BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 10:30 PM

Oh yeah...that was #100 - what a waste of bandwidth!

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 11:34 PM

I just can't argue with you fillosofers. Here's a photo of WTC5 on the left and WTC7 on the right:

http://prisonplanet.tv/images/august2006/230806wtc4a.jpg

It's obvious from the raging inferno engulfing 5 that it should continue standing, while the absence of flames in 7 means it HAS to fall. No more NEWtonian physics, just NEW physics. It's about time physics were changed to serve political ends.

And here's a picture of WTC6 after the fire. It was whacked by debris and burned all day, but it followed the laws of the New Physics and didn't fall:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/august2006/230806building6.jpg

Homeland Uber Alles, you Heroes of the Homeland. We have to get in lock goosestep on this. I SUPPORT your New Physics. I'm SICK of that bullshit math and schooling. Just give me a gun and tell me who questions the government's version of 9/11. Homeland Uber Alles. Keep up the good fight.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 12:44 AM

Physics is obviously not your field. You might be better at reading the entrails of birds or something like that. You have at least a meager talent for seeing things when there's nothing there to see.

Get yourself a crystal ball, maybe.

(Look out!! Here comes another black helicopter!!)

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 10:31 AM

But gee, Don, our fizzics expert can just LOOK at those building pictures and SEE that his theory is right, while all the incompetent fools with their meager dozens of years of experience, who dug thru the debris, measured pieces, took close up pics, and conducted all those exhaustive inquiries, couldn't figger it out!

I think he should start his own site, teaching the art of diagnosing damage and other maladies by remote visual inspection!
Perhaps we could send in pictures of auto accidents and have him explain who was at fault and what basic design structures failed in the vehicles.

....or maybe his 'expertise' is only relevant for fires...or when government conspiricies are involved. Hard to know how to utilize such a talent....

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 11:47 AM

Physics Major is not a "he". It has been proven.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 11:51 AM

Oh well then I definitely want the blow job. I take back the option of kissing my ass.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 12:25 PM

You will need at least $10 from what I've heard.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 12:51 PM

well, I care little about gender...foolishness is gender-irrelevant.
I am not used to referring to trolls as 'it', but I guess I could practice..

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 01:13 PM

Homeland, Homeland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt...

Sing along guys. Stomp those jackboots in time.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 01:22 PM

You wear those boots well Physic... marching right in step as you've been doing since day 1.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 01:24 PM

Same old, same old from our age old troll. I watched the History Channel show. It debunked all of this gobbledegook analysis by the tin hat brigade, as well as showing the very few things that were troublesome. It took time to be complete and even handed.

I note that when confronted by facts, this tired old troll just resorts to trying to make Nazi comparisons. Sign of a lack of intellect and debate skills. Here's another clue: It's obvious from the raging inferno engulfing 5 that it should continue standing, while the absence of flames in 7 means it HAS to fall. No more NEWtonian physics, just NEW physics. It's about time physics were changed to serve political ends. Once again, even in the face of scientific fact, the tired old troll uses words like "it's obvious......", when, in fact, it is not obvious.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 05:20 PM

From Cleveland, eh? I suppose he/she/it will also say that it is a violation of the laws of physics for the Cuyahoga River to catch on fire?

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Don Firth (computer still in the shop)
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 06:11 PM

When it comes to the Nazi references and the "Homeland Up Your Alles" bit, I have already recommended to GUEST,Fuzzy Major (was it in this thread, or several threads back?) that there are places in this country where he/she-it would fit right in:    little colonies of Super-Patriots and Real Americans in places like northern Idaho, eastern Oregon, and upstate Michigan where they prepare to defend other Real Americans from naughty folks like the United Nations and the many other Ominous World Governmental Organizations (particularly those that no one—even they—know about, but are undoubtedly out there lurking), and the encroachment of Evil Influences like anyone who might have skin of a different shade or whose eyes aren't shaped quite like theirs.

These folks really have a lot of fun. They play soldier, just like when they were little kids, running around in the woods, only now they have real guns. They spend their time target practicing and preparing themselves to fend off the inevitable invasion by the United Nations, and/or the imminent attempt by our own government to round up everyone and pack them off to concentration camps and gas chambers (thereby displaying a certain sympathy for one of the many groups that terrifies them (i.e., Jews and their well-know International Conspiracy).

