9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic - More freefall, with added concrete and drywall dust

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

More freefall, with added concrete and drywall dust
Goto page 1, 2 Next

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:54 am Post subject: More freefall, with added concrete and drywall dust

_________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:02 pm Post subject:

Notice how it's falling into its own footprint.

Jay Ref
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:15 pm Post subject:

aggle-rithm wrote:

Notice how it's falling into its own footprint.

Wow! That thermite really blasted everything into >60 micron dust!!!
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:22 pm Post subject:

Jay Ref wrote:

aggle-rithm wrote:

Notice how it's falling into its own footprint.

Wow! That thermite really blasted everything into >60 micron dust!!!
-z

Well, it's extremely high magnification, of course...

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:45 pm Post subject:

Jay Ref wrote:

aggle-rithm wrote:

Notice how it's falling into its own footprint.

Wow! That thermite really blasted everything into >60 micron dust!!!
-z

This site demonstrates conclusively that the only possible explanation for the whole building being reduced to 60 micron dust is that the WTC was actually built with a concrete core, reinforced with rebar wrapped in C-4:
http://www.algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

Arkan_Wolfshade
Minor Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 31

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:01 pm Post subject:

Whew, good thing the majority of it was > 60 microns in size.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:29 pm Post subject:

Jay Ref wrote:

aggle-rithm wrote:

Notice how it's falling into its own footprint.

Wow! That thermite really blasted everything into >60 micron dust!!!
-z

Everything? Is that your own theory?

MiniMauve
Moderate Poster

Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:21 am Post subject:

Yes, exaggerate the points we make to the point of ridiculousness. I hate having to get into pedantic treatises on minute nuances of meaning, but it may be the only way to bull through these black-n-white interpretations of virtually every statement on this forum. When I say that the buildings fell into their own footprint, I don't mean that nothing spilled outside the footprint, nor do I mean that all the materials of the upper floors collected at the collapse wave, waiting in que to be deposited in the conveniantly collapsed 6 sub-floors of the WTC. OBVIOUSLY, there will be and was spillover as the towers collapsed. My point is, and has always been, that it is remarkable how much of the material did get deposited into that smoking hole, given we are talking about 2 towers that dwarfed every building in the area and a third that was half the size of the towers but still soared above most of it's neighbours. Yes, there was damage to adjacent buildings, but in retrospect, surprisingly little IMO. Certainly worth a closer look, I would think. Particularly when you consider the ramifications of the this event i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, curtailing of human rights, etc. Why wasn't this event treated like a crime scene? It's unconscionable. _________________ Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not.

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 7:35 am Post subject:

MiniMauve wrote:

Fair enough, but this is where it all gets very frustrating and people lose patience.

CTist A : "Most of the debris fell into the footprint"

CTist B : "Huge amounts of heavy debris flung 100 of yards, proving high-explosives"

and that's the way the CT world works, as you've seen with noplanes/drones/missiles, 93 didn't exist/replaced by drone/shot down

etc etc

Strictly speaking you folks should be debating among each other to settle on one version. The CT world is a basket-case of mutually contradicting versions, some of which are laughable.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

Arkan_Wolfshade
Minor Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 31

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:33 pm Post subject:

MiniMauve wrote:

Yes, exaggerate the points we make to the point of ridiculousness. I hate having to get into pedantic treatises on minute nuances of meaning, but it may be the only way to bull through these black-n-white interpretations of virtually every statement on this forum. When I say that the buildings fell into their own footprint, I don't mean that nothing spilled outside the footprint, nor do I mean that all the materials of the upper floors collected at the collapse wave, waiting in que to be deposited in the conveniantly collapsed 6 sub-floors of the WTC. OBVIOUSLY, there will be and was spillover as the towers collapsed. My point is, and has always been, that it is remarkable how much of the material did get deposited into that smoking hole, given we are talking about 2 towers that dwarfed every building in the area and a third that was half the size of the towers but still soared above most of it's neighbours. Yes, there was damage to adjacent buildings, but in retrospect, surprisingly little IMO. Certainly worth a closer look, I would think. Particularly when you consider the ramifications of the this event i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, curtailing of human rights, etc. Why wasn't this event treated like a crime scene? It's unconscionable.

