You must think I'm a fool..., page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 4-4-2006 @ 08:33 PM by Stateofgrace
Originally posted by bsbray11
There is not much factual about the "official story," especially the conclusions of NIST.

NIST's argument, boiled down to its core, is that the floor trusses were heated sufficiently by the fires and failed. They offer absolutely no evidence for this but some pictures of columns buckling from what they ascribe to heat. They even fail to show the number of buckled columns it would require for collapse to initiate, falling short by quite a significant number.

Also note that it is impossible to tell whether or not the trusses were sufficiently heated, because they were out of sight, and thus one can not determine whether or not they were glowing (indicative of heating above 400 C). NIST found absolutely no evidence of any heating above 250 C in their samples, and they only found a couple columns that even reached that temperature.

You can look through the NIST Report and dig out as much information as you'd like, but there are no real facts to back up most, if not all, of the official story.

Read my signature. That's basically what it comes down to here.


AGGGGGHHHH,

I can only say this in the best and simplest way I can. I have not doubt that NIST are wrong, I have no doubt that FEMA are wrong, I have no doubt that the 9/11 commission are wrong.

My doubts are based on incompetence rather than conspiracy.

I will not defend NIST, FEMA nor the 9/11 commission. I don’t believe their findings to be absolute.

All I ask for is proof, absolute proof , scientific, peer approves proof.

PS read my signature

[edit on 4-4-2006 by Stateofgrace]


reply posted on 4-4-2006 @ 08:45 PM by mojo4sale
Originally posted by Stateofgrace
I could go on but my point is that even though I believe my make believe questions to be relevant they do not alter the fact that light travels at exactly 299,792,458 metres per second.


Does it always travel at that speed, has it always traveled at that speed and will it always travel at that speed!

In the past, several scientists, among them British physicist Paul Dirac, have speculated that fundamental constants of physics evolve with time. According to Churchill, such changes might be coniiected with changes in the energy density of the vacuum. He points out, for instance, that the speed of light depends on the interaction between photons and the quantum vacuum which seethes with "virtual" particles popping in and out of existence. "if the energy density of the vacuum were greater in the past, the speed of light would be slightly different,"


uncletaz.com...

However, the speed of light is not constant as it moves from medium to medium. When light enters a denser medium (like from air to glass) the speed and wavelength of the light wave decrease while the frequency stays the same. How much light slows down depends on the new medium's index of refraction, n. (The speed of light in a medium with index n is c/n.) The index of refraction is determined by the electric and magnetic properties of the medium. For air, n is 1.0003, for ice, n is 1.31, and for diamond, n is 2.417.


curious.astro.cornell.edu...

Things arent always as they seem, or as they always will be!

But my point is, there are always grey area's and the speed of light may not always be the speed of light, It may not even be that speed now depending on whos or whats perspective it is being measured from.

Sorry but am in pedantic mood today...


reply posted on 4-4-2006 @ 09:15 PM by Stateofgrace
Actually this is not strictly true, the towers were a stack of cards, offering up very little resistance to the dynamic load that bore down on it. Please try to imagine a tree. Its core is solid, the towers were not, and in fact they were 95% air. I wrote and posted this a while ago, on many forums.I have subsequently reviewed my thoughts, regarding weights etc, but I still hold this view.

" For those people that understand the principle of Physics I apologies, for those that don’t let me explain the difference between a static load and a dynamic load. I will explain in layman’s terms.

If you were to go into your garden right now and find a sizable rock, I don’t know something in the region of 20lb should do, and place it on top of your head. The rock would be heavy and would hurt but you should be able to support it, because it is a static load. Next get one of your mates to climb a ladder with said rock and drop it, say 10 feet onto your head, the chances are that your skull would get shoved in, this because it is has been hit by a dynamic load. Please note the same rock by shifting from static to dynamic cause’s two completely different outcomes.

Applying this to the towers. I will look at WTC 1. This was hit between floors 92 and 98. It had 110 floors. Therefore above the crash site were some 12 floors. It was 1368 feet tall and weighted approx 500,000 ton

www.edgehill.ac.uk...

So from this each floor occupied 1368/110 which is approx 12.5 feet.

500,000/110 means that each floor weighed approx 4545 tons. (I’ll round this down to 4000).

(Please also note this does not include the weight of all the machinery that was on these floors)

Above the crash site was appox 12 floors which equals 48 thousand ton. This load was static. The building was designed and built to support the static loads of the floors above each other

After the plane crash and fire, all it would have taken was for one of the floors to collapse for this massive weight to become dynamic. Please try to picture this, remember the garden rock. Please try to imagine 48 thousand ton suddenly dropping 12 feet. (Please note also that this does not even include the weight of the antenna).If my figures are wrong, half it and imagine 24 thousand tons or even 10 thousand tons. Image a thousand tons if you wish. Can anybody honestly imagine that the floor underneath would support this dynamic load? No of course it couldn’t. The load simply juggernauted though this floor and continued down until it hit the next floor. But at this point the weight had increase by the addition of the first floor it hit, a further 4000 tons.

Irrespective of my figures which I know could be wrong, what is not wrong is that by the time this dynamic weight went through 12 floors it would have doubled in weight. Another further 24 floors and it would have doubled again, in effect it would now be four times its original weight. This weight was not constant it was getting heavier the further down the Tower it went. Is it any surprise then that this weight acting under the force of gravity would bring the tower down very fast? i.e. close to free fall speed. It was a Hugh, accelerating weight which was increasing in mass, with no where to go but down as fast as it could.

By the time it reached half way down the Tower the weight hurtling down would have been close to 250,000 tons and it would make sense that it was accelerating. Can anybody honestly imagine anything would stop it? No, since the towers were 95% air, the only thing that stopped it was the ground.

(I understand that people will doubt my calculated weights so I’d like to look at this from another angle. In WTC 1 if the collapse started above floor 98 that would mean there was 12 floors of the tower travelling down. That is aprox 1/110 the height of the building which is 130 feet. I really don’t know what 130 feet of steel and concrete would weigh or whether it would weigh in at 48 thousand tons but it is safe to assume it was very heavy.)

Explosives did not bring down this building; there was no need for explosives. Once the massive weight became dynamic the building simply imploded under this massive weight and stresses it was not designed to take.

Do the maths for WTC 2 yourselves the plane hit on the 80th floor

The above is simply the pancake theory. Am I qualified to say whether it is correct? No of course not. Would I be able to say it is plausible? I can say with 100% certainty it is far more plausible than the controlled demolition theory.

For the pancake theory to work it relies on one single event happening. This event was witnessed by millions, it being that a single floor suffered catastrophic failure and the massive load above became dynamic. The only debate here is whether the damage from the planes, the fires or a combination of the two caused it to happen.
For the controlled demolition theory to work it would have to rely on hundreds, if not thousands of unproved, unseen events.


[edit on 4-4-2006 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 4-4-2006 by Stateofgrace]


reply posted on 4-4-2006 @ 09:34 PM by ThatsJustWeird
Originally posted by bsbray11
For WTC1, the top 13 floors collapsed downwards onto the remaining 97 (110 floors total). The top 13 floors were among the lightest, as they had to support the least weight structurally. The lower floors were heavier, besides also greatly outnumbering the top floors.

So, do you have any proof of this. Just wondering.
Say you're able to sperate each floor. You're saying that floor 83 is heavier than floor 59?
Any evidence of this?

The block of the 13 top floors also disentegrated not too long into collapse, and the great majority of debris was lost over the sides of the building rather than falling straight down.

What everyone say was what was happening on the outside. We have no idea what was going on in the inside.
How do you know that was the floors that disentigrated and not the walls?

So basically, you have a relatively very small mass taking out a much larger mass, even when the initial mass breaks up completely and most of the falling debris is going right over the sides. So you're going on less and less mass to crush thicker and heavier floors all the way down.

No, you have mass falling on to more mass causing that mass to collapse now that mass is part of the original and that continues, getting heavier and heavier and actually picking up speed as the collapse continues.

Here's the killer given this info: the collapse kept a steady speed as it fell.

Why would it slow down? Any collapse falls steady or speeds up. Momentum added to the fact that buildings are mostly air so there's little resistance.

That pretty much says it all for me. The WTC Towers were not houses of cards, and stuff like that should not be physically possible without explosives.

