|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
="loose_ends"][qu
pancake theory. nice joo.
| Quote: |
| what the authors of debunking 9/11 fail to discuss, is that the remaining perimeter columns were blown to pieces and up to 500 feet outside of the footprint. Lateral high speed ejections with a sudden onset. it can all be seen in photos and video. |
So what?
| Quote: |
| what the authors of debunking 9/11 fail to discuss, is that there were no pancakes. all concrete was pulverized as can be seen in the huge dust clouds. this can be seen in the video. no macroscopic concrete remained. |
| Quote: |
| It�s claimed that most of the concrete was reduced to tiny 10-60 micron particles, but there�s no clear explanation of how this figure is derived, either. And there is some disagreement on this. While Dr Steven Jones has described concrete being pulverised to �flour-like powder�, for instance |
| Quote: |
We already know that Hoffman's article treats 4 x 10^11 joules as the amount of energy available for release in the towers from a gravitational collapse. And according to his conclusion this is less than one tenth of the energy required. Therefore we need to multiply this figure by at least 9, giving 36 x 10^11 joules of energy required from some other source. (And as Hoffman keeps saying the effects need more than ten times this amount of energy, and he�s being conservative, then this is an absolute minimum).
Now if this was to be provided by explosives, then how much might be required?
Well, a metric ton (1,000 KG) of TNT has 4.184 * 10^9 joules ( http://www.answers.com/topic/megaton ). A ton is a lot of explosives, but not enough for us: we have to get to 36 x 10^11 joules. Which suggests we would need 860.420 tons (aka 860,420 kilogrammes, or 1,896,901 pounds) of TNT to produce the WTC collapse and its observed results.
Nearly 1.9 million pounds of explosives placed without noticing? Per tower? How many detonators do you think might be required for that? How much cabling? Is this sounding just a tiny bit unlikely to anyone?
There are more powerful explosives, of course: C4 will offer 34% more energy, for instance, reducing out requirements to 642,104 kilogrammes. Let's assume the conspirators used something ten times more powerful still: now we're down to 64,210 kg, or 141,558 pounds of this mystery explosive. Per tower. We're being generous here, but this still isn't sounding very plausible. |
http://www.911myths.com/html/pulverised_concrete.html
| Quote: |
| what the authors of debunking 9/11 fail to discuss is the core column. you know, the other thing the floors were attached to. 47 thick steel columns served as the center support. Totally destroyed into the basement. That destruction does not agree with the 'pancake theory'. that is why NIST did a second report. NIST labeled anything after collapse, 'global collapse' and did not explain further. read the NIST report. that is the 'official' story for collapse. not pancaking as suggested by FEMA. it has been rejected. |
Just cause the FEMA may have made mistakes is not evidence of conspiracy .
anyway
| Quote: |
Note what's left of the core with most of the debris from inside the building around it. This photo was taken in October 3rd so many of the columns were already picked up but the major debris is located closest to the core.
Below is another interesting photo. It shows the perimeter columns laid out as if they simply tilted over. The only explanation is that the floors went straight down and the unsupported perimeter columns pivoted over in large sections. |
The video below shows a large section of perimeter columns leaning over to land flat on it's face.
| Quote: |
Like cutting the top of a milk carton off and slitting the corner edges - the walls lean over to land flat on it's face. Some easily hit the Winter Garden building.
Below is the Bankers Trust building. |
| Quote: |
As you can see, the building never caught fire so it was never in any danger of collapse. The evidence points to a combination of unfought fire and damage which brought down the WTC 7. That's what the NIST draft said as well. The Bankers Trust was also constructed differently, with a web column design. The interior columns were not pushed out to the perimeter.
Note the WTC columns laid out as if there were a path to the building. There are no concrete slabs attached to columns.
With the floors pancaking straight down, the perimeter walls were free to lean over in tall sections before breaking off and coming down. That's what gave them distance. |
| Quote: |
| The above photo illustrates just how far the perimeter columns could have gone. If the columns didn't break up as they leaned out they could have made a path to the Hudson river. Reaching Building 7 and the Winter Garden would have been well within reason. |
| Quote: |
| pancaking did not occur joo. do you even know who writes debunking 9/11? |
No but there is no reason to believe 9-11 conspiracy theorists.
| Quote: |
| turds like you buddy boy. do some research. atleast post things from scientific journals. |
9-11 conspiracy journals are not scientific journals |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Concrete Strain Energy:
The �pulvierisation� of concrete is perhaps the biggest flaw in Ross� paper. He lists a total of 608MJ lost from this event. In reality, the loss of kinetic energy due to pulverized concrete is ZERO MJ. Why is this? It�s already been accounted for. Recall that the loss of kinetic energy from an inelastic collision. This means that some of the kinetic energy is converted into heat, some into sound and the vast majority into strain energy. The strain energy category includes this pulverized concrete. In reality, core columns punching through the floor slabs, or concrete debris doing the same, would cause an additional amount of interal energy to be added into the concrete slabs. However the Ross model only allows the columns to land directly on top of each other, as this is most conservative to collapse prevention.
