The 'bowing' due to impact and explosion damage :
<loads of stuff snipped>
I thought we were talking about whether or not the exterior columns on the E side of the S tower were bowed inwards - or not - just prior to collapse?
I'll take it that you agree they were, but can't bring yourself to admit it in public.
Ok first - apologies for earlier comments - I wrongly assumed we were looking at the south face impact hole. Now I've had time to study - I agree the WTC2 east face columns are bowing inwards as seen in the first few seconds of :
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546
Before going further I'd like to hear what theory you're proposing from that observation first.
(hint: Patricks video link is very relevant)
I think the NIST report and the "Official Story" fit quite neatly with this observation.
Thermite, holograms, Lizards, pods, Zionists, Global Hawk, Able Danger, Operation Northwoods, Illuminati, Bohemian Grove, Big Oil, Haliburton, MegaPharma, UFO's, teh gubmint, teh Joos, and the New World Order...
do not.
-z
The myth of the bowing columns is as you of all people should know, and like all myths, only a myth; in service to those who seek to use them.
So in the space of 2 posts you agree they bow inwards, then claim it's a myth ? What's that about? CT rage? _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
The 'bowing' due to impact and explosion damage :
<loads of stuff snipped>
I thought we were talking about whether or not the exterior columns on the E side of the S tower were bowed inwards - or not - just prior to collapse?
I'll take it that you agree they were, but can't bring yourself to admit it in public.
Ok first - apologies for earlier comments - I wrongly assumed we were looking at the south face impact hole. Now I've had time to study - I agree the WTC2 east face columns are bowing inwards as seen in the first few seconds of :
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546
Before going further I'd like to hear what theory you're proposing from that observation first.
(hint: Patricks video link is very relevant)
I think the NIST report and the "Official Story" fit quite neatly with this observation.
Thermite, holograms, Lizards, pods, Zionists, Global Hawk, Able Danger, Operation Northwoods, Illuminati, Bohemian Grove, Big Oil, Haliburton, MegaPharma, UFO's, teh gubmint, teh Joos, and the New World Order...
do not.
-z
The myth of the bowing columns is as you of all people should know, and like all myths, only a myth; in service to those who seek to use them.
So in the space of 2 posts you agree they bow inwards, then claim it's a myth ? What's that about? CT rage?
This one forgot to read the posts of the previous person/personality who posted as "chek". _________________ "They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown
chek is his own man and I'm not sure why he said what he said but the NIST report has it's good and bad and we're all taking little bits to hold up our views. Having said that the general attitude of you trolls / shills just sums you guys up.
So can you furnish me with any real evidence of the passenger manifest my old chipmunk?
No!
Shill?
Very likely _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:26 pm Post subject:
Patrick Brown wrote:
chek is his own man and I'm not sure why he said what he said but the NIST report has it's good and bad and we're all taking little bits to hold up our views. Having said that the general attitude of you trolls / shills just sums you guys up.
So can you furnish me with any real evidence of the passenger manifest my old chipmunk?
No!
Shill?
Very likely
Just to clarify Patrick, the columns did bow for a period, but not for the length of time that NIST claim, and not from the cause they claim.
The amusing thing is - they illustrate it themselves.
The only reason that seems likely is they had investigators who weren't up to speed on the changing script. Certainly some other of their errors didn't even seem to be professionally proof read (mislabeled / unlabeled diagrams etc).
But I guess if you take the 'Tnrat' approach - it works both ways!
That video footage was of the south tower collapsing so I'm just wondering if NIST has any evidence of a similar occurrence, of inward bending external columns, in the north tower? We know as a fact that the core moved before the skin on the north tower as we've all seen the footage where the radio tower is seen to move before the skin.
The movement of the radio tower, which sat atop the north tower, suggests the core is falling so the theory of falling trusses seems rather iffy. Also worth noting that fires would burn more readly near the skin / outer columns because of great airflow / oxygen so one would expect trusses to collaspe away from the skin towards the core. The south tower collapse shows the sheared external columns bending just before it falls (even though we see intense fire at the external corner of the tower, or is it thermite?) which if we buy the falling trusses theory means they were compromised at the core! Of course some will say the trusses were sagging and the connecting bolts sheared off at the core and external wall at the same time. One question, would that explain the speed of the bending external columns?