Actually the way they collapsed is how I know for sure that explosives weren't used. If explosives were used there's no possible way they could have collapsed the way they did.
1. No one places explosives at the tops of buildings. Any explosvies would have been placed at the base, and the building would have collapsed from the ground up.
2. It takes weeks to study and set up those explosives which would have been numourus. There's absolutely NO WAY anyone could have hidden that.
3. How did the explosives survive the planes crashing, the planes exploding, and the fires?




I know this has probably been posted before but...
www.pbs.org...

Also
www.civil.usyd.edu.au...


reply posted on 4-4-2006 @ 09:51 PM by bsbray11
Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Actually this is not strictly true, the towers were a stack of cards, offering up very little resistance to the dynamic load that bore down on it. Please try to imagine a tree.


Trees never fall like the WTC did. And I don't buy that they were a stack of cards at all. They both took 767s without falling, and could've sustained much worse considering less than 15% of the support was knocked out from those impacts.

Its core is solid, the towers were not, and in fact they were 95% air.


No they weren't. The area inside the towers may have been around 90% empty space, but the relevant figure you're looking for is MASS, not area. Try to show me that 95% of the mass of either of those towers was air.

And besides, the trusses covered each and every floor from the core columns to the perimeter columns. This space that you're imagining as empty was far from it.

But either way, do you get what I'm saying here? The top floors were the LIGHTEST. Falling onto the HEAVIEST. And outnumbered severely, 97 to 13. And the top floors disentegrated and the collapse continued at the same pace. Sorry dude, but this is physically impossible without explosives. There would be at least SOME resistance when the freaking floors disentegrated and there was nothing but falling dissociated debris. What do you think caused the top floors to fall apart in the first place?! Resistance!

Applying this to the towers. I will look at WTC 1. This was hit between floors 92 and 98. It had 110 floors. Therefore above the crash site were some 12 floors. It was 1368 feet tall and weighted approx 500,000 ton

www.edgehill.ac.uk...

So from this each floor occupied 1368/110 which is approx 12.5 feet.

500,000/110 means that each floor weighed approx 4545 tons. (I’ll round this down to 4000).

(Please also note this does not include the weight of all the machinery that was on these floors)

Above the crash site was appox 12 floors which equals 48 thousand ton. This load was static. The building was designed and built to support the static loads of the floors above each other

After the plane crash and fire, all it would have taken was for one of the floors to collapse for this massive weight to become dynamic.


Ok, your physics are fine until you get to "all it would have taken was for one of the floors to collapse..." That would have initiated collapse, but there are three immediate problems/holes with what you're saying:

(A) You don't specify what this force would have been, or, more importantly, the amount of force that would've been required for global collapse. Keep in mind lots of energy is lost to heat, powderizing concrete (huge loss of energy right there), etc.

(B) You don't specify what integrity loss would have been required for a single floor to collapse.

(C) You don't explain how this resulted in global collapse, especially the way I just laid it out for you.

Irrespective of my figures which I know could be wrong, what is not wrong is that by the time this dynamic weight went through 12 floors it would have doubled in weight.


A couple more problems:

(D) Any numbers are arbitrary and useless here unless compared directly to the amount of potential energy they would've been crashing into. What you need to find is the impulse, for each and every floor collapsed.

(E) There was no 12-foot free-fall drop. Assuming this in the first place gives you a benefit in your calcs that the Twin Towers never had. Also keep in mind that support columns were not set up floor by floor, but the core columns were welded across multiple floors, and the perimeter columns set up in a staggered fashion in sets with spandrel plates. Independent of the floor systems.

Another further 24 floors and it would have doubled again, in effect it would now be four times its original weight.


Would this be in a vacuum or what? You're totally ignoring hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete in these figures, dude. Those are kind of important.

This weight was not constant it was getting heavier the further down the Tower it went.


No it was not. The vast majority of debris was lost to the sides of the collapse. Watch a video, and look at pics from the air of Ground Zero. Most of the debris is scattered all over Ground Zero, as it landed from being launched outwards from the falling towers. Mass falling to the sides does not add weight to the falling mass.