This really is lots of fun! And the many times these stalwart defenders of our freedoms get mosquito-bit, wade though patches of poison ivy, or trip over tree roots and land with their faces in cow-pies is small price to pay for Maintaining Our Freedoms. And they can feel so-o-o-o-o superior to anyone who thinks they might be a little--paranoid. Or just plain nutz!!

Really, Foozy-Chirps, think about it. It's just your thing!

No need to thank me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 06:21 PM

There's an old saw that says.. "give a small boy a hammer, and everything he sees looks like a nail."

It could be rephrased as "Give a small mind a conspiracy theory, and everything he sees and reads becomes suspect."

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 08:18 PM

Looks more like

"99, 100, change hands..." to me...

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:58 PM

"The official story (of 9/11) is false. ... Now why is the official theory an outrageous conspiracy theory? Because every one of the major elements in it can easily be shown to be false."

http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

Look at these idiots. Tin foil hats. They're stoopid and nutcases. I hate them too because these are the kinds of perfessers that give you homework.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 07:53 PM

I believe I am on record probably even more times than you, Physics Major, and likely earlier than you as saying that the official version of 9/11 events do not add up. No point getting riled with folks who chose to see things differently. Frankly, however, I don't give a rat's ass who does or who doesn't agree with me. Many of these folks are friends of mine (despite that they wear blinders to do with 9/11), and they're good people, also. Relax a bit. I don't think 9/11 will be solved any more than Kennedy's assassination was. Time will take its toll and other events will loom larger in the minds of pe3ople. Just post the new info you find and let folks ridicule what you have to say. If they enter into personal attacks against you, just tell 'em to get stuffed. And move on with your presentation.

Keep well.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 09:07 PM

Put on your tinfoil. Asymmetrical damage does not cause symetrical falls unless the cavemen of Tora Bora say so. Okay?

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 12:29 AM

"Asymmetrical damage does not cause symmetrical falls"

What a load of engineering/physics/architectural nonsense.

Please, 'Fiscs Majer' quote your engineering/physics/architectural authoritative sources for the style of large scale construction in question.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 12:59 AM

Well, in this particular case, NIST couldn't get the towers (in computer simulations) to fall as they did on 9/11. They couldn't get them to fall straight down into their own footprints. Symmetrical falls resulting from asymmetrical damage. Or no, one simulation worked after they removed all the core columns. But what NIST didn't take into account was the strong Mojo of the Cavemen of Tora Bora. Ossama's hoodoo alone allows him to appear on TV years after he died, and looking younger than ever. I don't know if he's working with black cat bones or eye of newt, but he put the straight downward whammy on those towers. So I'm sick of these so-called physicists referring to Newton's laws and the impossibility of what Fox News TOLD us happened. Buildings were hit, compromised on one side, but they didn't topple, they fell straight down. Newtonian physics need to be revised to take into account the Tora Boran Hoodoo and if anyone disagrees, well then just shoot them. They're with al Qaida.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 01:18 AM

"couldn't get the towers (in computer simulations) to fall as they did on 9/11"

only proves that the 'simulations', did not reflect reality, as many simulations are well known to not do.



"they didn't topple, they fell straight down"

Trees topple, but they are a unit structure, acting as a lever: no joins! Tall chimneys START to topple, then the forces break them apart and they stop rotating as a lever and the bits fall straight down. The buildings had HOW MANY MILLION INDIVIDUAL JOINTS? As the forces increased on each succeeding lower layer, the joints failed due to overload even more readily. Monocoque style construction, where the failure of ONE joint spreads the ensuing stresses over all the rest, thus gradually overloading them and eventually causing MOST of them to fail, do not behave like simple unit levers.

You may well be using 'common sense' based on what you have experienced in the world around you, but that has little relevance to the engineering/physics/architectural reality, of which you clearly have little relevant practical experience.



"Newtonian physics need to be revised to take into account the Tora Boran Hoodoo and if anyone disagrees, well then just shoot them. They're with al Qaida."

Hiya Redneck!

As I said - "little relevant practical experience", logic not overriding emotion.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 01:39 AM

Do I need to post the photo of the top quarter of the tower going over sideways, just before it does the physically impossible and corrects itself prior to falling straight down? Isn't what SHOULD have happened called continuation of angular momentum? An absolute, unless other forces (explosives) are brought into play. I'm not saying the government did it, I'm just saying that bin Laden had to point one powerful mojo stick to interrupt the angular momentum from his cave in Tora Bora. He is indeed a master of time and space, and we need to work on formulae that incorporate his mojos and hoodoos into our new bin Ladean physics. Maybe I could do my dissertation on that. I could even create a new symbol for "19 men with boxcutters." Something like pi.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 09:26 AM

This is a report on research by a Cambridge engineer on the collapse.
I expect he is bankrolled by CIA.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: bobad
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 09:45 AM

"One thing that confounded engineers was how falling parts of the structure ploughed through undamaged building beneath and brought the towers down so quickly," said Dr Seffen.

Conspiracy theorists see evidence of a "controlled detonation"
He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings.

From Keith's link.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 10:12 AM

"Do I need to post the photo of the top quarter of the tower going over sideways"

Yep!


"before it does the physically impossible and corrects itself prior to falling straight down"

And you KNOW so much that you know it CAN'T be explained by structural engineers/architects?


"how falling parts of the structure ploughed through undamaged building beneath and brought the towers down so quickly"

Only the ignorant and uneducated would be 'surprised' by that.It was to be expected, taking into account the construction style and scale of the building.

You never seen a building (perhaps a closer similarity, taking into account scale, would be a 3 story wood 'post and beam construction' one) that you are demolishing fall down? Obviously!

Why don't you go and play in the traffic on those tin foil hat sites yo get so much fun out of? You are only making us laugh at your ignorance, arrogance and stupidity. You will never learn, obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 01:52 PM

Conspiracy theorists see evidence of a "controlled detonation"

No, conspiracy theorists say 19 men with boxcutters took their flight-school flunk-out experience and did top gun flying into their targets. That's the conspiracy theory.

Here's a link to the photo of WTC 2 falling sideways:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/site1049.jpg

Here's an explanation of angular momentum as it applies to this event: "Conservation of angular momentum requires that an object continue to rotate around its center of mass once set in motion, unless acted on by an outside force. Even if the tower beneath it had completely given way, leaving it nothing more to push against laterally, the rotation once started would not abruptly stop. But the top section does not stop rotating and drop straight down, as some have claimed. What does in fact happen is that the top section breaks up internally so that it no longer behaves as a rigid object, relieving it of the obligation to conserve angular momentum.. By turning into a slurry of concrete dust and shattered steel the rotation becomes dissipated into the motion of what is essentially a fluid..."

From this webpage:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/

Who do these people think they are, to question the mojo of the mighty bin Laden?

http://www.infowars.com/images2/cartoons/070907pers.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 09:37 PM

"What does in fact happen is that the top section breaks up internally so that it no longer behaves as a rigid object, relieving it of the obligation to conserve angular momentum"

Not exactly, (that's a pretty sloppy 'layman translation' explanation) the energy expended in the disintegration lessens the angular momentum (conservation of energy).

"By turning into a slurry of concrete dust and shattered steel the rotation becomes dissipated into the motion of what is essentially a fluid."

One (slower moving due to the breakup) fluid in another, air, which means that it is braked in its 'rotating motion', and starts to drop straight down under gravity.

Why does it "break up" - Well, 'Fiscs Majer', you obviously can't understand that either. That's already been well explained to those who want to understand.

You pretty obviously are 'cutting and pasting' stuff you cannot understand, or misunderstand, or even deliberately 'pretend to misunderstand', just to 'stir'.

The fact that your writings here demonstrate that you clearly cannot understand the science, as displayed by your questions and responses, reveals you as either an ignorant uneducated fool, or an intentional malicious trouble maker, trying to have some 'fun'.

The fact that you wish only to be an anonymous GUEST, only being forced to have many 'clever names' now to stop being deleted, adds weight to the second.

Subject: RE: BS_ China's skyscraper, Fire & 9-11
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 09:47 PM

QUOTE
Here's a link to the photo of WTC 2 falling sideways:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/site1049.jpg
UNQOUTE

Photoshop.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 01:21 AM

lol. I was going to call you a bullshit artist, but you're more like a bullshit finger painter. Photoshop. lol. HUNDREDS of those pictures and videos of the event are on the internet.

The top section of WTC2 began falling sideways, then the building started disintegrating, beams shooting hundreds of feet UPWARDS and out, pulverization ABOVE the point of collapse. lol.

But I like the idea that bin Laden is mojo master of photoshop. Simplify it for the masses. 19 men, boxcutters, Top Gun fliers who just faked flunking out of flying school, and bin Laden manipulating photoshop pictures in the Caves of Tora Bora. Yeah, it all adds up when you look at it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 02:04 AM

http://paregoricspills.com/wtc/wtccrunch.jpg

That's a good one. You can see the blasts going off on the side. That's why the top section "righted" itself, because the opposite side of the building was being blown. If those explosions hadn't occurred, the top section would have kept following its downward angular momentum. But it didn't.

