Popular Mechanics responds to Rosie the Ranter

Originally posted by Stateofgrace

As an engineer could you tell me why a massive dynamic weight falling onto floor trusses that simply braced the external columns to the internal core would not cause a pancake collapse?Text

Firstly, quote anywhere that I said I was an engineer

secondly, after you have answered MY questions in the previous post I'd be more then happy to enjoin yours. if you want to ignore mine I feel free to ignore yours, debate works BOTH ways

tator3, you might want to clean up your post.

1g.) Political Baiting: You will not engage in politically-charged rhetoric, politically-inspired name-calling, and related right-versus-left political bickering while posting outside the Politics forums at politics.abovetopsecret.com....
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You have the right to disagree with esdad71, but you don not have the right to insult him or others.

Bad Form

**POLICY STATEMENT FOR THE 9/11 FORUM: ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ**

[edit on 31/3/2007 by Sauron]

Originally posted by thedigirati

Originally posted by Stateofgrace

As an engineer could you tell me why a massive dynamic weight falling onto floor trusses that simply braced the external columns to the internal core would not cause a pancake collapse?Text

Firstly, quote anywhere that I said I was an engineer

secondly, after you have answered MY questions in the previous post I'd be more then happy to enjoin yours. if you want to ignore mine I feel free to ignore yours, debate works BOTH ways

Can you explain how a UNIFORM collapse happened?

I take it you are on about this question? Uniform collapse of both towers did not occur, what occur was an uncontrolled collapse of each tower.

Each tower suffered massive structural damage as the planes slammed into the supporting external columns. The above static weight had to redistribute itself on what remained. This redistribution was not uniform, it was random, and it would cause other supporting columns to fail.

This gradual failure lead to the buckling of the external support columns as observed on many videos. The fire, contributed by weakling the steel. The fires although extensive did not have to be global, i.e. across the entire structure to cause it to fail, they simply added to an already dire situation.

Once the above, massive weight become dynamic, global collapse was inevitable. The bracing structure at the top of each tower, the top hat, was free and the external columns were no longer braced together. They simply fell outwards and allowed a massive dynamic weight to fall inside the Towers. It fell on the floor trusses. These were none supporting, steel floors that could not support the weight of the massive dynamic falling mass.

The floors simply collapsed, the external collapse peeled away and the internal core, was violently compromised.It collapsed.

It is this simple.

The official story is so dead. It's done folks. It's over, the fat lady was singing a long time ago. It only takes a little observation and logic to disprove it. You don't even need to be an engineer to disprove it.

You can't sweep the lies under a carpet of denial and time wasting explanations, and think no one will notice the big freakin bulge.

Troy

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Each tower suffered massive structural damage as the planes slammed into the supporting external columns. The above static weight had to redistribute itself on what remained. This redistribution was not uniform, it was random, and it would cause other supporting columns to fail.

Correct me if i am wrong, but didn't the NIST and FEMA reports state that builidings would have stood with the planes impacts ?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Each tower suffered massive structural damage as the planes slammed into the supporting external columns. The above static weight had to redistribute itself on what remained. This redistribution was not uniform, it was random, and it would cause other supporting columns to fail.

Correct me if i am wrong, but didn't the NIST and FEMA reports state that builidings would have stood with the planes impacts ?

I have stated my position, I do not care what anybody has said, I care for facts, logic and evidence.

I do not defend, NIST, FEMA or the USG, I defend facts.

I care not for political agendas, nor for anybodies desire to twist them.

The fact is that large commercial aircrafts were slammed into each building; they were seriously compromised and due to their design failed.

It is hoped that future failures will be stopped by NIST’s report and recommendations. If you wish these recommendations to be ignored, so be it. They are there for your safely and your future security.

For me it is time to leave, I bid you goodnight, and cheerio.


[edit on 1-4-2007 by Stateofgrace]

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
I do not defend, NIST, FEMA or the USG, I defend facts.

So defend the facts that the NIST and FEMA both reported the builidngs would have stood with the planes impacts, if you have the facts to debate with.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
I do not defend, NIST, FEMA or the USG, I defend facts.

So defend the facts that the NIST and FEMA both reported the builidngs would have stood with the planes impacts, if you have the facts to debate with.

The titanic was unsinkable; reportedly, it sank on its maiden voyage

Conjecture and what people think should not happen are completely different to what does happen.

Originally posted by Stateofgrace

Each tower suffered massive structural damage as the planes slammed into the supporting external columns.

what external colums? it had none, it was a steel mesh screen on the OUTSIDE (external)

This gradual failure lead to the buckling of the external support columns as observed on many videos

again, No external colums

The fire.......

would this be like the fire that burned for 6 hours and didn't cause a collapse??

