Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

[Ranger66]

“explain near free fall speeds”

Free fall speeds are based on the assumption of when the building started to collapse, which means there is a flaw in that assumption.

[Ranger66]

Let’s be clear here:

“By doing research...”

Doing research is not going to a site and coping poor assumptions and outright lies than pasting them into your post and thinking you have saved the world from the illuminati.

[peaceseeker]

Let’s be clear here:

“By doing research...”

Doing research is not going to a site and coping poor assumptions and outright lies than pasting them into your post and thinking you have saved the world from the illuminati.

Deflect, deflect, deflect...it's the only thing those lost in denial ever do. To be honest, I'm tired of all the handholding. There's plenty of available information (scientific analysis, eyewitness testimony, etc.) proving the Twin Towers and WTC7 were brought via controlled demolition. Just because it may be too disturbing to some and may force people to change their world view makes no difference to me. It won't stop me from pursuing and speaking the truth.

You asked how I knew the noted beams were 30' long...I gave you a link (which I doubt you accessed) with an image of the perimeter 'horizontal spandrel plates' which had a width of 10'...doing simple math one can tell the spandrel plates were 30' in length. The images I posted speak volumes. What never ceases to amaze is the reluctance of people who look at those images and not see the obliteration of a steel and concrete structure...something that's never happened prior, during or since that fateful day.

Remember, even though NIST was forced to admit WTC7 was in freefall for 2.25secs (due to David Chandler's efforts) it still concluded the collapse was 'primarily due to fires'. You see, it doesn't work both ways. Structural steel cannot be shattered and concrete cannot be reduced to dust because of fires. There have been many buildings experiencing fires far greater than what happened on 9/11 and remained standing (many photos posted throughout the 9/11 and WTC7 threads).

[johnny24]

Deflect, deflect, deflect...it's the only thing those lost in denial ever do. To be honest, I'm tired of all the handholding. There's plenty of available information (scientific analysis, eyewitness testimony, etc.) proving the Twin Towers and WTC7 were brought via controlled demolition. Just because it may be too disturbing to some and may force people to change their world view makes no difference to me. It won't stop me from pursuing and speaking the truth.

You asked how I knew the noted beams were 30' long...I gave you a link (which I doubt you accessed) with an image of the perimeter 'horizontal spandrel plates' which had a width of 10'...doing simple math one can tell the spandrel plates were 30' in length. The images I posted speak volumes. What never ceases to amaze is the reluctance of people who look at those images and not see the obliteration of a steel and concrete structure...something that's never happened prior, during or since that fateful day.

Remember, even though NIST was forced to admit WTC7 was in freefall for 2.25secs (due to David Chandler's efforts) it still concluded the collapse was 'primarily due to fires'. You see, it doesn't work both ways. Structural steel cannot be shattered and concrete cannot be reduced to dust because of fires. There have been many buildings experiencing fires far greater than what happened on 9/11 and remained standing (many photos posted throughout the 9/11 and WTC7 threads).

You sure do have an imagination. You should be doing a lot more with this gift than spending time on these forums.

[maryjane48]

not only that peace , they can never prove that nist version is right. when the head of nist was pushed on how their model worked they had to admit adding time to the model they used to the tune of over 4 seconds even though there is zero vertical motion during them extra seconds .


plus they completly ignore what the council on foriegn relations had said what their plan for middle east was. we still seeing it play out now . on the gaudets brothers video who were with the first firehouse to arrive we see real firemen describing what they saw . one the older guys says pop pop pop just like controlled demolition.

if some posters on here want to call the brave folks who went to help at risk of life liars well thats on them. if they can live with that so be it . it still wont change any of newtons laws

[maryjane48]

lets see proof to refute it johnny . we want proof with math and physics. use nist if you want but be for warned i can prove nist wrong

[averagejoe]

Doing research is not going to a site and coping poor assumptions and outright lies than pasting them into your post and thinking you have saved the world from the illuminati.

Well it's better that working for the illuminati....

Right!

