1211 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

W Tell, on 07 June 2012 - 02:59 AM, said:

True. Gravity pulls strait down. It is a driving force. But it looks to me like the top part is toppling over to the side. That's evident. Did Newton have something to say about that? Or does it just fall strait down? Through the path of most resistance.

(On a side note, I wouldn't have used this pic as evidence as to exactly how far it had listed to the side if it hadn't of been produced from someone else. Gravity pulling it strait down? With no other force evident?)

The measure of its listing is a question not only of gravity but also of the strength of the "hinge."  When a building like one of the twin towers experiences failure, the initial failure isn't global.  Part of it will (and did) momentarily retain structural integrity.  That is what we see in the videos and photographs.  The "hinge" is merely the last element to fail before the entire upper block falls downward, and it happens very quickly indeed.

Momentum will compel the upper mass to continue tilting even after the final failure of the hinge, and it will continue to tilt more and more as it impacts with more and more resistance below.  So of course it will both fall and continue to tilt.  The whole event is still gravity driven.

All in all, it is no mystery to me how the towers collapsed, despite the repeated arguments from demolition adherents.  The falling mass could not be stopped by the remaining structure below once it began falling.  Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is full of crap.

People can call for demolitions as a cause for the collapse initiation if they want, even though I completely disagree that such was necessary or even remotely evidenced, but once that upper block began to fall there was nothing that could stop it in the structure below.  Buildings aren't designed to catch a falling mass like that, only to statically hold it up when uncompromised.

It is this point specifically that has caused me to almost completely lose respect for Q24 and to doubt his general objectivity.  He seems to think that the building required additional demolitions to continue collapsing once initiated.  I find that completely ridiculous, and I find anyone who follows such a line of thought to be a complete fool.  Once it started there was no stopping it, and only uninformed or obstinately ignorant people would think otherwise.

As for your comment of "the path of most resistance" I also find that to be ridiculous.  What path offered less resistance than down?  The only thing that could compel the falling mass off to the side would be a stronger resisting force directly below it.  There was no such thing.  The structure below offered resistance, but it didn't offer more resistance than the falling mass delivered.  In that sense, the falling mass did follow the path of least resistance; straight down through the rest of the structure which was completely incapable of significantly diverting it.

[Babe Ruth]

I was pulling your leg Sky--there is no horizontal component of gravity.  Tongue-in-cheek, and only MID picked up on it.

It was a gravitational collapse, the story goes, yet somehow many large pieces of structural steel were displaced horizontally several hundred feet.

I know you will rationalize that somehow, but that does not change the reality.

[Wandering]

skyeagle409, on 07 June 2012 - 01:25 AM, said:

Yes they are continuing, and that shows just how difficult it is to stop terrorist attacks.

How many terrorist attacks were performed against Westerners in the period 1990-2000 and how many in 2000-2010?

I bet there was a giant decrease because of the War on Terror! Right? Right?...Oh.....no.....


So what's the War on Terror doing again?

[skyeagle409]

Wandering, on 07 June 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

How many terrorist attacks were performed against Westerners in the period 1990-2000 and how many in 2000-2010?

Too many!

I

Quote

bet there was a giant decrease because of the War on Terror! Right? Right?...Oh.....no.....

Actually, we are currently conducting our own terror campaign against the terrorist; a.k.a., "War of Terror." In that respect, I guess you might say there has been an increase in the worldwide terror campaign against the terrorist.

As the old saying goes: "Fight fire with fire" or should I say, fight the fire of  terrorist with Hellfires?!

Edited by skyeagle409, 08 June 2012 - 12:36 AM.

[W Tell]

booNyzarC, on 07 June 2012 - 03:45 AM, said:

The measure of its listing is a question not only of gravity but also of the strength of the "hinge."  When a building like one of the twin towers experiences failure, the initial failure isn't global.  Part of it will (and did) momentarily retain structural integrity.  That is what we see in the videos and photographs.  The "hinge" is merely the last element to fail before the entire upper block falls downward, and it happens very quickly indeed.

Momentum will compel the upper mass to continue tilting even after the final failure of the hinge, and it will continue to tilt more and more as it impacts with more and more resistance below.  So of course it will both fall and continue to tilt.  The whole event is still gravity driven.

All in all, it is no mystery to me how the towers collapsed, despite the repeated arguments from demolition adherents.  The falling mass could not be stopped by the remaining structure below once it began falling.  Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is full of crap.

People can call for demolitions as a cause for the collapse initiation if they want, even though I completely disagree that such was necessary or even remotely evidenced, but once that upper block began to fall there was nothing that could stop it in the structure below.  Buildings aren't designed to catch a falling mass like that, only to statically hold it up when uncompromised.

I'll ask you a question. Based on that photo, should one side, maybe one corner have collapsed faster because of that tilt (and all that weight put upon it) than any other part of that building? If so, what's the reaction of the upper block?

booNyzarC, on 07 June 2012 - 03:45 AM, said:

As for your comment of "the path of most resistance" I also find that to be ridiculous.  What path offered less resistance than down?  The only thing that could compel the falling mass off to the side would be a stronger resisting force directly below it.  There was no such thing.  The structure below offered resistance, but it didn't offer more resistance than the falling mass delivered.  In that sense, the falling mass did follow the path of least resistance; straight down through the rest of the structure which was completely incapable of significantly diverting it.

Unless the resisting force below it was pushing it to the side by collapsing faster on the heavy side than the light side. But that's not evidenced in any of the videos. Instead we have photo evidence of the main block listing to one side, making it heavier on that side, which should make that side collapse a bit faster. But it came down pretty uniform. Why is that?

