The Woolworth Building & 9/11

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Well, what do you think did it?

I doubt the impact of the planes and the explosive combustion of their fuel was enough to bring the twin towers down. All the stuff about the columns of the central steel core melting, or bending, enough to cause the complete pancaking and collapse of all the floors to ground level, is bunk. Certainly not in an hour, or even two.

In my opinion.

Asking me to posit an alternative theory does not detract from the obvious inconsistencies in the official explanation. It doesn't hold water.

 

[Timble2]

This static/moving load thing - how fast were these collapsing floors supposed to be going for the structurally sound floors to give way instantly ?.

You'll find the maths here...
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

 

[hokum6]

The trouble with all the alternative theories is they require outrageously complex plots involving many people pulling off an unprecedented act with unknown technology that leaves no trace but 'inconsistencies', all for some evil overlord's nefarious plot to start a war and destroy some evidence in the towers (paper shredder would have been cheaper). And then afterwards every single person involved kept their mouth shut.

If you think that is more likely then we might as well blame it on ultra-dimensional mothmen for all the sense it makes.

I'm not sure why you think any inconsistencies point to some grand conspiracy anyway, it would have been more suspicious if there were no inconsistencies at all. Given the chaos on that day it's not surprising there are things that don't make sense, especially since most people in the world got their information from the news who, we all know, are quite happy to report any old crap.

I would like to know what inconsistencies you're talking about though.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

This static/moving load thing - how fast were these collapsing floors supposed to be going for the structurally sound floors to give way instantly ?.

You'll find the maths here...
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

The explanations and calculations become increasingly sketchy, if not fanciful, from about 4:2 on.

Nothing in the official explanation really explains the total collapse of the massive steel columns of the central core.

In my opinion.

 

[Bigfoot73]

I was just about to say the same thing . The graph shows that the towers collapsed about 2 seconds faster than free fall speed. Free fall means the top floor falling through thin air, not thin air impeded by the other 109 floors, yet those 109 floors only add 2 seconds to the fall time, apparently.

In using the law of conservation of
momentum in this way it is tacitly assumed that the impulse delivered by the impact is
sufficient to rupture not only the vertical columns supporting the impacted floor but also
the steel truss supports that span the gap between the outer perimeter wall and the inner
core of the building.

"Tacitly assumed" . Hmmm......
"Rupture" ? What exactly is meant by rupture, and that is one hell of a tacit assumption to be making. What's so thorough and empirical about tacit assumptions?
How did these collapsing floors bring the core down ? This is not explained either.

Hokum, save yourself the trouble, these days I only get involved in lengthy exchanges with people I respect.

 

[hokum6]

The graph shows that the towers collapsed about 2 seconds faster than free fall speed.

Erm, where does it show that? The graphs show quite clearly it taking several seconds longer than free fall speed, which is the general consensus of people who know what they are talking about, and who don't get their information off YouTube.

Of course, if you have some information that disproves what he's saying in that document then by all means share it with us, though I'm more inclined to listen to a guy with a doctorate than a random internet yahoo that thinks stealth orbs are a good explanation. So far the best you can do is quibble about semantics in a section of the doc in which he is clearly and honestly using estimated figures.

And if we were to accept the freefall theory so beloved of conspiracy nuts then we're right back to the problem of the mystery demolition job bigger than anything that's been done before in which explosives left no signature and were cleverly planted at the exact spot the planes hit.

Hokum, save yourself the trouble, these days I only get involved in lengthy exchanges with people I respect.

That's a weak excuse for not responding to questions. Just say you don't have an answer.

But here's a sadface to show my disappointment at your lack of respect:

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

I'd like to remind everybody that personal insults are neither sensible argument, nor reasoned discourse. They are usually considered Flames, within the rules of this message board. Please resist the temptation to use them.

See FAQ for details.

P_M

 

[Ringo]

I was hoping to be pointed in the right direction regarding the 77 and 93 flight data but so far I've been ignored or more likely lost in the posts.

Bigfoot, please could you give me a credible link to a site where I can read this critical/crucial piece of evidence which proves that the official explanation is BS. This is not a sarcastic comment but a genuine request.

