It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another look at "Pull It"

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

First of all, I have never stated that I am an expert on anything. How do all the 100s of engineers know exactly what happened and how they fell when they haven't seen any construction documents? Did you know that you can't do a finite element analysis without knowing how the building was constructed? I would like you to show me one expert in the field of engineering that has done a complete structural analysis on how the buildings fell. NIST even admits that they don't know and have access to the construction documents. I'm sure you'll quote Dr. Eager like everyone else does though. Did you know Dr. Eager was the one who came up with the pancake theory that he's changed like 3 or 4 times by now? Probably not.

But you implied it. The 100s of engineers came up with the most likely causes of the collapses given all the evidence including the building designs, the testimonies, pictures, footage, and the remains, etc etc. And are you suggesting that the building plans and design are top secret that no one has access to? Do you not think that the investigators would say something about this? Of course they had seen construction documents. I can't give you all the details yet because the report for WTC7 has not come out yet. But the reports for WTC 1&2 have. Go read all the names if you want a name. It's a pretty big list. But no one person in charge of the whole thing as different people in different fields are needed. Please show me where NIST admits having no construction documents because this would contradict most of the reports.

And I asked you to post some pictures of a global collapse of a steel building due to fire. So far all I've seen is partial collapses. I have seen bridges that have bent from fire but you have to remember 2 things. Bridges don't have any fireproofing. Also, the fires were intense and lasted longer than an hour.

One I gave you was a total collapse. Both prove that steel buildings have collapsed due to fire. They both prove that even fire alone can weaken steel and cause it to collapse. But again, you continue to try and compare apples to oranges. You look at two completely different structures with different designs and different scenarios and assume they should all react exactly the same. How truthful is that?

I can't think of your challenge at the moment and can't look into the thread from here. Could you jog my memory please and I'll see what I can come up with. This isn't 2nd grade, so you daring me has little effect.

FInd a steel frame builing at least 40 stories high, takes up a whole city block, uses a 'tube within a tube' design, came off its core columns at the bottom, had structural damage, and was weakened by fire for over 6 hours, that didn't collapse.

Yes, this building had extensive damage to it. Do you realize that once those columns and surrounding areas are no longer a part of the building (i.e. the damage) those areas don't contribute to the building anymore like loads from them and everything else. That is why buildings partially collapse unless all columns are severed in a controlled fashion. If there is even one column left to stand, that column will give resistance and there fore make the building fall in a chaotic fashion not controlled. So, you are telling me that there was damage enough to every single column to make them non existant?

For it to only partially collapse something would have had to stop the inertia of all that weight. Now had there been a partial collapse, then something would seriously have to be foul play. For something to have been able to stop that force would be completely unatural. When you talk of buildings partialy collapsing, they are of completely different designs and sizes. This notion that the design of a building has no impact on how it supports itself is the problem. It's as if you expect us to think that building design is irrelevent to anything since no matter how a building is put together it's going to act the same as every other building.

Here is where you may be misunderstanding. Unlike most buildings, the stability of the core of the WTC 1&2 is dependant on the trusses between the core and outer perimiter. So when these trusses failed, the core was no longer stable. And so began a progressive collapse. I'm obviously paraphrasing from the NIST report, but the long version can be found there. And again, it wasn't so much the damage as it was the fire.

Once again you did not read my post. The person who died in building 7 was not a part of the firefighting team to be pulled. So, now that we've established that there were no firefighters to be "pulled' the official story now becomes they needed to be "pulled" from the collapse zone? Interesting.

Nice try with your cheap tricks, but no nothing changed. nothing ever changed, This was always the case. Being pulled refers to the whole thing. Pople in the building(if there are any), people in the collapse zone, any civillians, horses, equipment (in the building, outside, whereever). But in your logic the guy should have said "Should we tell the men to evacuate the collapse zone, anf evacuate any men who might be in the building, and remove any equipment in the area, and make sure there are no civillians there?" Instead of "pull it". Gee, wonder why he used the short term instead of a long winded sentence...




posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Why would anybody say 'pull it' when saying this 'pull them' is just as economical usage of words and the mean in speech and hearing is more precise? I'm sorry but I'm not the least convinced by any of the voluminous explanations here to PROTECT Leisure Suit Larry from the ticking timebomb under him. That bomb is the truth he knows and must tell the world.


Thats a bogus appeal to common sense.



Also if Sliverstien was in for a massive payout, why did he attempt to lowball the coverage in the months before the collapse? He only relented to up the coverage because of pressure exerted by other entities with financial interests in the buildings?
How much sense does that make?


Which is it for you? Door A' Larry leasure suit is innocent of fraud? or Door B' Larry LS is knowledgeable of what happened and why?

Which door?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   
PS - This forum sucks because I cannot even reply to the end quotes because of the character limits. Even if I trim the beginning of the quote, it still chops off the end of the quote. And even in the other two replies it took forever trying to cut stuff out to make enough room to reply and let anyone have anyidea what I was replying to. This is a forum covering very detailed stuff and I don't understand how we are to have long indepth discussions when only allowed a couple paragraphs at a time, including quoted material. Sorry, very frustrating.

No WTC7 did not fall at freefall speed. To say so is an assumption. The best we can do is an estimate range and ironically ALL the conspiracy sites use the lowest numbers possible. And ironically none of them give a range or make any mention of how no one number can be reliably given. Yet they seem to insist on these exact numbers. Some truth movement huh?