A question might still remain for some readers as to why so much of the concrete in the tower was turned into a fine particulate dust. The answer to that question lies not in the impact of one floor against another floor, but in the eventual impact of the entire structure into the ground. At that point, almost all of the available kinetic energy will be converted into internal energies. Again, some into heat, some into sound, but the vast majority into strain energy. |
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97584 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
Concrete Strain Energy:
The �pulvierisation� of concrete is perhaps the biggest flaw in Ross� paper. He lists a total of 608MJ lost from this event. In reality, the loss of kinetic energy due to pulverized concrete is ZERO MJ. Why is this? It�s already been accounted for. Recall that the loss of kinetic energy from an inelastic collision. This means that some of the kinetic energy is converted into heat, some into sound and the vast majority into strain energy. The strain energy category includes this pulverized concrete. In reality, core columns punching through the floor slabs, or concrete debris doing the same, would cause an additional amount of interal energy to be added into the concrete slabs. However the Ross model only allows the columns to land directly on top of each other, as this is most conservative to collapse prevention.
A question might still remain for some readers as to why so much of the concrete in the tower was turned into a fine particulate dust. The answer to that question lies not in the impact of one floor against another floor, but in the eventual impact of the entire structure into the ground. At that point, almost all of the available kinetic energy will be converted into internal energies. Again, some into heat, some into sound, but the vast majority into strain energy. |
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97584 |
joo this dude fails to mention, that the upper floors were already pulversized and blown to the side before the building fully collapsed. That is evident in the huge dust clowds that emerge instantly. The rubble does not pile up on itself and fall as one to the ground. The top erupts and materials turn into dust clouds, or are shot outside of the footprint.
He is describing a mechanism that is not seen in videos. We know that because the debris was shot OUTSIDE of the footprint. Not down into itself. The floors do not collecty pile on each other and fall to the ground. They are shot outwards. PUlverization happens immediately.
This is the general flaw of debunking 9/11. It is written by people like you. It describes things based on 'pancaking'. However if you look at the video and see the rubble pile, 'pancaking' does not happen. the building fell straight down but debris was shot outside of the footprint. that is not consistent with pancaking, or the stacking of floors onto themselves.
and again, there is no mechanism for core failure. the floors are breaking from perimeter and core columns. the core is vertical but the floors are horizontal. they are two different structures welded together. they have different strengths. they would not collapse under gravity together as one, and all the way into the basement.
FEMA and NIST reports have been torn to shreds. Would you like to focus on that perhaps?
at the very least, there is atleast no working mechanism that adequately explains the collapse.
at the very worst, and in my opinion and those of experts, those buildings swould not have collapsed the way they did without the use of explosives....simply impossible.
couldn't terrorists have been responsible for it? really smart ones? with friends in high places? years of preperation perhaps? lots of money?
lets discuss the official reports to joo. they are a total fn sham. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
and i am not kidding bout the terrorist thing
these were acts of terrorism no doubt. lets find out who the real terrorists are? i'm sure all those bastards you want to kill are mixed in with the bunch. i'm sure there are other elements too.
wouldn't you like to know everything?
because when we look at the reports, it is clear, that they are whack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is for Turds like you buddy boy.
| Quote: |
he NIST and "Pancaking"
The massive weight easily caused a "Pancaking" effect but unlike the original hypothesis, the pancaking didn't cause the collapse. It was a result of the collapse.
Update:
Conspiracy theorists are taking the above out of context in an effort to mislead readers into thinking the NIST and I are in disagreement. We are not. As I mentioned above, the pancaking happened AFTER the building was on it's way down and therefore NOT part of the NIST investigation. The NIST only studied the collapse until "Global collapse was inevitable". Any conspiracy theorist that tells you the NIST said the building NEVER pancaked is lying. The building didn't pancake CAUSING the collapse but evidence is strong the building pancaked AFTER the collapse was "inevitable".
What the NIST observed:
Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top of the truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking".
NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Sect 3.5.3
Of course this will be labeled a contradiction by conspiracy theorists. As if the NIST can't observe something without studying the behavior of it.
Let me make this really easy for them...
