@sandburg1972 and @ studebakerlvr do you both know that almost all the comments on this video are two two arguing? Get a life and live it! I know you two are better than this!
Sandberg1972's posts shows he's unaware of conservation of momentum. In progressive collapse, momentum of the falling mass increases cuz its mass and velocity increases. It slows briefly as it accelerates the new floor to match its speed. It DOESNT stop. The first floor hit has one tenth of the mass of the descending material, and thus the new mass decelerates by under 10%, according to conservation of momentum. The idea the falling floors grinding to a halt violates physics
@studebakerlvr Oh, and the above statement accounts for loss of kinetic energy due to friction, sound, and vibration, all of which become less and less important as the decending mass continues to fall.
" The first floor hit has one tenth of the mass of the descending material, and thus the new mass decelerates by under 10%, according to conservation of momentum"
Why don't submit this to the Nobel Prize for Physics Committee?
What "increasing mass"? Mass gets ejected all the way through, no mass stays in some imaginary scare box, right above the lower part of building. Also imagine the destructive power of fine dust, which disperses so easily.
Sandberg keeps harping on Assembly 4in the NIST fire tests, complaining that the truss only sagged 3 inches. Here are the details he leaves out: # 4 was a subscale model and represented an UNDAMAGED, fireproofed assembly. Therefore one would not expect it to accurately reflect floor deflection in the WTC, floors that were both larger AND damaged. Yet ANOTHER example of Sandberg1972's total disregard for the facts.
@studebakerlvr OK, so u're admitting that the test that NIST performed does not prove that the floormodel could collapse, so they just "assumed" that if the model had been of a larger scale and suffered damage (how much exactly?), then it surely would've sagged at least 43 inches. Right?
I don't really see any disregard 4 the facts from my point of view. Rather it's NIST and you that show blatant disregard for "the facts".
Just what kind of reason is there, to expect that much more sagging?
@Sandberg1972 it's not an assumption, numb nuts, its a fact for reasons I have pointed out in other posts (the whole cross section vs length thing, which you are too dumb to understand). Plus. you keep forgetting that the truss that sagged 3 inches was INSULATED!!! Yet ANOTHER EXAMPLE of you leaving out important details
Idiot Sandberg1972 is all hung up on the word free-fall. What he fails to grasp is that once the columns collapse, gravity takes over. Using standard gravitational accelleration and a distance of 3.7 meters between floors, you get the upper floors impacting the floor below it at 8.5 m/s, or about 30 km/h. Given the mass of the upper floors, this dynamic load would far exceed the designed static load the floor beneath it was able to support. Result is total collapse. Damn mathematical jibberish
@studebakerlvr What you fail to grasp, is that if just a few steel supportcolumns (of the many dozens) resist collapse, then freefall goes out the window. Other than that the collapse would instantly become asymmetrical with nothing 2 regain symmetry again.
Ur dynamic load certainly exceeds the resistance of the 1st lower floor to be hit, but expends a lot of energy doing that. When it hits the next (hopefully straight on, otherwise it would tilt) less energy will be available etc. until arrest
@Sandberg1972 WRONG!!! you idiotic post ignores basic physics.The decending floors hit the first intact floor, which slows down the speed of decending mass, but doesnt stop it, and then begins to accellerate again as that floor collapses, and now that mass is 4.6 million kg heavier. Jesus you are an idiot.
@studebakerlvr The mass of the topfloors starts with a FIXED amount of gravitational energy. Each time a floor gets hits, a certain amount of that FIXED amount has to be spent in breaking columns, pulverizing officematerials, heating them up, leaving much less to accelerate again. So when it hits the next floor, the energy of those topfloors is much less. Then it again has to spend a lot of energy breaking columns, crashing stuff etc etc.
It's 79 static floors vs 30 dynamic floors, after that it's 78 static floors vs 29 dynamic, after that it's 77 static vs 28 dynamic, after that it's 76 static vs 27 dynamic.
Each time the next floor gets hit, energy is transferred through ALL the columns into the ground, kinetic energy is converted (spent) into breaking columns, shredding officematerials, acceleration decreases.
There is no realworld model 4 the crushdown-crushup-theory, it don't exist
@Sandberg1972 Dumbass, Free fall refers to any body solely moving under the influence of gravity. If the supports holding up the floor collapse, that floor is in free fall! Clearly the columns collapsed and gravity took over (free fall). Just because the east perimeter columns collapsed first, that doesnt keep free fall from happening on the N,S, and W sides when THOSE perimeter columns ALSO collapsed, which they clearly did, what, one second later? You're blind as well as dumb.
Here's a fact Sandberg1972 has failed to mention: In the 10 years since 9/11, there has not been a SINGLE published, peer-reviewed paper disputing the progressive collapse hypothesis – not from any person in any department. NONE!!! (The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a joke and not a repected or reliable sourse of info) Instead we have rantings by disturbed individuals who somehow never get around to submitting their studies to the appropriate peer-review outlets.
Sandberg1972 lampoons the NIST report for assuming no heat conductivity of steel in a computer simulation, but fails to include the valid reasons why they didnt, which I have explained in my other posts (he will say "no you didnt", blah blah blah). He's never seen or heard of a load bearing column or truss sagging due to age or being heated from fire. You'd think he's never left his room at the state hospital to go look at buildings.
An oldie but goodie from Sandberg 1972: "According to NIST, the damage from the planes did not really play a factor" Here is what NIST ACTUALLY says, "In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower." Hmmm, the report says the damage DID play a factor. Sandberg forgot about that line, I guess
NIST states (this is from their own website, just copied it for u):
"•The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact."
@Sandberg1972 U fucking idiot - it says Fire + Damage + Insulation Loss = collapse. That's a COMBO theory, not a simple "fire theory" that you keep trotting out.
@studebakerlvr "In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower." That is a direct quote from the final NIST report, despite the desperate attempts of Sandberg 1972 to portray that report as advancing a simple fire theory. Sandberg1972 is a toxic combination of dishonest and stupid.
@studebakerlvr The "massive loss" of insulation of the key in NIST's report. Without the significant loss of SFRM the towers would've remained standing. Odf course there was damage from the planes, but it's influence was not that great. That's what I've been trying to get through to u.
Another example of the lies of Sandberg1972 "Dr. Greening, the 1 who has speculated that thermite was spontaneously formed in the towers, because all of the ingredients were present. Dr. Greening does no such thing. He discusses in one of his papers that the elements found at Ground Zero are indicative of common building materials, NOT evidence of thermite as Steven Jones and other conspiracy nuts claim. When Sandberg1972 quotes or references someone, dont trust him. He lies and distorts.
Hmmm, I forgot to mention that Sanberg1972 may, instead of changing the subject, opt to try to re-argue a point I have already discredited, thinking that no one will remember. What I'm certain of, he will misquote, mislead, ignore relevant facts, or simply make things up. Sandberg1972 would misquote the Bible by taking out the word "not" from "thou shalt not commit adultery" if he wanted to try and prove a point.
Sandberg1972 has been hanging his hat on the thermal conductivity of steel for about 8 pages now. I have discredited his statments and pointed out his factual errors and his leaving out of important details. He will either change the subject entirely and bring up some other sacred cow of the "truthers", or go quote mining thru the NIST report and intentionally take things out of context to mislead. Sandnut1972: Have you googled "creep" in reference to construction yet?
Quote from Sandberg1972: steel conducts heat (because, believe it or not, it actually does so, it's pretty much THE reason that the steel of highrises never get hot enough to fail, it's its conductivity and ability to absorb large amounts of heat). Of course he's wrong. The mild carbon steel allow used in WTC does not conduct heat well, esp given the length of the floor trusses compared to their cross section
@studebakerlvr This point is important, cuz as I've already explained, conspiracy theorists like to claim the steel beams would disperse the heat throughout it's connected members, thereby keeping any one beam from getting too hot to fail. This theory is of course, poppycock. It ignores reality since the A36 alloy used in WTC does not conduct heat well, and since the cross-section of the trusses is small compared with their length. Sandnut, the conversation is over. U are a dumbass.
Sandberg1972 keeps harping on "real world tests" and real world this and real world that as a way to discredit the NIST report and portray their models as invalid, BUT, then he turns around and cites a computer simulation test in the NIST report, but uses the results to discredit that same NIST report. Well, Sandnut1972, which is it? You cant have it both ways. Either you accept computer simulations or you dont! See how these hypocrites work? Always twisting things around.
Sandberg1972 tries to look intelligent when quoting the NIST report, but as usual leaves important details out. The NIST did not use thermal conductivity in one of the FDS models. Why? Because since the WTC alloy was at best mediocre in conducting heat, AND because NO material conducts heat well when the length is large compared to it's cross section (WTC). Given those facts, adding an algorithm for heat conductivity isnt needed.
What's hysterical to me is that Nutberg1972 keeps harping on one particular heating test conducted by the NIST during which the steel was covered with fireproofing, and then fails to realize that the results of this test are invalid when applied to a situation like WTC 1 & 2 during which the fireproofing was removed by the planes' impact! He says: 'No I don't think your point is all that important. I think it's rather a patheticly sad attempt at distorting." PSYCHO!!!! and dumb as well
Sandberg1972 states "it's tough having to come up with reasonable sounding numbers that must fit certain predetermined conclusions" Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. That's exactly what he and others of his ilk do. What a hypocrite. Oh yeah, Sandberg is hung up on heat conductivity. He doesnt know that the steel alloy that dominated WTC 1 and 2 is actually a mediocre conductor of heat, not an excellent one that the "truthers" claim
@studebakerlvr The truthers argue that the heated beams will disperse the heat by heating up all the other beams and columns connected to it, thereby reducing the fire's efficiency. This would work if the WTC were made of copper, which is an excellent conductor of heat. Unfortunately for Truthers, the A36 alloy that dominated the Towers’ load-bearing structure conduct roughly 50 Watts per meter-degree Kelvin, or about an eighth that of copper. This means the dispersal theory is nonsense.
@studebakerlvr Yes that's why so many steel highrise have collapsed from fires, the heat from the fires cannot be dispersed, so steel will heat up locally to extremely high temps where it will eventually reach temps of above 800 C or higher, causing the steel to buckle and fail completely.
We've seen it soooo many times over the years, right?
Oh wait, no we haven't.
Know what a heatsink is?
Btw, do u happen to notice any steel beams that were glowing redhot? Did NIST find temps > 800C?
@studebakerlvr I know that STeel is not the best conductor around, nobody's claiming that it 's an excellent conductor, but 2 assume ZERO conductivity is not really honest, is it? So u put another lie into the "truthers" mouths again
To also assume that no heat was lost to the air, to heating other materials besides steel, is even more dishonest, wouldn't u think so?
Now try addressing this for a change. If u think it is indeed honest to do so, please explain the rationale behind that.
@Sandberg1972: You had no idea of the conductivity of THIS steel until I told you. You want to believe that the steel dispersed the heat throughout it's connected members like conducting electricty. Here is a quote from your source of info, Dr of THEOLOGY, Ray Griffin: "Steel is an excellent conductor of heat...if those two beams are interconnected with hundreds of other beams, the heat will be diffused throughout the entire network of beams." WRONG!
@Sandberg1972 "nobody's claiming that it 's an excellent conductor" Oh really? Direct quote from Dr David Ray Griffin, conspiracy theorist: "Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. If heat is applied to one portion of a steel beam, that portion will not be quickly heated up to the temperature of the flame, because the heat will quickly be diffused throughout the beam" Dont believe me? Check it yourself. YOU ARE BUSTED!!!!
Still waiting for Sandberg1972 to tell the world where in the NIST report they claim that steel doesnt conduct heat or that the damage wasnt a factor. Still waiting for this moron to tell the world where they can find F.R. Greening claiming thermite spontaneously appeared. Still waiting for him to explain how a mass consisting of 29 floors wouldnt overwhelm the floor below it. Still waiting for him to explain away the independent reports that confirm the NIST theory.
