Momentum Transfer in WTC

kevin speculated
Not to mention the top floors above the collision would've remained fairly intact during the fall and slammed into everything underneath when it hit bottom. basically a double impact.

That's certainly what you would think, Kevin, based on the official theory. The problem is, that doesn't match the observations. We observe that the upper section disintergrates into dust in mid air.
image017.jpg
mushroom.jpg
 
kevin speculated

That's certainly what you would think, Kevin, based on the official theory. The problem is, that doesn't match the observations. We observe that the upper section disintergrates into dust in mid air.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/image017.jpghttp://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/mushroom.jpg

Actualy, the relatively sane amongst us observe that whatever is happening up top is totaly obscured by a dense cloud of smoke, dust, and debris...
 
...that doesn't match the observations. We observe...
Those that can, research, perform genuine analyses. Those that can't, make stuff up based on observations.

Funny how everyone that really has the ability, knowledge, education, experience who does perform the analysis comes to the same conclusion. But Internet "wizards" observe and come to different ones.

Maybe not so funny.
 
kevin speculated

That's certainly what you would think, Kevin, based on the official theory. The problem is, that doesn't match the observations. We observe that the upper section disintergrates into dust in mid air.

nice photos. Can you show us the x-ray versions that prove the upper stories are no longer together? You say you made these observations so you must be able to see behind the smoke and dust.
 
Let's consider the picture Mackey has provided. Mackey is asking us to believe, without evidence, that all of the cross bracing of the core structure which is observed in this photo, was meticulously removed after the cranes were not needed anymore. Why would they do this? Because they needed it for another job!
Yes, that is exactly what they are and why they are removed. I live in a big city where there is lots of high-rise construction, and in every case I've ever seen the crane mounts are removed as the building is completed.

Close your eyes and hum all you want, but that's the facts.
 
Someone said that because because the towers were bigger than the earthquake buildings I linked, therefore there would be less macro-rubble. No, there would be more.

Well, I hope you're not saying that _I_ said that. My point was, the much larger concrete floors of the world trade center not only fell much further and, eventually, faster than in the buildings you showed, but they also had to contend with different collapse parameters, namely the presence of thousands of tons of steel, fire, and the fact that a large number of floors was coming down onto them.

Let's consider the picture Mackey has provided. Mackey is asking us to believe, without evidence, that all of the cross bracing of the core structure which is observed in this photo, was meticulously removed after the cranes were not needed anymore. Why would they do this?

Why in the blue HELL would they leave it there ? It takes up space for no reason and that steel can be reused. Can you imagine Taipei 101 if they had left the cranes in place ?

Absent the detailed engineering drawings, which are "missing", observation must rule over assertion. The floor trusses were cross-braced as well, BTW,

So, this is a huge argument from incredulity and personal bias ?
 
kevin speculated

That's certainly what you would think, Kevin, based on the official theory. The problem is, that doesn't match the observations. We observe that the upper section disintergrates into dust in mid air.

That's an interesting, if unsupported, assertion. You can't see through th dust cloud any more than I can, and yet you assert that the top portion desintegrates ? I'd like to know how you reach that conclusion.

ETA: Typo.
 
Last edited:
Let's consider the picture Mackey has provided. Mackey is asking us to believe, without evidence, that all of the cross bracing of the core structure which is observed in this photo, was meticulously removed after the cranes were not needed anymore. Why would they do this? Because they needed it for another job! Absent the detailed engineering drawings, which are "missing", observation must rule over assertion. The floor trusses were cross-braced as well, BTW, contrary to the hilarious cartoons produced for the NOVA show.
You need to be much more careful, with that attitude. I've provided no pictures, nor asked for any. I don't deal in pictures. Pictures are too subjective for the precision I require. Your claim, bolded, is wrong. That's yet another mistake for you, a clumsy one this time.

It appears you are in such a hurry to "discredit" me that you've lost track of whom you're speaking to.

I have "asked you to believe" nothing. I asked you to show me that there was additional cross-bracing that neither I, Ross, nor Greening knew about. If you can do that, please do. So far what you've shown me is a terrible picture that may or may not represent temporary bracing during construction. It may also represent bracing well down in the structure that is irrelevant for purposes of collapse initiation.

I don't know what your picture represents. I'm asking you. Seems you don't know either, though you think you do.

You did attempt to answer my questions about it, finally, so that merits a response:

Mackey wanted some answers

1) "It is clear from photographs, such as the one on the right, that the core columns were abundantly cross-braced." http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
I asked you to point out exactly what looks like cross-bracing to you, not to give someone else's inexpert opinion that there is cross-bracing. Please point it out.

2) Observe the construction picture here

http://nomoregames.net/911/trouble_with_jones/core_2.jpg

Would they really use cross bracing as thick and heavy as shown here, only to tear it out after the floor assembly was in place? What evidence do you have that this horizontal and diagonal cross bracing was temporary? Last I knew, the actual drawings for WTC were secret. Have they now been released? A lot of people have been very anxious to see them for a long time.
Oh joy, another picture.

You haven't answered my question. They very well might use "thick and heavy" cross-bracing. I don't know. You've answered my questions with more questions.

I'm still waiting for an answer from you on this, most important question. If you don't know whether those elements stayed in place, just say so.

3) They are made of structural steel. Notice how they are identical in color and appearance to the structural steel elements.
Useless. Color isn't a good determination, though I would also guess they are steel. What I wanted was more exact -- what size are they? I-beams? Shapes? What thickness? Alloy?

This is why I don't ask for, or use, pictures in quantitative analysis. They just don't contain what I need except in rare examples.

4) They are welded
How do you know that?

I would expect them to be bolted, not welded. And yes, it makes a difference.
 
Wow, I go to the German fest last night and missed all the fun here! Doesn't seem like there's much for me to add at this point, TruthSeeker won't actually address any points made anyway. Like every other CT'er who comes here clinging to their disproven theories religiously.

The real question is, does he have the stamina and perserverance of Christophera?
 
kevin speculated

That's certainly what you would think, Kevin, based on the official theory. The problem is, that doesn't match the observations. We observe that the upper section disintergrates into dust in mid air.
[qimg]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/image017.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/mushroom.jpg[/qimg]

15 storeys of steel turned into dust? No. That did not, and could not, happen.

In these photos, you can see the compression process has already started. The top 15 floor slabs will have stacked up into a dense pile as they smashed into the first intact floors, the stacked up slabs would be a fraction of the former height of the section. The connections to the perimeter columns are ruptured, allowing them to fall away in large chunks.

That's what I reckon, anyway.
 
The longer I stick with this thread, the more it reminds me of the silly freefall argument. Truthseeker, you have asserted that collapse of the towers as detailed in the NIST report could not have accounted for the debris that was observed. However, you have refused to answer two ver simple questions:

1. What theory do you propose that accounts for the debris you observed?

If you cannot tell us how you think such debris was created, you have no grounds to tell us that the planes couldn't have caused it. That's like telling me that the moon is farther away from earth than the sun (because it obviously is smaller than the sun and every picture proves it) but having no model of the solar system to compete with the one I made in fourth grade. What theory do you believe accounts for the debris?

2. Why do you refuse to consider evidence that your observations are mistaken?

I have given you the names, addresses, emails and phone numbers of the very people who went to ground zero, cleaned up the debris, carted it to Fresh Kills, sorted it, preserved some for a museum exhibit and disposed of the rest. These individuals have first-hand knowledge of exactly the thing you are trying to guess at from photographs. Why won't you talk to them? It's like trying to guess the jury's verdict by reading the expressions on their faces instead of just asking them to read the verdict sheet.

People have direct, personal knowledge of the information you are guessing at. Why won't you get the information from them?

I know the answer. You can click here if you really want to see it:

This is all a game to you and if you had any contact with the people who actually dealt with the pain and loss of that day it just wouldn't be fun anymore.
 
Here is a nice couple of pictures that we can observe and analyze.
Clearly, the upper section does not remain "relatively intact" until it hit the ground. Quite the opposite. The Floors below remain intact until the top has gone to about half its former size.
2003-0000.jpg

2003-0101.jpg
 
[qimg]http://gordonssite.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/2003-0000.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://gordonssite.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/2003-0101.jpg[/qimg]

What is this supposed to prove? That the top section collapsed?

The Floors below remain intact until the top has gone to about half its former size.

I wish I had your x-ray vision.
 
Last edited:
Show of hands. Who is tired of armchair internet sudden photo analyst expert 'investigators'?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom