Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > Off the Court Lounge

Off the Court Lounge Basketball fans talk about everything EXCEPT basketball here

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-26-2006, 06:05 PM   #31
pgm
I hit open layups
 
pgm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Delaware
Posts: 115
Default

The 10 second number is very irrelevent. Why do conspiracy numbers keep using to try to argue anything? It is merely the time of the spike from the vibrations of the collapse.

According to seismic evidence, the time it took for the building to completely collapse was 30 seconds. That is the time for the Penthouses to crumble. It took 30 seconds for seismic activity to stop. The bulk of the collapse took place in the 10 seconds. Even when it collapsed, it left a pile of rubble 12 stories high and spread out over 150 meters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reppy
Okay so all I'm asking then is how did the building collapse? There had to be a progressive collapse/failure of some sort. The collapsing section (top) received no resistance. Did it?

Here is the NIST report's findings. The middle part I've already posted (on the pancaking):

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

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 below). 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.

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

*the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

*the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
pgm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 06:21 PM   #32
pgm
I hit open layups
 
pgm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Delaware
Posts: 115
Default

Something else on Loose Change. At one point they put a timer to time how long it takes for the towers to collapse. But they choose an angle that is misleading:



The building started to collapse before they even begin the timer.

Also, as you can see in this picture:



The debris is falling faster than the building is collapsing. It is not falling at the speed of a free-fall.
pgm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 06:33 PM   #33
pgm
I hit open layups
 
pgm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Delaware
Posts: 115
Default

Actually, I might as well post a link to the source I used for those images:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html

It's a point-by-point critique of Loose Change.

For example:

Kevin Ryan, their expert on the steel, tested water, not steel. He had nothing to do with the steel in the building. Underwriters Laboratories did not certify steel. A message from UL:

Quote:
Mr. Ryan wrote the letter without UL's knowledge or authorization. Mr. Ryan was neither qualified nor authorized to speak on UL's behalf regarding this issue. The opinions he expressed in the letter are his own and do not reflect those of Underwriters Laboratories Inc..."
pgm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 07:56 PM   #34
tontoz
NBA rookie of the year
 
tontoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,427
Default

PGM it is nice to have a very well informed voice of reason around.
tontoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2006, 02:22 AM   #35
reppy
Apparently likes anime
 
reppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,097
Default



This picture is pretty interesting because it shows the top of the building LEANING over. Why didn't it just fall over sideways?
reppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2006, 09:06 AM   #36
Rasheed1
3-time NBA All-Star
 
Rasheed1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 10,343
Default

Quote:
Kevin Ryan, their expert on the steel, tested water, not steel. He had nothing to do with the steel in the building. Underwriters Laboratories did not certify steel. A message from UL

now that you have attacked the messenger....why dont you try and disprove what he said....

you have yet to prove that steel melts at 500F...that oven temperatures...not hot enough to compromise the buidling.... Kevin Ryan is an executive at the company, so Im sure he could give accurate info on something as simple as the temperature at which steel compromises...Its not difficult info. to obtain..
Rasheed1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2006, 09:35 AM   #37
pgm
I hit open layups
 
pgm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Delaware
Posts: 115
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rasheed1
now that you have attacked the messenger....why dont you try and disprove what he said....

you have yet to prove that steel melts at 500F...that oven temperatures...not hot enough to compromise the buidling.... Kevin Ryan is an executive at the company, so Im sure he could give accurate info on something as simple as the temperature at which steel compromises...Its not difficult info. to obtain..

Because (1) the steel did not melt and (2) the temperatures were much hotter than 500F. I've been over that a lot. What he said--that steel does not melt or even weaken much at 500F--is true. The problem is that the building was not 500F, and he does not have the knowledge necessary to argue otherwise (when every other expert who has analyzed the building has said the opposite).
pgm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2006, 09:42 AM   #38
bringthetruth
Banned
 
bringthetruth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: In My House
Posts: 492
Default

1. Why did the government submit photos to dispute the conspiracy theorist, the ones taken by the parking lot cameras, you know the one that shows a ball of flames and a blurred image of what they say was the 757 commercial plane ? The same picture that has been floating around since day one. This is a clear case of trying to put this whole mess to rest and hoping that dummies will believe it, (oh my, I guess it worked pretty well). Instead of showing the film footage from the cameras that were confiscated, that probably shows the real deal.

2. Why didn't the pictures of the ones that the SSG in the Pentagon take immediately after the attack show any wreckage of the plane. She gave some to the newspapers.

3. How can an inexperienced pilot maneuver a plane in the manner in which it would have had to be maneuvered.

4. What happened to the air security over the pentagon during this time. Would we be led to believe that we completely let our guard down, especially after we knew that we were under attack.

That's all for now, I tried to keep it short so that I can keep your attention for a little bit.
The fact of the matter is, there are missing pieces that are clearly out there, unless those missing pieces are brought to light and an independant inquiry is conducted, there are still going to be doubts, both ways.