The bracing structure at the top of each tower, the top hat, was free and the external columns were no longer braced together.

ever spin a plate on a stick when it loses stability if falls to the side, also it had no external column, just a mesh skin if the supporting center columns failed it would fall as a mass, but would not fall in a straight line, it would have met Some resistance

hese were none supporting, steel floors that could not support the weight of the massive dynamic falling mass.

the Mesh skin was the support as well as the inner columns

it's Obvious that you did not look at the tower blue prints at all, so how can you make an informed statement? please use the link to look at the blue prints and the size of the inner supporting columns

it appears you want it both ways, the columns failed but held the building in a straight line collapse, the skin was the support (re: Blueprints) torque wise the columns were weight support, with out torque support the towers would twist as the weight fell (because of uneven damage, as you stated) but did not.

if the fires has lasted a few hours I would believe the Gov, but it collapsed to soon and to straight. (BTW what jet fuel hit WTC7?)

you stated the top was free and came down but when you see the video it shows little to no resistance, it should have come down and slid to one side or another before the rest of it fell. I see/saw No offset at all.

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
The titanic was unsinkable; reportedly, it sank on its maiden voyage

Conjecture and what people think should not happen are completely different to what does happen.

So you have facts to say that NIST and FEMA lied on thier reports ?

I don't pretend to know the hows and why's exactly

but Silverstein said on Tv they decided to "pull it" which is a common term for demolition.

You could still argue a valid reason to pull it, it was a damaged building and to avoid more collateral damage when it would collapse on it's own, they pulled it..

still have to figure out why there was a demoliton planned and set up beforehand so they could even decide to pull it. you can't decide to pull a building without carefully planned charges in place.

but my point is, why is it still being debated if wtc 7 was demolished or not when we have a confession of the building's owner?

[edit on 1-4-2007 by David2012]

Given the ownership of popular mechanics and the huge personnel shakeup before they did a so called "9/11 conspiracy theory debunk" special, I see absolutelly no reason to trust them.

And no matter how much I loathe Rosie and wish she would go away, it's obvious from other issues that she has gotten involved in that she gets people's attention. And this is an issue where that is a good thing. So irregardless of other issues I am happy to see anyone speak up. And even happier to watch bill o'reilly erode his credibillity more by the second as he plots career doom on anyone that dares not share his viewpoint!

Overall I'd say it is suspicious the timing of her rant though... afterall the security mom vote proved to be part of the republican undoing last election and her making this comment at this time will definitelly have some effect on the run up to the presidential nominations.

Stateofgrace...

Since you go on and ON about the importance of the plane impacts, I have one question for you. What happened to bldg 7? You know, the one that was...

NOT HIT BY AN AIRPLANE!!!!

Let's have it, seeing that you know more than FEMA and NIST about the influence of the plane impacts...

Hey its been real interesting reading all the responses and arguements about this topic. I for one believe what I saw on TV in high school 6 years ago, and I know I didn't see any explosions to purposely destroy that building.

So question. Why would the gov't even plan to demolish two huge buildings in the middle of New York City? To get a good excuse to waste taxpayers' money, decrease approval ratings accross the board and send the country into contraversy? I don't believe we elected a bunch of lunatics into the highest positions in this country.

And one more thing - For all of you who keep flaming this thread, and believe that the gov't attacked its own country, does the word treason or complete and utter ignorance come to mind? It sure did to me when I read your replies and ridiculous claims of government conspiracy.

see you soon

[edit on 1-4-2007 by The Nacum]

It's not treasonous to question your government, or at least, it shouldn't be.

I don't know what happened on 9/11 or who "did it"... but one thing I know is that Rosie Odonnel would probably do more harm then good as a spokesman >,>

Originally posted by The Nacum/
Hey its been real interesting reading all the responses and arguements about this topic...

Well you were obviously not looking hard enough. If you were to actually do some research, instead of just believing what the state controlled media is telling you, you would know there is evidence of explosives in the buildings. Not only that, unless physics took a day off on 9/11, it is obvious there had to be something else acting on those buildings other than plane impacts and office fires.
Tell me, how do pieces of steel, weighing tons, get ejected laterally up to 600 ft. from gravity? How does a building collapse with no resistance, from undamaged floors and columns? Why did the South Tower start to topple, and then lose it's momentum as the undamaged floors fell away from under turning into a global collapse breaking at least 2 laws of physics? Have you even asked yourself these questions? Did NIST answer these questions? Do you know? Do you care? Who do you care more about? The government, or your family? Those that died were somebodies family. Time to wake up?