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:08 am Post subject:
Patrick Brown wrote:
That video footage was of the south tower collapsing so I'm just wondering if NIST has any evidence of a similar occurrence, of inward bending external columns, in the north tower? We know as a fact that the core moved before the skin on the north tower as we've all seen the footage where the radio tower is seen to move before the skin.
The movement of the radio tower, which sat atop the north tower, suggests the core is falling so the theory of falling trusses seems rather iffy. Also worth noting that fires would burn more readly near the skin / outer columns because of great airflow / oxygen so one would expect trusses to collaspe away from the skin towards the core. The south tower collapse shows the sheared external columns bending just before it falls (even though we see intense fire at the external corner of the tower, or is it thermite?) which if we buy the falling trusses theory means they were compromised at the core! Of course some will say the trusses were sagging and the connecting bolts sheared off at the core and external wall at the same time. One question, would that explain the speed of the bending external columns?
The core is the key - and as you say, there was no antenna on the South Tower to signal its collapse in advance, as with the North Tower.
I'm currently searching for other photos/video of suspiciously bright fires/flares on the other corner columns, apart from the known ones on the north east corner of the South Tower.
Hmm at 7, 8, 9, seconds of the south tower collapse we see the skin, including the columns bending in as said. But what is very intriguing after initiation of the collapse the skin seems to bend back out i.e they spring back!
So we have a couple of seconds of extreme force pulling the skin inward and then something must snap or shear as the skin is seen to spring back. We need to ask is this consistent with the idea of trusses falling over time until their weight on lower floors initiates a pancake style collapse? Or are we seeing a massive pull inward and downward as the core falls and trusses try to hold on but eventually the bolts shear and the skin flexes back?
So what could cause the core to be compromised in such an extreme way? Even though we do see the south tower lean the north tower goes straight down! So we can ask of the north tower collapse: What could cause the core to be compromised consistently across it's 47 columns to cause such a symmetrical collapse? _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:44 am Post subject:
Patrick Brown wrote:
Hmm at 7, 8, 9, seconds of the south tower collapse we see the skin, including the columns bending in as said. But what is very intriguing after initiation of the collapse the skin seems to bend back out i.e they spring back!
So we have a couple of seconds of extreme force pulling the skin inward and then something must snap or shear as the skin is seen to spring back. We need to ask is this consistent with the idea of trusses falling over time until their weight on lower floors initiates a pancake style collapse? Or are we seeing a massive pull inward and downward as the core falls and trusses try to hold on but eventually the bolts shear and the skin flexes back?
So what could cause the core to be compromised in such an extreme way? Even though we do see the south tower lean the north tower goes straight down! So we can ask of the north tower collapse: What could cause the core to be compromised consistently across it's 47 columns to cause such a symmetrical collapse?
Contrary to the widely known popular myth (but not NIST's actual findings) the steel was not hot enough to fail, and also by extension, retain any deformation, and the severed, welded columns would act in effect like giant spring prongs (given enough force).
The bolted and welded floor attachments would provide plenty of that force until something had to give.
Yes go to your kitchen and get a stainless 'steel' knife and place the tip angled on a worktop and then apply a small amount of pressure. You will note that the steel knife flexes. The twin towers steel structure was also known to flex in high winds somewhat like the wings of an aircraft.
To restate my comment from above: We see a massive compromising of the core structure in just a few seconds. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Yes go to your kitchen and get a stainless 'steel' knife and place the tip angled on a worktop and then apply a small amount of pressure. You will note that the steel knife flexes. The twin towers steel structure was also known to flex in high winds somewhat like the wings of an aircraft.
To restate my comment from above: We see a massive compromising of the core structure in just a few seconds.
Okay.
Now you do me a favor mmkay? Go to your medicine chest and dust off that little bottle of Thorazine that the nice doctor prescribed for you...and take as directed.
-z
BTW: You know you're not supposed to have actual "steel knives" in your kitchen right?? _________________ "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
That video footage was of the south tower collapsing so I'm just wondering if NIST has any evidence of a similar occurrence, of inward bending external columns, in the north tower? We know as a fact that the core moved before the skin on the north tower as we've all seen the footage where the radio tower is seen to move before the skin.
The movement of the radio tower, which sat atop the north tower, suggests the core is falling so the theory of falling trusses seems rather iffy.
There are photgraphs of the bowed perimeter columns of the North Tower here. This also shows that the top section above the fire floors tilted with the radio mast. Assuming that the mast was symetrical on top of the tower it cannot have been an extension of any of the core columns, since they were arranged in a hollow rectangle. Unless we know how the radio mast was located, we cannot really deduce anything about the movements of the core columns from it.