Now, once again guys, and try to stay with me on this. The above Questions have not been answered. We need the hard evidence to put this to rest.
bringthetruth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2006, 11:06 AM   #39
tontoz
NBA rookie of the year
 
tontoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,427
Default

Quote:
1. Why did the government submit photos to dispute the conspiracy theorist, the ones taken by the parking lot cameras, you know the one that shows a ball of flames and a blurred image of what they say was the 757 commercial plane ?

The video of the planes hitting the towers has been shown time and again. The second plane hitting the tower was seen by millions live.

Get a grip.
tontoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2006, 12:44 PM   #40
bringthetruth
Banned
 
bringthetruth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: In My House
Posts: 492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tontoz
The video of the planes hitting the towers has been shown time and again. The second plane hitting the tower was seen by millions live.

Get a grip.


This is in regard to the pentagon explosion , NOT WTC.
bringthetruth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2006, 01:38 PM   #41
tontoz
NBA rookie of the year
 
tontoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,427
Default

So since you got punk'd on your WTC argument now you are moving to the Pentagon.

Predictable.
tontoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2006, 02:04 PM   #42
pgm
I hit open layups
 
pgm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Delaware
Posts: 115
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bringthetruth
Instead of showing the film footage from the cameras that were confiscated, that probably shows the real deal.

I think you mean "possibly". Probably would mean you had even a small amount of proof. Possibly on the other hand, just requires the lack of evidence. It Possibly shows aliens blowing up the Pentagon.

Quote:
How can an inexperienced pilot maneuver a plane in the manner in which it would have had to be maneuvered.

That depends on the definition of "inexperienced". For example (going from the Loose Change video) it quotes Marcel Bernard as saying that Hanjour was not an experienced pilot. It leaves off another quote from Benard where he says that he thought that Hanjour would have been capable of flying the plane into the Pentagon, but that Hanjour just needed help landing the plane.

The way the plane was maneuvered was considered "unsafe".

Quote:
This is in regard to the pentagon explosion , NOT WTC

I know someone who saw a Commercial Airliner flying at the Pentagon.
pgm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2006, 02:42 PM   #43
Da KO King
NBA sixth man of the year
 
Da KO King's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: twitter.com/RandomHoopsMike
Posts: 7,535
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgm
I know someone who saw a Commercial Airliner flying at the Pentagon.
And I can point you in the direction of a bold-faced liar.

I've worked at the Pentagon over a year now. I work with and around people who have been there for years. Not one person actually saw the plane hit the building. Not one. Many heard the explosion but no one seen a plane. Hell, most don't even remember hearing a plane.

A few more golden nuggets I've picked up in my time at the Pentagon.

There are over 1000 camera pointed at the Pentagon and its immediately perimeter. These cameras are monitored around the clock. For the only video to be as poor quality as it was is shocking to say the least.

The Pentagon Police Officer who was supposed to be in that area was not. He was said to have abandoned post without permission. That's a terminable offense, yet he wasn't terminated. He was actually transferred to the Pentagon's PA site a few weeks later.

Not the "Smoking Gun" that points to a conspiracy but to act like there is nothing weird about what the public was told happened is just foolish
Da KO King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2006, 03:46 PM   #44
pgm
I hit open layups
 
pgm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Delaware
Posts: 115
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Da KO King
And I can point you in the direction of a bold-faced liar.

I've worked at the Pentagon over a year now. I work with and around people who have been there for years. Not one person actually saw the plane hit the building. Not one. Many heard the explosion but no one seen a plane. Hell, most don't even remember hearing a plane.

Sorry, no she did not see the plane hit the building. I mentioned that before, I just didn't clarify this time. She saw the plane flying very low and very fast towards the Pentagon. But she was a couple blocks away, so she did not see the plane hit the building. She felt the crash, though.
pgm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2006, 04:28 PM   #45
Da KO King
NBA sixth man of the year
 
Da KO King's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: twitter.com/RandomHoopsMike
Posts: 7,535
Default

She saw a plane flying low and very fast. Nothing unusual in this area.

First, The Pentagon is less than a mile from Reagan National Airport. As stupid as it is some of the flight routes take planes very close to the Pentagon itself.

Second, they regularly have military fly-overs here at the Pentagon. Military aircrafts will fly over the building at low altitudes and at times at extremely high speeds.

Third, are you confident your friend can tell different plane types apart? Plane body styles are very similar to one another. There is no telling what type of plane she saw.


Again I can't say for certain what happened in Arlington, New York, or Shanksville. All I know is that anyone that dismisses the "other" theories of what happened are being foolish. You should at least consider other options. To accept the Gov't account of what happened as fact is a leap of faith I can't make.
Da KO King is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:21 PM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site













Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy