This is just to respond to Mark's so-called "analytical" post, which contradicts a later post he made concerning Galileo's observation of the rate of velocity of falling objects (which I believe wasn't actually quantified until Newton, but I might be wrong...)
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
But it DID pancake. Prove that NIST said it didn't.
|
According to NIST: their
findings do not support the ?pancake theory? of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system?that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns?consisted of a grid of steel ?trusses? integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f...aqs_082006.cfm
Now this shows that NIST establishes progressive collapse, or pancaking, could not have occurred. Later, rather than inward bowing they "establish" that outward bowing occurred.
They also said that there was no evidence of any sort of incendiary or explosive force/s exerted on the structure, but later admit they didn't test or search for that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
This is incorrect, and you are over simplifying. You need to take in acceleration, initial velocity, and especially resistance due to air and debris. A dropped object starts its fall quite slowly, but then steadily increases its velocity--accelerates--as time goes on. Galileo showed that (ignoring air resistance) heavy and light objects accelerated at the same constant rate as they fell, that is, their speed (or "velocity") increased at a constant rate.
[...]
There was much more resistance than just air when the colapse occurred but there was much more weight too, and most importantly, the Velocity of the top floors WERE NOT ZERO. When the first floors gave way, their total weight PLUS the velocity that it was falling was more energy than the support of the floor below it was designed to handle, causing it to collapse. Then the TOTAL weight PLUS the now slightly higher veolicty crushed the floor below that, and so on and so on. It doesn't take a physics major to figure this out.
|
Exactly. There was much more resistance than just air, yet the building/s fell as though there was no more resistance than air; even if somehow each storey below the collapsing "block" had been at 10% it's structural integrity, it still would have presented more resistance to the falling mass than what we saw and the "collapse" would have taken much longer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Prove it. Links please!
|
The tests found that, typical for construction steel used in the 1960s when the World Trade Center was erected, the steel beams exceeded requirements to bear 36,000 pounds per square inch. Often they were capable of bearing around 42,000 pounds per square inch.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_152121.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
It is extremely unlikely that NIST, the "National Institute of Standards" would say, write or publish anything that goes against any physics, not just basic physics. Nist is a Physical Measurement Laboratory made up of scientists of all kinds. Whoever said this is truly out of their mind. Do you really think that they would make a mistake like that? Come on.
|
Of course, I'm sure if you broke it down, none of their statements were lies. They were, however, misleading in that they were mostly conjectural, explained partial phenomena without encompassing entire events and much like the 9/11 commission presented only arguments that bolstered their pre-conceived conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Stop right there. Coincidences are just that - coincidences. If you really want to find the truth about any thing, any object, any event, you must rule out coincidences. Coincidence is the basis of all nut job conspiracy theorists. A true scientist may use coincidence to follow a path towards discovery but will know when to abandon that path when it leads to a dead end.
|
However when each and every event, non-event, or consequence of any event on such a day are due to coincidental occurrences, you have to look beyond happenstance to a common factor - at least allow for the excessive number of coincidental going beyond coincidence.
Mindy Kleinberg, one of the "Jersey Girls" pretty brilliantly summed it up in her overlooked/ignored testimony to the 9/11 commission:
With regard to the 9/11 attacks, it has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100% of the time and the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11th, simple on its face, is wrong in its value. Because the 9/11 terrorists were not just lucky once: they were lucky over and over again.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearin..._kleinberg.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Good! Fine! Interesting! I would say that all or most of that is true or at least very interesting but this is a completely different subject. You are saying that all of this is connected with the "Demolition" of WTC. I don't think WTC was demolished at all despite the connections you have pointed out. Did the Saudis do it? Yes. Could Bush have prevented it? Probably. Did "The Government" have a part in it? Unlikely.
|
There's no proof the Saudis did it or were more than peripherally involved.
You don't think WTC was demolished because... what? Because you believe that three unprecedented events can happen for the first time in history all on the same day? Because two planes can "knock down" three buildings? Because though most buildings around and closer to the two towers suffered more damage they didn't collapse perfectly symmetrically to their base the way WTC7 did?
Why is it "unlikely" the government have a part in it? Has the government never considered or participated in operations of this kind? USS Liberty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lib...paign=wordtwit, GLADIO
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7fB6nViwJcM, MKUltra, the Tuskegee experiments,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskege...lis_experiment,
Unfortuntely, "government", whether it's the Nazis, Israelis, British or Americans, have proven over and over again that they are willing to make "sacrifices" of their citizens for what they consider a "greater cause".