Ultimate 911 POLL

[bogan]

I'm sure that's what you want to believe.

It's just basic physics, were it otherwise you could form a coherent rebuttal... again, your silence speaks volumes

[Katman]

Even NIST's report doesn't support the pancake theory.

[bogan]

Even NIST's report doesn't support the pancake theory.

In its conclusions, or in your interpretation of its 'Laws of Physics'

[Katman]

In its conclusions, or in your interpretation of its 'Laws of Physics'

FAQ #8

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi..._wtctowers.cfm

[bogan]

FAQ #8

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi..._wtctowers.cfm

So, it was elimintated due to them figuring out exactly what did happen.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Guess that's case closed then. And the obvious point to take from that, is the sagging floors pulled the columns inwards, ie, just like taking a hot steel bar and applying a lateral force to bend it; so by your own choice of evidence, it shows the 'moronic shit' in that video is anything but

[Katman]

So, it was elimintated due to them figuring out exactly what did happen.



Guess that's case closed then. And the obvious point to take from that, is the sagging floors pulled the columns inwards, ie, just like taking a hot steel bar and applying a lateral force to bend it; so by your own choice of evidence, it shows the 'moronic shit' in that video is anything but

So you're going to go with the 'super-heated core 50 floors below' theory, are you?

Go back and try that experiment with the oxy/acetylene torch again.

[bogan]

So you're going to go with the super-heated core 50 floors below theory, are you?

Go back and try that experiment with the oxy/acetylene torch again.

You what? Where does the 50 floors come from. I'm just pointing out that your evidence source for no-pancaky is that the sagging floors bent the heated columns so the columns couldn't pancake. You can't just pick and choose the conclusions from a report while having no basic understanding how they were obtained.

[Katman]

You what? Where does the 50 floors come from.

How did the steel core of the towers 50 floors below the impact/fire zone heat up sufficiently to allow that part of the building to collapse in the manner that was witnessed?

[bogan]

How did the steel core of the towers 50 floors below the impact/fire zone heat up sufficiently to allow that part of the building to collapse in the manner that was witnessed?

Who is saying the collapse started 50 floors below the point of impact?

[Katman]

Who is saying the collapse started 50 floors below the point of impact?

You are truly one of the dumbest fucks on this site.

Nobody claims that the collapse started 50 floors below the point of impact shitforbrains.

But 50 floors (and more) below the point of impact collapsed as though it didn't contain any degree of structural integrity. I'm asking whether you believe that the fire 50 floors above weakened the lower structure to the point where it could crumble like it did.

[bogan]

You are truly one of the dumbest fucks on this site.

Nobody claims that the collapse started 50 floors below the point of impact shitforbrains.

But 50 floors (and more) below the point of impact collapsed as though it didn't contain any degree of structural integrity. I'm asking whether you believe that the fire 50 floors above weakened the lower structure to the point where it could crumble like it did.

Maybe cos it was hit with the momentum of more than 50 floors of falling mass. At that point it matters not if it was weakened by fire or not. See my basic physics explanation a number of post back for a very simplistic explanation on how momentum and gravitational potential work.

Or, for a more practical explanation, go jump in front of a cyclist; get up after that then go try it with a bus...

[Katman]

Maybe cos it was hit with the momentum of more than 50 floors of falling mass. At that point it matters not if it was weakened by fire or not. See my basic physics explanation a number of post back for a very simplistic explanation on how momentum and gravitational potential work.

Or, for a more practical explanation, go jump in front of a cyclist; get up after that then go try it with a bus...

By the time the 50 floors above arrived, they had no mass. They had turned to dust.

(Or have you not even seen the video?)

[bogan]

By the time the 50 floors above arrived, they had no mass. They had turned to dust.

(Or have you not even seen the video?)

Please tell me you're kidding with that shit? I mean I know I said you were getting stupider the other week, but I didn't think you'd continue the trend for whole month

[Katman]

Please tell me you're kidding with that shit? I mean I know I said you were getting stupider the other week, but I didn't think you'd continue the trend for whole month

Ok, you should probably start by viewing a video of the collapse.

[Madness]

What are you two getting each other for Christmas?