Some interesting things on this forum. I forgot about this:

Another report came from Scott Forbes, an employee of Fiduciary Trust, a firm which was located on floors 90 and 94-97 of the South Tower. Eighty-seven employees of Fiduciary Trust were killed on 9/11. In an email account, Forbes reported that over the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, floors 50 and above of the South Tower experienced a "power down," meaning that all electrical current was cut off for about 36 hours. The reason officially cited was that the electrical cables in the building were being upgraded. Forbes was an information technology officer in charge of Fiduciary Trust's computer network; his attention was engaged by the power down because it fell to him to shut down all the company's computers and related systems before the power went out. After the power down, he had to turn the computers back on again, and restore service on the network. Because there was no electric power above the fiftieth floor, there were also no security cameras and no security locks. There were however many outside engineering personnel coming in and out of the tower at all hours during the weekend. Forbes lived in Jersey City and could see the WTC towers from his home; when he saw the conflagration on the morning of 9/11, he immediately related it to the events of the previous weekend." (Tarpley)

http://www.gnn.tv/threads/6031/Former_Bush_Team_Member_Says_WTC_Collapse_Likely_A_Controlled_Demolition

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 09:02 AM

"http://paregoricspills.com/wtc/wtccrunch.jpg"

Funny how that looks exactly like the other one you posted... except that there is another building in the way... which is interesting, because this means that they must be from different angles... but having studied Arts as well as Sciences (a B.A. not B.Sc., you know!) the perspective is not relatively right for the two relative angles of the same building. In fact, the second one looks just like the same Photoshop trick has been done with exactly the same part image on a different photo from the first one. If they are supposed to be of the 2 separate buildings, amazing isn't it, that the part above the 'breaking apart point' shows the same number of floors, even though the buildings were struck at different heights (and thus numbers of floors) above the ground!!!

I see no 'blasts' on the 2nd photo (or even the first) - however I do see a few fireballs where the pressure of the collapse has forced fireballs on various floors out of shattered windows.

You're a good spinner of incompetent bullshit - keep making me laugh!

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 02:21 PM

So are you saying the top of WTC did NOT break away as shown? Is that what you're saying?

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 04:00 PM

"So are you saying the top of WTC did NOT break away as shown?"

You have to be more specific. Are you asking if the WTC did not break apart as people saw it, or are you asking if it did not break away that you saw it?

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 04:40 PM

Did the top of WTC2 break away and start falling sideways, before the collapse of the building?

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/site1049.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: bobad
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 06:30 PM

"his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings."

The author is a Cambridge University engineer, what are your qualifications?

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 07:44 PM

So, fool, did the top of WTC2 break away and start falling sideways, before the collapse of the building? I look forward to this chat.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 09:37 PM

I'm starting to get strong intuition as to who you are now... :-)

"did the top of WTC2 break away and start falling sideways, before the collapse of the building?"

Well, you have made it clear what you 'know'.

I personally wasn't there. I only know what I saw on the TV live, replayed several times over the next few hours, on the other side of the world.

Unlike you, I don't have X-ray eyes, or 'messages from God or aliens or other tin foil hatter conspiracy nuts' about what happened.

From distant memory, at the distance, and perspective of the shots I saw, and in complete accord with what I expected, was a very slight rotation of a few degrees of the top segments, which then slammed into the lower segments, overloading everything successively, but the whole thing basically overall mostly fell straight down - the top segment was at a very slight angle as it rode the collapsing bottom segment to the ground, then it continued to break up as it smashed into the rubble pile beneath it. If you look at the 'radio masts', you can clearly see this.

The top segment was at absolutely NOTHING like the angle in those, what appear to be doctored, photos. I saw nothing like any 'blasts', merely the expected pressure wave shattering windows, and expelling dust and some flames.

"break away and start falling sideways"

You and your fellow tinfoil hatters are pretty hopeless with the words and the semantics, which is why you and your mad uneducated mates keep confusing/distracting yourselves: you all keep on using words with multiple vague meanings, and mungling up the differing concepts due to wrongly using words with vague, ambiguous meanings, wrongly equating incompatible things.

