are not dealt with in the "official" reports. I think we all agree that ignoring observations that conflict with the hypothesis is bad science.

Planes hit the towers and destroyed 20% of the support beams.

Heat and gravity did the rest.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

You haven't pointed any [observations ignored by NIST] out.

Sure I have. Please keep up. NIST did not study the collpase. We observe that the buildings collapsed. Everything after the beginning of collapse is ignored by NIST.

 

[apathoid]

Loss Leader and others demanded

Here is your answer. Please read this. I concur with this study, as it proceeds scientifically, trying to construct a demolition theory which is consistent with the observations.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

You will note in this paper a number of observations which are not dealt with in the "official" reports. I think we all agree that ignoring observations that conflict with the hypothesis is bad science.

Scare quotes on official. I love it. Yes, the "expert" "scientists" at NIST didnt deal with idiotic CD theories in their "official" "report". Deal with it.

...trying to construct a demolition theory which is consistent with the observations

Depends on who's doing the observing. Structural engineers and demolitionists dont think a demolition theory which is consistent with the observations. Deal with it.

 

[Pardalis]

Sure I have. Please keep up. NIST did not study the collpase. We observe that the buildings collapsed. Everything after the beginning of collapse is ignored by NIST.

So why do you accuse them of lying?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Sure I have. Please keep up. NIST did not study the collpase. We observe that the buildings collapsed. Everything after the beginning of collapse is ignored by NIST.

Stop playing word games. It is very clear what he was accusing you of having failed to provide were any examples of "ignoring observations that conflict". Show that the observations conflict.

 

[tsig]

Sure I have. Please keep up. NIST did not study the collpase. We observe that the buildings collapsed. Everything after the beginning of collapse is ignored by NIST.

Planes hit the towers and destroyed 20% of the support beams.

Heat and gravity did the rest.

 

[LashL]

Here is your answer. Please read this. I concur with this study, as it proceeds scientifically, trying to construct a demolition theory which is consistent with the observations.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

Is that your own website, or do you just base all of your beliefs concerning the destruction of the towers upon its contents?