Branw

You appear to be interested in discussing the fall of the WTC buildings in a rational manner.

There appear to be several observations which counter your argument that WTC 7 collapsed in a "pancake" manner with air from between the floors pushing out puffs of dust. These observation can be seen in the video here.


1. The video starts after something has already happened as there is dust visible above the roof. Then one sees the structure on the top of the roof collapsing. Then the roof appears to sag in the middle. Why would these things happen as the fire is many floors below the roof?

2. The next thing one observes is puffs of dark material coming from the wall on the sunlit side. There is no sign of the floors in the region of the puffs getting closer together so why would anything be ejected?

3. There are about five puffs which appear in a sequence. The odd thing about the sequence is that they run up the building, not down, as one would expect if the floors were collapsing down on one another. This can be easily seen by playing the video forwards and backwards a click at a time.

4. As these puffs appear the building starts to fall. Even now the floors in the visible portion of the building do not appear to be getting any closer together. As the building accelerates downward the floors still remain equally spaced. If there is anything happening which could be described as "pancaking" it is obvious that it is happening from the bottom up, rather than the top down, and cannot explain the puffs near the top of the building.

5. After the building has fallen a distance of only about 3 floors the third floor from the top, which is very clear, appears to be slightly curved. It is as though the building has become "soft".

6. Shortly after that vertical lines appear on the shaded face. It seems that the building is cracking. The building is normally able to carry its own weight indefinitely but right now it is in something very close to free fall and therefore is virtually weightless. Without weight there would be no forces so why should it crack?

7. The building was 570 feet tall. According to the laws of physics it would take (570/32.16)^0.5 = 5.95 seconds for the top to reach the ground if it fell freely. It is reported to have taken 6.5 seconds. This is extremely close to the free fall time and shows that the building gave virtually no support to the top through the whole process. Does this not indicate that the support structures were already disconnected from top to bottom when the fall started?

8. One does not have to depend of the video appearance that the floors were remaining at approximately the same separation. In a state of free fall the floors could not catch up with one another even if totally disconnected from one another. If they can't catch up with one another how can they squeeze out dust?

You don't think some people need to be killed?


"And you really think US foreign aid does to feeding people?"

Forget about the billions the government has spent, haven't you ever heard of Sally Struthers or any of the other countless people on TV here raising millions upon millions to feed the poverty stricken regions of the world. And where do you think that money comes from? The kind hearts of the American people. The United States has raised over 990 million dollars for the tsunami releif alone.
http://philanthropy.com/free/update/2005/03/2005031001.htm

How much did your country raise?

Neutral,

The floors fell independently of the outside walls. It would be impossible to judge the distance between the floors by looking at the outside of the building.

The central support structure at the location of the fire collapsed first causing all floors above that location to begin falling, once again, independently of the outside walls.

All of the floors above this first failure being attached to each other by the thus far undamaged central support structure initially fell in unison. Including the roof. Once these floors hit the floors below the plane strike area they began pancaking from the bottom up.

The outer walls no longer being supported by the floors began cracking and crumbling. The particular type of construction employed with the World Trade Center towers relied on a central support structure for it's strength. Unlike many other framework skyscrapers in which the load is spread evenly across the building. In the WTC towers, the outside walls supported little more than their own weight. The floors and outside walls were designed to support each other. A failure in either would result in a failure in the other.

Understand that when I say floor I am talking about the actual floor/ceiling structure between each story of the building. I am not talking about the entire story.

Thank You Neutral for being rational. You raised some valid points. I think I have addressed them all. Please let me know if I have left something out. It is so much nicer debating this way.

Hello branw

Your slow typing does not seem to be any more sensible than your fast typing.
That is an interesting idea you have, If a person does not admit to committing a crime then nothing should be done about it and people with half a brain do not care anyway

As to your question
"You don't think some people need to be killed?"
I would need to consider every case.
If you could give me a specific example, I could be more certain.
There are truly evil people in this world.
I suspect the world would be a better place if some of them were dead or at least locked up forever.
By and large though, I think that most of the thousands of Iraqis who have been Killed by the USA in the last ten years did not deserve to be killed and in fact did not even really need to be killed.
It was probably just easier to kill them than to spare them.

branw

You mention "plane strike area" so clearly you were thinking about WTC 1 or 2. The video I linked to was of WTC 7 which was not struck by a plane. I think it is more productive to focus on this building because it is a simpler situation, easier to analyse in a logical manner. Please look at the video in question so we can be discussing the same thing.

I look forward to your comments on WTC 7. Link repeated here.
Incidentally I have found that Windows Media Player does not show this video well on my computer. It is very dark and featureless. Also the control which allows playing frame by frame does not work. Use something else.

I edited my previous post. Would you like to respond?

You can continue to take words out of context and try to twist them but John was right, it does make you look foolish. Every time I have to explain things to you, you appear to be one of those half brained people who have become so popular.

Again, even slower.....

If a person does not admit to committing a crime AND there is no proof, nothing should be done.

That is very intuitive of you to pretend that the word "some" means every civilian casualty of war in Iraq. I wonder where I have heard people making up new definitions for words... I in no way implied that those people deserved or needed to be killed. I gave no inkling as to whom I was referring. Has there ever been a war in which there was no collateral damage, or civilian casualties? Does that mean that no war should ever be fought? I suppose we should all be saluting a picture of Hitler right now?

