9/11

I Miss "Camlok".... This Place Won't Be The Same Ever Again.....................................................LOL....



Cheers Glen.

 

He was a rather pleasant soul wasn't he.

 

It's a photo of the remains of the 17-story Plasco building which suffered a complete global vertical collapse due to fire alone in 2017.

Unlike the WTC, water was available and being used by ten fire brigades to combat the Plasco fire.
It wasn't impacted by an airliner with a large amount of fuel. Plasco didn't incur a gash from top to bottom and other damage due to debris impact from a collapsing 110-story tower. Plasco didn't have thousands of gallons of diesel fuel stored in it like WTC7. Plasco wasn't built over an energy substation using a string of transfer girders and non-concentric columns near the 7th story that were implicated in the bottom-to-top global collapse of WTC7.

Plasco is a dilemma for the truther commuinity. It collapsed under circumstances that didn't have the additional insults incurred by the WTC buildings. Some in the truther community have resorted to claiming that Plasco too was a controlled demolition, citing ejections of dust out windows during collapse that are allegedly due to cutter charges and perceived anomalous heat in the rubble that is said to be the effects of nano-thermite.

 

Our Plasco Building Report Now Available in Farsi
AE911Truth Staff
October 18, 2017

Our Plasco Building Report Now Available in Farsi

excerpt:

"This report, originally published in English a month after the January 19th tragedy — in which 16 firefighters and ten civilians were killed — is a compilation of the evidence that was publicly available at that time, all of which indicated that controlled demolition should be treated as the most likely hypothesis for the building’s destruction. The report was translated into Farsi by someone in Iran who found it online this past summer and dedicated himself to helping disseminate it."

 

never forget the frauds.
Alicia Esteve Head - Wikipedia

 

The scary truth is any structure made with reinforced concrete is only going to last around 70 to 100 years, 150 tops, before it needs its structure replaced/ renovated or torn down and rebuilt.

If its an icon like Big Ben in london, the cost is worth it.

But we had an explosion of high rises and skyscrapers go up across the world from the 1960s, fifty years ago.

We are going to get a similar rush of building collapses, 70 to 100 years after.

The pantheon is still standing, 1900 years old, but there is no rebar in that.

They will probably have to tear down the empire state buliding in 20 to 50 years.


Wtc 1 and 2, planes hit the building, steel frames to the doors of all but one of the stairwells jammed. Those centre columns buckled. Even if they hadnt collapse, likely they would have had to be rebuilt

 

"UM" is not an argument.

 

"NOPE" is not an argument.

 

Another Joe Rogan moment. The FEMA has determined that the diesel tanks did not contribute to the collapse of WTC# 7.

The Windsor Tower and the Grenfell Tower is a dilemma for the debunker community. They didn't collapse due to fires like the Plasco Building.

 

You've admitted here (albeit in a poorly structured sentence) that you've been ignorant of the details of the core structure. This does not bode well for your credibility here.

And the fact that you have to ask what is meant by the "upper block" exposes yet more of your ignorance on the subject.

And the reason I'm acting as if no one has answered the question I've been repeating is because, so far, no one has answered it. So far, you've offered this gem: "There was no internal intact structure pushing upwards. The external steel columns were holding the load, once they gave way . . ." And so I asked you how you arrived at that conclusion. And, for what seems like the tenth time, you've avoided answering that question again.
_______________________________________________________________

On the video below, place a straightedge horizontally across the screen and line it up with the top of the building and then count the seconds it takes for the 360 feet of antenna to pass the marker. That speaks for itself, unless you care to suggest that the video is a mirage.


30 second mark, and 1:12 mark.

The antenna descended 360 feet in five seconds. That's 40 feet shy of freefall. So the antenna accelerated substantially as it descended. Now, if the heat damaged upper block of the Tower met with the intact lower core structure--which was designed to support vertical loads--physics dictates that the energy required for the upper block to break up the steel below and pulverize concrete would absolutely be an energy drain. As such, this nearly freefalling of the antenna indicates that the upper block met with very little resistance. Whether you know it or not, you're pushing the idea that when the upper block started to descend and contacted with the lower block, the lower block just gave way and began falling at the same rate at the upper block. But we know that that's impossible, don't we?