An investigation was given by many many independant scientists who have stated in the reports that they could find no evidence of explosives what so ever. Metalergy testing was done, just not by the people claiming there were pools of steel. Everything down to what beam was what and the damage to each coumn is documented. It's not like they could hide fowl play. And if there was evidence of explosives you can believe they would not be able to hide that. Not to mention that these are all independant people, not government workers as the conspiracy sites would have you believe. You can't shut them all up.

And again, I encourage everyone to not just expoit "holes" (which there will be in any and every investigation everhave and that will exist), but to rather come up with a plausible cause such as the scientists have done. If you think there were bombs, then come up with a scenario of how they were planted and how the whole thing was pulled off. And then if your theory has less holes than the NIST reports, you may be on to something. But until then it's easy to exploit holes and take pot shots. Real investigators actually investigate.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 07:13 AM
link   



Which is it for you? Door A' Larry leasure suit is innocent of fraud? or Door B' Larry LS is knowledgeable of what happened and why?

Which door?


With no evidence to support fraud, I'd side with innocent. In this country you're innocent until proven guilty.
What system do you advocate?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Snoopy,

You are not even worth replying to. Ok, you say that these 100s of engineers have studied the documents and came up with their conclusions? Show me their structural analysis. I haven't seen anything of the sort in the NIST report....only assumptions.

I don't go to conspiracy sites, so your arguement about that has no bearing.

About your cantalever system. You do know that only the core area of WTC 7 had cantalevered systems right? That leaves more than 2 column lines to stand (actually more because if memory serves me, the cantalevers where only on one column line).

You state that you gave me evidence of what a fire does to steel structures by showing me one example of partial collapse? That makes sence alright. They partially collapse, or at least if it's global it's not controlled, it's chaotic. Please show me how WTC 1, 2 & 7 were chaotic please. As far as the rest, I don't have the patience to rehash all this again.

As for a scenario...I'll give you one. Place thermite at 3 key locations in the core to sever the core. Once the core starts to fail, the transfer system at the top of the buildings would transfer the load to the outer columns. Once the outer columns have reached their max, they would buckle at the weakest point (the impact zone...which is exactly what we saw). This senario encompases the no explosives used, the not many people to place the thermite, the no bomb sounds ect. Show me that I have more holes in my theory than NIST does if you can, because my explaination of how things went is just as plausible as theirs.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy

FInd a steel frame builing at least 40 stories high, takes up a whole city block, uses a 'tube within a tube' design, came off its core columns at the bottom, had structural damage, and was weakened by fire for over 6 hours, that didn't collapse.


Notice the italics. You even state it yourself. What made the "core columns come off at the bottom"? This would go along with my theory would it not? Also, you use one design of WTC 1 & 2 and use the other design for WTC 7. You state a "tube within a tube" design and also say came off its core columns at the bottom. You do know that the towers and WTC 7 had different designs right? So, therefore your "challenge" is null and void.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy

Here is where you may be misunderstanding. Unlike most buildings, the stability of the core of the WTC 1&2 is dependant on the trusses between the core and outer perimiter. So when these trusses failed, the core was no longer stable. And so began a progressive collapse. I'm obviously paraphrasing from the NIST report, but the long version can be found there. And again, it wasn't so much the damage as it was the fire.


No, here is where you are misunderstanding. The trusses of the floors gave both the outer columns and inner core lateral bracing. Guess what, even in the NIST report, they clearly show additional lateral bracing in the core column structure. That core could stand on it's own if need be IMO (if there were no wind that is). The lateral bracing would stop the core from buckling but wind would shear it. Diagonal bracing is for shear. Hence why they needed to sever the core. In doing so, it would make the trusses "sag" (hmm....I've seen this theory before somewhere) therefore pulling at the outer columns to deflect inwards (hmm...I've seen this theory before also) and thus ultimately buckling the outer columns at the impact zones. My scenario fits everything we saw, heard, felt and even encompases the no explosions, very little people to pull it off, the failure at the impact zones etc. Please show me any holes in my theory. NIST even found sulfides on the steel which goes along with my theory also.

[edit on 6/27/2006 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   



Lateral beams and buckling.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
There's one thing wrong with your picture. The lateral bracing is at the hinges. Place the lateral bracing elsewhere (like it was in the towers) and you won't get that. Also, it's missing the lateral bracing in the z direction that the towers also had. You keep saying that we can't compare apples with oranges....well your picture is way out in pineapple field when comparing that to the towers.

[edit on 6/28/2006 by Griff]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   
I visited the James Randi web forum after following a link posted by uruk on the "concrete core" thread.

One of the threads there contains a link to a report dismissing CTs about the collapse of WTC 7 and spends quite a bit of time on the "pull it" comment.

It includes a transcript of a confrontation between the author and 9/11 truth activists at Ground Zero, including our old friend Alex Jones.


MR: No. No, Larry Silverstein says they decided to pull. They. (pointing to the fire trucks parked down the block) Are they in on it? (crosstalk)
MR: They evacuated the area, and he said they decided to pull.
Cameraman: He said “We.”
MR: Do you want the quote?
Cameraman: I know the quote.
MR: No you don’t. He said they decided to pull the building and then we watched it come down.

[Ha! I screwed up there and said “pull the building.” That’s what I get for listening to the CTs blow that line every time!] (Crosstalk: see below)

MR: Who made the decision? “They.”


I've never thought Alex Jones' word is gospel but can others find glaring holes in the author's reasoning? For starters he begins to focus on Silverstein's use of "They" but continually refers to "pull" without the "it". If we need to establish who "They" are, don't we need to establish what "it" is?



[edit on 10-10-2006 by uknumpty]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join