@Sandberg1972 "The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, NO thermal conductivity was used." is as usual, misleading. The fact is steel does not conduct heat quickly, ESPECIALLY when the distance is large compared to the cross-section. This is precicely the case in the WTC, therefore adding thermal conductivity to THIS computer model calculation is NOT NECESSARY! You continue to take things out of context, twisting their meanings to suit your needs
Hey Sandberg, how about you reference the exact page in the NIST report where the authors proclaim "STEEL DOESNT CONDUCT HEAT!!!" Could you find that for me, please? {of course he cant - he made that up} Hurry up now, I'm not getting any younger. I'd like to spend my last remaining good years being an effective top secret agent for Mossad. Oh damn! I shouldnt have revealed that. Curses curses!
Nutberg1972 also totally ignores the phenomenon known as "creep", which refers to the bending of structural materials under load, in this case the behavior of steel when loaded while being heated. Conspiracy theorists love to ignore creep because in order for their idiotic theories to make any sense, they have to believe that once the trusses and columns cooled they magically snap back to their original shape and regain their stuructural integrity. Lawd, what MORONS!!!
@Sandberg1972 HAHAHAHAHA: Ask anyone in the construction business, instead of the voices in your head. If you havent heard of that term, that's YOUR problem, not mine. Funny, how you try to discount it because the actions of load bearing steel while heated is a MAJOR factor in any discussion of the collapse. You discount it because you need your steel to snap back into it's original shape for your idiotic theory to make sense.....
@Sandberg1972 do I actually have to comment on this? Load carrying beams sagging over time, or due to fire is news to you? My God, you are a complete fool!!!
In reference to fire tests, Sandberg1972 screams about how those tests failed to heat beams and columns hot enuff for failure. This is again, misleading. The whole truth is that the fire rating only applies to the complete structural system, which includes undamaged fireproofing material. Therefore, after an aircraft impact which damaged the fireproofing, the rating is no longer valid. Kind of an important point, don you think? Nutberg1972 leaves that fact out.
@studebakerlvr No I don't think your point is all that important. I think it's rather a patheticly sad attempt at distorting.
Tell me again, what was it? Unprotected steel in a furnace of 1100 C for two hours? How much sagging did they measure again?
It's all guestimating by NIST, I feel sorry for them actually, it's tough having to come up with reasonable sounding numbers that must fit certain predetermined conclusions. And not having people find out.
@Sandberg1972 I've already answered this with my "creep' comment, which you conveniently ignore. You also fail to mention that several tests were done under a variety of conditions, typical of your cherry picking. You consistently behave in the manner in which I predicted. Oh, and saying that the fireproofing isnt an important point? That just now rose to the top of your dumb statements list.
@Sandberg1972 I've already answered this with my "creep' comment, which you conveniently ignore. You also fail to mention that several tests were done under a variety of conditions, typical of your cherry picking. You consistently behave in the manner in which I predicted. Oh, and saying that the fireproofing isnt an important point? That just now rose to the top of your dumb statements list.
See how Sandberg1972 gets hung up on certain details and uses them to discredit the NIST report (of course, he is too afraid to mention independent reports from others, such as from Bizant and Zhou, Greening, and others). Again, he keeps cherry picking facts and figures in the illogical conclusion that the NIST report is a house of cards. More failed and illogical thinking from that Rhodes Scolar Sandberg1972.
Another tactic of these conspiracy theorists is to engage in selective fact finding. They ignore certain facts that do not fit with their pre-conceived notions and only cite facts that do, aka: cherry picking. In psychology, it's also known as a confirmation bias. You search for and interpret ONLY info that confirms your opinion, and avoid or ignore info that contradicts your opinion. It's why Sandberg1972 cherry picks info on 9/11. He's a confirmation bias addict. Classic case of it.
Here's more "mathematical jibberish" to further confuse Sandberg1972: Flight 175, which hit WTC 2, impacted while pitched down at 6 degrees and traveling 99 mph faster than Flight 11 which hit WTC 1, pitched down at 10 degrees.On speed alone, Flight 175 hit WTC 2 with about 50% more kinetic energy than Flight 11's hitting WTC 1. Hitting more str8 on also meant more of Flight 175 passed thru office space to hit the core directly. No surprise WTC collapsed more quickly. That damn math!
According to Sandberg1972, math is good when you try to use it to dispute the NIST report, but it becomes "mathematical jibberish" when mathematical calculations support the NIST report. I fear poor math is getting the old and unfair double-standard treatment from Sandberg1972. However, that is not surprising. If he's gonne lie, mislead, and distort everything else, why should math be exempt? I feel sorry for math.
So, Sandberg1972 besides continuing to misrepresent the NIST report, now blames mathematical jibberish, and calls the 29 floors above the impact zone in WTC 2 "small". I'm sorry, but I wouldnt want 29 floors of ANY building falling on me, much less 29 floors of the WTC. He talks about molten steel, but not enuff heat to damage the columns ( huh?). He talks about someone distorting the images of the bowed in columns, and a plane traveling 542 mph cant dislodge sprayed on foam. NUTCASE!!!
What's magical to people like Study here is the way that small fires heat up all steel beams of this huge steelframed highrise to very high temperatures in a very short time, not to mention the way that gravity just absolutely annihilates every last bit of that huge intact piece of buildingstructure, just by using a small part of that same structure, which barely gets damaged apparently while doing all this crushing work, and it don't matter of course if it's LOOSE debris or intact structure,
@Sandberg1972 "gravity just absolutely annihilates every last bit of that huge intact piece of building structure" haha...You are such a moron: U are blaming gravity now? U obviously dont get it that the entire mass of the portion above the impact zone descending at least 3.5 meters onto the floor below it would overwhelm the strutural integrity of that floor, at which point it adds to that mass, which then overwhelms the next floor, then the next, and next. Man, you are dumb
Like I said, where are the testresults that prove the trusses can sag 43 inches in a 1000C environment in just one hour?
Where are those results? Have u seen them?
Where is the realworld test btw, that he socalled "crushdown-crushup"-phenomenon could actually happen? Not that it would make any sense without a realworld test, but anyway, it's a very bold assumption, that needs more proof than just some mathematical jibberish, u know?
@Sandberg1972 another lie, distortion and selective fact finding....you are fully living up to my portrait of you. Classic case of pathological adherence to the love for unsupportable conspiracies Buahahahahahahahahahahaha
@Sandberg1972 you clearly do not understand kinetic energy. To call the entire mass of the floors above the impact zone a small part is so ridiculous I cant believe you even typed it. Lets see, 29 floors, with each floor weighing 4,600,000 kg, descend at nearly free-fall for 3.5 meters onto the floor below it, which is not designed to carry such a load, even with a designed safety factor of three. 4.6 million kg x 29. Nope, not heavy at all, huh? Damn, that mathematical jibberish
"Lets see, 29 floors, with each floor weighing 4,600,000 kg, descend at nearly free-fall for 3.5 meters onto the floor below it"
Who ho ho ho, wait a minute.
Wherer in the world did you get this "nearly freefall decent"? Where is this based on? What test was done to conclude that the floors fell at near freefall? U know what has to happen in order to make that happen, don't you?
It means complete failure of all columns @ the same moment. So, byebye firetheory
@Sandberg1972 I'm sorry the math confused you....that damn mathematical jibberish again....still waiting for you to advance your own theory or answer a single question tic toc tic toc tic toc,,,,meanwhile, Sandberg 1972 is trying to figure out how to get from his bedroom to the bathroom without the help of an orderly
@Sandberg1972 Oh yeah...lets see....the columns have collapsed....what are the the 29 floors going to do? kinda just hang there? I guess to you they probably will. Those 29 floors are just going to sit there and thing for a second, hmmm, do we want to stay here? Or do we want to gently lie down on the floor below us (Sandberg1972's answer will be yes) HAHAHAHAHAHA
@studebakerlvr Lemme ask u, do u pretend u don't understand the absurdity of assuming freefall for the topfloors, or are u just too plain fucking stupid to do so?
It's tough to read properly, is it not?
U have to ask urself: what does it take for a floor to drop straight down? Lemme tell u then: it requires that all of the connections fail at the same instant. If just a few stay intact, not a chance that the floor will drop straight down, byebye freefall etc. ect.
@Sandberg1972 lets see...your claiming F. R. Greening claims there was "spntaneously appearing thermite" is a flat out lie. Your cherry picking our facts and distorting the statements of others is akin to lying. There: asked and answed. You've thrown so much bullshit around you are having trouble keeping track!!!
@studebakerlvr How come u never heard of this guy and apparently are not aware of the many (bullshit) articles he has produced?
Of course his antics has been addressed and debunked, but that's only if u want to hear it of course. Greening's stuff sounds pretty fancy and credible if u don't know much about chemistry and physics, or math.
Just like Ryan Mackey, the NASA scientist that seems to have an answer for everything. U know, the one u're using to prove NIST is soooo sincere.
@Sandberg1972 Well, YOU dont know ANYTHING about chemistry, math, and physics. You keep name dropping and changing the subject, typical of cospiracy theorists. A recipie for cookies sounds fancy to a dumbass like you
@studebakerlvr Anyway, Greenings article is called "Aluminium and the WTC disaster". He tries to make the case that the presence of aluminium (from the aircraft) resulted in thermitic reactions. In fact, he goes way beyond that, also trying to explain the very high temps in the rubblepile with this crackpot theory.
But hey, have u heard about Manuel Garcia, yes or no? He wrote a great article in "Counterpunch" a few years ago, talking about "Dark Fire" among other things, check out his BS.
@Sandberg1972 Dumbass, you cant even remember you own claim. You said Greening claimed spntaneously appearing thermite, which is YOUR lie. The actual article, which of course you misrepresent, explains in chemical terms the high sulfur content in the rubble, which conspiracy theorists like you claim is evidence of thermite, a claim Greening debunks.
@Sandberg1972 Bye bye fire theory? where did it go? First you insult math, and now you've banished fire! Add that to your belief that a plane going over 500mph cant dislodge a single cubic centimeter of sprayed on foam, you also insult physics! You also add in manipulated images of the bowed in columns and melted steel in basements and spontaneously appearing thermite. Whats next? Little green monsters?
@Sandberg1972 You have stated in your previous unwarranted criticisms of the variety of tests that the NIST did to estimate fireproofing removal from impact. Have you forgotten this? Of course you have. You also stated that the NIST discounts plane damage and is a "fire theory", something the NIST report never says. Why dont you go back and review your posts, dumbass. You lie so much you cant keep track. Thats the problem with lairs like you, and a moronic liar at that
@Sandberg1972 and yes, only a moron like you would deny that the floors above the impact zone fell slowly. It goes back to your total misunderstanding of this design. Once enough floor trusses fail, you have a major problem because neither the core nor perimeter columns were of a free standing design. Add to that the increased load that had to be carried by the remaining columns, fire damage, etc, only a fool like you would deny catastrophic failure.
@Sandberg1972 You keep asking for real world tests: OK, how about YOU pay for and construct a full scale model of the upper 29 floors of WTC 2 and then drop it? Your question is a red-herring. The calulations are consistent with the laws of physics, observed times, seizmic readings and computer generated models designed by experts in their field. Asked and answered, professor. Now go take your meds.
@studebakerlvr No the calculations are not consistent with the laws of physics. Asked but not asnwered, in your fantasyworld perhaps, not in the real world.
I'm not the one who should review his posts here.
U keep saying there's hard evidence for all that NIST claims, I'm simply asking you 2 show it to me.
I'm pointing out the flaws in NIST's way of handling the investigation, and u just pretend they don't exist, fine, that's ur problem, not mine.
@Sandberg1972 You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? According to you,once the columns collapse, I guess the 29 flors will just hover there deciding what to do, huh? Wow, you are brilliant.