[What_the]

You keep saying no windwing MJ, the pictures that I look at show the fire smoke blowing perpendicular. There was indeed wind.

[Ranger66]

“You asked how I knew the noted beams were 30' long...I gave you a link (which I doubt you accessed) with an image of the perimeter 'horizontal spandrel plates' which had a width of 10'...”

Where in the image does it state that there were steel beams as per the original claim ( or spandrel plates for that matter )
, just so you know

“horizontal spandrel plates”

Are not steel beams. So you are a little more familiar with your our post I did quote from the link provided. Now if you can stop deflecting long enough to supply the actual proof I can go back to estimating Trumps impeachment.

[Ranger66]

“pop pop pop just like controlled demolition.”

Or pop pop pop just like concrete slabs falling.

[maryjane48]

slight breeze but no much as in wind what your talking about.


indicating that a smoke and debris plume was observed to the southwest rising from the surface to a height of 3,500 feet and drifting southeast.http://www.weatherwise.org/Archives/Bac ... -full.html

541 m, 546 m to tip is height of tallest tower. so as you can see the smoke was going up to 3500 feet before showing a drift so even if we say the tows are 2000 ft the smoke still went up 1300 more feet before showing drift https://www.google.ca/search?q=how+many ... e&ie=UTF-8

[maryjane48]

“pop pop pop just like controlled demolition.”

Or pop pop pop just like concrete slabs falling.

like i said if it was slab hitting slab we would be able to measure deceleration, but we cant. we can measure near freefall though and nist measured that also .


Aluminum Cladding

Aluminum cladding (much lighter than steel) traveled over 600 feet.

For the cladding, velocity of ejection = 48 miles/hour minimum.

Air resistance would require a significantly higher velocity of ejection.

The cladding was on the outside of the steel perimeter columns. How does air expelled by falling matter blow the cladding off the columns with this velocity? Again, the ejection of the aluminum cladding to great horizontal distances points to the use of explosives for the Towers' destruction.


the aluminum went farther because it was lighter.


Process and material °C °F
To form Fe-O-S eutectic
(with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel 1,000 1,832
To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation) 1,450 2,652
To melt iron (spherule formation) /td> 1,538 2,800
To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation) 1,565 2,849
To vaporize lead 1,740 3,164
To melt molybdenum (spherule formation) 2,623 4,753
To vaporize aluminosilicates 2,760 5,000


temps up to 5000 degrees were observed yet jet fuel and any office stuff cant ever get that high


Newton’s Third law of Motion (to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction), the falling block is exerting the same force, F, on the lower structure, that is, a force equal to 0.36Mg.

But when the tower was intact, the upper block was exerting a force of Mg on the lower structure, and the force of resistance was also Mg.

So, if the upper block is now exerting much less force (0.36Mg) on the lower structure than when it was stationary, it cannot possibly be crushing the lower structure.

What has happened to the lower structure? It was undamaged. Has it turned to “jelly?” Something else must be crushing the lower structure. Only controlled demolition using explosives can explain why the lower structure is being crushed.


pesky newtons law counters your argument . i never heard of rangers ;aw of motion, care to write a peer reviewed paper so rest of science can learn new physics?

[Thinktank]

[url]What has happened to the lower structure? [/url]It was undamaged. Has it turned to “jelly?”

That lower structure turned into $4.5 billion dollars - now in Larry's bank account.

[maryjane48]

you got that right think

[FreeRights]

plus they completly ignore what the council on foriegn relations had said what their plan for middle east was. we still seeing it play out now . on the gaudets brothers video who were with the first firehouse to arrive we see real firemen describing what they saw . one the older guys says pop pop pop just like controlled demolition.

if some posters on here want to call the brave folks who went to help at risk of life liars well thats on them. if they can live with that so be it . it still wont change any of newtons laws

I think a key point here is that nobody is calling the firefighters liars. What they are, though, are firefighters, and not demolition experts. Just as you are not a scientist nor an engineer.

You're telling me that they were able to install enough explosives into two towers in NYC to demolish them, without anybody noticing, and then nobody involved in the operation whistleblowing?