Official 9/11 foiler thread
Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 175 Next
OPP @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:17 am
ziggy ziggy:
OPP OPP:
ziggy ziggy:
OPP OPP:
ziggy ziggy:
OPP OPP:
ziggy ziggy:
OPP OPP:
Ok! Sure! The planes made the towers collapse, not the fires. Or was it the fuel that melted the beams wich made the towers collapse? Or is it the combination that made them collapse? How was it? Could the "Defending side" please agree on what made the buildings collapse so that I can respond!
All the reports are HERE
There PDF files so you'll have to d.load which one you want.Very technical.
I found this:
$1:
2.0 WTC COLLAPSE TIMES
The collapse times of each of the two WTC towers are very important parameters in the estimation of the energy transfer involved in these events. In this report we define the collapse time, tc, as the observed time interval for more than 95 % of the mass of the WTC tower (WTC 1 or 2) to fall to “ground zero”. This, of course, requires a definition of the start of the collapse. Because of uncertainties in the timing of the WTC collapse initiating and terminating events, many different values of tc have been reported; however, the published values (I have seen) all fall in the range 8 – 18 seconds. In addition, Newtonian mechanics dictates a minimum value for the collapse time, tc, which is calculated, (allowing for the thickness of each floor), as follows: tc = (2h/g) = {2(416 10)/9.81} = 9.1 seconds
The calculations included in this report are based on well-documented values for the WTC height, weight and other building specifications as listed in Appendix 1.
The collapse times of each of the two WTC towers are very important parameters in the estimation of the energy transfer involved in these events. In this report we define the collapse time, tc, as the observed time interval for more than 95 % of the mass of the WTC tower (WTC 1 or 2) to fall to “ground zero”. This, of course, requires a definition of the start of the collapse. Because of uncertainties in the timing of the WTC collapse initiating and terminating events, many different values of tc have been reported; however, the published values (I have seen) all fall in the range 8 – 18 seconds. In addition, Newtonian mechanics dictates a minimum value for the collapse time, tc, which is calculated, (allowing for the thickness of each floor), as follows: tc = (2h/g) = {2(416 10)/9.81} = 9.1 seconds
The calculations included in this report are based on well-documented values for the WTC height, weight and other building specifications as listed in Appendix 1.
Could you sumarise this for me Ziggy?
There was no controlled demolition,hows that?
No, seriously.. could you sumarise what the.. what was he? A scientist of some sort i presume, wrote and the calculations he used to describe the fall of the towers.
The minimum he spoke of.. is that free fall or.. ?
was just reading up a bit more on it.
$1:
If the video evidence gives such a great ranges of guesses, then maybe another approach is required, at least as a crosscheck. We tried looking at the audio of each collapse, and came up with a minimum of 14 seconds in each case (see our South Tower and North Tower pages for more), and the potential for them to have taken several seconds longer. Calculating these times involves far too many judgement calls for us to claim proof of anything, but we do think it adds significantly more support to the 15+ seconds collapse time, and makes the 8.4 second end of the spectrum look particularly unlikely.
We can cross-check this by looking at the seismic evidence. Although often presented as supporting the shortest 8-point-something time, in our view there’s a case for arguing that this, too, indicates the collapse time was much, much longer.
And if you look carefully, then you will find some videos that also back us up. Here’s one indicating to us that the first collapse took more than 12.5 seconds.
Where people have quantified the collapse time they thought should have arisen, it’s not always helpful to the conspiracy case. D.P. Grimmer, for instance, believes the towers demonstrably fell in around 10 seconds, and has this to say about the time it should have taken in one scenario (if 30% of the gravitational energy of the collapse was lost in pulverising the concrete):
Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.
http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm
So Grimmer thinks a 12 second time might be more reasonable, in the case he describes? Yet we (and others) suggest a collapse time of 15 seconds or more is more accurate, significantly longer still.
We can cross-check this by looking at the seismic evidence. Although often presented as supporting the shortest 8-point-something time, in our view there’s a case for arguing that this, too, indicates the collapse time was much, much longer.
And if you look carefully, then you will find some videos that also back us up. Here’s one indicating to us that the first collapse took more than 12.5 seconds.
Where people have quantified the collapse time they thought should have arisen, it’s not always helpful to the conspiracy case. D.P. Grimmer, for instance, believes the towers demonstrably fell in around 10 seconds, and has this to say about the time it should have taken in one scenario (if 30% of the gravitational energy of the collapse was lost in pulverising the concrete):
Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.
http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm
So Grimmer thinks a 12 second time might be more reasonable, in the case he describes? Yet we (and others) suggest a collapse time of 15 seconds or more is more accurate, significantly longer still.
source
Ziggy... I've seen the tapes.. Not once did it take 15 seconds for the towers to hit ground zero. 12,5 second.. Even that is stretching it don't you think?