@Sandberg1972 Oh yeah, and what specifically, mr math major, is wrong with the calculation I posted. Please tell me, cuz it's a pretty standard equation for calculating kinetic energy. math and physics professors all over the globe are dying to read your response. I'm sure it will be scholarly and well reasoned hahahahahahahaha
@Sandberg1972 The test you keep harping on was a subscale model and represented an UNDAMAGED, fireproofed assembly. Therefore one would not expect it to accurately reflect floor deflection in the WTC, floors that were both larger AND damaged. You also failed to mention that this test was stopped early BECAUSE THE ASSEMBLY WAS ABOUT TO COLLAPSE!!! You're an idiot
I would recommend to anyone who has read Sandberg1972's idiotic rants that you read up on the psychology of conspiracy theories. It will help explain how people like Sandberg1972, who may appear normal on the outside and may function quite well in society, are actually seriously disturbed individuals.
For anyone who has a brain capable of critical thinking, Sandberg1972 represents the majority of conspiracy theorists. They all consistently distort the facts, take things out of context, leave out important details, give false commentary on the contents of the NIST report, grossly distort it's logical conclusions, or just flat out lie. When you present evidence from other independent sources that support the NIST conclusions, they ignore it or bring up some other irrelevent detail.
Sandberg1972 behaved exactly like I said he would in a previous post. He disputes the NIST's assertion that fire insulation was dislodged, just like I predicted (and of course claims the NIST doesnt prove it's case, which is false) AND he moves on to a totally different subject, again like I predicted. This time it wasnt distorted images, melted steel, or thermite that appears out of nowhere, this time it's the ominous "conductivity of the steel"!!! Wow. What a genius!
DO YOU think it's reasonable to assume that steel conducts heat (because, believe it or not, it actually does so, it's pretty much THE reason that the steel of highrises never get hot enough to fail, it's its conductivity and ability to absorb large amounts of heat)?
Let's ask another question:
DO YOU believe that NIST assumed that the steel did conduct heat?
Or are u wondering what I'm talking about again, because u've never heard of it?
@Sandberg1972 As usual, you completely misrepresent what is contained within the report.Your statement "steel conducts heat (because, believe it or not, it actually does so" confirms the NIST thesis without you relaizing it. The steel trusses expanded when heated, pushing against the columns and being forced downward. When they cooled and contracted, they pulled in the perimeter columns. See, you DO agree with the NIST report, you're just too stupid to realize it HAHAHAHAHA
Well if NIST is right than it wouldn't have been any problem for them to make those floormodels collapse in their 2000 C conditions for two fucking hours, right?
They just ASSUMED that ALL of the heat generated by the jetfuel and all other flammable materials inside would go into nothing but the steel columns on the few damaged floors.
No loss to the air, to heating up the materials inside, to steel columns on other floors below & above it. Realistic ey?
@Sandberg1972 Again, a total misrepresentation of of what the report says. I have already, NUMEROUS TIMES, pointed out your distortions of the NIST report and other flat out lies, SO why should anyone believe anything you post here? Well, the answer is, THEY SHOULDNT! Still waiting for you to refute the other independent reports I have cited which support the NIST conclusions, AND still waiting for you to advance your own theory. TIC TOC TIC TOC
@studebakerlvr Do you know what "ASSUMPTIONS" are, Study Boy?
Ever heard of it?
Ever heard of distorting data, manipulating data, know what that is?
Drylabbing?
Btw, in the scientific method, one usually takes at least TWO hypothesis, when trying to explain something.
One also usually abandones a certain hypothesis, when it is clear that the chances against something happeneing (and which has never happened before) is very very small.
@studebakerlvr I see u're level is dropping to deeper lows, more insults, lees arguments, more dodging of critical issues which u deem not critical at all., how nice.
It's though I know, having to answer and explain all these little problems that come with the official story.
The math doesn't confuse me, don't worry.
And btw, it would be nice if u also come up with a reason why something I write is supposedly a lie.
Just stating that something's a lie is not very convincing.
@studebakerlvr Could you first explain to me where this "followed by the freefall" comes from, especially that notion of freefall? Why would the entire upper block start a freefall descent? It implies the removal of all structural support across the entire surface area of that floor (or floors)?
If there are just a tiny few beams that resist collapse, that do not give up instantly, that freefall notion or assumption goes out the window. Simple as that. Symmetry is gone as well then, byebye.
@Sandberg1972 "Ever heard of distorting data, manipulating data, know what that is?" No, I have NEVER heard of such a thing, but you have, cuz you do it all the time!!! See how Sandbitch1972 tries to appear intelligent but fails? He's said absolutely nothing the entire time he's been on here. He just raises dumb question after dumb question based upon misrepresentations and out of context quotes. TYPICAL CONSPIRACY THEORIST BEHAVIOR!!
@Sandberg1972 as usual, a complete misrepresentation of what the NIST report actually says. What IS "realistic ey" is that you are a complete moron who lacks the part of the brain that controls logic and critical thinking. With all these conspirators running around blowing things up and ruining society, why do you even get out of bed? I can sure imagine you cowering in a corner with a loaded gun just shivering (when you're not on here spreading bullshit lies)
@Sandberg1972 Another distortion. True, steel SKYSCRAPERS prior to 9/11 hadnt failed due to fire, but other buidlings and structures who's loads are borne by steel HAVE. McCormick Place in Chicago collapsed in 30 min from uncontained fire.Mumbai High North Oil Platform collaped in 2 hours. Interstate 580 overpass in S.F. collapsed in 19 minutes from fire alone. And your continued assertion that the NIST report stated that steel doesnt conduct heat is a flat out lie. You need meds.
Sandberg1972 goes on and on about the NIST report, which he often cites incorrectly and leaves important information out. However, there are independent reports from others that have been peer reviewed and published which support the official conclusions. One such paper is by Usmani et al which goes a step further and states the fire alone, sans the damage, was enough to bring the buildings down. I wonder what village idiot Sandberg will do to try and discredit THAT paper. More nonsense, prolly
Sandberg 1972 is next either going to argue that the plane impact wasnt enough to dislodge the insulation; or the impact wasnt sufficient to severly damage the columns; or the collapse of the six damaged floors wasnt enough to precipitate total collapse. Let's see where he goes next!!! Or, he may just change the subject entirely and go back to molten steel, or WTC 7, or "extensive cross bracing" or some other bullshit.
@studebakerlvr Oh yes of course, the crux of NISt's explanation, the dislodging of the SFRM over a large area. Without, the building would not have collapsed.
And how did NIST prove this? U tell me.
Look idiot, I've read ur 5 comments and I've decided I'm not gonna waste anymore time to a fucking dumbass like urself, who is unable to answer simple questions, unable to read as a whole, unable to grasp the concept of the scientific method and cannot think for himself.
@Sandberg1972 I was correct!!! After exposing you as someone who distorts and outright lies, I correctly predicted that you would try and say the NIST did nothing to prove the insulation was dislodged, even though they go into a detailed explanation as to the how's and why's they came to that conclusion! God, you are stupid, AND predictable!!
@studebakerlvr On the contrary. YOU've just exposed urself as someone who is unable to even read properly, probably on purpose, to annoy me and make me waste more precious time on your pityful antics.
I asked YOU WHAT TEST they performed, I quote"
"And how did NIST prove this? U tell me."
U haven't told me yet. All u've done is write and I quote:
"even though they go into a detailed explanation as to the how's and why's they came to that conclusion"
Sandberg1972 states: "NIST has not proven steel temperatures of 600 Celsius or more. They don't get any higher than 250 C, that's from their own paint-tests" This, unsurprisingly, is a gross misrepresentation of what the report says. The NIST report clearly states those test results were from columns with INTACT ISULATION!. It does NOT apply to the fire on the six impact floors where the insulation is dislodged. Yes, these conspiracy idiots love to leave out relevent details.
@studebakerlvr The dislodging of large amount of SFRM is nothing more than a bare assertion. The shotguntest proves very little. This is their crux, on which everything rests.
Have u gone through the part where they tested the floormodel, to see of they could get it to collapse? Do u know the conditions in which this test was done (temp and duration of fire)?
Did u know that NIST just assumed NO conductivity of the steel? U probably missed out on that, right?
@Sandberg1972 But hey, I'm just making this all up, that NIST report is a fucking masterpiece of science, brilliant in it's assumptions, and even more brilliant in it's conclusions.
In the end, they just decide to NOT explain the collapse itself, but just ASSUME it would shred itself all the way down to the ground, while there's no precedent for it, and while there were little to moderate fires that were dying out.
And remeber, all that within an hour to an hour and a half.
@Sandberg1972 You just helped confirm the NIST report without realizing it. Your statement "little to moderate fires that were dying out" is correct, which means the floor trusses which had expanded against the columns due to the heat and forced downward as a result were now cooling, contracting and PULLING IN THE PERIMETER COLUMNS!!! In trying to discredit the NIST report you actually confirm it, but are to dumb to realize that! HAHA
@Sandberg1972 As I previously said, and which you conveniently ignore, is that The NIST report clearly states those test results were from columns with INTACT ISULATION!. It does NOT apply to the fire on the six impact floors where the insulation is dislodged. Even after I expose your distortion in an earlier post, you continue to peddle it! You are a pathological liar.
@studebakerlvr Maybe u could explain to me WHY YOU THINK that the shotgunblast-test is a valid test for determining how many fireproofing would be dislodged.
Ricocheing bullets that just keep on ricocheing until all the fireprofing has been knocked off? Smells like BS, doesn't it? Of course u think it's an awesome test which is very reliable in modelling the real world.
So a B767 just magically turns into 1000's of ricocheing bullets that just keep on ricocheing until all SFRM if off, right.
@Sandberg1972 the shotgun blast tests were one of several tests done by NIST researchers, in part because of complaints from morons like you who said that the INDUSTRY STANDARD pull tests were insufficient. The NIST actually went above and beyond to provide innovative, additional testing, a point you of course fail to mention. It's only "magical" to idiots like you that a plane travelling 500 mph can dislodge sprayed on insulation. It makes perfect sense to sane people.
@studebakerlvr Like I said, where are the testresults that prove the trusses can sag 43 inches in a 1000C environment in just one hour?
Where are those results? Have u seen them?
Where is the realworld test btw, that he socalled "crushdown-crushup"-phenomenon could actually happen? Not that it would make any sense without a realworld test, but anyway, it's a very bold assumption, that needs more proof than just some mathematical jibberish, u know?
@Sandberg1972 you keep changing the subject again..tsk tsk tsk. I demonstrate the errors in your thinking, you lack of logic, and your misrepresentations of the NIST report, and you still keep doing it. You just love to keep slamming your fingers in the ar door, dont you? Oh yeah, mathematical jibberish? On what basis do you think buildings are designed? Guess work? NO!!! it's that damn mathematical jibberish HAHAHAHAHA
I'm sure Sandberg1972 is going to prattle on about thermite or "nanothermite" being snuck into the towers to cut the columns. All thermite reactions leave as byproducts aluminum oxide and barium nitrate. Both must be present for there to have been a thermite reaction.This is an inescapable chemical fact. No one, not the USGS, Steven Jones, nor anyone else has found traces of these elements at or around Ground Zero. Case closed!
See how Sandberg keeps changing the subject when asked to provide proof of his assertions? First, it was the NIST report is a fire theory and discounts the impact damage, which is false. Second, it's the WTC was specifically designed for a 707 impact, which is also false. Then he blatantly lies about the F.R. Greening report, ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE. Then he starts talking about molten steel in the basement, then WTC 7. He is behaving exactly like I predicted he would: like a liar
Idiots like Sandberg1972 also misrepresent what WTC engineer Leslie Robertson says. Robertson ACTUALLY says this:"We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707.The767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again.First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity"
@Sandberg1972: See? Now that I've exposed you for misrepresenting what the NIST report says and what other people have said about the 707 design specifications, NOW you move on to molten steel in the basement? You are doing exactly what I prdicted you would do: move on to the next bullshit assertion when all your other ones have been exposed as false. God, you are stupid AND gullible hahahahahaha
@Sandberg1972 anyone who references Stephen Jones is dumb. Jones' paper has not been peer reviewed in a scientific journal, and he has been repudiated by members of his own department. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, stated:, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".