Stop now Tilly while you are not too far behind for recovery. Some people may still think you have something useful to say. Do not dash their hopes.

Oops, there I go not being nice again.

Hello John,

30 years ago the Vietnam War was over, perhaps there was another reason for fleeing USA?
Is there an illegal way to leave the USA?

It has become apparent today that you consider yourself somewhat of an expert with reference to wankers, and Wankerism.
I would like to clear up a few questions that have come to mind.
Do all Australian Wankers believe in the conspiracy theory or just some Australian Wankers.
Could a person be a wanker and not believe in the conspiracy theory?
Do some/all American Wankers fall into this category too?
Is it necessary to be a practicing Wanker to believe in the conspiracy theory, or could a reformed wanker believe in the conspiracy theory?
Have your Wanker theories been arrived at empirically?

I am sorry neutral, I read your post too quickly. Maybe I should borrow someones reading glasses. I will look at it but as I stated before I know almost nothing about building 7.

Hello branw
So let me get this straight.
Because the US government does not admit to a conspiracy and they will not agree that the evidence against them is valid, you feel nothing should be done.

How much money do US banks collect from these same countries each year?

Is Sally Struthers the USA?
Did someone bite her hand?
My country raised over $990 million for the Tsunami appeal.
You have cut me to the quick with your witty repartee
I think I will have to get a Vodka.

Any pancake theory I previously referred to was in reference to the twin towers.

I have now watched the video. I can only reiterate that I have no knowlege of the construction of this building. Not being an expert on the collapse of buildings I cannot say that this would or would not happen in a fire induced high-rise collapse. I do know that fire alone can cause a steel building to collapse. I have already outlined why. As for the puffs coming out of the building, if they were from explosives, there would be smoke, wouldn't there? It is clearly not smoke because it drops very quickly after it exits the building. Why would there be explosives there, so close to the facade and why would they go off well after the building had already started to collapse?

Ah Tilly, back for more so soon?

You couldn't resist my bait could ya?

Just as I suspected, a disgruntled American.

I had a little side bet as to whether you would bite. I won.

Is Sally Struthers the USA?
No.
Was it her money I was talking about?
Did I not say where the money came from?

Did someone bite her hand?
Yes. And most Americans' hands.

Come on Sir, I can't type any slower.

Neutral, I would imagine that the pressure in any collapsing building would increase. Pressure of a gas, i.e. air, is inversely related to volume. As you know, if you decrease the volume of a container, the pressure will increase. As the building collapses and it's volume decreases rapidly I would expect things to be expelled from the windows. If there is something close to a window, it will probably be blown out. Does nyone know what sort of material made up the puffs of debris?

What a welcome home!

Neutral, as the "scientific" mind in this discussion (with no offense meant to anyone elese in this debate), is it possible that the compression wave from the two large structures falling caused catastropic failure in bldg 7?

Prior to 9-11, I had little knowledge of the proximity of these buildings to each other.

However, when the Norco plant blew up some 70 miles away from me, I was awake to wath the glass in my windows "flex" from compression (the y bowed inwards but did not shatter).

Add that kind of shock to an iron gas pipe or twelve in near vicinity and ????

And if it is possible, why is it less likely than anything else?

Hello branw

Bait? disgruntled American?
John seems to be the disgruntled American, I can not recall expressing any concern with any US government.

What was your bet and who was it with?

You did tell me to "Forget about the billions the government has spent" and then immediately asked If I had heard of Sally Struthers raising money for the poor and needy.
I am disappointed to now hear that according to you people have been biting Sally Struthers hand and apparently Sally Struthers and the other countless people on TV raising millions upon millions to feed the poverty stricken regions of the world have not donate the money to the poor and needy which was expressly raised for that purpose.

Perhaps someone should look into this apparent miss=appropriation of money.

You need to type even slower.
Eventually your thought process will keep up with your typing.

I see Tilly, it's a game. I post something and you pretend you don't understand.

Or are you pretending?

branw

Thanks for your response. You say if explosives were involved there would be smoke. The black smudges that go down with the building are gone by 2 seconds and during this time the haze increases. Could it not be that while thick it is black but as it is dispersed it looks more like smoke? The question really is how do you explain a series of puffs going up the building when the floors are not compressing the space between them.

You say that the puffs appear well after the building has started to collapse. In my reading of this video there are three puffs already visible right at the start, on the 1st, 4th and 7th floors down, and there is turbulent smoke at the top, over the building. Then, just as the building starts to move there is the rising series of puffs referred to before. There is no reason to think, if this was a deliberate demolition, that all the charges would be set off simultaneously. I have read that it is a good thing to damage the centre of the building first so that, as it falls, the floors pull the walls inward, thus preventing the material from spreading too far. If this is done then certainly the charges would not all be set off at once.

We still need an explanation for the puffs given that the floors are not compressing the air between them.

Hello John, Now you have confused me
in one posting you said your reason for leaving the USA was because:
"I left 30 years ago [legally] because I did not support their unjust war in SE Asia."
Now you say your reason for leaving was:
my employer transferred me to their Canadian office, I left on my own free will...I can return to the US anytime I might choose.

It is my understanding that all Vietnam Draft Dodgers who fled to Canada can now return legally to the USA any time they wish to.
The president chose to join the Air National Guard to avoid Vietnam service and you chose to flee to Canada.
You are in good company and I do not think it makes me think any less of you.
Now, about those Wanker questions...