They collapsed into a six-story high pile of debris. They affected surrounding buildings substantially when they collapsed:

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

MiniMauve wrote:

I believe what is meant, and it's really not that hard to deduce, is that each Tower fell symmetrically.

According to the diagram, all the debris fell into a radius of barely twice its own width, with the majority of debris being contained within a radius of slightly more than one width (each Tower 208ft sq.).

That is remarkable by anyone's standards, given the blocks wide devastation that would have been caused had two 1300ft Towers toppled sideways and in different directions as might have happened 'naturally'.

Last edited by chek on Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:50 pm; edited 1 time in total

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:24 pm Post subject: Re: More freefall, with added concrete and drywall dust

Ignatz wrote:

That is one of the most dramatic and detailed photos I've yet seen.

That sure is one of the biggest and clearest debris showers of steel assemblies, shredded steel and pulverised concrete I've yet seen.
I guess there's paper in there too, but I can't be sure.

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:53 pm Post subject: Re: More freefall, with added concrete and drywall dust

chek wrote:

Loose paper hits terminal velocity in a second. Any loose paper belonging to that section is most likely well up and out of shot.

The cloud of dust you see trailing the bottom right section of external wall is probably gypsum powder from dry-walling (plasterboard) which was used to line internal wall surfaces.

Gypsum dust also reaches terminal velocity very quickly (being very small and relatively light), hence it's getting left behind in a plume.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:13 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

According to the diagram, all the debris fell into a radius of barely twice its own width, with the majority of debris being contained within a radius of slightly more than one width (each Tower 208ft sq.).

That is remarkable by anyone's standards, given the blocks wide devastation that would have been caused had two 1300ft Towers toppled sideways and in different directions as might have happened 'naturally'.

Normal buildings cannot fall sideways, they are not built to withstand the strains that would be imposed. Similarly, you cannot get a house of cards to fall sideways, for the same reason.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:39 pm Post subject:

Bushwacker wrote:

chek wrote:

Normal buildings cannot fall sideways, they are not built to withstand the strains that would be imposed. Similarly, you cannot get a house of cards to fall sideways, for the same reason.

Really? Someone should tell these architects that, because they're obviously not as wise as yourself on the subject.
Meh - link won't embed - try this:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/taiwan_six.jpg

MiniMauve
Moderate Poster

Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:46 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Bushwacker wrote:

chek wrote:

Normal buildings cannot fall sideways, they are not built to withstand the strains that would be imposed. Similarly, you cannot get a house of cards to fall sideways, for the same reason.

Really? Someone should tell these architects that, because they're obviously not as wise as yourself on the subject.

It's that black and white thinking again, Chek. He thinks there are only 2 choices for falling buildings - tip over sideways like a bowling pin or collapse into a tidy pile. Obviously, the towers did spillover the edges of the collapse wave and also spilled outwards once the debris filled the 6 sub-floors. We end up with a 6 floor high pile, approximately. Looking at the diagrams and pictures that have been presented I think it is a surprisingly small area for the rubble of 2 110-story towers. But now we are just in a cyclical subjective argument.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not.

conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:16 pm Post subject: What he might be trying to say...

is buildings dont fall sideways when a controlled demolition occurs. They fall sideways under other circumstances.

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:01 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Bushwacker wrote:

chek wrote:

Normal buildings cannot fall sideways, they are not built to withstand the strains that would be imposed. Similarly, you cannot get a house of cards to fall sideways, for the same reason.

Yes, but notice I said "normal buildings" by which I did not include buildings constructed in areas of high earthquake activity, which include special features against horizontal shear enabling them to act much more as monolithic blocks and topple intact.

See if you can find a normal building that has fallen sideways.

