Have you watched the video of the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis? That had an "extremely rapid onset of collapse", too. Does that mean it was diabolically imploded, too?
They're asking me to believe that, for the first time in history, pigeon guano melted steel...Comment Posted By Frank IBC On 24.08.2007 @ 10:22
1) How slow would the onset have to have been, for it to have not been a "demolition"? Again, please refer to the acceleration of gravity from my previous posts.
2) Lots of loud abrupt sounds sound like explosions, to non-professional witnesses. That doesn't make them such.
3) Lots of things "flash". That doesn't make them "explosions".
13) Please refer to my post #150. Did you bother to read it previously?
14) Iron and aluminum were used throughout the towers, extensively.
15) See 13.
16) And this proves exactly what?
1) Are you sure?
2) These past six years, you've never looked at the photos and images of the first seconds of the collapse of the south tower?
3) This has been covered in many posts above, which you have ignored.
4) Name one of these. And name one of these that also had substantial damage to the structure from a plane crashing into it at 400-550 mph.Comment Posted By Frank IBC On 24.08.2007 @ 09:55
Actually it was Elian Gonzalez that helped Bush win in Florida, not his the Supremes or his brother Jeb. :)Comment Posted By Frank IBC On 24.08.2007 @ 09:01
Also, Hans ignores the fact that the normal speed for a plane flying at the altitude of the top of the towers is 200 or less, and the design of the towers was based on that.
The planes that crashed into the towers were flying at 400 mph and over 500 mph, respectively.Comment Posted By Frank IBC On 23.08.2007 @ 23:36
And Bushâ€™s brother and cousin were in charge of security at WTC
Wow, your canards are getting more and more tired, Hans. Marvin Bush, George W.'s brother, was on the board of directors of Stratestec, formerly known as Securacom, the publically-owned firm which had a contract to provide security for the WTC. He did NOT manage the day-to-day operations of the firm. He left the board in June 2000. Which last I checked, was 7 months before his brother assumed the Presidency and 15 months before 9/11. Marvin was no longer even a shareholder at the end of 2000. And I don't know who is this "cousin" of whom you speak.Comment Posted By Frank IBC On 23.08.2007 @ 23:31
-Millions of tons of burning debris from the fallen towers. A good chunk of the lower part of the north face of the building was wiped out by the falling debris, and the fire had burned for seven hours.
-Transfer truss (a "bridge") over ConEd facility, which created a vulnerable point in the structure.
-Thousands of gallons of diesel fuel, for Mayor's Emergency Command Center, stored in that building.
Is this REALLY the first time you're seeing this, Hans?Comment Posted By Frank IBC On 23.08.2007 @ 23:17
Jeez, do these people have some sort of timer that indicates what point of the tirade they should bring up Building 7?Comment Posted By Frank IBC On 23.08.2007 @ 23:13
No, the reason Bojinka failed is that people who were peripherally involved, but directly involved in an assassination attempt on the Pope, made the mistake of starting a fire in an apartment in Manila in the spring of 1995. They were interogated by the Philippine police, leading to the Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and the other masterminds of Bojinka.
For your question regarding the first WTC attack, I refer you back to your original question:
Suddenly we have him as a mastermind organizing an international, multi-month (or year), nationwide process of false identification, training, surveillance, deep-cover operativesâ€¦
In spite of their lack of success (due to lack of knowledge of the strength of the support columns at the lowest levels of the Tower), there was a tremendous amount of planning involved - smuggling the operatives into the USA, training them, making the explosives, etc. And also the hit on the CIA headquarters six weeks earlier which killed 3, which was a dry run for the attack.Comment Posted By Frank IBC On 23.08.2007 @ 23:11
And â€œOnce the floors started in motion, there was nothing to stop themâ€ â€“ well yes, there was the rest of the building below.
I still get the impression that you're thinking of the building and the columns as a single solid mass, like the dogcage in the DU thread, rather than a series of thousands of individual parts held together by bolts and welds (for the steel) and cement and aggregate (for the concrete). When the debris crashes into the part of the building that is still intact, the strength of the latter to resist the downward force is not the sum total of the parts of the remaining structure - but only that of the topmost steel beams, concrete slabs, and the elements securing them to the rest of the structure.
Iâ€™m saying after five or ten scrunched floors you should have a significant mass of it, constraining to some degree the core column area.
Again, I fail to understand why you think that the collapsing material will somehow act as a vise on the core columns, rather than a hammer.
What on a plane is dense enough to take out a core column?
It's not just mass or density that matters.. It's momentum, i.e., mass times velocity. The plane that hit the North Tower was traveling at 400 miles per hour; the one that hit the South Tower was flying at over 500 mph.
Here's an analogy - flesh is much softer/less dense than steel or glass. Yet a collision between a car and a pedestrian or animal at even just 30 mph will leave huge dents on the car and a broken windshield.
Re "pancaking" - you're seeing the collapsing floors only as a solid mass - like a low-rise building after an earthquake - one floor collapsed, then the floor below, each in a discrete, instantaneous process. The reality was that the concrete in each floor shattered into thousands/millions of pieces, and fell apart and down faster than the steel elements. The steel elements in turn did not just crumble on a floor-by-floor basis, but tore themselves apart in all directions. By the time the towers had collapsed just several floors, the collapsing portion of the building was not a coherent whole but a mass of loose steel beams and concrete chunks.Comment Posted By Frank IBC On 23.08.2007 @ 22:21
Ah, I think I figured out Han's scenario in #175. He has assumed (again) that the horizontal concrete elements would fall in the vertical plane, while remaining completely intact in the horizontal plane, surrounding the support columns which are remaining intact in the vertical plane. He has overlooked the possibility that both the concrete floors and steel support columns are capable of snapping/shattering in any direction, depending on the forces that are exerted upon them.Comment Posted By Frank IBC On 23.08.2007 @ 21:02