Considering the dust cloud that covered the last part of the collapse I'll have to go with the scientific data,no one could see the last bit for the dust so you really cant go by what some thought they saw.
They do some really good comparisons in that first long video and have some good footage,like I said,these guys did their homework.
You're sugesting that the fall of the tower changed speed in the final moments of the collapse? I've seen it from every possible angle. The dust don't cover that much. Even IF it did change speed in the last X stores, it did travel in free fall before the dust. How is that even possible?
tritium @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:17 am
Taliban Airlines
BartSimpson @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:17 am
Abbas Abbas:
Haha, whats up bart. I am hoping that you will have some intellegent arguments to add to our debate but remember, I don't want to turn this into what he said, she said. Its about personal knowledge and using common sense and witness statments to argue points. Right now the argument is whether there were explosives in the building or not.
I saw the second airplane hit the WTC on live TV and from an angle I was fortunate enough to record but have never seen on any documentaries. It was not faked.
I've heard people compare the WTC aircraft impacts to the B25 that hit the Empire State Building and the two do not compare.
The Empire State Building is a much more robust structure with an internal skeleton that easily absorbs a vast amount of damage. The WTC more compares to an eggshell that is strong until it is breached, at which point the structure fails.
Compounding the failure of the WTC was the absence of asbestos insulation in the building that would have absorbed much of the heat from the burning jet fuel and possibly saved the buildings.
In my own opinion, the two buildings would've had to have been demolished even had they survived the damage of 9/11. At the least their upper floors would've had to be removed or the first decent windstorm would've collpased the two towers.
Once the airplanes hit the two towers the only question in my mind was when they would collapse, not if.
The failure of the WTC to sustain damage from any source, even the CT explosives, is really a condemnation of modern engineering standards that make structures just stong enough and not too strong.
An example of the failure of the current mindset in engineering was the 1994 earthquake in Los Angeles - new bridges and new buildings collapsed while old bridges and old buildings that had been built very stoutly easily withstood the temblor.
In a nutshell, the accountants who tell the engineers to cut corners were the people ultimately responsible for the collapse of the WTC. Had the buildings been constructed according to their original specs with the maximum cross bracing and not the minimum and also with the recommended asbestos insulation for the steel components then those buildings would not have collapsed on 9/11.
I won't say that they would not have collapsed later or have had to been demolished, but on 9/11 they would have lasted the day and far fewer people would have died.
So my opinion is that the terrorists started a line of dominoes falling that had been set up years before by greedy accountants.
ziggy @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:25 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Abbas Abbas:
Haha, whats up bart. I am hoping that you will have some intellegent arguments to add to our debate but remember, I don't want to turn this into what he said, she said. Its about personal knowledge and using common sense and witness statments to argue points. Right now the argument is whether there were explosives in the building or not.
I saw the second airplane hit the WTC on live TV and from an angle I was fortunate enough to record but have never seen on any documentaries. It was not faked.
I've heard people compare the WTC aircraft impacts to the B25 that hit the Empire State Building and the two do not compare.
The Empire State Building is a much more robust structure with an internal skeleton that easily absorbs a vast amount of damage. The WTC more compares to an eggshell that is strong until it is breached, at which point the structure fails.
Compounding the failure of the WTC was the absence of asbestos insulation in the building that would have absorbed much of the heat from the burning jet fuel and possibly saved the buildings.
In my own opinion, the two buildings would've had to have been demolished even had they survived the damage of 9/11. At the least their upper floors would've had to be removed or the first decent windstorm would've collpased the two towers.
Once the airplanes hit the two towers the only question in my mind was when they would collapse, not if.
The failure of the WTC to sustain damage from any source, even the CT explosives, is really a condemnation of modern engineering standards that make structures just stong enough and not too strong.
An example of the failure of the current mindset in engineering was the 1994 earthquake in Los Angeles - new bridges and new buildings collapsed while old bridges and old buildings that had been built very stoutly easily withstood the temblor.
In a nutshell, the accountants who tell the engineers to cut corners were the people ultimately responsible for the collapse of the WTC. Had the buildings been constructed according to their original specs with the maximum cross bracing and not the minimum and also with the recommended asbestos insulation for the steel components then those buildings would not have collapsed on 9/11.
I won't say that they would not have collapsed later or have had to been demolished, but on 9/11 they would have lasted the day and far fewer people would have died.