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:10 pm Post subject:

MiniMauve wrote:

The sub-floors could not fill first, since they still had most of the building protecting them when the collapse started. Just look at the footage, and you will see that the buildings looked like a mushroom as they collapsed, with a large part of the debris spilling off the sides.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:33 pm Post subject:

Bushwacker wrote:

MiniMauve wrote:

Ah - that old mushrooming-pancaking collapse throws everybody. Is the mass inside or outside the building?
Can't be both, and there's only one mechanism that throws that much mass aside that quickly that I can think of.
And it isn't jetfuel.
Do you think all that 'friction' might have expanded the cloud?

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:33 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Er .... I thought that, a few days ago, you were accepting that only about 25% of the floors would be available for rigging up with demolition charges? Those that were unoccupied or shut for refurbishment etc? Have you reverted to the high-explosives everywhere theory? Do you actually have a consistent theory or does it change from day to day according to how the arguments are faring?

Incidentally - why does the 'mass' have to be either inside the building or outside it?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:17 pm Post subject:

[quote="Ignatz"]

chek wrote:

Ignatz wrote:

[Er .... I thought that, a few days ago, you were accepting that only about 25% of the floors would be available for rigging up with demolition charges? Those that were unoccupied or shut for refurbishment etc? Have you reverted to the high-explosives everywhere theory? Do you actually have a consistent theory or does it change from day to day according to how the arguments are faring?

My theory is that the buildings were demolished. As to the exact details of how that was done....well the exact mechanism remains to be discovered. This tends to become easier when investigations are unhampered by only looking at planes/fires/collapse theory (that theory doesn't deserve caps)

Ignatz wrote:

Incidentally - why does the 'mass' have to be either inside the building or outside it?

Without getting all quantum about it, in the same way as two pieces of matter cannot occupy the same space, it is equally difficult for a single piece of matter to occupy two different spaces at once.
Is it meant to be crushing the building, or taking a free ride down on the scenic route?

Consevation of momentum (according to Pancake Theory - never heard of before Sept 2001 - but we'll give it honorary caps because it's so important to the Official Version) requires every last scrap of material needs to be in there bearing down for all its worth to create a stutter-free collapse.
And yet our eyes tell us a good proportion isn't in there doing its job.

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:38 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

No it doesn't. Where does it say anywhere that the entire mass of the building needed to fall straight down to sustain the collapse? Or are you just making up the laws of physics now?
_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:49 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

chek wrote:

No it doesn't. Where does it say anywhere that the entire mass of the building needed to fall straight down to sustain the collapse? Or are you just making up the laws of physics now?

This from Professor Jones' paper:
"Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors - and intact steel support columns - the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?"

Translation: the OT needs all the help it can get, hence my comment..

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:53 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

chek wrote:

No it doesn't. Where does it say anywhere that the entire mass of the building needed to fall straight down to sustain the collapse? Or are you just making up the laws of physics now?

Or a better translation might be: I'm clearly not a professor of physics.
_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:01 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Er ... how about some falling down the outside creating clouds of dust with large lumps bouncing off and away, while most falls down the inside doing the crushing? Gravity is like that. It tends to keep things falling downwards but then good ol' Newtonian action+reaction leaps in to confuse things.

Or would that simple concept disturb your hard-wired brain circuits ?

Perhaps we need an independant enquiry to discuss this possibility? hmmm ... hmmm ...
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:07 pm Post subject:

Are we back to citing the paper he's afraid to get peer-reviewed by actual scientists, again?

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject:

Anti-sophist wrote:

Are we back to citing the paper he's afraid to get peer-reviewed by actual scientists, again?

I suspect we need an independent review to see whether it ever was peer-reviewed, and by whom (if it was) and if not, when it will or will not be.

It's all so confusing - clearly we need a review of required reviews Shocked

_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:53 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

Anti-sophist wrote:

Are we back to citing the paper he's afraid to get peer-reviewed by actual scientists, again?

Alternatively, maybe it's about time some other scientists started dealing with Jones' findings? (But look what's happening to him - let that be a warnng)

However the current climate will not last forever, or even much longer.

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:56 pm Post subject:

Scientists will be happy to deal with teh findings of Jones, once he has some verifiable, repeatable, scientific findings. Once he publishes them in a reputable journal, scientists will examine them in great detail, I assure you. Unfortunately, he's too afraid to submit it.

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner	All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum