Events similar to 9/11: Pirelli Tower, Empire State Building

I read that they WERE welded in addition to being bolted.

It's amazing to me how they constructed that entire skyscraper to all rest on those truss seats. Who would imagine that if you removed a few of them that the whole building would just fall apart?

 

You mean momentum don't you? That's a mass times a velocity. It's my understanding that the safety factor of 5 or so over capacity was supposed to take care of this as well as the transfer of weight to remaining members. Some say that the towers were designed even well above that level.

I guess in addition to not taking the fuel load of a crashing jet liner into consideration they were also oblivious to the planes momentum too. Perhaps they just did their calculations based on the standing weight of a jet.

I'm sure they didn't anticipate at the time just how fat everyone would be by the year 2000 either.

Considering that it's surprising that the towers didn't collapse sooner.

 

Now you are contradicting yourself. They did not collapse strait down and in fact covered quite a large area damaging other building including WTC7. You yourself say the top of one tilted so it could not collapse in the same footprint. Of course the only way they could go is down due to gravity.

What you are also saying is that "some" engineers dispute "other" engineers.

 

Nope. They were bolted only.

As far as removing a few, other buildings constructed differently still had whole sides drop due to fire and overloading. In the case of WTC1&2, more than a "few" were removed and it still did not collapse until the rest of the damage was done. Another weak area in the building were the elevator shafts that, instead of cement tubes were layers of drywall. One of the firemen that did not make it out announce that people should stay away from the elevators because they were shifting.

- - - Updated - - -

If it drops for 1 second, it has already surpassed that by twice.

 

Incorrect which is why you're having a hard time with this. The "entire" skyscraper did not rest on those truss seats. Each individual floor did. this has been explained to you several times and you STILL don't understand it.

How can someone get that statement from the entire upper section colliding with the floor below?! Why are you minimizing what actually happened?

 

And there you go again ignoring the fact that WTC1 and WTC2 were different in design that the other structures with raging infernos in them. Or does that not make a difference in how a structure reacts? And now your putting words into MY mouth. I never said the Empire State building was more robust. I simply told you you can;t compare the two because the designs were different. Also, the size of the plane that impacted was much different. I supposed you think apples and oranges are the same thing because they're fruits right?

 

It must pass through EACH floor individually, not all 9 at once. As has been said, your problem can be easily proven wrong, but you refuse to see the light.

Find out how much one floor in WTC1 or WTC2 was designed to support. then find out the impact force generated by the descending upper section. Compare the two. Which one wins?

I'm not discussing this any further until you provide these answers as the answers would show you were you are going wrong.

 

If the proof is that "easy" then it should be no problem at all for you to post it.

What I am saying is that the shock (energy) of any impact will be imparted to the building as a whole, not merely at one floor only.
That this is true is demonstrated by the fact that people felt and heard the impact all the way down.
The only way this could be is if the building itself absorbed an amount of energy needed to do this.
Had the energy of impact been isolated to one floor alone, no one would have felt the shock waves or heard the sound of it.

Your way of reckoning assumes that the full brunt of the momentum is borne by a single floor alone.
You must account for deductions in momentum due to this necessary dissipation. Only then will you be able to determine whether the initial momentum of the falling mass is sufficient to crush the lower mass to the ground and destroy itself in the process.
This still doesn't explain how all the remaining columns after impact were severed. You are attributing that to the additional strain put upon them by having to recompense for the supporting strength of the lost columns.
You would need to know how to calculate this before you could say whether they would break at once, sag down gradually, or remain standing. You have already admitted that the building DID survive the impact. Therefore there is nothing left but the added strain on the remaining intact portion combined with whatever effect the random fire had on them.

You admit that you can not know any of this with certainty. Yet you vehemently deny the possibility that this process could have been "encouraged" in any way by pre planted explosives or incendiaries.

Even if you could demonstrate that there were not enough remaining columns left over in the entire perimeter and core columns to bear the additional load, you still have to explain why the upper portion didn't topple, IN ALL THREE CASES.



If I stand on a set of scales and then pick an object up of substantial weight, the weight of that object will be registered on the scales as well, even though it is physically not in direct contact with the surface of the scales as are my feet.

Similarly, if I jump up and down on the scales, the fluctuation due to changing momentum will also register. Likewise if someone tossed me a heavy medicine ball or a sack of potatoes, my feet would never have to leave the register in order to see the needle fluctuate. Therefore the momentum delivered at the top is shared to some extent by the members to which the top portion is attached and which they depend upon to hold them in the air.


A particular floor may only sustain a limited amount of weight. If this weight is exceeded then naturally something will give. If the truss seats are sheared off as you allege by the added weight, the entire floor will give way in accordance to the way that weight was distributed.
But how would the broken truss seats then affect the perimeter and core columns to which they are attached.

If you say that they will tear them down, then there is no way they can do this as unless they remain attached. If they become detached then there is no longer a way for them to exert a pull on the standing columns.

In addition to this problem, you have not taken into account the force needed to break all the bonds which bind the core and perimeter columns together, including the hat truss which sits atop all of them.
All you can really say is that the rubble of the collapsing floor will land on the floor beneath it. Then what is to guarantee that the force of this would be equal to the force of the impacting plane which tore the first truss seats asunder?

Would the weight of one collapsing floor by itself be sufficient to break all the connections of all the floors below them? If they all fall down, then what happens to the standing columns from which they were broken. Do they fall of their own accord?
I don't think so.

What you are describing is nothing more than the original pancake theory which has already been discarded. Among the reasons they had for doing so may have been the fact that so much of the concrete of the floors was seen being ejected horizontally from the floor.
The workers at the clean up said there were no large portions of floors remaining, that the concrete had largely been pulverized. Since this occurred during the fall, you can not say that it all happened when it hit the ground.

At any rate, in order to achieve a symmetrical and straight down fall, ALL the remaining supports, which included at least half the remaining core columns and three intact perimeter walls, to ALL give way at the same time.
IF this is what happened then what ensued was roughly the equivalent of a Verinage demolition which as you know is a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, ie one that is unlikely due to the unpredictable damage which would be sustained from a plane impact and the random motions of fire.

As unlikely as this may seem to occur in ONE instance, it was observed in THREE on that day.
I ask you AGAIN. What are the odds. Since you are such an astute mathematician, you should have no problem in calculating a reasonable estimation of those odds.


You are in no position to demand answers of me since it is I who have been the only one responding to questions up to this point.
I believe it's your turn. Otherwise your absence will not be missed, least of all by me.

 

You keep using terms that don't apply to the WTC towers,And it wasn't JUST the weight of ONE collapsing floor overcoming the truss seats of each additional floor

 

Exactly. And by the same token it wasn't just the mass and resistance of one floor which received the impact.

For some reason you want to neglect the portion of momentum energy which can be absorbed into the entire structure below. My guess is that you do not want to have to deduct any.

You speak as though you can imagine the full force of it should be focused and isolated at any point which you choose.
Sure, a directed and concentrated force can break a truss seat lose or many of them if the force is sufficient. But that would require that the still standing columns and all there connections would be playing no role in the event.

First the upper portion must fall. And in order to fall ALL of the remaining support columns both interior and exterior must be unseated. To do this according to your scenario they would have to bend until they break.

Is this possible given the fact that more than 3/4ths of the perimeter and at the very least 1/2 of the interior columns were left undamaged? You haven't explained how this could happen at once in sharp contrast to a Verinage demolition in which their removal is timed to happen at once.

Since youskys are supposed to be the whiz bang mathematics people, why don't you calculate whether that many remaining columns could support the upper part of the building?
Since they obviously did for some time after the impact, what force would you expect would be required to break them lose or unseat them at that point?

You will say that the fire softened them. Do you know by how much? In order to say you need to know the temperatures, the intensity, and the distribution of the fires for the length of time in which the upper portion remained aloft. And if the steel were made more malleable by the heat, wouldn't it tend to droop and contort rather than snap?
Do ...YOU.... KNOW.... these things, or must you consult the professional DeBunkers for your calculations?

Unless you are capable of following them clearly and precisely, there is no way for you to know whether they fudged in any way.

You must also ask yourself HOW or even WHETHER they KNOW themselves, and to what degree of certainty.
To know this, they themselves would have to KNOW the exact starting conditions from which to begin their calculations.

So tell me. How is it that only the DeBunking crowd can KNOW these conditions, ie exactly how many columns remained, where they were located and all the other necessary details in relation to the fires? This would include what their temperatures were, how long they lasted, and exactly where they were burning in relation to the remaining columns.

The James Randi crowd prides itself on DeBunking people who claim to know and do things as if by magic. But it appears to me that they are claiming the same kind of magic with respect to 9/11.
I fail to see how they can be privy to the much desired information more so than any others having comparable expertise. And don't tell me that there aren't any.

I will admit that not everyone has either the guts or the wherewithal to step up to the plate. An honest appraisal of the situation will confirm that those who have stepped forward to devote time, energy, and money in order to shout above the den of the media propaganda machine have been made to pay a price for doing so by the powers that be. You wouldn't expect this from a media which boasts of reporting the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the most unbiased way possible. Would you?

Well I would 'cause I know who runs it!


When you answer the above questions in a clear and concise manner, please include a reply to the question I put to what's his face about how many times you think a jet colliding with a building such as the WTC bldgs were would result in them collapsing straight down in the manner of controlled demolitions out of say, 100 trials.

And also explain to me how the outcome of such a trial would alter the myriad other little suspicious coincidences associated with 9/11 which definitely show FOREKNOWLEDGE and willful OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE.

If you have any mathematical equations which are applicable to that body of evidence please reveal them to the rest of us. Inquiring minds like to know.

 

I think most people would enjoy watching the videos rather than read Debunker shuckin' and jivin'.

 

Here's something for youskys to consider while you're busy thinking up ways to defend the Kosher establishment.

The people who set this operation up wouldn't hesitate to snuff you out too if it served their purpose.

And don't think that belonging to the Kosher community is any guarantee of safety. What's a pawn or two in exchange for a Rook or a Bishop?
Do you think you are so valuable that the Mashianic Age couldn't function without you?

 

Paranoia will destroya.

- - - Updated - - -

I am sure they would love to be misled by the videos rather than actually reading.

 

"To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated at, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighed, censored, ordered about, by men who have neither the right, nor the knowledge, nor the virtue." ~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

 

sounds pretty paranoid.

how come they haven't snuffed you yet?

 

Because I pose no threat to them. They have nothing to gain by it. The gain is outweighed by the expense.
Don't misunderstand. I have been targeted for reprisals, but nothing near so dramatic. They prefer to go for the pocket book before the jugular. At times I'm almost sympathetic.

I doubt if there's anyway that I could ever convince you that I am NOT what you think I am. You are so steeped in tradition that you can't conceive of how that is possible.
What I am harping on pertains to principles and behavior. Any objections I have against Jews applies equally to non-Jews. You simply can't accept that notion at face value.

 

because,Jews,part 8

 

[video=youtube;xnqWs8pAsRk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnqWs8pAsRk#t=10[/video]

[video=youtube;wq2pGd9ViUM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq2pGd9ViUM[/video][video=youtube;aI-_lWjfejc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI-_lWjfejc[/video]

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/03/01/israel-celebrates-successful-911-operation-on-purim-holiday/

Twins win “best costume” contest for Purim 2013.

Yes. I suppose you are correct. For all intents and purposes, the Jews DID do 9/11.
We might as well tell it like it is. What other way is there?

Or should I lie along with you to keep from being called an "anti-Semite"?

I explained to you earlier that this was an oversimplification.
But if you persist in framing the problem in those terms, you cannot expect me to continually stop everything and take the pains to qualify the statement in detail.

People like things short and sweet. It's not my fault they insist on forcing everything into a nutshell the way youskys lump "twoofers" and everyone else.

 

<sigh> Because Jews,part 9

 

If I dislike someone it's not because they are a "Jew" ,it's because they are a thief, a liar, a murderer, or something of that nature.

But you keep trying to convince everyone that anytime anyone mentions the fact that someone is a Jew in an unfavorable light, it's only because they are a Nazi.
The dumb a$$s who believe you are probably beyond reach anyway.

 

Who all, just by some strange happenstance,are Jews....strange,isn't it?

 

anti-Semitism at its finest.

you didn't say "some Jews" or "a few Jewish persons" or "some extremist Jews" or "some radical Jews" but "THE JEWS".

that's why this is pure anti-Semitism.


edit: and yes, I think its very bigoted and racist to also say "the Arabs did 9-11" or "the Muslims did 9-11".

 

Can I help it if there are those who are?

For the purpose of this thread, I am addressing those who were responsible for 9/11. I suppose that should include everyone who is also complicit in the cover up. That might include you as well since you apparently are all for it.

Why don't youskys just reply to questions.
You ask questions. I answered them. You presented challenges. I met them.

All you can do now is try to shift the subject to one which you are better equipped to deal with. Just keep squealing "anti-semite" and let the rest take care of itself.

How about getting back on the subject.

The moderators might think you are trying to derail the thread, not that they would really care if you did.
It only seems to bother them when it makes the ZOG-bots look bad.
And my, you certainly have looked bad on this one.

 

I've told you already about how cumbersome it becomes by having to preface every statement with a thousand qualifications in order to prevent you and other equivocators from taking issue with every nit pickin' detail. You only do that to bog things down so you can avoid having to confront the issue itself.

But we should all be able to agree that while you claim it is "racist to also say "the Arabs did 9-11" or "the Muslims did 9-11""., you must admit that it is OK or Politically Correct to say so. In fact, they were saying these things from day one. And everyone seems to have lost sight of the fact that neither Bin Laden nor anyone else was ever tried or convicted of the deeds, let alone proven to be!


And if you believe it is so critical to be able to make a distinction between the guilty members of a class and those who aren't then how can you justify attacking an entire nation for the acts of an alleged 19, some of whom were misidentified?
To beat it all you they didn't even get the correct country!
Otherwise they would have attacked Arabia! Now, wouldn't they?

No, when one looks at the way that Israeli's indiscriminately corral Palestinians or drop phosphorus bombs, you can't pretend to be without prejudice yourself because there is no doubt you are all for these things just like you not only approve of the way the 9/11 "investigation" was conducted, but applaud the mission itself!

In that respect, there is no difference between you and the dancing Mossad agents.

To be frank, I sometimes think that more people are aware of the truth about 9/11 who simply will not admit it because they too think it was a grand idea. They don't want to embarrass their Jewish and Zio-xtian friends by denouncing the Zionist culprits right along with the bomb totin' terrorists. But more than that, they don't want their Jewish/Zionists "friends" to know they think or feel this way for fear of the possible social repercussions.

The Jews are big ones to talk about "anti-semitism" considering the way they have lumped "WASPs" and Christians for all these years.

 

ah, personal attacks from you.