9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

These are facts concerning the twin towers.

1. They had not one but two center supports. One set of rough steel framing inside the primary load bearing core support rough steel framing.

2. In order for an alleged 767 to compromise even one section of the entire center core area, it would have to compromise both sets of rough steel framing. With one far more dense and stable than the other.

3. If that happened, the top area would buckled toward the compromise (point of least resistance), and very probably eventually topple to the outside, not fall straight down or crumble in mid-air.

Thus, leaving the bottom fairly well intact, and the top busted up all over Manhattan, in very recognizable steel portion columns, inside and out. In fact, entire internal area sections might be easily recognizable, from the top in all that pancake toppling out side the balance of the building. For instance, "That looks to be what is left of XYZ Corp's office."

If counter points are made, please cite the laws of physics and quantum mechanics, not the "official" reports.

Please keep in mind that without quantum mechanics (energy and momentum), physical matter (physics) will just sit there and do nothing (entrophy stasis equilibrium or "death of physical matter").

I see enormous problems with those simulations.

1. Where are the drop ceilings and finished office spaces within those twin towers?

2. Where is the HVAC?

3.Where are the restrooms in the center core areas?

4. Where are the elevator shafts in the center core?

5. Where are stairwells and other divided finished rooms inside the core units?

6. Where is the other supporting steel under those floors?

7. Where is the wiring the buildings needed for telephones and electric?

Originally posted by OrionStars
These are facts concerning the twin towers.

1. They had not one but two center supports. One set of rough steel framing inside the primary load bearing core support rough steel framing.

2. In order for an alleged 767 to compromise even one section of the entire center core area, it would have to compromise both sets of rough steel framing. With one far more dense and stable than the other.

Uhhhh...excuse me? What the heck are you talking about saying "two center supports" and referring to compromising "both sets"? you'll need to back your statements.

Just to be clear (since you love to play word games) I'M SAYING YOU NEED TO PRODUCE WTC STRUCTURAL DATA TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.


[edit on 2-2-2008 by Valhall]

Originally posted by OrionStars
I see enormous problems with those simulations.

1. Where are the drop ceilings and finished office spaces within those twin towers?

This is not an "enormous problem". You will be required to prove out why it would be an "enormous problem" before we can even make sense of your hyperbolic statement.

2. Where is the HVAC?

LOL. Explain why this is important in your mind and then I'll consider whether it's worth giving value to.

3.Where are the restrooms in the center core areas?

See response to 2 above.

4. Where are the elevator shafts in the center core?

See response to 2 above.

5. Where are stairwells and other divided finished rooms inside the core units?

See response to 2 above.

6. Where is the other supporting steel under those floors?

This statement means nothing until you clarify what you are talking about.

7. Where is the wiring the buildings needed for telephones and electric?

I could leave it saying "see response to 2 above" but this one is so frigging ludicrous I have to ask - what the hell does it matter?

[edit on 2-2-2008 by Valhall]

reply to post by Valhall


Per your request to provide substantiation on the twin towers:

911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by Valhall

This is not an "enormous problem". You will be required to prove out why it would be an "enormous problem" before we can even make sense of your hyperbolic statement.

I am not required to do anything, but your simulation certainly is. I am requesting a correct simulation for correct WTC towers. The simulation, you presented, is completely incorrect. I just provided you with substantion as to why per your request in a previous post.

If you believe the information to be the same between simulation and what I provided, could you please point out exactly where they are same? Thank you in advance for your consideration of meeting my request.

People cannot simply go around making conclusions and then matching any numbers to their pre-conceived conclusions. That is called pseudo-science not science.

For my futher validation, the website below provides access for the blueprints for both twin towers:

911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Valhall

 

Per your request to provide substantiation on the twin towers:

911research.wtc7.net...

Couldn't find anything to back your claim.

Originally posted by Valhall

Couldn't find anything to back your claim.

I do not know what to tell you then. I use the website I gave for accessing blueprints, in order to access the blueprints whenever I need to access them. I have done that several times before in these discussions. Did you try the links, on the website, to access the blueprints?

Did you try the link labeled "multiresolution browser" on the following link?

911research.wtc7.net...

Most of the drawings can be viewed in this multiresolution browser.

There are partial blueprints on the same link I gave before and above.