You wrongly use 'break away' - as if some magic aliens lifted the damn thing up - it only fell (Blame Newton and his 'gravity' thing!) because the supports underneath it 'lost integrity'. (And we have already thrashed out all that BS you keep spouting about how and why that occurred in other threads elsewhere!)

To quote Stan Freburg
"When I was a youngster, my home ran away from me."
"You mean you ran away from home."
"No - we lived in a covered wagon and I fell out."

To topple a building with explosives, they usually start the sequentially time delayed charges at the bottom and ripple up, so that the upper floors collapse 'neatly' onto the rubble below - they 'blow' every floor: these 2 collapsed as a unit from above the impact points, to shatter the lower segment floors in descending order below, then the upper sections disintegrated. The 'puffs' are the expected pressure wave shattering windows and venting from top to bottom as expected from Newton.

The alleged 'extra plane bulges' match what is on the model planes you can buy at kit shops.


QUOTE
""his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings."

The author is a Cambridge University engineer, what are your qualifications?"
UNQUOTE

M.A. (B.S.)

Master of the Art of Bull Shit, or should that be M.A. (I.W.) Ignorant Wanking?
...

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: GUEST,Physics Major
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 10:26 PM

From distant memory, at the distance, and perspective of the shots I saw, and in complete accord with what I expected, was a very slight rotation of a few degrees of the top segments, which then slammed into the lower segments, overloading everything successively, but the whole thing basically overall mostly fell straight down

And you have degrees? Man.

You also use the word "magic" and that seems to be what you think was in play on 9/11. The top 34-floor section of WTC2 was falling sideways, then the structure beneath it collapsed, and the top segment REVERSED its angle of momentum. It moved back in toward the center of the building as it began falling and disintegrating. Impossible under normal "no bombs" conditions. Under normal conditions, even if the lower floors had suddenly vanished, the 34-floor block moving sideways should have continued that downward angular motion. Something caused it to defy the laws of physics, so it was either explosives or Tora Boran magic. Take your pick.

The videos on the web clearly show what I just described. Videos shot from various angles and distances. The top segment of WTC2 reverses its direction before disappearing into the cloud of dust.

The NIST report doesn't even talk about the collapses of the buildings. It describes what happens up to the point of "initiation." Didn't even have to refute Newton and all those troublemakers--just reshaped metallury and thermodynamics, then stopped before they had to do the same to hard physics.

A couple of footnotes from the NIST report:

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached…(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)

The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. …(NIST, 2005, p. 142.)

The violation of the angular thing, and the free-fall speed thing are impossible to explain unless bombs were involved, so the government just didn't address the actual falls of the buildings.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 10:44 PM

The fact an engineer is from a given school means little. Bush has his degree from where?

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 10:47 PM

Pardon ME. Degrees. Yale and Harvard. Well, THAT certainly speaks volumes.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: bobad
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 10:52 PM

The point is not which school the engineer is from, it is that being an engineer qualifies him to offer informed opinion on engineering matters.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 10:54 PM

Gotcha.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:34 PM

Okay, I looked at the photo and here's what I see:

The section of the building which is falling is roughly a cube. All six sides are nearly squares, and they're all of about the same dimensions. It's tilting outward at about 20º, possibly as much as 30º. That's not enough to cause a cube to tip over. A perfect cube doesn't tip over until it is tilted 45º. Anything less, and it will right itself. The tilt is counterbalanced by the weight of the rest of the cube.

Try it. Take a die out of your Monopoly set and try to make it fall over by tilting it less than 45º. You'll never do it. Now imagine that die is 300' on all sides. It's going to behave in exactly the same fashion.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 10:20 AM

"The top 34-floor section of WTC2 was falling sideways, then the structure beneath it collapsed, and the top segment REVERSED its angle of momentum."

Sorry Einstein, but the last part of your sentence is your own spin on it and not at all an objective observation.   However, let us assume you are correct and let us assume that there were bombs in the building to bring it down. Using your supreme intellectual skills, explain to us how a bomb would "reverse" the "angle of momentum" of a disintegrating building.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 10:22 AM

"The heighth of insanity is doing what you've always done expecting to get different results."

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 10:51 AM

Insanity is not necessarily a bad thing. That may be why anyone opens this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 10:56 AM

"The heighth of insanity is doing what you've always done expecting to get different results."

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:14 AM

Insanity is not necessarily a bad thing. That may be why anyone opens this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:17 AM

LOLOL

Hi, Ron. Good to see you.

Subject: RE: BS: China's skyscraper, Fire & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:21 AM

:)   Good to see you Peace!