Also keep in mind that dissociated pieces of debris, like steel beams and especially *powdered concrete*, do not have the same force as the same materials acting as a single body. Big difference here with deflection and etc.

All of the information you subsequently post on such assumptions is just as fundamentally flawed.



reply posted on 4-4-2006 @ 10:07 PM by bsbray11
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
So, do you have any proof of this. Just wondering.
Say you're able to sperate each floor. You're saying that floor 83 is heavier than floor 59?
Any evidence of this?


Yes, but you're tedious and I'm not going to waste time finding page numbers for you. All of the information I cite there is based on the NIST Report. That report details that the column sizes tapered further up the building. Lighter loads, smaller columns. No sense in adding extra, unneeded weight for lower floors. Structural common sense. But again, feel free to read the NIST Report like most of the rest of us have.

What everyone say was what was happening on the outside. We have no idea what was going on in the inside.
How do you know that was the floors that disentigrated and not the walls?


Look for the caps laying around Ground Zero. You won't find them. Destroyed during collapse. You can also look up pics that show the destruction wave pretty laterally, and it definitely lacks the height of the 13 floors, or even half of them. Again, they were broken up.

No, you have mass falling on to more mass causing that mass to collapse now that mass is part of the original and that continues, getting heavier and heavier and actually picking up speed as the collapse continues.


This is a nice idea but didn't happen. Check out pics of Ground Zero. The Towers didn't collapse straight down into neat little piles like WTC7 did. The debris was ejected all over the complex. If you're going to make an assumption that even half of the mass fell straight down, you're going to have to back it up with something substantial.

Why would it slow down?


See Newton's First Law of Motion:

An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.


Appropriately sourced. This is elementary school science. And what would an "unbalancing force" be, eh?

Any collapse falls steady or speeds up.


Or slows down. I like your selectivity here. A collapse could not possibly slow down from thousands of tons of resistance.

Momentum added to the fact that buildings are mostly air so there's little resistance.


Prove that most of the buildings' masses were air. Mass. Not area within the buildings. This is like elementary school physics here. Look up what these words mean before you say the buildings were "mostly air."

Actually the way they collapsed is how I know for sure that explosives weren't used. If explosives were used there's no possible way they could have collapsed the way they did.
1. No one places explosives at the tops of buildings. Any explosvies would have been placed at the base, and the building would have collapsed from the ground up.
2. It takes weeks to study and set up those explosives which would have been numourus. There's absolutely NO WAY anyone could have hidden that.


These are logistics problems and not scientific; ie, we cannot test these problems.

3. How did the explosives survive the planes crashing, the planes exploding, and the fires?


Who says they did survive the plane crashes? You wouldn't be able to tell that well, would you? But if you look at impact pics, you will see concrete dust ejection. This isn't proof of explosives, but neither can you therefore rule out that explosives did not go off upon impact.

As far as the fires, they weren't hot enough, put simply, and the explosives could have easily been insulated anyway. And what's more, you can load explosives up with substances like plasticizers to prevent ignition at lower temperatures. And that's all public technology.


reply posted on 5-4-2006 @ 10:01 AM by Stateofgrace

But either way, do you get what I'm saying here? The top floors were the LIGHTEST. Falling onto the HEAVIEST. And outnumbered severely, 97 to 13. And the top floors disentegrated and the collapse continued at the same pace. Sorry dude, but this is physically impossible without explosives. There would be at least SOME resistance when the freaking floors disentegrated and there was nothing but falling dissociated debris. What do you think caused the top floors to fall apart in the first place?! Resistance

The top floors did not disintegrate. This is silly even if you support the controlled demolition theory, how do you think a controlled demolition works? by using the mass from above to drop a building in a controlled manner. If the top floors had disintegrated, irrespective of what theory you support, the tower would still be standing. It is more than possible without explosives, but since you don’t understand the difference between static or dynamic loads anyway, of course it wouldn’t be possible



(A) You don't specify what this force would have been, or, more importantly, the amount of force that would've been required for global collapse. Keep in mind lots of energy is lost to heat, powderizing concrete (huge loss of energy right there), etc.


So you’re now saying the only way that concrete got pulverised was by explosives, please follow this through and explain how and why this same pulverisation would not occur due to pan caking.



(B) You don't specify what integrity loss would have been required for a single floor to collapse


I don’t need to state anything as I believe the floor collapsed due to massive and catastrophic structure failure due to the plane crash, the ensuring fires or a combination of both. I do not need to prove this, the majority of the scientific world as already proved it for me. If you disagree with it put forward an alternative explanation




(C) You don't explain how this resulted in global collapse, especially the way I just laid it out for you.


You have laid out nothing at all, other than speculation and slender grasp of physics and science.




(D) Any numbers are arbitrary and useless here unless compared directly to the amount of potential energy they would've been crashing into. What you need to find is the impulse, for each and every floor collapsed


I not need to find anything , see above for my reasons.



Would this be in a vacuum or what? You're totally ignoring hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete in these figures, dude. Those are kind of important


You have by this point totally baffled me, what are you on about ? What vaccum? How am I ignoring hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and steel? I am totally lost as to what point you are trying to get across.



No it was not. The vast majority of debris was lost to the sides of the collapse. Watch a video, and look at pics from the air of Ground Zero. Most of the debris is scattered all over Ground Zero, as it landed from being launched outwards from the falling towers. Mass falling to the sides does not add weight to the falling mass.


NO IT WAS NOT. This is not true at all the building collapsed straight down and inside their own foot print... Again you are contradicting the controlled demolition theory which is actually based around the fact that the building came straight down.”The buildings fell straight down, rather like a controlled demotion”. The external supports were flung away as the building collapsed, but the weight and mass inside collapsed straight down.



Also keep in mind that dissociated pieces of debris, like steel beams and especially *powdered concrete*, do not have the same force as the same materials acting as a single body. Big difference here with deflection and etc.



Again what pulverised concrete? I take you are referring to the massive cloud of dust that was generated during the collapse. So you jump to the massive conclusion it was pulverised concrete? The fact that the inside of the building was coated in tons of dry plaster would have nothing to do with this cloud at all would it?
And what deflection? what exactly got deflected?


All of the information you subsequently post on such assumptions is just as fundamentally flawed


I see I will try harder next time.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by Stateofgrace]


reply posted on 5-4-2006 @ 10:10 AM by ThatsJustWeird
Hillarious and typical bsbray
You people claim you're searching for the "truth" but you're really not. You're only looking for stuff that supports your conspiricies and theories. Expert opinion? Eh, who needs experts when you have actors! Actors and people who create anti-government conspiricy websites surely know more than engineers and experts right?


More links for those serious in wanting to know what happened and why...
www.icivilengineer.com...
www.architectureweek.com...
archives.cnn.com...


It's hillarious and quite sad at the same time the lengths people go to defend these terrorists.
And all the people saying, "it was just a fire"
lmao
Does this look like a regular fire to you?


And the collapse. "oh it had to be explosives"
lmao!!
1. The buildings started collapsing at the point of impact. Which means these explosives had to survive the fires and explosion of the airplanes.
2. It means that whoever put the explosives there had to know exactly where the planes would enter. That's not humanly possible.
3. It also means that this is the very first time explosives were placed at the top of a building to make it collapse.

Have you ever seen controlled demos make a building fall like this?

I haven't.



[edit on 5-4-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]



reply posted on 5-4-2006 @ 11:22 AM by ThatsJustWeird
Originally posted by Griff
So, a hydrocarbon fire is different in Rove world huh? Fancy that. You do know that jet fuel is basically kerosene right?

en.wikipedia.org...


Not sure what you're talking about.

What I'm saying is that, no one just lit a match and tried to set the building on fire. This fire was a result of aircraft exploding. Meaning, you're going to get a TON more damage. The fire would also spread more rapidly (as explained in one of those links)
Now, there have been fires in skyscrapers before. The Hotel Meridien in Philadelphia had a fire, but it didn't do this kind of damage. The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.

That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for—a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.

On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.

www.pbs.org...


btw, What is a "rove world"??

Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 16 days ago with 14 member flags
Newest 9/11 Documentary - Proof 9/11 was an inside Job
  Posted 0 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 9 days ago with 13 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 16 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags
Remains of 9/11 victim identified
  Posted 2 days ago with 5 member flags