As I said in my previous post, I'm happy to change my views if the evidence is there to back it up.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

a structure built to withstand the impact of a 747?

That's not true.

As for freefall speed, yes they did come down at freefall speed, in about 11 seconds. That was calculated years ago, it's one of the most telling pieces of evidence against the official story.

Neither's that.

So maybe WTC7 had 3 or 4 small fires, but it wasn't a large section of the builing that was damaged

Nor that.

and what gouged it away exactly.

Did you see the two big buildings right next to it that fell down that day?

 

[Timble2]

In the interests of fairness,and to save Bigfoot73 the effort, there's this link to someone else (with a PhD) who's done the maths on the towers from the conspiracist side.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

To make this work you have to assume, that all the concrete in the building turned to fine dust and blew out of the building and that the descending mass comes to a complete stop every time it reaches a floor.....

 

[Bigfoot73]

Ringo,http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Dr B, it is, it is , so's that and yes I did.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Nothing in the official explanation really explains the total collapse of the massive steel columns of the central core.

In my opinion.

Perhaps it's understandable that you and others may have doubts about how the collapse came about but, when you consider the massive potential energy stored in the section of building above the impact, I'm surprised anyone would expect anything but a total collapse once it started.

 

[Cavynaut]

were cleverly planted at the exact spot the planes hit.

That's not what controlled demolition theory claims at all.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Dr B, it is, it is , so's that and yes I did.

The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707, and not a fuel-laden one deliberately crashed into them.

The buildings took anything between 14-20 seconds to collapse.

WTC7 had raging fires on a number of floors and suffered extensive damage from the collapse of WTC1.

 

[Timble2]

....structure built to withstand the impact of a 747?
....

That's remarkably prescient of the designers, considering the towers started construction in 1966, and were designed between 1962 and 1964, while the first 747 didn't fly until 1969 with the design process starting circa 1965-1966.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

....structure built to withstand the impact of a 747?
....

That's remarkably prescient of the designers, considering the towers started construction in 1966, and were designed between 1962 and 1964, while the first 747 didn't fly until 1969 with the design process starting circa 1965-1966.

When someone can't even get the easy stuff right, it's hard to take seriously anything they have to say about subjects that requires a little more thought, investigation and understanding.

 

[Bigfoot73]

OK so it was a 707, still bigger than a 767. So was it supposed to be a 707 that had run out of fuel and dropped onto the roof ?
So because I was wrong about the exact type of 4-engined jet does that somehow invalidate everything else I claim? An interesting point for you to be making Doc, seeing as even Timble's maths pdf shows the towers taking less than 14 seconds let alone 20 to collapse! Are you applying the same argument to the proven falsehoods in the official account of what happened at the Pentagon?
I wouldn't describe the WTC7 fires as "raging" and none of them totally engulfed a single floor. Nor would I think "extensive" a justifiable description of the debris damage.

It would seem that most of the concrete actually did turn to dust, somehow.
The notion of the descending debris stopping every time it hits an undamaged floor, for however long, is implicit in the 'pancake' theory, which is part of the official story, isn't it?
Figure 4c shows hundreds of pieces of outer wall steel beam all the same length - apart from one big nearly-square section where it's two long sides consist of beam ends which have all somehow severed at the same point.
Thanks for that Timble.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

OK so it was a 707, still bigger than a 767.

Wrong again.

So was it supposed to be a 707 that had run out of fuel and dropped onto the roof ?

No, it would be a 707 in trouble if it was that near the towers. When a plane is likely to crash-land, they would dump the fuel.

So because I was wrong about the exact type of 4-engined jet does that somehow invalidate everything else I claim?

Not at all, but I think it shows how details that are far from minor can become twisted by the conspiracy game and perhaps sheds some light on the stringency of your fact-checking.

An interesting point for you to be making Doc, seeing as even Timble's maths pdf shows the towers taking less than 14 seconds let alone 20 to collapse!

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I understood those calculations were showing a minimum not maximum collapse time.

I wouldn't describe the WTC7 fires as "raging" and none of them totally engulfed a single floor. Nor would I think "extensive" a justifiable description of the debris damage.

You must be looking at different pictures and listening to different eyewitness reports from me then.

 

[Timble2]

Actually if you read rather than cherry-picked the papers it you'd realise that 14 seconds is still a lot slower than freefall, It's an estimate, given that the timings reported depend when you estimate the collapse was complete. After 10 seconds unless you've got X-ray vision it's hard to judge how fast the collapse is proceeding because of the dust clouds - it's somewhere between 11 and 20 seconds.

You misunderstand, the whole point is that the entire mass doesn't stop at every floor, that's the truther's version of physics. All concrete doesn't turn to dust, that claim is based on a paper that just pulls figures out of thin air to fit the conclusion

I don't see what your point about a section comprising more than one element of the outer wall proves anything. It's neat beacause it's several standard sized units that haven't yet separated - every joint doesn't have to break for the structure to come apart.

It also disproves the freefall claim since its obviously ahead of the wave of destruction. It can't be falling faster than freefall (unless it's being driven down) so the rest of the building isn't coming down at freefall.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

I'm not sure why you think any inconsistencies point to some grand conspiracy anyway, it would have been more suspicious if there were no inconsistencies at all. Given the chaos on that day it's not surprising there are things that don't make sense, especially since most people in the world got their information from the news who, we all know, are quite happy to report any old crap.

I was watching Newsnight the other day when Vince Cable appeared but was captioned as 'Lord Mandelson, Business Secretary'. This, on a day when nothing exciting was happening, the production team were under no pressure and it was a pre-recorded interview, not even a live segment of the show. However, I guess this inconsitency of reporting must be proof that Cable isn't who he says he is.

 

[Timble2]

...I was watching Newsnight the other day when Vince Cable appeared but was captioned as 'Lord Mandelson, Business Secretary'. This, on a day when nothing exciting was happening, the production team were under no pressure and it was a pre-recorded interview, not even a live segment of the show. However, I guess this inconsitency of reporting must be proof that Cable isn't who he says he is.

The rubber mask is torn from Mandelson's face "Curses! I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you meddling kids".

Perhaps the conspiracist's mind-set has been influenced by over exposure to Scooby-Doo in childhood...

Apropos nothing in particular:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5ayZSTwWlY

 

[Bigfoot73]

So I might be a second or two out on the fall time, but it isn't that single criterion that determines qwhether it was a spontaneous collapse or a controlled demolition.

All concrete doesn't turn to dust, that claim is based opulls figures out of thin air to fit the conclusion n a paper that just

The conspiracists have always maintained that far more concrete was turned to dust than can be explained by the official story, i.e. it was due to explosives.

It also disproves the freefall claim since its obviously ahead of the wave of destruction.

And how did it get to be ahead of the wave of destruction? How did it become detached from the building if not by pressure from the falling debris?

It's neat beacause it's several standard sized units that haven't yet separated - every joint doesn't have to break for the structure to come apart.

How did they get separated at exactly the same length, or any of the hundreds of other column sections which all seem to have somehow broken at the same length, with such neatly squared off ends?

 

[Timble2]

....

All concrete doesn't turn to dust, that claim is based opulls figures out of thin air to fit the conclusion n a paper that just

The conspiracists have always maintained that far more concrete was turned to dust than can be explained by the official story, i.e. it was due to explosives.[/url]

The figures are pulled of of thin air, the energy required to do what the conspiracists claim, would have required kilotons of explosive (which would have been a little obvious stacked up around the building), or a small nuclear bomb....

It also disproves the freefall claim since its obviously ahead of the wave of destruction.

And how did it get to be ahead of the wave of destruction? How did it become detached from the building if not by pressure from the falling debris?

It's part of the falling debris, therefore it's from above the point where the wave of destruction has reached. Hence, it has to have moved faster than the wave of destruction to getting to where it is, below the destroyed section of the building. Therefore, it has to be accelerating faster than the main part of the building. Unless it's got little rockets attached it's in freefall (allowing for air resistance, which wouldn't affect a substantial chunk of metal to any great extent). The rest of the building is moving slower than this and acclerating less rapidly, because of the resistance of the stucture beneath...yes, it offered resistance but not enough to prevent collapse.

Therefore, the building did not fall at (near) freefall speed, though detached panels separated from it did....

...How did they get separated at exactly the same length, or any of the hundreds of other column sections which all seem to have somehow broken at the same length, with such neatly squared off ends?

As I said the outer structure was made up of thousands of identical units, when the structure gave it would give at the weakest points - the joints between the units. So a lot of the falling pieces would be single units, or multiples of those units, and apparently the same size and squared off shapes. The girders would have been in standard sizes and they too would have tended to separate at the joints.

At a distance the debris looks very uniform, close up it's possible to see that a lot of it is bent, twisted and broken just as you'd expect.

 

[Bigfoot73]

The figures are pulled of of thin air, the energy required to do what the conspiracists claim, would have required kilotons of explosive (which would have been a little obvious stacked up around the building), or a small nuclear bomb....

I'm not sure what figures it is that you allege were pulled out of thin air, I couldn't find any calculations relating to the concrete dust in the Billiard Balls report. Then in the very next sentence you claim a controlled explosion would need kilotons of explosives or a small nuclear bomb ? Where did that claim get pulled from?
The conspiracists have been claiming the amount of concrete dust can't be accounted for by the official story and this doesn't even begin to do that.

The rest of the building is moving slower than this and accelerating less rapidly, because of the resistance of the stucture beneath...yes, it offered resistance but not enough to prevent collapse.

Therefore, the building did not fall at (near) freefall speed, though detached panels separated from it did....

The rest of the building is moving slower because it has been turned into dust: the concrete inner walls wouldn't have been very thick and the strength of the floors, like the walls, came from the steel girders; so there wasn't all that much concrete in there to start with. Figure 4d shows 4c's column section and another on the left of the frame, both being followed down by clouds of dust - dust which also seems to be falling ahead of the wave of destruction. If it's outer wall columns there's no inner concrete wall sections attached to them anywhere near it, likewise as there should be floor sections were they floor supports. There's hundreds of beam and column sections yet not one single chunk of concrete, just dust. What does this wave of destruction actually consist of? As the Billiard Balls report keeps asking, where did the building go ? What was left to crush the remainder of the building so quickly?
Lots of the girders are bent and twisted? They should all be like that.

 

[Ringo]

There's hundreds of beam and column sections yet not one single chunk of concrete, just dust.

There's loads of concrete left in this photo

And this is nothing but concrete.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

There's hundreds of beam and column sections yet not one single chunk of concrete, just dust.

There's loads of concrete left in this photo

And this is nothing but concrete.

We must be looking at different photos, Ringo.

 

[tastyintestines]

There's hundreds of beam and column sections yet not one single chunk of concrete, just dust.

There's loads of concrete left in this photo

And this is nothing but concrete.

We must be looking at different photos, Ringo.

The big white chunks in the first one are concrete. Some are even hanging by their rebar. There are blocks among the paper in the second one. With a good example is behind the guy sitting. The holes is where the steel reinforcement was before that piece was sheared off. Also what's up with that dude sitting there? :shock:

 

[Bigfoot73]

The guy is wearing a suit, not emergency services kit, covered with dust and missing his bottom half. He's dead, that's what's up with him.
Concrete is decidedly thin on the ground in either photo. Beams and columns with neatly severed ends are not.

 

[wembley9]

Wembley I haven't dropped the missile theory, and you haven't addressed it.

I was under the impression that you didn't have anything and you decided not to pursue it. Tell me about your missile theory and what evidence you have to support it.

I don't see anything inconsistent or evasive in my treatment of the lights/lasers issue -

So, tell me about why you think these lights might be anomalous and what evidence there is to suggest they were caused by a laser. Again, I didn't think you had anything

 

[wembley9]

OK so it was a 707, still bigger than a 767. So was it supposed to be a 707 that had run out of fuel and dropped onto the roof ?
So because I was wrong about the exact type of 4-engined jet does that somehow invalidate everything else I claim?

But all your other claims do seem to evaporate on close inspection - volume of concrete, speed of fall etc - if you checked things before repeating them it would improve your credibility.