Edited by W Tell, 08 June 2012 - 12:36 AM.

[skyeagle409]

W Tell, on 08 June 2012 - 12:35 AM, said:

I'll ask you a question. Based on that photo, should one side, maybe one corner have collapsed faster because of that tilt (and all that weight put upon it) than any other part of that building? If so, what's the reaction of the upper block?

Question:

In relation to the direction of the tilt, where did United 175 impact WTC 2?

[W Tell]

skyeagle409, on 08 June 2012 - 12:39 AM, said:

Question:

In relation to the direction of the tilt, where did United 175 impact WTC 2?

Thanks Sky! Sky and I both want to know how that jet sliced the building so it would hinge like that.

[skyeagle409]

W Tell, on 08 June 2012 - 02:42 AM, said:

Thanks Sky! Sky and I both want to know how that jet sliced the building so it would hinge like that.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE TIPPING OF THE UPPER SECTION OF WTC 2

http://www.911myths.com/WTC2TIP.pdf

[W Tell]

skyeagle409, on 08 June 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:

AN ANALYSIS OF THE TIPPING OF THE UPPER SECTION OF WTC 2

http://www.911myths.com/WTC2TIP.pdf

You and I will both be waiting with baited breath as Boony explains this to us both. Should be interesting.

[Wandering]

skyeagle409, on 08 June 2012 - 12:31 AM, said:

Too many!

So in other words, you have no response at all? What I expected.

Here are the numbers you are too lazy or afraid to see.

1990-1999: 28,912

2000-2010: 72,466


27,785 in Iraq ALONE for 2000-2010.



Keep supporting that War of Terror Sky, It's obviously making a large large difference to peoples lives. Being that more are ending up dead than before.

skyeagle409, on 08 June 2012 - 12:31 AM, said:

Actually, we are currently conducting our own terror campaign against the terrorist; a.k.a., "War of Terror." In that respect, I guess you might say there has been an increase in the worldwide terror campaign against the terrorist.

Nice freudian slip there, It's actually referred to as the 'War on Terror' but your 'War of Terror' is exactly how those countries civilians feel.

An appropriate choice of words. Who were the terrorists to Afghan civilians? To iraqi civilians?

I've often heard the saying '2 wrongs make a right'...wait, that's not it...

Edited by Wandering, 08 June 2012 - 11:37 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Wandering, on 08 June 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

So in other words, you have no response at all? What I expected.

One terrorist attack is one terrorist attack too many. In other words, it is irrelevant.

Quote

Here are the numbers you are too lazy or afraid to see.

1990-1999: 28,912

2000-2010: 72,466


27,785 in Iraq ALONE for 2000-2010.

And, yet, that attacks occurred just as was the case on 9/11/2001, and as I have said before, it is irrelevant.

Quote

Keep supporting that War of Terror Sky, It's obviously making a large large difference to peoples lives. Being that more are ending up dead than before.

You don't see to understand that there is nothing wrong taking out the terrorist, or are you upset that we have been doing so over the years?!

Quote

Nice freudian slip there, It's actually referred to as the 'War on Terror' but your 'War of Terror' is exactly how those countries civilians feel.

One the contrary, when the terrorist are taken out, civilians have been celebrating.

Somalis, Kenyans Hail Al-Qaida Mastermind's Death

http://abcnews.go.co...17#.T9IugrWwXSk

Crowds celebrate bin Laden’s demise

http://www.euronews....-laden-s-death/

And, there were happy civilians in the Philippines when the Abu Sayyaf leader was taken out. Seems to me that you rather protect terrorist who prey upon innocent people than to bring them to justice, and it that is not possible, bring justice directly to them.

Edited by skyeagle409, 08 June 2012 - 05:13 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

What you don't understand Sky, is that the most virulent and powerful of terrorists wear business suits with American flag lapel pins.

All the rest are amateurs compared to those.

The GWOT is a fraud of epic proportions.  Ain't it funny how Obama is now applying pressure to have Hollywood make a movie about his "raid" at Abbottabad?  He knows how to spin the fables.

[Sweetpumper]

Babe Ruth, on 08 June 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

Ain't it funny how Obama is now applying pressure to have Hollywood make a movie about his "raid" at Abbottabad?  He knows how to spin the fables.

There's actually two in the works. Never heard a thing about Obama pressuring Hollywood to do so.

[Wandering]

skyeagle409, on 08 June 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

One terrorist attack is one terrorist attack too many. In other words, it is irrelevant.

  wave that magic hand of yours Sky!

skyeagle409, on 08 June 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

And, yet, that attacks occurred just as was the case on 9/11/2001, and as I have said before, it is irrelevant.

What? Try learning English.

skyeagle409, on 08 June 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

You don't see to understand that there is nothing wrong taking out the terrorist, or are you upset that we have been doing so over the years?!

Oh no, I'm not upset. If you're having such AMAZING SUCCESS why have the amount of terrorist attacks nearly tripled since 9/11?

I guess you support American soldiers being killed. You must support civilians being killed.

Why am I even responding to your poor brainwashed soul. I truly pity you.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 08 June 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

What you don't understand Sky, is that the most virulent and powerful of terrorists wear business suits with American flag lapel pins.

Apparently, you got it all wrong again! Check it out. One of many attempts by terrorist to kill thousands of innocent people.

Quote

The Bojinka Plot

The Bojinka plot was a planned large-scale Islamist attack by Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to blow up 12 airliners^[1] and their approximately 4,000 passengers that would have flown from Asia to the United States.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Bojinka_plot