So my opinion is that the terrorists started a line of dominoes falling that had been set up years before by greedy accountants.
I'm still reading up on the asbestos thing.http://www.911myths.com/html/losing_money_at_the_wtc.html
Abbas @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:34 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Abbas Abbas:
Haha, whats up bart. I am hoping that you will have some intellegent arguments to add to our debate but remember, I don't want to turn this into what he said, she said. Its about personal knowledge and using common sense and witness statments to argue points. Right now the argument is whether there were explosives in the building or not.
I saw the second airplane hit the WTC on live TV and from an angle I was fortunate enough to record but have never seen on any documentaries. It was not faked.
I've heard people compare the WTC aircraft impacts to the B25 that hit the Empire State Building and the two do not compare.
The Empire State Building is a much more robust structure with an internal skeleton that easily absorbs a vast amount of damage. The WTC more compares to an eggshell that is strong until it is breached, at which point the structure fails.
Compounding the failure of the WTC was the absence of asbestos insulation in the building that would have absorbed much of the heat from the burning jet fuel and possibly saved the buildings.
In my own opinion, the two buildings would've had to have been demolished even had they survived the damage of 9/11. At the least their upper floors would've had to be removed or the first decent windstorm would've collpased the two towers.
Once the airplanes hit the two towers the only question in my mind was when they would collapse, not if.
The failure of the WTC to sustain damage from any source, even the CT explosives, is really a condemnation of modern engineering standards that make structures just stong enough and not too strong.
An example of the failure of the current mindset in engineering was the 1994 earthquake in Los Angeles - new bridges and new buildings collapsed while old bridges and old buildings that had been built very stoutly easily withstood the temblor.
In a nutshell, the accountants who tell the engineers to cut corners were the people ultimately responsible for the collapse of the WTC. Had th abuildings been constructed according to their original specs with the maximum cross bracing and not the minimum and also with the recommended asbestos insulation for the steel components then those buildings would not have collapsed on 9/11.
I won't say that they would not have collapsed later or have had to been demolished, but on 9/11 they would have lasted the day and far fewer people would have died.
So my opinion is that the terrorists started a line of dominoes falling that had been set up years before by greedy accountants.
Before I take you on this statement and your expertise in the field of "greedy" accountants, I will give you a chance to changeg that bold statement before I show you why TTs had the exact skeleton structure that you speak of. And by the way the shell was designed like a WEB, it was designed to take the impact and cause minimum damage to the internal skeleton because thats what really supported the building.
ziggy @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:36 am
One of my favourite sources for 9/11 info. I bolded the important parts.
$1:
The web is full of sites covering various conspiracy theories. Many seem well-researched, and appear to have plenty of detailed documentation to prove their claims. But are they really true?
We don’t know, but one good way to start is by checking a few claims for yourself. We tried that with a number of 9/11 sites, with surprising results. Many of the “facts” we read were distorted, or simply wrong. Quotes were routinely taken out of context. Relevant information was often ignored. And much of this could be discovered with a minimum of online research.
Whatever you believe about 9/11, the spreading of false claims helps no-one, and we’d like to play a small part in revealing some of them. We’re not about debunking entire conspiracies, then, but will use this site to zoom in on what we think are the more dubious stories, revealing the misquotes, the distortions, the inaccuracies that are so common online.
But does this make us an authority? No. If we’ve an overall message here, it’s check things for yourself. Don’t trust a site just because it’s telling you what you want to believe. Don’t believe us without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we provide, either (we’re as likely to make mistakes as anyone else). Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less.
We don’t know, but one good way to start is by checking a few claims for yourself. We tried that with a number of 9/11 sites, with surprising results. Many of the “facts” we read were distorted, or simply wrong. Quotes were routinely taken out of context. Relevant information was often ignored. And much of this could be discovered with a minimum of online research.
Whatever you believe about 9/11, the spreading of false claims helps no-one, and we’d like to play a small part in revealing some of them. We’re not about debunking entire conspiracies, then, but will use this site to zoom in on what we think are the more dubious stories, revealing the misquotes, the distortions, the inaccuracies that are so common online.
But does this make us an authority? No. If we’ve an overall message here, it’s check things for yourself. Don’t trust a site just because it’s telling you what you want to believe. Don’t believe us without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we provide, either (we’re as likely to make mistakes as anyone else). Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less.
Source
ziggy @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:43 am
Greedy accountants,heh heh,thought that would go right over Abbass's head.
He might have to read about the asbestos to clear his fellow accountants names now. 
