Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
I've never read that the NIST changed it's story on the pancaking concept.
|
Actually they didn't, I meant FEMA. You couldn't have because NIST never investigated or analysed anything past the initiation of collapse. They denied free fall until they were blue in the face and still have nothing to say on the presence of molten iron in the debris. Actually they deny that outright.
NIST contradicts FEMA on several points as well, but FEMA was taken off the investigation apparently after it found improbably corroded and melted steel that it admitted was a complete mystery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
What military inaction are you talking about? By the time the military was informed, it was too late.
|
Depends who is testifying. FAA reports contacting NORAD (I believe, or some other military branch) before 9:00 AM, the military itself contradicted its own 9/11 commission testimony several times... what you're saying is apparently one version, and not at all what I've read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
The warnings? Sure, the FBI was told that someone was taking flight school but uninterested in landing. I'm guessing it was one of thousands of reports submitted on that same day. At the time of the warning, it was pretty much irrelevant - The US at that time didn't have a hijacking in decades, and the idea of flying planes into buildings wasn't even something anyone had thought of. There are warnings every day, and we try to weed through them. But you can only do so much.
|
Nah, this was much more explicit and obvious than that. There were several operations and investigations that were shut down. If you read certain recent reports and interviews with Richard Clarke and senators who were on the initial joint inquiry, you'll see this.
[QUOTE=**********;18811909]You are implying that because they they are embedded into the ground, that at worst they would oscillate in an earth quake. [/quite]
Actually what I meant to imply was that they are designed to withstand things like earthquakes and progressive damage caused by high winds because of the flexibility and ability to oscillate and "go with the flow" as it were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Regardless, this has nothing at all to do with 9/11. THe buildings did not fall due to oscillation. Despite the size of jumbo jets, most of the energy of the collision was dispursed out of the sides of the buildings and, even if the buildings absorbed all of the energy, it probably would not have been enough to make them oscillate or tip over.
|
Of course the didn't fall due to oscillation. That's what I wrote. Oscillation prevents the effects of structural stress by absorbing and dispersing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
The collapse of the buildings has everything to do with the weight of the upper portion of the building, multiplied by the velocity of the first, second and 3rd story fall, onto the support structure below it. The total energy of (weight + velocity) * acceleration was too much for the structure to support, so it too broke apart, and became a part of the down-falling mass. Hence, Pancake.
|
This has been laughed at by more educated minds than yours or mine. Pancake theory is simply refuted by the lack of pancake collapse debris, and the utter destruction of the "spindle" or core columns, in the case of the two towers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
I will grant that other conspiracy theories about who was behind it and who profited etc are all very interesting and very plausible but again, there is *nothing* plausible about WTC falling due to controlled demolition. I have seen zero, zero, zero proof of this.
|
The absence of evidence in the official story and it's physical improbability if not impossibility makes their theorizing and computer models pretty much less substantial than molten iron in the debris, iron spheres in the dust of adjacent buildings (found by independent as well as government investigators) and what has been found to be residue of thermite and/or thermate in the dust. That isn't zero proof, that is physical, documented proof.
The government provides no proof except carefully worded explanations of events "leading to" collapse initiation, without the physical proof to back it up. It's theory, coupled with inaccurate and speculative computer simulations and proves nothing to me except that you can produce enough scientific jargon to prove that rabbits can fly and water isn't wet.
:D