So question. Why would the gov't even plan to demolish two huge buildings in the middle of New York City...

Government always needs an enemy. Something to wave in front of us to justify them spending our money to make huge profits for themselves and their fellow secret society buddies. It needs to have something to protect us from, real or not. Why would we need government or military if there were no 'enemy' hiding around every corner? It works every time. It’s nothing new.
The buildings were going to have to be demolished anyway, at a cost that would not be justifiable to a money hungry terd like silverstein. Go research it. He killed a few birds with this one stone.
Do you really think they care about approval ratings? All they care about is getting away with it. Lunatics, no. They know exactly what they’re doing. It might seem crazy to you, but put yourself in the shoes of someone who has huge wealth and power, what is left to stimulate and challenge the man who has everything?

Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely… Lord Acton

And one more thing - ....

You think you’re so clever with this little statement don’t you? Lol
What flaming? We call it debate, that’s what we’re here for. We’re not here to piss each other off because we don’t agree. If we all agreed this would get boring real fast.
What treason? You mean the government would have committed treason if they were the instigators of 9-11? Well I guess they didn't plan on getting caught.
What ridiculous? Again do some research. Read some history that was not written by the victors or the elite. Time to wake up?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
The titanic was unsinkable; reportedly, it sank on its maiden voyage

Conjecture and what people think should not happen are completely different to what does happen.

So you have facts to say that NIST and FEMA lied on thier reports ?

Point out where I claimed NIST lied.

Point out the errors in the NIST final report into the collapse of the Towers.

In fact point out where NIST state that buildings should have survived the impact of the planes.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Stateofgrace...

Since you go on and ON about the importance of the plane impacts, I have one question for you. What happened to bldg 7? You know, the one that was...

NOT HIT BY AN AIRPLANE!!!!

Let's have it, seeing that you know more than FEMA and NIST about the influence of the plane impacts...

The building was hit by massive amounts of falling debris, it burnt and later collapsed.

NIST final report into this as not be made public yet so speculation into the exact cause is pointless.

But if you would like to explain why the FDNY cleared the area before hand please do so

Well you were obviously not looking hard enough. If you were to actually do some research, instead of just believing what the state controlled media is telling you, you would know there is evidence of explosives in the buildings. Not only that, unless physics took a day off on 9/11, it is obvious there had to be something else acting on those buildings other than plane impacts and office fires.

please show me you evidence of explosives inside the buildings.
yes Gravity was acting upon it.

Tell me, how do pieces of steel, weighing tons, get ejected laterally up to 600 ft. from gravity? How does a building collapse with no resistance, from undamaged floors and columns? Why did the South Tower start to topple, and then lose it's momentum as the undamaged floors fell away from under turning into a global collapse breaking at least 2 laws of physics? Have you even asked yourself these questions? Did NIST answer these questions? Do you know? Do you care? Who do you care more about? The government, or your family? Those that died were somebodies family. Time to wake up?

please tell my how massive aounts of steel are ejested 600 sidways by explosives that never made a sound.
Sesmic recors show no seconary explosives.

Show me how much explosives force it take to eject steel beemns 600 feet, show me your calculation.

please show the exact laws of physics that were broken by the collpase of WTC 2.

So question. Why would the gov't even plan to demolish two huge buildings in the middle of New York City...

Government always needs an enemy. Something to wave in front of us to justify them spending our money to make huge profits for themselves and their fellow secret society buddies. It needs to have something to protect us from, real or not. Why would we need government or military if there were no 'enemy' hiding around every corner? It works every time. It’s nothing new.

.911 cost 90 billion on the day and the follow on war on terror has cost close 450 billion, please show the return for this expenditure

The buildings were going to have to be demolished anyway, at a cost that would not be justifiable to a money hungry terd like silverstein. Go research it. He killed a few birds with this one stone.
Do you really think they care about approval ratings? All they care about is getting away with it. Lunatics, no. They know exactly what they’re doing. It might seem crazy to you, but put yourself in the shoes of someone who has huge wealth and power, what is left to stimulate and challenge the man who has everything?

Are you accusing Larry Silverstein of being involved in a plot, to execute 3000 people?

He did not order the building to be pulled; he said he was referring to the fire fighting operation. Which the fire-fighters took the decision to pull.

Are you accusing the FDNY of being involved in a mass murder plot?

Will somebody please tell me how on earth the quote function works on this forum, ta.