OPP @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:46 am
ziggy ziggy:
Greedy accountants,heh heh,thought that would go right over Abbass's head.
He might have to read about the asbestos to clear his fellow accountants names now.
He might have to read about the asbestos to clear his fellow accountants names now.
Ziggy! A little clarity please:
"You're sugesting that the fall of the tower changed speed in the final moments of the collapse? I've seen it from every possible angle. The dust don't cover that much. Even IF it did change speed in the last X stores, it did travel in free fall before the dust. How is that even possible?"
I'm quoting my last post.. and no, I'm not up my own ass.
Abbas @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:48 am
ziggy ziggy:
Greedy accountants,heh heh,thought that would go right over Abbass's head.
He might have to read about the asbestos to clear his fellow accountants names now.
He might have to read about the asbestos to clear his fellow accountants names now.
Haha nothing goes over my head and I am not here to defend anyone, simply making you guys think more about the situation. the only thing I am trying to say is, stop believing CTs on either side. Do some homework, not with your eyes, instead with your brain and look into one fact deep enough untill you reach the core and then move on. Don't simply ignore the facts that you have no answers too. I have asked you plenty of Questions ziggy and you gave me 2 websites now that have nothing to do with the Questions I asked. I am asking you since some of you claimed to be demolition experts. Tell me, why did witnesses hear crackling explosives way before the collpase? Why were these explosives going off from top to bottom in the building instead of where the fire was or surroundings?
ziggy @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:52 am
OPP OPP:
ziggy ziggy:
Greedy accountants,heh heh,thought that would go right over Abbass's head.
He might have to read about the asbestos to clear his fellow accountants names now.
He might have to read about the asbestos to clear his fellow accountants names now.
Ziggy! A little clarity please:
"You're sugesting that the fall of the tower changed speed in the final moments of the collapse? I've seen it from every possible angle. The dust don't cover that much. Even IF it did change speed in the last X stores, it did travel in free fall before the dust. How is that even possible?"
I'm quoting my last post.. and no, I'm not up my own ass.
Click the image on this link and time it. Looks like more then 12 seconds to me.http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall__video_evidence.html
ziggy @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:57 am
Abbas Abbas:
ziggy ziggy:
Greedy accountants,heh heh,thought that would go right over Abbass's head.
He might have to read about the asbestos to clear his fellow accountants names now.
He might have to read about the asbestos to clear his fellow accountants names now.
Haha nothing goes over my head and I am not here to defend anyone, simply making you guys think more about the situation. the only thing I am trying to say is, stop believing CTs on either side. Do some homework, not with your eyes, instead with your brain and look into one fact deep enough untill you reach the core and then move on. Don't simply ignore the facts that you have no answers too. I have asked you plenty of Questions ziggy and you gave me 2 websites now that have nothing to do with the Questions I asked. I am asking you since some of you claimed to be demolition experts. Tell me, why did witnesses hear crackling explosives way before the collpase? Why were these explosives going off from top to bottom in the building instead of where the fire was or surroundings?
Nobody here said they were a demo expert,once again,quit twisting things.There was no explosives going off,you keep saying that but provide no proof,the websites actuall answer every single question you have asked but you can lead a horse to water I guess.
Do you refute the siesmic charts?
ziggy @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:00 pm
ziggy ziggy:
OPP OPP:
ziggy ziggy:
Greedy accountants,heh heh,thought that would go right over Abbass's head.
He might have to read about the asbestos to clear his fellow accountants names now.
He might have to read about the asbestos to clear his fellow accountants names now.
Ziggy! A little clarity please:
"You're sugesting that the fall of the tower changed speed in the final moments of the collapse? I've seen it from every possible angle. The dust don't cover that much. Even IF it did change speed in the last X stores, it did travel in free fall before the dust. How is that even possible?"
I'm quoting my last post.. and no, I'm not up my own ass.
Click the image on this link and time it. Looks like more then 12 seconds to me.http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall__video_evidence.html
I get around 16 seconds,notice no explosions or squibs?
$1:
The rumble of the collapse appears to be noticeable as the video starts, or at least very close to it. If the sound is originating at a height of 965 feet (roughly the 78th floor), perhaps 200 feet from the microphone, then that’s a distance of around 985 feet, which means the sound began 0.86 seconds before we heard it (taking the speed of sound at 25 degrees C of 1136.2 feet per second). We’d suggest it’s realistic to assume the collapse started at 0.5 seconds before the clip begins, and perhaps a little earlier.
The cameraman bravely films what’s happening for a few seconds, before realising this may be a good time to run. We then lose sight of the building until roughly the 11 to almost 12 second point, where a considerable number of storeys of the building are clearly still standing. 25? It could be more as falling debris obscures the upper levels, but what’s clear is that the collapse didn’t end until some time after the 12 second point, putting the overall collapse time from this video as “more than 12.5 seconds”.
The cameraman bravely films what’s happening for a few seconds, before realising this may be a good time to run. We then lose sight of the building until roughly the 11 to almost 12 second point, where a considerable number of storeys of the building are clearly still standing. 25? It could be more as falling debris obscures the upper levels, but what’s clear is that the collapse didn’t end until some time after the 12 second point, putting the overall collapse time from this video as “more than 12.5 seconds”.
OPP @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:03 pm
ziggy ziggy:
OPP OPP:
ziggy ziggy:
Greedy accountants,heh heh,thought that would go right over Abbass's head.
He might have to read about the asbestos to clear his fellow accountants names now.
He might have to read about the asbestos to clear his fellow accountants names now.
Ziggy! A little clarity please:
"You're sugesting that the fall of the tower changed speed in the final moments of the collapse? I've seen it from every possible angle. The dust don't cover that much. Even IF it did change speed in the last X stores, it did travel in free fall before the dust. How is that even possible?"
I'm quoting my last post.. and no, I'm not up my own ass.
Click the image on this link and time it. Looks like more then 12 seconds to me.http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall__video_evidence.html
I can't tell.. He's jerking around with the cam to much. What I can tell you is that sound travels at a much lower speed than light. So estimating the fall by sound is not an opption. Atleast not for me.
george123 @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:04 pm
Wow, all this angst over all this. What a big crapshoot. The fact is, NO ONE can prove either end of it. Both sides have great facts to back them up, and both sides can refute those facts. No matter what you guys say about official this or that, those documents can be changed if someone wants them to be, no matter who's side it is. The American government has more power than we can comprehend, and they can pretty much do as they please. Go out and give hard facts to prove any one of them has committed criminal acts. You will end up dead, or having an all expenses paid vacation in Cuba, care of the Department of Homeland Defence.
Too many things happen that we know nothing about, and really, we don't want to know about. All we can count on is that if we are meant to know, time will eventualy reveal everything. As soon as there are no more power mongering agendas, we will have truth to most of our mysteries. Until then, let's try to fix up the problems this has stirred up and make this world a better place.
ziggy @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:06 pm
OPP OPP:
ziggy ziggy:
OPP OPP:
ziggy ziggy:
Greedy accountants,heh heh,thought that would go right over Abbass's head.
He might have to read about the asbestos to clear his fellow accountants names now.
He might have to read about the asbestos to clear his fellow accountants names now.
Ziggy! A little clarity please:
"You're sugesting that the fall of the tower changed speed in the final moments of the collapse? I've seen it from every possible angle. The dust don't cover that much. Even IF it did change speed in the last X stores, it did travel in free fall before the dust. How is that even possible?"
I'm quoting my last post.. and no, I'm not up my own ass.
Click the image on this link and time it. Looks like more then 12 seconds to me.http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall__video_evidence.html
I can't tell.. He's jerking around with the cam to much. What I can tell you is that sound travels at a much lower speed than light. So estimating the fall by sound is not an opption. Atleast not for me.
I edited,should have added this.
$1:
The rumble of the collapse appears to be noticeable as the video starts, or at least very close to it. If the sound is originating at a height of 965 feet (roughly the 78th floor), perhaps 200 feet from the microphone, then that’s a distance of around 985 feet, which means the sound began 0.86 seconds before we heard it (taking the speed of sound at 25 degrees C of 1136.2 feet per second). We’d suggest it’s realistic to assume the collapse started at 0.5 seconds before the clip begins, and perhaps a little earlier.
The cameraman bravely films what’s happening for a few seconds, before realising this may be a good time to run. We then lose sight of the building until roughly the 11 to almost 12 second point, where a considerable number of storeys of the building are clearly still standing. 25? It could be more as falling debris obscures the upper levels, but what’s clear is that the collapse didn’t end until some time after the 12 second point, putting the overall collapse time from this video as “more than 12.5 seconds”.
The cameraman bravely films what’s happening for a few seconds, before realising this may be a good time to run. We then lose sight of the building until roughly the 11 to almost 12 second point, where a considerable number of storeys of the building are clearly still standing. 25? It could be more as falling debris obscures the upper levels, but what’s clear is that the collapse didn’t end until some time after the 12 second point, putting the overall collapse time from this video as “more than 12.5 seconds”.
Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 175 Next