The video. It fell into its footprint for about 90% of the fall...until the end where it tilted.
9/11 Conspiracies
- Thread starter SaulToPaul 2
- Start date
The video. It fell into its footprint for about 90% of the fall...until the end where it tilted.
You forgot to answer the second, and far more important, part of the question: why?
Why wouldn't in fall largely within its foot print?
I'm not addressing why. Just how.
Again, it fell symetrically until at the last.
you can't address how with out addressing why as well. The two are intertwined because the why looks at questions such as what forces was the building experiencing before and during the collapse. So why did the building fall the way it did?
Fair enough.
I thought you were alluding to some conspiricy theory.
We're not sure of the full extent of such forces nor full distribution. Yet from the uniformed way it collapsed it must have been complete and its destructive power must have simultaneously destroyed key structure points.
All not very probable nor apparent from any of the various videos.
What is "destructive power" that you refer to?
The office fires; their capacity to destroy steel construction.
Please define "destroy". I am asking you to define your terms because words have very specific meanings and I need to understand how you are using the words.
The fires did not destroy the steel construction. But what fire does do is weaken steel. You can look up charts that show how much steel weakens as it heats. So a steel beam is designed to carry a specific load. When the beam reaches a certain temperature it can no longer support the load and the beam fails and begins to sag. That beam is no longer carrying the load so it is transferred to adjacent beams which are now carrying more load then they were designed for. If those beams are also hot, their ability to carry that load may be compromised causing them to fail. It is a progressive failure and at some point, the remaining structure is to heavily load and it fails. At this point the building is going to move in whatever direction it can based on the forces applied to it and the ability of any remaining structure to oppose those forces. On the day of the attacks, there was little to no wind so the ONLY force acting on the buildings was gravity. Gravity pulls straight down so the building falls straight down. Since gravity is the only force acting on the building and the building structure has failed, the wreckage accelerates down based on the gravitational force. In other words, it falls at free fall speeds.
Yes, and this "domino effect" - from weakened beam failure to overloaded beam failure - was not represented nor consistent with the visual evidence.
Points 2 thru 6 are relevant here.
Last edited:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
If we watch the slow motion replays of a plane entering the tower, does it look like a normal collision?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Yes, it is. When a structural computer model of the building is constructed and loaded with the actual information regarding fires and damage from the collapse of the towers, the way the building fell exactly matches the videos you have seen. It is not enough to just look at the portions of video that support your conclusions. You must look at the entirety of the evidence and then ask yourself hat scenario matches ALL the evidence. You refuse to do that.
Is an explosion the ONLY thing that cam make a sound like a thunder clap and creat a shock wave?
Was the architect in the video a building demolition expert?
why were the videos presented edited to exclude the first moments of the collapse? (Remember the penthouse?)
When something is supported and that support suddenly fails, at wheat speed would you expect something to fall.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:mock: STP
The 2nd tower plane crash looks nothing like any other collision I've ever seen...
The 2nd tower plane crash looks nothing like any other collision I've ever seen...
I used to be pretty heavily interested in 9/11 conspiracy theories back in the day. So much of it has been debunked imho that I no longer buy into it.
NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omitting
or misrepresenting critical structural features in its
computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these
errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably
impossible. Yet even with errors that were favorable to
its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model
(see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead
showing large deformations to the exterior that are not
observed in the videos and showing no period of free
fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation,
less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse.
Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be
independently verified because NIST has refused to release
a large portion of its modelling data on the basis
that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”
As late as March 2006,
NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as
saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble
getting a handle on building No. 7.".
Source