I think it can be seen either way although the probability is that the core has been compromised and as it falls it pulls inward, for just a few seconds, some columns which may or may not have been cut by the impacting aircraft.
If you had read this
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf
you would know that the bowing on WTC1 (bowed FIVE FEET inward) lasted for at least FIVE MINUTES
and the bowing on WTC2 lasted for at least THIRTY-FIVE minutes, increasing over time.
I think Patrick is talking to himself.
"I'm just wondering if NIST has any evidence of a similar occurrence, of inward bending external columns, in the north tower?"
I guess he's just asking questions. _________________ "They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown
That video footage was of the south tower collapsing so I'm just wondering if NIST has any evidence of a similar occurrence, of inward bending external columns, in the north tower? We know as a fact that the core moved before the skin on the north tower as we've all seen the footage where the radio tower is seen to move before the skin.
The movement of the radio tower, which sat atop the north tower, suggests the core is falling so the theory of falling trusses seems rather iffy.
There are photgraphs of the bowed perimeter columns of the North Tower here. This also shows that the top section above the fire floors tilted with the radio mast. Assuming that the mast was symetrical on top of the tower it cannot have been an extension of any of the core columns, since they were arranged in a hollow rectangle. Unless we know how the radio mast was located, we cannot really deduce anything about the movements of the core columns from it.
Thanx for the report as it means we can safely assume that both towers fell because of similar reasons.
I just need to check whether the core columns, the NIST report suggest were 100% compromised by the aircraft impacts, work with the direction of collapses and the direction of the aircraft impacts.
Although to a certain extent we have to suspend belief as regards the NIST report as their conclusions as to structural damage i.e. the core columns are only best guess. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Do you have any reason to doubt its authenticity? Have you lifted a finger to try to verify it?
No!
Shill for Al Qaeda?
Very likely _________________ "They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown
Well that McAllister report does put forward a pretty good case for collapse due to fire and structural damage caused by aircraft impact. I can't deny that the south towers collapse does seem consistent with the impact of the aircraft, it falls to the south east before collapse right? The north tower is not quite so compelling as it falls to the south east away from the side which would have sustained the most impact damage. We would have expected the north tower to have fallen towards building 7. Kind of strange that it fall away from building 7!!
There are also images which are put forward with titles like 'Hanging objects in north window of Floor 80' which are what appear to be ventilation conduits. I'm not sure what this information is supposed to suggest as it is in no way indicative of trusses being compromised due to fire.
As for all the speculation about core columns being cut due to the impacts of aircraft well thats all it is speculation. I think some research into how steel reacts to 500 mph impacts is needed here as well some research into the structure of the aircraft involved.
So this report may put a few doubt's in my mind but it does not explain the explosions heard by many people nor the molten metal before (seen in video footage dripping from the south tower) and after collapse (found in the wreckage by the clean up crew but also suggested by thermal satellite imaging). _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Well that McAllister report does put forward a pretty good case for collapse due to fire and structural damage caused by aircraft impact. I can't deny that the south towers collapse does seem consistent with the impact of the aircraft, it falls to the south east before collapse right? The north tower is not quite so compelling as it falls to the south east away from the side which would have sustained the most impact damage. We would have expected the north tower to have fallen towards building 7. Kind of strange that it fall away from building 7!!
Well then...those must be heavenly marshmallows raining down on WTC#7 since the tower "fell away" and not towards it....right???
_________________ "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
Well that McAllister report does put forward a pretty good case for collapse due to fire and structural damage caused by aircraft impact. I can't deny that the south towers collapse does seem consistent with the impact of the aircraft, it falls to the south east before collapse right? The north tower is not quite so compelling as it falls to the south east away from the side which would have sustained the most impact damage. We would have expected the north tower to have fallen towards building 7. Kind of strange that it fall away from building 7!!
Well then...those must be heavenly marshmallows raining down on WTC#7 since the tower "fell away" and not towards it....right???
Amen.
Patrick, you're such a pitiful idiot that arguing with you almost seems like bullying.
But if you're willing to see confirmation of your idiocy on film then "What we saw" has it at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903 _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Well that McAllister report does put forward a pretty good case for collapse due to fire and structural damage caused by aircraft impact. I can't deny that the south towers collapse does seem consistent with the impact of the aircraft, it falls to the south east before collapse right? The north tower is not quite so compelling as it falls to the south east away from the side which would have sustained the most impact damage. We would have expected the north tower to have fallen towards building 7. Kind of strange that it fall away from building 7!!