1) The NIST said, the heat from the fires sagged the trusses which bowed the columns inward CAUSING the collapse. Pancaking did NOT cause the collapse. The evidence I see agrees with this conclusion.
2) The evidence on the ground strongly indicates, after the collapse began, the building pancaked spreading the debris as we see below. The NIST never studied this so how could we be in disagreement?
I recently E-mailed the NIST to verify this. Here is their response:
NIST did not describe the specific sequence of events after global collapse initiated. The progression of global collapse was induced by the failure of the supporting structure (columns carry vertical loads; floors hold columns together, they do not carry vertical loads). NIST's investigation focused on the factors that led to the initiation of collapse, rather than the sequence of events after the collapse initiated.
Sincerely,
WTC Investigation Team
From the NIST report, page xxxvii:
The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the �probable collapse sequence,� although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.
So while they did investigate the squibs issues and other parts of the global collapse like the gusset plates failure, they never studied the "structural behavior" of the global collapse, as they did "the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse". And why should they? Every paper which passed peer review by respected scientific journals (The Journal of 911 Studies is not one of them.) on the collapse of the towers calculates the massive weight of the top sections would crush the buildings as seen. There are mathematical calculations which are shown in Bazant's paper (See below) and are peer reviewed. Others have passed similar papers. The idea that these buildings could not fall as they did flies in the face of these facts.
Conspiracy theorists are clearly lying about this in order to paint this site as unreliable. The irony of their claims seem to be what's most reliable in their movement.
Below we see the top of the south tower fall behind the perimeter columns at an angle. The top falls behind the perimeter columns and on the floors. (This happened at both buildings as this evidenced by these video screen shots of the north tower.) The angle at which it falls pushes the perimeter columns in front of the falling top section outward, giving them distance.
|
http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
This is for Turds like you buddy boy.
| Quote: |
he NIST and "Pancaking"
The massive weight easily caused a "Pancaking" effect but unlike the original hypothesis, the pancaking didn't cause the collapse. It was a result of the collapse.
Update:
Conspiracy theorists are taking the above out of context in an effort to mislead readers into thinking the NIST and I are in disagreement. We are not. As I mentioned above, the pancaking happened AFTER the building was on it's way down and therefore NOT part of the NIST investigation. The NIST only studied the collapse until "Global collapse was inevitable". Any conspiracy theorist that tells you the NIST said the building NEVER pancaked is lying. The building didn't pancake CAUSING the collapse but evidence is strong the building pancaked AFTER the collapse was "inevitable".
What the NIST observed:
Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top of the truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking".
NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Sect 3.5.3
Of course this will be labeled a contradiction by conspiracy theorists. As if the NIST can't observe something without studying the behavior of it.
Let me make this really easy for them...
1) The NIST said, the heat from the fires sagged the trusses which bowed the columns inward CAUSING the collapse. Pancaking did NOT cause the collapse. The evidence I see agrees with this conclusion.
2) The evidence on the ground strongly indicates, after the collapse began, the building pancaked spreading the debris as we see below. The NIST never studied this so how could we be in disagreement?
I recently E-mailed the NIST to verify this. Here is their response:
NIST did not describe the specific sequence of events after global collapse initiated. The progression of global collapse was induced by the failure of the supporting structure (columns carry vertical loads; floors hold columns together, they do not carry vertical loads). NIST's investigation focused on the factors that led to the initiation of collapse, rather than the sequence of events after the collapse initiated.
Sincerely,
WTC Investigation Team
From the NIST report, page xxxvii:
The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the �probable collapse sequence,� although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.
So while they did investigate the squibs issues and other parts of the global collapse like the gusset plates failure, they never studied the "structural behavior" of the global collapse, as they did "the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse". And why should they? Every paper which passed peer review by respected scientific journals (The Journal of 911 Studies is not one of them.) on the collapse of the towers calculates the massive weight of the top sections would crush the buildings as seen. There are mathematical calculations which are shown in Bazant's paper (See below) and are peer reviewed. Others have passed similar papers. The idea that these buildings could not fall as they did flies in the face of these facts.
Conspiracy theorists are clearly lying about this in order to paint this site as unreliable. The irony of their claims seem to be what's most reliable in their movement.
Below we see the top of the south tower fall behind the perimeter columns at an angle. The top falls behind the perimeter columns and on the floors. (This happened at both buildings as this evidenced by these video screen shots of the north tower.) The angle at which it falls pushes the perimeter columns in front of the falling top section outward, giving them distance.
|
http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm |
joo i understand the above.
in summary.
FEMA report 'pancaking as collapse mechanism INCLUDING, initiation.
that theory was in so many ways rejected.
NIST report emerged but did not study the collapse after INITIATION. They just dub 'global collapse' to everything after initiation.