 

From what I've read, the Plasco fire started on the 9th floor and the 6 floors above it were on fire. It wasn't that tall of a building.

Explosions were reported in the building as well, so to say it collapsed solely due to fires is simply erroneous. These explosions that were reported at two minute intervals just before the collapse were the likely cause. And you can see them plain as day on the video. There is an explosion on the ground floor that occurs long before any pancaking of the building would have occurred to have caused it. What caused the explosions I don't know.

 

I will try this again, but this time replace any reference to "the upper block" with "the moon" to try illustrate how ridiculous it all sounds.

So you have the antenna on top of the moon, yes the earths moon instead of those abitary 15 top most floors, on top of the other 95 floors.

Antenna
The moon
95 lower floors of the 110 storey wtc 1

9.80665 ms2 is acceleration due to gravity in a vaccuum, real life you have to account for air resistance. You didnt get the freefall calculation right in the first place

You cant see all the antenna in that video, so you dont know exactly when t=0 anyway, you dont know if the antenna and roof seperated.
Its a totally different calculation due to air resistance whether the antenna and roof are attached or not

You are counting 1 mississippi, 2 mississippi off a youtube video anyway

Still not sure what you mean by " shy of" but if you mean 40 ft further than it should have fallen, that is simply not true. If you mean 40 ft less than it should have fallen, air resistance. And you should have worked out sometime in tbe last 17 yrs, acceleration due to gravity at 9.8ms2 is in a VACUUM

 

Your answer to the video in which the antenna is seen dropping 360 feet in 5 seconds (forty feet shy of freefall) is that you can't see all of the antenna in the video. You need to go look at some images of the North Tower, specifically its antenna, so that you will recognize the tip of it and not make such foolish remarks. The video I provided shows that the tip is black. You're the only person who can't see it in the video.

Look again:



If you had known what the hat truss is, and that the antenna was supported by the hat truss, you would have known better than to make silly comments concerning the antenna and roof separating. Seriously, do some research into the construction of the Towers! Bringing you up to speed becomes tedious.

You're also attempting to make the counting off of five seconds a complicated matter. People with any kind of intelligence are wondering what you're trying to float past them.

Also, you're playing dumb when you claim to not understand what I mean by "40 feet shy of freefall." I've already stated that if a bowling ball had been dropped from the roof of the North Tower at the beginning of collapse, the bowling ball would have been only 40 feet ahead of the roof after the first 360 feet of drop. I couldn't have been more clear.

 

This is your modus operandi isnt it, spread misinformation because you think no one will check

Selective hearing, so you dont have to admit you got it all wrong from the start, did freefall calculations based on acceleration due to gravity in a vacuum

No that is incorrect. For the bowling ball, since its not in a vacuum, and you just want to work out distance, this is how you work out how it freefalls, you need to know the drag co-efficient of a sphererical object



For the top of the tower, its a differential equation, as the air resistance increases exponentially with its velocity, its velocity determined by its accelaration due to gravity at 358 metres in the air, not sea level, 2800 miles from the equator ( There is a 0.5% difference in acceleartion due to gravity in a vacuum between the equator and earth poles). As you would need to work out the drag co-efficient for the shape of that "upper block" both with the air inside each floor and at the point of contact between the "upper block" and your imaginary "intact core structure of your arbitarily defined lower floors.



All just to work out the force coming downwards

Then you have to work out the retarding force, the load those lower floors can handle. and not just in terms of weight as may be listed somewhere because in a collapse it becomes a dynamic load, not a static load, so energy by surface area by time. Something like kilonewtons per sq foot per second


In the meantime you are talking 1 mississippi 2 mississippi off a youtube video, 20 pages of repeating this with "physics dictates" with never any mention of the load those lower floors can handle

 

First, I'm glad you came to terms with the fact that the entire antenna could be seen in the video I provided. It was silly of you to state otherwise. So we have observable data on which to base the speed of collapse for the first 360 feet.