Well then...those must be heavenly marshmallows raining down on WTC#7 since the tower "fell away" and not towards it....right???
Amen.
Patrick, you're such a pitiful idiot that arguing with you almost seems like bullying.
But if you're willing to see confirmation of your idiocy on film then "What we saw" has it at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903
Err I'm well aware of that film and many others which show the 'explosive' chunks of debris heading towards building 7. I was simply pointing out what the McAllister report observes i.e. The north tower falls away from the side it was impacted upon unlike the south tower which falls towards the side it was impacted on. This seems inconsistent with the idea that aircraft impacts severed core columns upon impact and are therefore a major contributory factor in the collapse of the towers.
Why didn't the north tower fall towards building 7?
Why didn't the north tower fall towards it's weakened side i.e. Towards building 7?
Why would a building which, according to McAllister, had severe structural damage on one side fall towards it's stronger side? _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Err I'm well aware of that film and many others which show the 'explosive' chunks of debris heading towards building 7. I was simply pointing out what the McAllister report observes i.e. The north tower falls away from the side it was impacted upon unlike the south tower which falls towards the side it was impacted on. This seems inconsistent with the idea that aircraft impacts severed core columns upon impact and are therefore a major contributory factor in the collapse of the towers.
Why didn't the north tower fall towards building 7?
Why didn't the north tower fall towards it's weakened side i.e. Towards building 7?
Why would a building which, according to McAllister, had severe structural damage on one side fall towards it's stronger side?
It looks to me like it fell all around the perimeter, but if you're saying that most of it fell away from the damage, I have an explanation.
The top portion, as it fell, rotated into the direction of the damage. Most of the energy of the falling object was then applied to that side of the remaining structure, pushing it in the OTHER direction.
With the south tower, the top portion was much larger, so naturally more material fell in that direction.
ETA: This would also seem to neatly explain why the collapses were so symmetrical. When portions of the collapsing structure began to rotate, they pushed the remaining structure in the opposite direction, correcting the rotation. The average result was a tendancy to fall straight down.
Why would a building which, according to McAllister, had severe structural damage on one side fall towards it's stronger side?
Both buildings, essentially, fell straight down.
A lot of material was flung sideways as the falling mass impacted the stationary remainder.
Watch the film(s) again.
You're clinging to a belief that has no science or logic to support it. If your belief is of religious proportions then discussion of physics or fire technology or building performance is futile. No amount of duscussing "fact" will shift your position, so let's not waste our time eh? The rest is up to you. _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Err I'm well aware of that film and many others which show the 'explosive' chunks of debris heading towards building 7. I was simply pointing out what the McAllister report observes i.e. The north tower falls away from the side it was impacted upon unlike the south tower which falls towards the side it was impacted on. This seems inconsistent with the idea that aircraft impacts severed core columns upon impact and are therefore a major contributory factor in the collapse of the towers.
Why didn't the north tower fall towards building 7?
Why didn't the north tower fall towards it's weakened side i.e. Towards building 7?
Why would a building which, according to McAllister, had severe structural damage on one side fall towards it's stronger side?
Don't forget about the other major contributory factor: the fires. In the case of the North tower, the debris from the impact was pushed up against the south wall, so that's where most of the fuel for the fire was concentrated, and that's where the greatest bowing (strain) occurred.
Check out this report:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf
Particularly chapter 9, section 9.3 _________________ "They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown
Why would a building which, according to McAllister, had severe structural damage on one side fall towards it's stronger side?
Both buildings, essentially, fell straight down.
A lot of material was flung sideways as the falling mass impacted the stationary remainder.
Watch the film(s) again.
You're clinging to a belief that has no science or logic to support it. If your belief is of religious proportions then discussion of physics or fire technology or building performance is futile. No amount of duscussing "fact" will shift your position, so let's not waste our time eh? The rest is up to you.
I think he's talking about the tilt to the south. There was a moderate tilt of about 8° when the north tower collapsed. _________________ "They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:33 pm Post subject:
One would really have to wonder what kind of 'critical thinking' can see this as a result of a 'gravity driven collapse'.
My God.
You really can't awaken those pretending to be asleep.
One would really have to wonder what kind of 'critical thinking' can see this as a result of a 'gravity driven collapse'.
My God.
You really can't awaken those pretending to be asleep.
Ah, I see, so your entire argument boils down like this: It just doesn't LOOK like a gravity driven collapse, to me. Case closed!
One would really have to wonder what kind of 'critical thinking' can see this as a result of a 'gravity driven collapse'.
My God.
You really can't awaken those pretending to be asleep.
Ah, I see, so your entire argument boils down like this: It just doesn't LOOK like a gravity driven collapse, to me. Case closed!
Indeed the arcing debris are wholly suggestive of explosive charges (RDX / Shape Charges). The geometry of the event suggest mis-calculations on the part of the perpetrators to account for explosive elements seeking to escape through the path of least resistance i.e. Through the hole in the north tower made buy the aircraft impact.
The south tower collapses towards the impact zone thereby disallowing an explosive exhaust. The north tower collapses away from the impact zone thereby allowing matter forced by explosive charges to be ejected towards building 7. As said a mis-calculation.
Any damage to building 7 seven could have always been contrived as being events that were not viewable because of dust clouds i.e. Low laying impacts which would account for the building being compromised at it's base therefore indicating low laying damage which caused the building to fall in the way we see. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Indeed the arcing debris are wholly suggestive of explosive charges (RDX / Shape Charges).
(Also parabolic motion is suggestive of... second order newtonian dynamics. Allow me translate: freefall).
Do you have any analysis that suggests explosives but not normal gravity acting on an object with horizontal velocity? (Ie, do you have any analysis that shows that _only_ explosives could have given this debris it's horizontal velocity?)
Quote:
The geometry of the event suggest mis-calculations on the part of the perpetrators to account for explosive elements seeking to escape through the path of least resistance i.e. Through the hole in the north tower made buy the aircraft impact.
You could package that kind of gibberish up and sell it by the ounce.
One would really have to wonder what kind of 'critical thinking' can see this as a result of a 'gravity driven collapse'.
My God.
You really can't awaken those pretending to be asleep.
Ah, I see, so your entire argument boils down like this: It just doesn't LOOK like a gravity driven collapse, to me. Case closed!
Indeed the arcing debris are wholly suggestive of explosive charges (RDX / Shape Charges). The geometry of the event suggest mis-calculations on the part of the perpetrators to account for explosive elements seeking to escape through the path of least resistance i.e. Through the hole in the north tower made buy the aircraft impact.
How did the perps camoflage the shock wave from the explosions? If large chunks of debris could be hurled away from the building, then we should have seen an abrupt shift in the dust as the shockwave went through it.
Unless you claim that the explosion happened before the collapse began. In that case, how did the debris manage to wait for the collapse to begin before being hurled clear of the building?
(This occured to me last night when I was watching "Seconds from Disaster", and they were showing footage from the aircraft carrier that caught fire during the Vietnam war. Every few seconds, a bomb in the fire would go off. The wall of fire didn't simply grow larger, like you sometimes see with pyrotechnic effects in the movies, it INSTANTLY changed shape and size as the shockwave ripped through it. The speed of the shockwave from high explosives is astonishing!)
Do you have any analysis that suggests explosives but not normal gravity acting on an object with horizontal velocity? (Ie, do you have any analysis that shows that _only_ explosives could have given this debris it's horizontal velocity?)
I'll answer my own question for you:
It's OBVIOUS it was explosives. It's obvious that gravity couldn't do it, so it must have been explosives. Just look at the picture. Only explosives could do it!
Custom made appeal-to-intuition gibberish, free of charge.
One would really have to wonder what kind of 'critical thinking' can see this as a result of a 'gravity driven collapse'.
My God.
You really can't awaken those pretending to be asleep.
Ah, I see, so your entire argument boils down like this: It just doesn't LOOK like a gravity driven collapse, to me. Case closed!
Indeed the arcing debris are wholly suggestive of explosive charges (RDX / Shape Charges). The geometry of the event suggest mis-calculations on the part of the perpetrators to account for explosive elements seeking to escape through the path of least resistance i.e. Through the hole in the north tower made buy the aircraft impact.
The south tower collapses towards the impact zone thereby disallowing an explosive exhaust. The north tower collapses away from the impact zone thereby allowing matter forced by explosive charges to be ejected towards building 7. As said a mis-calculation.
... REALLY?!? _________________ "They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown
Patrick, that's about the biggest pile of steaming nonsense I've read all week. _________________ "They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown
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
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
... REALLY?!?