So we have two reports
FEMA:
Pancaking (initiation)--->more pancaking (total collapse)
NIST:
column failure (initiation)---->'global collapse' (no mechanism explained)
put two and two together
column failure(initiation)---->pancaking (totally collapse)
right?
wrong, the pancaking theory is wrong for initiation AND total collapse.
floors do not physically pancake on each other. for that to happen, they would have to separate themselves from both the perimeter and core columns. the core (47 inter-welded think steel beams) would have collapsed at a different rate if at all, and certainly not straight down and completely. they would have had to have acted like WET NOODLES!
take 47 dried spaghetti strands. stand them up vertically from your kitchen table. that is the core column. try to make those spaghetti strands collapse symmetrically down into its footprint by pushing on the top. but there was damage, right?
ok, break a few of the strands on one side (plane impact) by hitting the side with a knife or fork. push down more, break some more. eventually it will collapse, but certainly not symmetrically because damage is asymmetric.
again, the noodles would all have to be limp.
pancaking doesn't work for the collapse, and it certainly doesn't work after collapse initiation. the core and floors were two different structures that were connected. those connections break under 'pancaking'. however they collapse together at the same time and completely. it VIOLATES the theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air � along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse � was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." |
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air � along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse � was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." |
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4 |
Dude, if you want to be taken seriously, you really have to stop with the popular mechanics references. For once and for all, that is the biggest piece of drivel, worse than the 9/11 commission report or the NIST report. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Dude, if you want to be taken seriously, you really have to stop with the popular mechanics references. For once and for all, that is the biggest piece of drivel, worse than the 9/11 commission report or the NIST report. |
Say the 9-11 conspiracy theorists. What else would they say?
So what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Dude, if you want to be taken seriously, you really have to stop with the popular mechanics references. For once and for all, that is the biggest piece of drivel, worse than the 9/11 commission report or the NIST report. |
Say the 9-11 conspiracy theorists. What else would they say?
So what? |
good comeback.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air � along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse � was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." |
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4 |
Dude, if you want to be taken seriously, you really have to stop with the popular mechanics references. For once and for all, that is the biggest piece of drivel, worse than the 9/11 commission report or the NIST report. |
the above explanation discusses the FLOORS...it does not even mention the CORE COLUMNS
for pancaking to occur....CORE COLUMNS need to be ignored.
as can be seen from your popular mechanics post...CORE COLUMNS are ignored
| Quote: |
| Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction |
they talk about floors pancaking. The FLOORS are different than the CORE. there is no mechanism that explains the CORE. the CORE would have collapsed at a different rate, in an asymmetric fashion and certainly not completely into the basement.
debunking 911 and popular mechanics and NIST and FEMA ALL ignore the CORE COLUMNS.
find me an explaination as to why the core columns, 47 thick steel collumns raised vertically and inter-welded collapsed.
it is not explained under pancaking.
find me a link JOO! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
you start finding links that support what you say
http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
| Quote: |
Conspiracy theorists use the original hypothesis - which wasn't created by the government, and which was wrong - to say the NIST can't be trusted, but that's the way all science is. They look at the evidence and create a hypothesis, test the hypothesis against the evidence and if new information comes out, they change the hypothesis accordingly. You would think if the NIST was going to lie, they would just build the lie around the first hypothesis. That they changed it only shows independence. Ironically, Professor Jones has changed his paper numerous times, yet the conspiracy theorists don't cast doubt on whether his paper is correct. Proof of the pancaking effect is the core columns, which can be seen collapsing seconds after the perimeter columns hit the ground. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
you start finding links that support what you say
http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
| Quote: |
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and controlled demolition - Towers Collapse. ... Proof of the pancaking effect is the core columns, which can be seen collapsing seconds after the perimeter columns hit the ground. . |
|
i most certainly will when i get back home.
| Quote: |
Proof of the pancaking effect is the core columns, which can be seen collapsing seconds after the perimeter columns hit the ground. |
show me a video.
core columns collapsed completely into the basement, in nice transportable pre-cut sections. the core column did not remain standing. It collapsed entirely into the basement.
any anomaly used to describe pancaking does not stand up to the fact that...the core columns were totally destroyed and offered zero resistance to the collapsing building. FACT...core columns completely collapsed. there is no reason for them to collapse fully into the basement and symmetrically straight down. Remember, they aren't a series of stacked structures like the floors. They are vertically raised and inter-welded together.
My links will be provided when i get home later this evening. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Conspiracy Theorists lie. Why do they lie? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| Conspiracy Theorists lie. Why do they lie? |
can you direct us to one of my lies? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