Anyway, I think you're right. Come to think of it, a bowling ball dropped from the roof of the North Tower at the same time that the collapse began would have descended faster than the rooftop if the rooftop were dropping without a structure below to impede its acceleration. So given your "expertise" in this area of physics--what with calculating air resistance and all--how far should the upper block have fallen in 5 seconds without the rest of the Tower below to impede it? If this goes the way I think it's going, then the descent of the upper block was closer to freefall than I had originally thought, which is good . . . for me, not you.

And then explain how you can possibly believe that the lower floors were without definition and "arbitrarily defined." Do you believe that no one knows what a floor consisted of? Do you even understand what the core structure consisted of? It becomes difficult to address anything you say because, in your mind, the intact core structure below the upper block is "imaginary." However, it is no more imaginary than the upper block structure. Your statements are making you sound as if you are just making shit up as you go along with no understanding of what the Towers were comprised of.

So, we have the observable facts to go on. The upper block drops and collides with a mass of the same composition. The upper block then descends at an accelerating rate without so much as a jolt to indicate a collision with the core structure below it. So, you are denying that the moving mass would be slowed down. Your position is that, despite the energy required to bust up the steel and concrete below, the upper block had that energy plus enough left over to push it all down and away as if it weren't there. You are allowing for the upper block to be a cause with an effect. But for your own reasons here, you are not allowing the core structure below the upper block to also be a cause with an effect. I know that you know exactly how that sounds.

But before you go off on whatever else you think you have a perspective on, let's just get to the meat of the issue. Tell me how far the upper block should have fallen at freefall speed in 5 seconds.

 

No, assuming that guy standing next to the antenna isnt a dwarf, you have about 6 to 8 metres of the bottom you cant see in the video because of the smoke, the antenna before that day sat on a mound that covers the hat truss, which given the height difference on the specs of tower 1 an 2, I am going to assume is 2m.

Antenna is 110 metres high, its not even all in shot, even if it were you wouldnt be able to make out the top 20 metres or so.

So margin of error of 10m/110m


And first time ive even bothered looking at the video, you cant see shit at 5 seconds, because of all the smoke and dust

There is no way from that video you can tell how much that roof has sunken already

 

Ok, so re read that post above, you say collapse started at the thirty second mark on the video, thus 5 seconds after that is 35 seconds on the video.

I invite anyone else reading all this, if anyone is, to pause the video at the 35 second mark, tell me if you can see shit

What a waste of time, you were bullshitting about that as well

 

You saw the dark tip of the antenna, but because it went behind the smoke for the last second of descent, you must be making the point that something happened to cause it to slow down between the fourth and fifth second. No one will have any problem calculating that the dark tip of the antenna indeed drops down past a horizontal marker across the screen at roof level in that last second. But if you think something happened that would have altered its speed and course in that last second, feel free to share.

Also, I couldn't help but notice that you forgot to answer the question of how far the upper block should have fallen in 5 seconds without the rest of the Tower below to impede it? You made an issue of this, and so it is incumbent on you to answer this question. That would go a long way toward getting to the bottom of this. So let's have it!

You also failed to explain how you can possibly believe that the lower floors were without definition and "arbitrarily defined", which leads into you denying that the moving mass would be slowed down. Your position is that, despite the energy required to bust up the steel and concrete below, the upper block had that energy plus enough left over to push it all down and away as if it weren't there. You are allowing for the upper block to be a cause with an effect. But for your own reasons here, you are not allowing the core structure below the upper block to also be a cause with an effect. This points to the fact that you have very little idea of what the core structure was.

But first, let's have your answer to the question of how far the upper block should have fallen in 5 seconds without the rest of the Tower below to impede it, given your understanding of air resistance and other such things? Because what's really odd is that you just accept that the lower structure would essentially just drop down at the same rate as the upper block without so much as even a little jolt to indicate the collision. It's like you believe that one mass can just magically pass through another mass of the same composition. Have you ever looked at it that way? You should watch that video again and see if you can detect a jolt of any kind.

 

This one is crazy,, dude did some wild experiments.