WTC Collapses

assymetric?(sic)

asymetric damage from wtc1 rubble. there was limited damage to the south face. we are told that the south west corner was damaged also.
there was no damage to the north face. there is plenty of photographic evidence confirming this.

freefall speed?

yes it fell at freefall speed, even NIST acknowledge this now.

so how did it fall at freefall speed?
this would require the simultaneous catastrophic falirure of ALL support columns.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

NIST finally admits absolute freefall.

NIST caught drylabbing and shamed by a physics high school teacher.

http://video.google.com/videosearch...efall&www_google_domain=www.google.com&emb=0#

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not the simultaneous but consecutive\consistant failure.

This is a non issue because explosives could not be planted in the building that would have caused this damage. People would have known and seen the explosives long before the event happened. This would have required a great deal of effort and planning. Obviously would have taken a very long time.

in any event simultaneous is not the right word to use.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simultaneous

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

so what? if i drop a feather of a tall buillding isnt it freefalling?

perhaps you should spend more time studying rudimentary subjects.

 

where did i ask for the information you posted?
i ask you where and how were the "bombs" placed in the buildings.
you never responded but instead posted someone elses explanation.

again, i did not say "it could not have been a controlled demolition".
i stated why i feel the way i do.
stop putting words in my mouth headspin.

 

where?

 

http://video.google.com/videosearch...efall&www_google_domain=www.google.com&emb=0#

 

what about the apartment blocks blown up in moscow in 1999?
what about the 1993 wtc bombing.
how are those events any different?

 

all events are different, dont see what that post has to do with anything though.

 

Nice. I must admit I'm curious as to who wrote that 'constant speed' bit, laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Good to know they finally admit some free fall speed.

 

this makes the third time that i've told you, now pay attention, i cannot view videos on the machine i'm currently using.

ah yes, after doing a quick search i find this "admission" to be in relation to building 7

 

you are claiming that it is impossible for bombs to have been planted in wtc7 because:

1. People would have known and seen the explosives long before the event happened.
2. This would have required a great deal of effort and planning.

yet conditions (1) and (2) did not transpire in the 1999 moscow apartment bombings and the wtc 1993 bombing.

so why do you believe (1) and (2) apply to wtc7, but do not apply to 1999 moscow and 1993 wtc?

 

i guess you'll have to take my word for it or fix your computer then. in the video NIST are seen fumbling over a simple question, and their latest report was changed after their fumbling response with the admission that wtc7 fell at freefall speed.

 

i was not referring to building 7. it is bocoming clear that you cannot bs your way out of WTC collapse so now you will split hairs over building 7. that is as far as i can make out because it looks like a lot of rambling you are doing here.

 

it is a hs teacher looking for a pat on the back because of discrepancies of a few seconds. supposedly that since the building fell 2 seconds faster then none of this actually happened or something like that...not really sure though.

 

There is strong evidence that steel actually melted to a liquid state at the wtc. from what you are saying in your post, the building should have collapsed well before the temperatures were high enough to actually melt steel into a liquid state. would the presence of liquid steel or iron concern you?

a high tech unreacted incendary nanothermite capable of melting steel was found in the wtc dust in large quantities, if this is true would you consider this worthy of investigation?

there is more, but here is a start:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

 

nanothermites were discussed and debunked at another forum you visit. did you forget, or didnt like the responses there?

 

much as you'd like to think that i am a school kid, i assure you that is not the case.

freefall is the maximum (rate of) speed any object can fall to the earth.

if the building fell at freefall at any point during the collapse then there is no resitance to the collapse. it would be like all the strength of the steel turned to the strength of wet spaghetti at a single instant. any buckling of columns would provide resitance to the collapse, therefore the speed would be less than freefall.

the implication of this admission is obvious, all support columns internal and external failed catastrophically without buckling, all at the same time. this can be achieved with explosives. i do not see how it can be achieved with asymetrical superficial damage and fire.

 

eh? no it wasn't. you saying something doesn't make it so.

ooh right, i forgot we are in the world where "debunked" has been changed to mean "responded to". sorry mr orwell.

 

The intensity of the twin tower fires and the constituent(s) of the falling molten metal.

This is in response to the 6th part of shaman_'s post 393 in this thread.

shaman_, you frequently seem to be of the view that if when I disagree with you, I'm being dishonest. You may want to gather some evidence before making such a claim in the future, as not doing so makes it appear as if you have little regard for actually proving your assertions.

Alright, I'll admit that I don't have evidence counter to your claims. I certainly don't think that those claims have gone through the rigour of Steven Jones' claims, but I personally don't see anything wrong with those possibilities. Do you admit that you don't have evidence counter to the possibility that it was, in fact, "Molten metals (e.g., molten iron) produced by highly exothermic chemical reactions (e.g., aluminothermic/thermite reactions)"?

Yep

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

I could say the same to you but I find the comment pointless; whether or not there is truth in the idea that you or I are seeing what we want to see, I think we should attempt to focus on things that are more easily determined. It's not like we don't have enough of that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.