The Black Vault

Might as well open this thread, and who better to do it
talk about it, discuss it with an open mind. Whether you think it was something other than what we were told, or you believe the OFFICIAL THEORY is your business, but taking issue with those who disagree, or have other thoughts just because you can't think the Government would be capable of such an act is, ( imho ) a lame excuse to sweep it under the rug.



Now then~~~~~~~what's all this stuff about the dust from that day?

Cole

Cole_Trickle wrote: Now then~~~~~~~what's all this stuff about the dust from that day?

Cole

Ok, I'll bite. What about it do you find suspicious or suggestive, if indeed you do find something suspicious or suggestive about it.

I indeed find it odd that a pancake gravitational collapse would create so must dust made up of such fine particulate as to take on such an appearance without there being an energy source over and above the collapse itself. But that's just my observation, obviously I'm no scientists, haven't written any papers, and have no evidence of this energy source other than the naked eye and common sense.

In relation to the amount of concrete contained within those structures very little of any size was left behind. Another odd element, unless of course you're in the " WELL WHAT THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT WHEN A 1,350 FOOT TALL BUILDING COLLAPSES " CAMP~~:lol:

Cole

I believe a few in the goverment along with Usama Bin Fucken caused this...

No explosives. Only 14 stories and not an acre square. No dust here.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/1012270/

IS that the best you can do? Pathetic is all I can say, a real disgrace in the grand scheme of all things related. You grab onto anything to perpetuate the LIE. Shameful in my opinion.

I notice it fell over as opposed to filling it's own footprint in a few seconds time. Yes ( ) indeed

Cole

I know this is a wasted effort, but in order to sway the savable, I will respond.
The point of the video is that when a building collapses, lots of dust is produced. The Twin Towers were larger by probably two magnitudes and the energy of the collapses were correspondingly larger which would produce all the dust evident.
This particular building toppled because of problems at it's foundation, not from jetliner damage and jet fuel ignited fires over several acres of the upper floors. This building was in Manila and I'm sure there is more information available for why it toppled, but I don't think it is germane to this discussion.
Just because you don't understand something, it doesn't make it suspicious or wrong. It just means you don't understand. It is called an argument from incredulity.

3dvd wrote:I know this is a wasted effort, but in order to sway the savable, I will respond.
The point of the video is that when a building collapses, lots of dust is produced. The Twin Towers were larger by probably two magnitudes and the energy of the collapses were correspondingly larger which would produce all the dust evident.
This particular building toppled because of problems at it's foundation, not from jetliner damage and jet fuel ignited fires over several acres of the upper floors. This building was in Manila and I'm sure there is more information available for why it toppled, but I don't think it is germane to this discussion.
Just because you don't understand something, it doesn't make it suspicious or wrong. It just means you don't understand. It is called an argument from incredulity.

If you know it already then by all means save your breath, you are indeed wasting your time, energy, and above all,"EFFORT The analogy was a very weak effort indeed!

Cole

The analogy is spot on. You raised the question of the amount of dust as if it was something unusual when in fact it is expected.

3dvd wrote:The analogy is spot on. You raised the question of the amount of dust as if it was something unusual when in fact it is expected.

Indeed, the quantity of dust is simply a non-starter but Cole cannot grasp that concept.

In a real CD there is a lot of dust BUT it should be obvious that in a real CD most of the dust creating material has been removed, all the insulation, wallboard, furnishings, computer monitors, light fixtures etc. In a collapse of a building that contains all of these items the amount of dust created will be much greater.
We will see if Cole can grasp the concepts involved in the collapse itself;

Nothing above the collapse? The collapses began 10+ stories below the top of the building. That's a ten storey building 'above' the initial collapse and that ten storey structure was reduced to rubble in the first few seconds. (here's where Cole may say, well loose rubble cannot destroy the rest of the building)

The mass of that falling debris would be going where? On the floor spans of the lower floors. The floor spans were pretty much identical but even the maintenance floors with their heavier construction were never designed to hold the mass of 7,8,9 or more floors. The force on a floor must be transfered to the columns via the trusses and truss seats. These would fail all but immediatly when that much mass is on them. When they fail they add to the falling debris mass, impact the next floor span down, failing it, etc.

The columns are now stripped of their lateral support and the columns cannot stand on their own without buckling. In fact the entire core structure, if one magically removed the floor spans and perimeter columns, could not stand on its own without buckling. The perimeter required the bracing to the core and the core required the bracing to the perimeter. the building was designed as a system, the core and perimeter are sub systems that relie on each other.

So the floors collapse due to the impact (I did not even mention dynamic loading up to this point but is of course exists and adds to the static loading of the mass) , which removes the lateral bracing between core and perimeter ( and much of the lateral bracing between core columns as well) , which results in the columns buckling and failing at the welds between column sections (the brittle points along the columns).