Idiots like Sandberg1972 always trot out the "building was designed to withstand a 707 impact" which simply isnt true. It was CONSIDERED during the design, but such a requirement would have been a special customer request. No such documentation of this request exists. Frank DiMartini's assertions on the subject are unsupported by any calculations and therefore must be dismissed as simply speculative.
@studebakerlvr Well, NIST assertions are also UNsupported by any calculations. At least for WTC7 that is. No inputdata for their simulations have been released, so YOU should just take their word for it. Get it?
As for WTC1 and 2, U really have no idea how NIST went t work on that one, do u?
U have to read the report, otherwise u might miss it.
Have u heard about their 3 scenario's that they came up with, and that they only used the "most severe scenario", to work with? Honest ey?
@Sandberg1972: I've read the full final report. I suggest you do the same. Furthermore, you repeatedly dodge answering the simplest of questions, such as why the NIST report is wrong, where is wrong, on what technical information you are making this judgement, etc. Funny, you are afraid to advance your own theory and support it with evidence.
A tactic of conspiracy theorists is to treat the NIST report as a house of cards. In other words, if they find 1 aspect out of 100 of that report questionable, then they claim the whole report falls apart. This is unscientific and illogical, but then again conspiracy theorists ARE unscientific and illogical. This is why they rattle off the "yeah, but what about ___" strategy when you show that their favorite talking point is false. You pin them down, and they change the subject.
Fyi, the primary hypothesis of the NIST report is a chain-event, a fire-induced collapse, with one thing leading to another thing leading to another thing etc etc.
If one can prove any one of the links of that chain false, or one can show that it's plausibly and very probably false, then the whole theory goes down the toilet. That's how it works with a hypothesis like this.
The CD-hypothesis OTOH can have many possibilities.
@Sandberg1972 oh yeah, show me the evidence that any of those chain links are incorrect, and the evidence to support your claims. Despite all of your posts, you have not advanced an alternative theory nor provided any proof for your idiotic claims. Idiots like you hate the burden of proof, because you don't have any. Add to that how you cant be trusted since I have already pointed out misrepesentations you have posted, typical of liars like you
@Sandberg1972 More misstatements and misrepresentations. Since I have already exposed your previous lies and misstatements, nothing you say about any report has any credibility. You do what conspiracy idiots do: lie, take out of context, misrepresent, and quote-mine.
Another quote from Sandberg1972: "According to NIST, the damage from the planes did not really play a factor. Their theory is a fire theory." Here is what the NIST report REALLY says: "In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse." More proof that conspiracy idiots like Sandberg1972 misquote, misrepresent, or blatantly lie. They dont let the facts get in the way of a good story.
@Sandberg1972 Those points are all in the NIST report if you choose to read it. The rest of your posting is jibberish and nonsense. Do you have an actual point to make. Why dont you attempt to make a factual statement rather than answering a question with a question? It shows you are devoid of any rational thought.
@studebakerlvr If it's in the report, that u seem to know soooooo well, I'm sure u can refer me to it.
So, again, HOW MUCH did the impactdamage contribute to collapse? How important was it?
And please do not bring up Dr. Greening, the 1 who has speculated that thermite was spontaneously formed in the towers, because all of the ingredients were present. I'm sure it's good enough for a simpleton like urself, but not for people who are a bit more serious when it comes to proof, facts and fiction
@Sandberg1972 Another total lie. Dr. Greening never mentions thermite " was spontaneously formed in the towers" in his report ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE. You are really getting desperate with your lies.
Conspiracy idiots like Sandberg1972 love to distort, misrepresent, and take statements out of context and shuffle things around to fit their pre-conceived notions. They simply cannot be trusted to accurately represent the statements of others. For the record, I disagree IN PART with the NIST report. I agree with F. R. Greening's theory that the impact damage alone was enuff to bring down the towers, sans the fires, due to the bending moments and stress exceeding the column's elastic limit.
Sandberg1972 distorts the very NIST report he claims to have read. Sandberg1972 stated: "NIST's theory is a FIRE theory. Without the fires, both towers would've remained standing". Here is what NIST ACTUALLY says, "In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower." AKA: damage+fire+damaged insulation led to collapse.
Sandberg 1972 keeps changing the subject and bringing up other non-relevent issues when he's pinned down to cite evidence and references in professional journals that have been held up to peer review. This is typical of conspiracy theorists. Then he continues to name drop, like physicist Arkadiusz Jadczyk, who allegedly has a PhD in theoretical physics and who's wife is a nut job who writes about Mossad conspiracies and alien abduction. Dr. Jadczyk is not qualified to critique the 9/11 report
@studebakerlvr "Dr. Jadczyk is not qualified to critique the 9/11 report "
Really? Explain why then. Prove his PhD in theoretical physics is false. Prove he is blatantly incompetent when it comes to theoretical physics. prove he has not reviewed any other physics papers.
Have u even read his critique? Of course not.
Seffen is not even wrong, because his assumptions are known to be false. It don't get much easier than that. But for u, it's very very difficult to grasp, is it not?
@Sandberg1972 He's not qualified, nor has any of his work on the subject been published and peer reviewed. Funny how you ignored all the other points I brought up, typical of conspiracy theorists. Why dont you advance your OWN hypothesis, my home-schooled friend, and support it with evidence?
In the words of engineer Jon Magnusson, member of the SEI Board of Governors:"The question should not be “Why did they fall?”, but, rather, “How were they able to stand so long after direct hits from 767’s? ”Without exaggeration, more than 99% of all buildings would collapse immediately if hit by a 767." The people who escaped WTC 1 and 2 have the original engineers to thank for designing a building that stood as long as it did. However, collapse was inevitable.
Sandberg1972 and other "truthers" love to quotemine people, take things out of context, and misrepresent. They continually try to hang their hats on the words of the original structural engineers who said their analysis showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. That's NOT the same as saying these buildings were DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY to withstand such a hit. Just because it was THOUGHT to be able to withstand a 707 hit, doesnt mean it subsequently PROVES to be true.
Typical of conspiracy theorists, Sandberg1972 does a lot of talk but says nothing. Those pics and vids of the bowed in perimeter columns caused by the sagging floor trusses? Well, those were all MANIPULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT, according to Sandberg1972. He speaks of 3-dimensional matrix of steel, extensive cross-bracing, which doeasnt even apply to the design of the building. Of course, he never says what caused total collapse or supply the evidence to support his theory. What a dumbass.
@studebakerlvr This is not gonna convince the average person, Studyboy.
U obviously haven't even watched a video of the erection of the towers.
U probably think the towers were just one tube within another one, with only some trusses to connect the two together.
Surely that would be enough against hurricane winds, right?
U have to distinct between the US govt. and NIST, an institution that works FOR the govt. There's also the president, his aides, all much too tough for u to grasp.
Did you notice how the top of the building was disintegrating as it came from behind the smoke, even though it hadn't been hit by anything? Watch this video again... Keep your eye on the edge of the tower that falls towards the camera. As it clears the smoke, you can see the top edge of the building is already having a strange anomaly. ...what is that? ...yes, it is freaky.
@Born2Flesh That is the side of the building, not the top. The top part of the building pushed the columns from the bottom part outward as it fell behind them at an angle.
To the naked, scientific eye it is plain and clear that the top portion of the building explodes into dust in mid-air, OBVIOUSLY implying that this was not a GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE TO THE GROUND.
@MJ4ever911 After the Wtc bombing 1993 the structural engineers were saying; you must hit it from above or very intense heat or use an atomic bomb to bring these buildings down!!! Most people don't know that!!! It was stupid as shit to give such informations over tv direct to the terrorists! You don't believe me? Search for 1993 bombing interviews, it's rare but you can find it in the internet!!!
Just because the structural engineers -- while talking in one inerview, trying to dumb down engineering for the public and trying to reassure everyone -- said that you'd need to hit from above, use intense heat or an atomic bomb does not mean the towers couldn't have been brought down by anything else.
@ERAUPRCWA Are you serious? You really think this buildings were built to collapse inward? I is much easier the disconnect all the large columns and perimeter piece by piece! This is the way to demolish such a large structure with so much nearby buildings! Even John skilling writes that in his book!
I recall recently that NASA discovered that not all life on Earth is Carbon based, a theory which has been held up for centuries... now we know different. All you conspiracy theorist, science is all theory what we know can easily be different when in practical environments. Has anything like 9/11 EVER happened before? answer is no. The buildings were built to collapse inward, FACT. The buildings were built to withstand a 707 not a 767, FACT. GIVE IT A REST!
@ERAUPRCWA I suggest you apply for a job with NIST. Or jump off a high roof somewhere, since the force of gravity according to you is nothing but a mere theory, maybe u won''t fall to the ground at 9.8 m/s2, but fly away into fantasyland.
The fact that the building tilted as it collapsed disproves the government's "pancake collapse" explanation, and thus proving the whole 9/11 Commission was a fake investigation - and thus proving 9/11 was likely an inside job.
Everyone here should watch Loose Change 2nd Edition.
@sandburg1972 and @ studebakerlvr do you both know that almost all the comments on this video are two two arguing? Get a life and live it! I know you two are better than this!
thegreensnake13 2 weeks ago
Sandberg1972's posts shows he's unaware of conservation of momentum. In progressive collapse, momentum of the falling mass increases cuz its mass and velocity increases. It slows briefly as it accelerates the new floor to match its speed. It DOESNT stop. The first floor hit has one tenth of the mass of the descending material, and thus the new mass decelerates by under 10%, according to conservation of momentum. The idea the falling floors grinding to a halt violates physics
studebakerlvr 3 weeks ago
@studebakerlvr Oh, and the above statement accounts for loss of kinetic energy due to friction, sound, and vibration, all of which become less and less important as the decending mass continues to fall.
studebakerlvr 3 weeks ago
@studebakerlvr This is brilliant this:
" The first floor hit has one tenth of the mass of the descending material, and thus the new mass decelerates by under 10%, according to conservation of momentum"
Why don't submit this to the Nobel Prize for Physics Committee?
What "increasing mass"? Mass gets ejected all the way through, no mass stays in some imaginary scare box, right above the lower part of building. Also imagine the destructive power of fine dust, which disperses so easily.
Sandberg1972 3 weeks ago
Sandberg keeps harping on Assembly 4in the NIST fire tests, complaining that the truss only sagged 3 inches. Here are the details he leaves out: # 4 was a subscale model and represented an UNDAMAGED, fireproofed assembly. Therefore one would not expect it to accurately reflect floor deflection in the WTC, floors that were both larger AND damaged. Yet ANOTHER example of Sandberg1972's total disregard for the facts.
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
@studebakerlvr OK, so u're admitting that the test that NIST performed does not prove that the floormodel could collapse, so they just "assumed" that if the model had been of a larger scale and suffered damage (how much exactly?), then it surely would've sagged at least 43 inches. Right?
I don't really see any disregard 4 the facts from my point of view. Rather it's NIST and you that show blatant disregard for "the facts".
Just what kind of reason is there, to expect that much more sagging?
Sandberg1972 3 weeks ago
@Sandberg1972 it's not an assumption, numb nuts, its a fact for reasons I have pointed out in other posts (the whole cross section vs length thing, which you are too dumb to understand). Plus. you keep forgetting that the truss that sagged 3 inches was INSULATED!!! Yet ANOTHER EXAMPLE of you leaving out important details
studebakerlvr 3 weeks ago
Idiot Sandberg1972 is all hung up on the word free-fall. What he fails to grasp is that once the columns collapse, gravity takes over. Using standard gravitational accelleration and a distance of 3.7 meters between floors, you get the upper floors impacting the floor below it at 8.5 m/s, or about 30 km/h. Given the mass of the upper floors, this dynamic load would far exceed the designed static load the floor beneath it was able to support. Result is total collapse. Damn mathematical jibberish
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
@studebakerlvr What you fail to grasp, is that if just a few steel supportcolumns (of the many dozens) resist collapse, then freefall goes out the window. Other than that the collapse would instantly become asymmetrical with nothing 2 regain symmetry again.
Ur dynamic load certainly exceeds the resistance of the 1st lower floor to be hit, but expends a lot of energy doing that. When it hits the next (hopefully straight on, otherwise it would tilt) less energy will be available etc. until arrest
Sandberg1972 3 weeks ago
@Sandberg1972 WRONG!!! you idiotic post ignores basic physics.The decending floors hit the first intact floor, which slows down the speed of decending mass, but doesnt stop it, and then begins to accellerate again as that floor collapses, and now that mass is 4.6 million kg heavier. Jesus you are an idiot.
studebakerlvr 3 weeks ago
@studebakerlvr The mass of the topfloors starts with a FIXED amount of gravitational energy. Each time a floor gets hits, a certain amount of that FIXED amount has to be spent in breaking columns, pulverizing officematerials, heating them up, leaving much less to accelerate again. So when it hits the next floor, the energy of those topfloors is much less. Then it again has to spend a lot of energy breaking columns, crashing stuff etc etc.
It's not one floor vs 30 (wtc2), it's 80 vs 30.
Sandberg1972 3 weeks ago
@studebakerlvr Let's be more specific.
It's 79 static floors vs 30 dynamic floors, after that it's 78 static floors vs 29 dynamic, after that it's 77 static vs 28 dynamic, after that it's 76 static vs 27 dynamic.
Each time the next floor gets hit, energy is transferred through ALL the columns into the ground, kinetic energy is converted (spent) into breaking columns, shredding officematerials, acceleration decreases.
There is no realworld model 4 the crushdown-crushup-theory, it don't exist
Sandberg1972 3 weeks ago
@Sandberg1972 Dumbass, Free fall refers to any body solely moving under the influence of gravity. If the supports holding up the floor collapse, that floor is in free fall! Clearly the columns collapsed and gravity took over (free fall). Just because the east perimeter columns collapsed first, that doesnt keep free fall from happening on the N,S, and W sides when THOSE perimeter columns ALSO collapsed, which they clearly did, what, one second later? You're blind as well as dumb.
studebakerlvr 3 weeks ago
Here's a fact Sandberg1972 has failed to mention: In the 10 years since 9/11, there has not been a SINGLE published, peer-reviewed paper disputing the progressive collapse hypothesis – not from any person in any department. NONE!!! (The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a joke and not a repected or reliable sourse of info) Instead we have rantings by disturbed individuals who somehow never get around to submitting their studies to the appropriate peer-review outlets.
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
Sandberg1972 lampoons the NIST report for assuming no heat conductivity of steel in a computer simulation, but fails to include the valid reasons why they didnt, which I have explained in my other posts (he will say "no you didnt", blah blah blah). He's never seen or heard of a load bearing column or truss sagging due to age or being heated from fire. You'd think he's never left his room at the state hospital to go look at buildings.
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
An oldie but goodie from Sandberg 1972: "According to NIST, the damage from the planes did not really play a factor" Here is what NIST ACTUALLY says, "In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower." Hmmm, the report says the damage DID play a factor. Sandberg forgot about that line, I guess
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
@studebakerlvr Maybe u've read a different report
NIST states (this is from their own website, just copied it for u):
"•The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact."
So, is this a firetheory or not?
U seem 2 have forgotten about this line.
Sandberg1972 3 weeks ago
@Sandberg1972 U fucking idiot - it says Fire + Damage + Insulation Loss = collapse. That's a COMBO theory, not a simple "fire theory" that you keep trotting out.
studebakerlvr 3 weeks ago
@studebakerlvr "In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower." That is a direct quote from the final NIST report, despite the desperate attempts of Sandberg 1972 to portray that report as advancing a simple fire theory. Sandberg1972 is a toxic combination of dishonest and stupid.
studebakerlvr 3 weeks ago
@studebakerlvr The "massive loss" of insulation of the key in NIST's report. Without the significant loss of SFRM the towers would've remained standing. Odf course there was damage from the planes, but it's influence was not that great. That's what I've been trying to get through to u.
Sandberg1972 3 weeks ago
Another example of the lies of Sandberg1972 "Dr. Greening, the 1 who has speculated that thermite was spontaneously formed in the towers, because all of the ingredients were present. Dr. Greening does no such thing. He discusses in one of his papers that the elements found at Ground Zero are indicative of common building materials, NOT evidence of thermite as Steven Jones and other conspiracy nuts claim. When Sandberg1972 quotes or references someone, dont trust him. He lies and distorts.
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
Hmmm, I forgot to mention that Sanberg1972 may, instead of changing the subject, opt to try to re-argue a point I have already discredited, thinking that no one will remember. What I'm certain of, he will misquote, mislead, ignore relevant facts, or simply make things up. Sandberg1972 would misquote the Bible by taking out the word "not" from "thou shalt not commit adultery" if he wanted to try and prove a point.
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
Sandberg1972 has been hanging his hat on the thermal conductivity of steel for about 8 pages now. I have discredited his statments and pointed out his factual errors and his leaving out of important details. He will either change the subject entirely and bring up some other sacred cow of the "truthers", or go quote mining thru the NIST report and intentionally take things out of context to mislead. Sandnut1972: Have you googled "creep" in reference to construction yet?
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
Quote from Sandberg1972: steel conducts heat (because, believe it or not, it actually does so, it's pretty much THE reason that the steel of highrises never get hot enough to fail, it's its conductivity and ability to absorb large amounts of heat). Of course he's wrong. The mild carbon steel allow used in WTC does not conduct heat well, esp given the length of the floor trusses compared to their cross section
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
@studebakerlvr This point is important, cuz as I've already explained, conspiracy theorists like to claim the steel beams would disperse the heat throughout it's connected members, thereby keeping any one beam from getting too hot to fail. This theory is of course, poppycock. It ignores reality since the A36 alloy used in WTC does not conduct heat well, and since the cross-section of the trusses is small compared with their length. Sandnut, the conversation is over. U are a dumbass.
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
Sandberg1972 keeps harping on "real world tests" and real world this and real world that as a way to discredit the NIST report and portray their models as invalid, BUT, then he turns around and cites a computer simulation test in the NIST report, but uses the results to discredit that same NIST report. Well, Sandnut1972, which is it? You cant have it both ways. Either you accept computer simulations or you dont! See how these hypocrites work? Always twisting things around.
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
Sandberg1972 tries to look intelligent when quoting the NIST report, but as usual leaves important details out. The NIST did not use thermal conductivity in one of the FDS models. Why? Because since the WTC alloy was at best mediocre in conducting heat, AND because NO material conducts heat well when the length is large compared to it's cross section (WTC). Given those facts, adding an algorithm for heat conductivity isnt needed.
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What's hysterical to me is that Nutberg1972 keeps harping on one particular heating test conducted by the NIST during which the steel was covered with fireproofing, and then fails to realize that the results of this test are invalid when applied to a situation like WTC 1 & 2 during which the fireproofing was removed by the planes' impact! He says: 'No I don't think your point is all that important. I think it's rather a patheticly sad attempt at distorting." PSYCHO!!!! and dumb as well
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
Sandberg1972 states "it's tough having to come up with reasonable sounding numbers that must fit certain predetermined conclusions" Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. That's exactly what he and others of his ilk do. What a hypocrite. Oh yeah, Sandberg is hung up on heat conductivity. He doesnt know that the steel alloy that dominated WTC 1 and 2 is actually a mediocre conductor of heat, not an excellent one that the "truthers" claim
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr The truthers argue that the heated beams will disperse the heat by heating up all the other beams and columns connected to it, thereby reducing the fire's efficiency. This would work if the WTC were made of copper, which is an excellent conductor of heat. Unfortunately for Truthers, the A36 alloy that dominated the Towers’ load-bearing structure conduct roughly 50 Watts per meter-degree Kelvin, or about an eighth that of copper. This means the dispersal theory is nonsense.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr Yes that's why so many steel highrise have collapsed from fires, the heat from the fires cannot be dispersed, so steel will heat up locally to extremely high temps where it will eventually reach temps of above 800 C or higher, causing the steel to buckle and fail completely.
We've seen it soooo many times over the years, right?
Oh wait, no we haven't.
Know what a heatsink is?
Btw, do u happen to notice any steel beams that were glowing redhot? Did NIST find temps > 800C?
Sandberg1972 4 weeks ago
@studebakerlvr I know that STeel is not the best conductor around, nobody's claiming that it 's an excellent conductor, but 2 assume ZERO conductivity is not really honest, is it? So u put another lie into the "truthers" mouths again
To also assume that no heat was lost to the air, to heating other materials besides steel, is even more dishonest, wouldn't u think so?
Now try addressing this for a change. If u think it is indeed honest to do so, please explain the rationale behind that.
Sandberg1972 4 weeks ago
@Sandberg1972: You had no idea of the conductivity of THIS steel until I told you. You want to believe that the steel dispersed the heat throughout it's connected members like conducting electricty. Here is a quote from your source of info, Dr of THEOLOGY, Ray Griffin: "Steel is an excellent conductor of heat...if those two beams are interconnected with hundreds of other beams, the heat will be diffused throughout the entire network of beams." WRONG!
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
@Sandberg1972 "nobody's claiming that it 's an excellent conductor" Oh really? Direct quote from Dr David Ray Griffin, conspiracy theorist: "Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. If heat is applied to one portion of a steel beam, that portion will not be quickly heated up to the temperature of the flame, because the heat will quickly be diffused throughout the beam" Dont believe me? Check it yourself. YOU ARE BUSTED!!!!
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
Still waiting for Sandberg1972 to tell the world where in the NIST report they claim that steel doesnt conduct heat or that the damage wasnt a factor. Still waiting for this moron to tell the world where they can find F.R. Greening claiming thermite spontaneously appeared. Still waiting for him to explain how a mass consisting of 29 floors wouldnt overwhelm the floor below it. Still waiting for him to explain away the independent reports that confirm the NIST theory.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr Check out NCSTAR 1-5F page 20:
"The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, NO thermal conductivity was used."
So, while NIST did not claim that steel doesn't conduct heat (as u like to put into my mouth), they DO assume no conductivity of steel.
But hey, u won't check it and will avoid it probably.
This conversation is over I think.
Sandberg1972 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sandberg1972 "The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, NO thermal conductivity was used." is as usual, misleading. The fact is steel does not conduct heat quickly, ESPECIALLY when the distance is large compared to the cross-section. This is precicely the case in the WTC, therefore adding thermal conductivity to THIS computer model calculation is NOT NECESSARY! You continue to take things out of context, twisting their meanings to suit your needs
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
Hey Sandberg, how about you reference the exact page in the NIST report where the authors proclaim "STEEL DOESNT CONDUCT HEAT!!!" Could you find that for me, please? {of course he cant - he made that up} Hurry up now, I'm not getting any younger. I'd like to spend my last remaining good years being an effective top secret agent for Mossad. Oh damn! I shouldnt have revealed that. Curses curses!
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
Nutberg1972 also totally ignores the phenomenon known as "creep", which refers to the bending of structural materials under load, in this case the behavior of steel when loaded while being heated. Conspiracy theorists love to ignore creep because in order for their idiotic theories to make any sense, they have to believe that once the trusses and columns cooled they magically snap back to their original shape and regain their stuructural integrity. Lawd, what MORONS!!!
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr The only thing "creepy" here is you and ur strange statementss.
I'd like to see this "creep" in action in a realworld model, if it's so obvious.
Sandberg1972 4 weeks ago
@Sandberg1972 HAHAHAHAHA: Ask anyone in the construction business, instead of the voices in your head. If you havent heard of that term, that's YOUR problem, not mine. Funny, how you try to discount it because the actions of load bearing steel while heated is a MAJOR factor in any discussion of the collapse. You discount it because you need your steel to snap back into it's original shape for your idiotic theory to make sense.....
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
@Sandberg1972 do I actually have to comment on this? Load carrying beams sagging over time, or due to fire is news to you? My God, you are a complete fool!!!
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
In reference to fire tests, Sandberg1972 screams about how those tests failed to heat beams and columns hot enuff for failure. This is again, misleading. The whole truth is that the fire rating only applies to the complete structural system, which includes undamaged fireproofing material. Therefore, after an aircraft impact which damaged the fireproofing, the rating is no longer valid. Kind of an important point, don you think? Nutberg1972 leaves that fact out.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr No I don't think your point is all that important. I think it's rather a patheticly sad attempt at distorting.
Tell me again, what was it? Unprotected steel in a furnace of 1100 C for two hours? How much sagging did they measure again?
It's all guestimating by NIST, I feel sorry for them actually, it's tough having to come up with reasonable sounding numbers that must fit certain predetermined conclusions. And not having people find out.
There is no test proving floorfailure.
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 I've already answered this with my "creep' comment, which you conveniently ignore. You also fail to mention that several tests were done under a variety of conditions, typical of your cherry picking. You consistently behave in the manner in which I predicted. Oh, and saying that the fireproofing isnt an important point? That just now rose to the top of your dumb statements list.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sandberg1972 I've already answered this with my "creep' comment, which you conveniently ignore. You also fail to mention that several tests were done under a variety of conditions, typical of your cherry picking. You consistently behave in the manner in which I predicted. Oh, and saying that the fireproofing isnt an important point? That just now rose to the top of your dumb statements list.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
See how Sandberg1972 gets hung up on certain details and uses them to discredit the NIST report (of course, he is too afraid to mention independent reports from others, such as from Bizant and Zhou, Greening, and others). Again, he keeps cherry picking facts and figures in the illogical conclusion that the NIST report is a house of cards. More failed and illogical thinking from that Rhodes Scolar Sandberg1972.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
Another tactic of these conspiracy theorists is to engage in selective fact finding. They ignore certain facts that do not fit with their pre-conceived notions and only cite facts that do, aka: cherry picking. In psychology, it's also known as a confirmation bias. You search for and interpret ONLY info that confirms your opinion, and avoid or ignore info that contradicts your opinion. It's why Sandberg1972 cherry picks info on 9/11. He's a confirmation bias addict. Classic case of it.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
Here's more "mathematical jibberish" to further confuse Sandberg1972: Flight 175, which hit WTC 2, impacted while pitched down at 6 degrees and traveling 99 mph faster than Flight 11 which hit WTC 1, pitched down at 10 degrees.On speed alone, Flight 175 hit WTC 2 with about 50% more kinetic energy than Flight 11's hitting WTC 1. Hitting more str8 on also meant more of Flight 175 passed thru office space to hit the core directly. No surprise WTC collapsed more quickly. That damn math!
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
According to Sandberg1972, math is good when you try to use it to dispute the NIST report, but it becomes "mathematical jibberish" when mathematical calculations support the NIST report. I fear poor math is getting the old and unfair double-standard treatment from Sandberg1972. However, that is not surprising. If he's gonne lie, mislead, and distort everything else, why should math be exempt? I feel sorry for math.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
So, Sandberg1972 besides continuing to misrepresent the NIST report, now blames mathematical jibberish, and calls the 29 floors above the impact zone in WTC 2 "small". I'm sorry, but I wouldnt want 29 floors of ANY building falling on me, much less 29 floors of the WTC. He talks about molten steel, but not enuff heat to damage the columns ( huh?). He talks about someone distorting the images of the bowed in columns, and a plane traveling 542 mph cant dislodge sprayed on foam. NUTCASE!!!
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
What's magical to people like Study here is the way that small fires heat up all steel beams of this huge steelframed highrise to very high temperatures in a very short time, not to mention the way that gravity just absolutely annihilates every last bit of that huge intact piece of buildingstructure, just by using a small part of that same structure, which barely gets damaged apparently while doing all this crushing work, and it don't matter of course if it's LOOSE debris or intact structure,
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 "gravity just absolutely annihilates every last bit of that huge intact piece of building structure" haha...You are such a moron: U are blaming gravity now? U obviously dont get it that the entire mass of the portion above the impact zone descending at least 3.5 meters onto the floor below it would overwhelm the strutural integrity of that floor, at which point it adds to that mass, which then overwhelms the next floor, then the next, and next. Man, you are dumb
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr Lemme repeat then:
Like I said, where are the testresults that prove the trusses can sag 43 inches in a 1000C environment in just one hour?
Where are those results? Have u seen them?
Where is the realworld test btw, that he socalled "crushdown-crushup"-phenomenon could actually happen? Not that it would make any sense without a realworld test, but anyway, it's a very bold assumption, that needs more proof than just some mathematical jibberish, u know?
So, where is it?
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 another lie, distortion and selective fact finding....you are fully living up to my portrait of you. Classic case of pathological adherence to the love for unsupportable conspiracies Buahahahahahahahahahahaha
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 you clearly do not understand kinetic energy. To call the entire mass of the floors above the impact zone a small part is so ridiculous I cant believe you even typed it. Lets see, 29 floors, with each floor weighing 4,600,000 kg, descend at nearly free-fall for 3.5 meters onto the floor below it, which is not designed to carry such a load, even with a designed safety factor of three. 4.6 million kg x 29. Nope, not heavy at all, huh? Damn, that mathematical jibberish
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr Let's see:
"Lets see, 29 floors, with each floor weighing 4,600,000 kg, descend at nearly free-fall for 3.5 meters onto the floor below it"
Who ho ho ho, wait a minute.
Wherer in the world did you get this "nearly freefall decent"? Where is this based on? What test was done to conclude that the floors fell at near freefall? U know what has to happen in order to make that happen, don't you?
It means complete failure of all columns @ the same moment. So, byebye firetheory
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 I'm sorry the math confused you....that damn mathematical jibberish again....still waiting for you to advance your own theory or answer a single question tic toc tic toc tic toc,,,,meanwhile, Sandberg 1972 is trying to figure out how to get from his bedroom to the bathroom without the help of an orderly
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 Oh yeah...lets see....the columns have collapsed....what are the the 29 floors going to do? kinda just hang there? I guess to you they probably will. Those 29 floors are just going to sit there and thing for a second, hmmm, do we want to stay here? Or do we want to gently lie down on the floor below us (Sandberg1972's answer will be yes) HAHAHAHAHAHA
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr Lemme ask u, do u pretend u don't understand the absurdity of assuming freefall for the topfloors, or are u just too plain fucking stupid to do so?
It's tough to read properly, is it not?
U have to ask urself: what does it take for a floor to drop straight down? Lemme tell u then: it requires that all of the connections fail at the same instant. If just a few stay intact, not a chance that the floor will drop straight down, byebye freefall etc. ect.
Got that, moron?
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 lets see...your claiming F. R. Greening claims there was "spntaneously appearing thermite" is a flat out lie. Your cherry picking our facts and distorting the statements of others is akin to lying. There: asked and answed. You've thrown so much bullshit around you are having trouble keeping track!!!
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr Haven't u read Greening's articles? U haven't, have u?
Btw, are u familiar with a guy named Manuel Garcia? U should know him, he's a vigorous supporter of the official story about the towers.
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 reference the exact article, writing, or similar where he sayd thermite spontaneously appears
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr How come u never heard of this guy and apparently are not aware of the many (bullshit) articles he has produced?
Of course his antics has been addressed and debunked, but that's only if u want to hear it of course. Greening's stuff sounds pretty fancy and credible if u don't know much about chemistry and physics, or math.
Just like Ryan Mackey, the NASA scientist that seems to have an answer for everything. U know, the one u're using to prove NIST is soooo sincere.
Sandberg1972 4 weeks ago
@Sandberg1972 Well, YOU dont know ANYTHING about chemistry, math, and physics. You keep name dropping and changing the subject, typical of cospiracy theorists. A recipie for cookies sounds fancy to a dumbass like you
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
@studebakerlvr Anyway, Greenings article is called "Aluminium and the WTC disaster". He tries to make the case that the presence of aluminium (from the aircraft) resulted in thermitic reactions. In fact, he goes way beyond that, also trying to explain the very high temps in the rubblepile with this crackpot theory.
But hey, have u heard about Manuel Garcia, yes or no? He wrote a great article in "Counterpunch" a few years ago, talking about "Dark Fire" among other things, check out his BS.
Sandberg1972 4 weeks ago
@Sandberg1972 Dumbass, you cant even remember you own claim. You said Greening claimed spntaneously appearing thermite, which is YOUR lie. The actual article, which of course you misrepresent, explains in chemical terms the high sulfur content in the rubble, which conspiracy theorists like you claim is evidence of thermite, a claim Greening debunks.
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
@Sandberg1972 Bye bye fire theory? where did it go? First you insult math, and now you've banished fire! Add that to your belief that a plane going over 500mph cant dislodge a single cubic centimeter of sprayed on foam, you also insult physics! You also add in manipulated images of the bowed in columns and melted steel in basements and spontaneously appearing thermite. Whats next? Little green monsters?
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr And could u please explain: HOW have I "insulted" math? I don't really get it, what did I do to make u say this?
And where did I state that a planeimpact would not dislodge ANY SFRM? U're putting lies into my mouth to make me look bad, u naughty boy Study!
And what's this, more bad reading, u're having trouble to get things right, don't u?
What a shame, because u're trying soooo hard.
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 You have stated in your previous unwarranted criticisms of the variety of tests that the NIST did to estimate fireproofing removal from impact. Have you forgotten this? Of course you have. You also stated that the NIST discounts plane damage and is a "fire theory", something the NIST report never says. Why dont you go back and review your posts, dumbass. You lie so much you cant keep track. Thats the problem with lairs like you, and a moronic liar at that
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 and yes, only a moron like you would deny that the floors above the impact zone fell slowly. It goes back to your total misunderstanding of this design. Once enough floor trusses fail, you have a major problem because neither the core nor perimeter columns were of a free standing design. Add to that the increased load that had to be carried by the remaining columns, fire damage, etc, only a fool like you would deny catastrophic failure.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr Where are the realworld tests that prove all these assertions, bozo?
Where are they? Just show me the tests and the results, that's all.
Right now, all NIST has is a test in which they could not get the trusses to sag more than a few inches.
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 You keep asking for real world tests: OK, how about YOU pay for and construct a full scale model of the upper 29 floors of WTC 2 and then drop it? Your question is a red-herring. The calulations are consistent with the laws of physics, observed times, seizmic readings and computer generated models designed by experts in their field. Asked and answered, professor. Now go take your meds.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr No the calculations are not consistent with the laws of physics. Asked but not asnwered, in your fantasyworld perhaps, not in the real world.
I'm not the one who should review his posts here.
U keep saying there's hard evidence for all that NIST claims, I'm simply asking you 2 show it to me.
I'm pointing out the flaws in NIST's way of handling the investigation, and u just pretend they don't exist, fine, that's ur problem, not mine.
SO, why are u against a new investigation?
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? According to you,once the columns collapse, I guess the 29 flors will just hover there deciding what to do, huh? Wow, you are brilliant.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 Oh yeah, and what specifically, mr math major, is wrong with the calculation I posted. Please tell me, cuz it's a pretty standard equation for calculating kinetic energy. math and physics professors all over the globe are dying to read your response. I'm sure it will be scholarly and well reasoned hahahahahahahaha
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr I'm not aying something is wrong with that particluar mathequation u came up with.
I'm just asking were u got that assumption of freefall from. Since that assumption is pretty important to ur case, I'd like to know, u know?
Once again, it's kinda tough to read properly, is it not?
And you just keep on laughing dude, it's healthy for ya.
Sandberg1972 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sandberg1972 The test you keep harping on was a subscale model and represented an UNDAMAGED, fireproofed assembly. Therefore one would not expect it to accurately reflect floor deflection in the WTC, floors that were both larger AND damaged. You also failed to mention that this test was stopped early BECAUSE THE ASSEMBLY WAS ABOUT TO COLLAPSE!!! You're an idiot
studebakerlvr 4 weeks ago
I would recommend to anyone who has read Sandberg1972's idiotic rants that you read up on the psychology of conspiracy theories. It will help explain how people like Sandberg1972, who may appear normal on the outside and may function quite well in society, are actually seriously disturbed individuals.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
For anyone who has a brain capable of critical thinking, Sandberg1972 represents the majority of conspiracy theorists. They all consistently distort the facts, take things out of context, leave out important details, give false commentary on the contents of the NIST report, grossly distort it's logical conclusions, or just flat out lie. When you present evidence from other independent sources that support the NIST conclusions, they ignore it or bring up some other irrelevent detail.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
Sandberg1972 behaved exactly like I said he would in a previous post. He disputes the NIST's assertion that fire insulation was dislodged, just like I predicted (and of course claims the NIST doesnt prove it's case, which is false) AND he moves on to a totally different subject, again like I predicted. This time it wasnt distorted images, melted steel, or thermite that appears out of nowhere, this time it's the ominous "conductivity of the steel"!!! Wow. What a genius!
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr And lkemme ask you then:
DO YOU think it's reasonable to assume that steel conducts heat (because, believe it or not, it actually does so, it's pretty much THE reason that the steel of highrises never get hot enough to fail, it's its conductivity and ability to absorb large amounts of heat)?
Let's ask another question:
DO YOU believe that NIST assumed that the steel did conduct heat?
Or are u wondering what I'm talking about again, because u've never heard of it?
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 As usual, you completely misrepresent what is contained within the report.Your statement "steel conducts heat (because, believe it or not, it actually does so" confirms the NIST thesis without you relaizing it. The steel trusses expanded when heated, pushing against the columns and being forced downward. When they cooled and contracted, they pulled in the perimeter columns. See, you DO agree with the NIST report, you're just too stupid to realize it HAHAHAHAHA
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr Hahahahaha! Busted!
Well if NIST is right than it wouldn't have been any problem for them to make those floormodels collapse in their 2000 C conditions for two fucking hours, right?
They just ASSUMED that ALL of the heat generated by the jetfuel and all other flammable materials inside would go into nothing but the steel columns on the few damaged floors.
No loss to the air, to heating up the materials inside, to steel columns on other floors below & above it. Realistic ey?
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 Again, a total misrepresentation of of what the report says. I have already, NUMEROUS TIMES, pointed out your distortions of the NIST report and other flat out lies, SO why should anyone believe anything you post here? Well, the answer is, THEY SHOULDNT! Still waiting for you to refute the other independent reports I have cited which support the NIST conclusions, AND still waiting for you to advance your own theory. TIC TOC TIC TOC
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr Do you know what "ASSUMPTIONS" are, Study Boy?
Ever heard of it?
Ever heard of distorting data, manipulating data, know what that is?
Drylabbing?
Btw, in the scientific method, one usually takes at least TWO hypothesis, when trying to explain something.
One also usually abandones a certain hypothesis, when it is clear that the chances against something happeneing (and which has never happened before) is very very small.
I don't need to advance anything btw.
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 I see you are still confused...maybe the thorazine hasnt kicked in yet
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr I see u're level is dropping to deeper lows, more insults, lees arguments, more dodging of critical issues which u deem not critical at all., how nice.
It's though I know, having to answer and explain all these little problems that come with the official story.
The math doesn't confuse me, don't worry.
And btw, it would be nice if u also come up with a reason why something I write is supposedly a lie.
Just stating that something's a lie is not very convincing.
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 math DOES confuse you!!! Here's a little bit of it: the failure of
crucial steel support structures at the appropriate upper floor level of the building,
followed by the free fall of the entire upper block of n floors through a distance hf = one
floor height = 3.7 meters. It is readily determined using the relation v = {2gh) that the
descending upper block impacts the floor below at a velocity of 8.5 m/s
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr Could you first explain to me where this "followed by the freefall" comes from, especially that notion of freefall? Why would the entire upper block start a freefall descent? It implies the removal of all structural support across the entire surface area of that floor (or floors)?
If there are just a tiny few beams that resist collapse, that do not give up instantly, that freefall notion or assumption goes out the window. Simple as that. Symmetry is gone as well then, byebye.
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 asked and answered you dumbass
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sandberg1972 "Ever heard of distorting data, manipulating data, know what that is?" No, I have NEVER heard of such a thing, but you have, cuz you do it all the time!!! See how Sandbitch1972 tries to appear intelligent but fails? He's said absolutely nothing the entire time he's been on here. He just raises dumb question after dumb question based upon misrepresentations and out of context quotes. TYPICAL CONSPIRACY THEORIST BEHAVIOR!!
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 as usual, a complete misrepresentation of what the NIST report actually says. What IS "realistic ey" is that you are a complete moron who lacks the part of the brain that controls logic and critical thinking. With all these conspirators running around blowing things up and ruining society, why do you even get out of bed? I can sure imagine you cowering in a corner with a loaded gun just shivering (when you're not on here spreading bullshit lies)
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 Another distortion. True, steel SKYSCRAPERS prior to 9/11 hadnt failed due to fire, but other buidlings and structures who's loads are borne by steel HAVE. McCormick Place in Chicago collapsed in 30 min from uncontained fire.Mumbai High North Oil Platform collaped in 2 hours. Interstate 580 overpass in S.F. collapsed in 19 minutes from fire alone. And your continued assertion that the NIST report stated that steel doesnt conduct heat is a flat out lie. You need meds.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
Sandberg1972 goes on and on about the NIST report, which he often cites incorrectly and leaves important information out. However, there are independent reports from others that have been peer reviewed and published which support the official conclusions. One such paper is by Usmani et al which goes a step further and states the fire alone, sans the damage, was enough to bring the buildings down. I wonder what village idiot Sandberg will do to try and discredit THAT paper. More nonsense, prolly
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
Sandberg 1972 is next either going to argue that the plane impact wasnt enough to dislodge the insulation; or the impact wasnt sufficient to severly damage the columns; or the collapse of the six damaged floors wasnt enough to precipitate total collapse. Let's see where he goes next!!! Or, he may just change the subject entirely and go back to molten steel, or WTC 7, or "extensive cross bracing" or some other bullshit.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr Oh yes of course, the crux of NISt's explanation, the dislodging of the SFRM over a large area. Without, the building would not have collapsed.
And how did NIST prove this? U tell me.
Look idiot, I've read ur 5 comments and I've decided I'm not gonna waste anymore time to a fucking dumbass like urself, who is unable to answer simple questions, unable to read as a whole, unable to grasp the concept of the scientific method and cannot think for himself.
Solong sucker.
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 I was correct!!! After exposing you as someone who distorts and outright lies, I correctly predicted that you would try and say the NIST did nothing to prove the insulation was dislodged, even though they go into a detailed explanation as to the how's and why's they came to that conclusion! God, you are stupid, AND predictable!!
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@studebakerlvr On the contrary. YOU've just exposed urself as someone who is unable to even read properly, probably on purpose, to annoy me and make me waste more precious time on your pityful antics.
I asked YOU WHAT TEST they performed, I quote"
"And how did NIST prove this? U tell me."
U haven't told me yet. All u've done is write and I quote:
"even though they go into a detailed explanation as to the how's and why's they came to that conclusion"
So, WHAT did they do then?
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
Sandberg1972 states: "NIST has not proven steel temperatures of 600 Celsius or more. They don't get any higher than 250 C, that's from their own paint-tests" This, unsurprisingly, is a gross misrepresentation of what the report says. The NIST report clearly states those test results were from columns with INTACT ISULATION!. It does NOT apply to the fire on the six impact floors where the insulation is dislodged. Yes, these conspiracy idiots love to leave out relevent details.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr The dislodging of large amount of SFRM is nothing more than a bare assertion. The shotguntest proves very little. This is their crux, on which everything rests.
Have u gone through the part where they tested the floormodel, to see of they could get it to collapse? Do u know the conditions in which this test was done (temp and duration of fire)?
Did u know that NIST just assumed NO conductivity of the steel? U probably missed out on that, right?
Go suck on it, goodbye.
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 But hey, I'm just making this all up, that NIST report is a fucking masterpiece of science, brilliant in it's assumptions, and even more brilliant in it's conclusions.
In the end, they just decide to NOT explain the collapse itself, but just ASSUME it would shred itself all the way down to the ground, while there's no precedent for it, and while there were little to moderate fires that were dying out.
And remeber, all that within an hour to an hour and a half.
Hurrah for NIST!
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 You just helped confirm the NIST report without realizing it. Your statement "little to moderate fires that were dying out" is correct, which means the floor trusses which had expanded against the columns due to the heat and forced downward as a result were now cooling, contracting and PULLING IN THE PERIMETER COLUMNS!!! In trying to discredit the NIST report you actually confirm it, but are to dumb to realize that! HAHA
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 As I previously said, and which you conveniently ignore, is that The NIST report clearly states those test results were from columns with INTACT ISULATION!. It does NOT apply to the fire on the six impact floors where the insulation is dislodged. Even after I expose your distortion in an earlier post, you continue to peddle it! You are a pathological liar.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr Maybe u could explain to me WHY YOU THINK that the shotgunblast-test is a valid test for determining how many fireproofing would be dislodged.
Ricocheing bullets that just keep on ricocheing until all the fireprofing has been knocked off? Smells like BS, doesn't it? Of course u think it's an awesome test which is very reliable in modelling the real world.
So a B767 just magically turns into 1000's of ricocheing bullets that just keep on ricocheing until all SFRM if off, right.
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 the shotgun blast tests were one of several tests done by NIST researchers, in part because of complaints from morons like you who said that the INDUSTRY STANDARD pull tests were insufficient. The NIST actually went above and beyond to provide innovative, additional testing, a point you of course fail to mention. It's only "magical" to idiots like you that a plane travelling 500 mph can dislodge sprayed on insulation. It makes perfect sense to sane people.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr Like I said, where are the testresults that prove the trusses can sag 43 inches in a 1000C environment in just one hour?
Where are those results? Have u seen them?
Where is the realworld test btw, that he socalled "crushdown-crushup"-phenomenon could actually happen? Not that it would make any sense without a realworld test, but anyway, it's a very bold assumption, that needs more proof than just some mathematical jibberish, u know?
Loved ur last two sentences though.
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 you keep changing the subject again..tsk tsk tsk. I demonstrate the errors in your thinking, you lack of logic, and your misrepresentations of the NIST report, and you still keep doing it. You just love to keep slamming your fingers in the ar door, dont you? Oh yeah, mathematical jibberish? On what basis do you think buildings are designed? Guess work? NO!!! it's that damn mathematical jibberish HAHAHAHAHA
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
I'm sure Sandberg1972 is going to prattle on about thermite or "nanothermite" being snuck into the towers to cut the columns. All thermite reactions leave as byproducts aluminum oxide and barium nitrate. Both must be present for there to have been a thermite reaction.This is an inescapable chemical fact. No one, not the USGS, Steven Jones, nor anyone else has found traces of these elements at or around Ground Zero. Case closed!
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
See how Sandberg keeps changing the subject when asked to provide proof of his assertions? First, it was the NIST report is a fire theory and discounts the impact damage, which is false. Second, it's the WTC was specifically designed for a 707 impact, which is also false. Then he blatantly lies about the F.R. Greening report, ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE. Then he starts talking about molten steel in the basement, then WTC 7. He is behaving exactly like I predicted he would: like a liar
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
Idiots like Sandberg1972 also misrepresent what WTC engineer Leslie Robertson says. Robertson ACTUALLY says this:"We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707.The767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again.First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity"
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr Is that the same Leslie Robertson who confirmed that there was molten steel in the baement? Check that 1 out on youtube.