The link above is full of other links to excellent descriptions of the full construction of both twin towers. As it can easily be determined, when reading the details of the actual construction, Purdue's model is nothing comparable to the actual construction of the twin towers.

reply to post by OrionStars


You do realise that they most likely didn't have the rendering power on their PCs for a bunch of random objects that are really not material to the impact anyway?
Complex simulations EAT computer resources like they are Swiss Chocolate and are going out of style.

Conservation of energy means if anything runs into air, it results transitioning energy from one place to another. With physical matter resisting physical matter, more conservation of energy is always done.

Those are the laws of quantum mechanics (energy) incorporated into the laws of physics/nature, in order to more fully explain cause and effect of energy on all physical matter.

Originally posted by OrionStars

I am not required to do anything,

Yes, you are required. You are required to do much at this point. Your links do not substantiate your statement.

That leaves you being a noise...nothing more.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by Valhall

Couldn't find anything to back your claim.

I do not know what to tell you then. I use the website I gave for accessing blueprints, in order to access the blueprints whenever I need to access them. I have done that several times before in these discussions. Did you try the links, on the website, to access the blueprints?

I was able to access the site. It didn't have anything to back your statement. That would be the main problem at this point.

Originally posted by Valhall

Yes, you are required. You are required to do much at this point. Your links do not substantiate your statement.

That leaves you being a noise...nothing more.

I did all I was required to do. Provide validation of my counterpoints to your argument. Which I did with at least two excellent resources. If is up to you, as to whether you study them or not for correct comparions. I have already done that, which is why I know Purdue's model is wrong.

At this point, I am going to agree to disagree with your opinions. If at some later date, you care to point out exactly how you hypothesized Purdue's model agrees with actual construction, I would be most willing to engage in a congenial discussion on those points.

Originally posted by Valhall

I was able to access the site. It didn't have anything to back your statement. That would be the main problem at this point.

Blueprints mean nothing to you? Apparently, they meant nothing to Purdue either. It is self-evident in their simulations.

One other pertinent point. Whoever made up the Purdue simulation, apparently never worked in residential or commercial construction. If they had, they would know exactly what those of us learned through experience, working in the construction industry of residential and commercial finished products. Their simulation would never work in the real world, where people actually access and use real buildings.

Originally posted by OrionStars


Blueprints mean nothing to you? Apparently, they meant nothing to Purdue either. It is self-evident in their simulations.

I'm going to say it again. You made numerous statements (which I have challenged above) in which you have not provided any foundation for other than your rhetoric. When asked to provide some reason for your hyperbolic statements you have linked one webpage which does not contain any information to either support certain claims you have made (such as double column walls) or back your rather inane claims that such trivial issues as wiring should make a substantial difference in modeling of the impact damage to building or plane.

You are required to produce SOMETHING that makes your blathering posts mean something.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by Valhall]

Originally posted by OrionStars


At this point, I am going to agree to disagree with your opinions. If at some later date, you care to point out exactly how you hypothesized Purdue's model agrees with actual construction, I would be most willing to engage in a congenial discussion on those points.

You have actually stepped over a line where "agreeing to disagree" isn't enough. You made statements as if they were fact...not opinions. And you now have to produce evidence. As I've already stated, you put up a link that had no support to your statements, so you need to try again.

reply to post by Valhall


You are being quite uncivil. Is there some valid reason for that?

I did link in two sites. I will link the other again. The site below gives a highly accurate description, complete with photos, of how the WTC towers were constructed.

Again, you can choose to study it and compare to Purdue's simulation, while keeping an objective mindset, or not. That is entirely up to you.

911research.wtc7.net...

A good portion of my counterpoints are sitting at the above website link. I am not going to quote the entire website, when it is so easy to access by the link I posted twice, per your double requests.

reply to post by OrionStars


Orion please don't take this as an attack but you seem to expect everyone to listen to you but when anyone else speaks to you you seem to not to listen, you attack them for it, or you when presented with a response to one of your attacks you pretend you never attacked that person.
Need I cut and paste all the evidence?
Sort of like when you called asking for credentials an attack against you.
Then when I brought that little event up you denied it ever happend?
I know it happend. Heck I got penalized for it.

And I am not the only one who has seen this obviously.


[edit on 2-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]