Also check his 1-on-1 with Stephen Jones, really hilarious how he tries to rescue himself from his predicament.
U must understand, it's really tough to persist that the official explanation for these 3 collapses is fact-based or even remotely possible.
U certainly have done a horrible job thusfar as far as I'm concerned. But it's tough, nice try though
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972: See? Now that I've exposed you for misrepresenting what the NIST report says and what other people have said about the 707 design specifications, NOW you move on to molten steel in the basement? You are doing exactly what I prdicted you would do: move on to the next bullshit assertion when all your other ones have been exposed as false. God, you are stupid AND gullible hahahahahaha
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 anyone who references Stephen Jones is dumb. Jones' paper has not been peer reviewed in a scientific journal, and he has been repudiated by members of his own department. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, stated:, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
Idiots like Sandberg1972 always trot out the "building was designed to withstand a 707 impact" which simply isnt true. It was CONSIDERED during the design, but such a requirement would have been a special customer request. No such documentation of this request exists. Frank DiMartini's assertions on the subject are unsupported by any calculations and therefore must be dismissed as simply speculative.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr Well, NIST assertions are also UNsupported by any calculations. At least for WTC7 that is. No inputdata for their simulations have been released, so YOU should just take their word for it. Get it?
As for WTC1 and 2, U really have no idea how NIST went t work on that one, do u?
U have to read the report, otherwise u might miss it.
Have u heard about their 3 scenario's that they came up with, and that they only used the "most severe scenario", to work with? Honest ey?
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972: I've read the full final report. I suggest you do the same. Furthermore, you repeatedly dodge answering the simplest of questions, such as why the NIST report is wrong, where is wrong, on what technical information you are making this judgement, etc. Funny, you are afraid to advance your own theory and support it with evidence.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
A tactic of conspiracy theorists is to treat the NIST report as a house of cards. In other words, if they find 1 aspect out of 100 of that report questionable, then they claim the whole report falls apart. This is unscientific and illogical, but then again conspiracy theorists ARE unscientific and illogical. This is why they rattle off the "yeah, but what about ___" strategy when you show that their favorite talking point is false. You pin them down, and they change the subject.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr It just gets better and better this.
Fyi, the primary hypothesis of the NIST report is a chain-event, a fire-induced collapse, with one thing leading to another thing leading to another thing etc etc.
If one can prove any one of the links of that chain false, or one can show that it's plausibly and very probably false, then the whole theory goes down the toilet. That's how it works with a hypothesis like this.
The CD-hypothesis OTOH can have many possibilities.
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 wrong again....yet another flaw in your logic. Your IQ keeps dropping with every post
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 oh yeah, show me the evidence that any of those chain links are incorrect, and the evidence to support your claims. Despite all of your posts, you have not advanced an alternative theory nor provided any proof for your idiotic claims. Idiots like you hate the burden of proof, because you don't have any. Add to that how you cant be trusted since I have already pointed out misrepesentations you have posted, typical of liars like you
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr NIST has not proven steeltemperatures of 600 Celsius or more. They don't get any higher than 250 C, that's from their own paint-tests.
NIST has not proven how virtually all the steel clumns of the toppart could suddenly lose all strength.
NIST did not get their floormodels to fail. No proof that extreme sagging occured.
No proof that the structure could collapse all the way down,
U don't have to be a scientists to grasp this.
NIST did not look for residue of explosives.
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 More misstatements and misrepresentations. Since I have already exposed your previous lies and misstatements, nothing you say about any report has any credibility. You do what conspiracy idiots do: lie, take out of context, misrepresent, and quote-mine.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
Another quote from Sandberg1972: "According to NIST, the damage from the planes did not really play a factor. Their theory is a fire theory." Here is what the NIST report REALLY says: "In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse." More proof that conspiracy idiots like Sandberg1972 misquote, misrepresent, or blatantly lie. They dont let the facts get in the way of a good story.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr Fool.
"A different combinatoin" ey? So, what does that mean?
I'd like u to specify a bit more about those "combinations" if u don't mind.
In other words, HOW MUCH did the impactdamage contribute to collapse, according to NIST?
Think u can answer that, Studyboy?
How much damage did the planes cause, according to NIST, according to u? How many perimeter- and corecolumns severed etc.?
So, show me those facts, will ya?
Thanx in advance.
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 Those points are all in the NIST report if you choose to read it. The rest of your posting is jibberish and nonsense. Do you have an actual point to make. Why dont you attempt to make a factual statement rather than answering a question with a question? It shows you are devoid of any rational thought.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr If it's in the report, that u seem to know soooooo well, I'm sure u can refer me to it.
So, again, HOW MUCH did the impactdamage contribute to collapse? How important was it?
And please do not bring up Dr. Greening, the 1 who has speculated that thermite was spontaneously formed in the towers, because all of the ingredients were present. I'm sure it's good enough for a simpleton like urself, but not for people who are a bit more serious when it comes to proof, facts and fiction
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 Another total lie. Dr. Greening never mentions thermite " was spontaneously formed in the towers" in his report ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE. You are really getting desperate with your lies.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
Conspiracy idiots like Sandberg1972 love to distort, misrepresent, and take statements out of context and shuffle things around to fit their pre-conceived notions. They simply cannot be trusted to accurately represent the statements of others. For the record, I disagree IN PART with the NIST report. I agree with F. R. Greening's theory that the impact damage alone was enuff to bring down the towers, sans the fires, due to the bending moments and stress exceeding the column's elastic limit.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sandberg1972 distorts the very NIST report he claims to have read. Sandberg1972 stated: "NIST's theory is a FIRE theory. Without the fires, both towers would've remained standing". Here is what NIST ACTUALLY says, "In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower." AKA: damage+fire+damaged insulation led to collapse.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
Sandberg 1972 keeps changing the subject and bringing up other non-relevent issues when he's pinned down to cite evidence and references in professional journals that have been held up to peer review. This is typical of conspiracy theorists. Then he continues to name drop, like physicist Arkadiusz Jadczyk, who allegedly has a PhD in theoretical physics and who's wife is a nut job who writes about Mossad conspiracies and alien abduction. Dr. Jadczyk is not qualified to critique the 9/11 report
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr "Dr. Jadczyk is not qualified to critique the 9/11 report "
Really? Explain why then. Prove his PhD in theoretical physics is false. Prove he is blatantly incompetent when it comes to theoretical physics. prove he has not reviewed any other physics papers.
Have u even read his critique? Of course not.
Seffen is not even wrong, because his assumptions are known to be false. It don't get much easier than that. But for u, it's very very difficult to grasp, is it not?
Poor boy
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 He's not qualified, nor has any of his work on the subject been published and peer reviewed. Funny how you ignored all the other points I brought up, typical of conspiracy theorists. Why dont you advance your OWN hypothesis, my home-schooled friend, and support it with evidence?
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
In the words of engineer Jon Magnusson, member of the SEI Board of Governors:"The question should not be “Why did they fall?”, but, rather, “How were they able to stand so long after direct hits from 767’s? ”Without exaggeration, more than 99% of all buildings would collapse immediately if hit by a 767." The people who escaped WTC 1 and 2 have the original engineers to thank for designing a building that stood as long as it did. However, collapse was inevitable.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
Sandberg1972 and other "truthers" love to quotemine people, take things out of context, and misrepresent. They continually try to hang their hats on the words of the original structural engineers who said their analysis showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. That's NOT the same as saying these buildings were DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY to withstand such a hit. Just because it was THOUGHT to be able to withstand a 707 hit, doesnt mean it subsequently PROVES to be true.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
Typical of conspiracy theorists, Sandberg1972 does a lot of talk but says nothing. Those pics and vids of the bowed in perimeter columns caused by the sagging floor trusses? Well, those were all MANIPULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT, according to Sandberg1972. He speaks of 3-dimensional matrix of steel, extensive cross-bracing, which doeasnt even apply to the design of the building. Of course, he never says what caused total collapse or supply the evidence to support his theory. What a dumbass.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
@studebakerlvr This is not gonna convince the average person, Studyboy.
U obviously haven't even watched a video of the erection of the towers.
U probably think the towers were just one tube within another one, with only some trusses to connect the two together.
Surely that would be enough against hurricane winds, right?
U have to distinct between the US govt. and NIST, an institution that works FOR the govt. There's also the president, his aides, all much too tough for u to grasp.
Sandberg1972 1 month ago
@Sandberg1972 Again, lots of noise, no content. Typical of idiots.
studebakerlvr 1 month ago
Have any of you noticed the light across the building just before it collaspses. The real close it, a light spreads along the building then it goes.
benjyboba 3 months ago
it's amazing that the south tower actually tilts as it is collapsing. christ.
deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeds 4 months ago
9/11 = 100% INSIDE JOB and COVERUP!
Born2Flesh 5 months ago
@Born2Flesh freak!!
deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeds 4 months ago
Did you notice how the top of the building was disintegrating as it came from behind the smoke, even though it hadn't been hit by anything? Watch this video again... Keep your eye on the edge of the tower that falls towards the camera. As it clears the smoke, you can see the top edge of the building is already having a strange anomaly. ...what is that? ...yes, it is freaky.
Born2Flesh 4 months ago
@Born2Flesh Not sure there dude, you maybe on to something there dude. You maybe talking about the series of static on the footage. Hard to be sure.
deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeds 4 months ago
@Born2Flesh That is the side of the building, not the top. The top part of the building pushed the columns from the bottom part outward as it fell behind them at an angle.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
STFU
Born2Flesh 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What began as the filming of an beautiful morning in September of 2001
turns out to be the most complete chronicle of 9/11 attacks.
New 9/11 movie on dvd: 'Tuesday Morning in September' 2011
For more information about how to get the dvd, please go to the channel that posted this.
TuesdayMorningInSept 6 months ago
To the naked, scientific eye it is plain and clear that the top portion of the building explodes into dust in mid-air, OBVIOUSLY implying that this was not a GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE TO THE GROUND.
bjdm3089 10 months ago
@MJ4ever911 After the Wtc bombing 1993 the structural engineers were saying; you must hit it from above or very intense heat or use an atomic bomb to bring these buildings down!!! Most people don't know that!!! It was stupid as shit to give such informations over tv direct to the terrorists! You don't believe me? Search for 1993 bombing interviews, it's rare but you can find it in the internet!!!
74pbg 1 year ago
@74pbg
Just because the structural engineers -- while talking in one inerview, trying to dumb down engineering for the public and trying to reassure everyone -- said that you'd need to hit from above, use intense heat or an atomic bomb does not mean the towers couldn't have been brought down by anything else.
plusplusplusplusp 11 months ago
@ERAUPRCWA Are you serious? You really think this buildings were built to collapse inward? I is much easier the disconnect all the large columns and perimeter piece by piece! This is the way to demolish such a large structure with so much nearby buildings! Even John skilling writes that in his book!
74pbg 1 year ago
I recall recently that NASA discovered that not all life on Earth is Carbon based, a theory which has been held up for centuries... now we know different. All you conspiracy theorist, science is all theory what we know can easily be different when in practical environments. Has anything like 9/11 EVER happened before? answer is no. The buildings were built to collapse inward, FACT. The buildings were built to withstand a 707 not a 767, FACT. GIVE IT A REST!
ERAUPRCWA 1 year ago
@ERAUPRCWA I suggest you apply for a job with NIST. Or jump off a high roof somewhere, since the force of gravity according to you is nothing but a mere theory, maybe u won''t fall to the ground at 9.8 m/s2, but fly away into fantasyland.
Sandberg1972 1 year ago
@Sandberg1972 yes FACT is fantasy.... in the great words of Ronald Reagan "Facts are stubborn things".
ERAUPRCWA 1 year ago
The fact that the building tilted as it collapsed disproves the government's "pancake collapse" explanation, and thus proving the whole 9/11 Commission was a fake investigation - and thus proving 9/11 was likely an inside job.
Everyone here should watch Loose Change 2nd Edition.
camreeno360 1 year ago