What evidence would accept to prove 9/11 was an inside job?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Do you even have a clue why not?

Obviously not. What other force but gravity was working that day?

If no other force was applied, and those columns held the load from day one, where's this extra force to cause buckling/bending?

You claimed the NIST report and Greening's report delved into the subject. But. I'm hard pressed to find it?

Please support your assertion.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
So despite there being an obvious tilt, of the entire top portion of WTC2, at an obvious angle, you say there was no fulcrum.

Yup. There was a hinge point. It's obvous to anyone willing to examine videos honestly. Only a troll would refuse to.

Sorry, I can't find a technical definition for "hinge point" like I can for "fulcrum." Can you please clarify the technical definition of "hinge point" as opposed to "fulcrum" as you are using it here? As far as I can find, all rotational motion must happen around a fulcrum.

Will be waiting for your definition (AND SOURCE) for "hinge point," Mr. Armchair.

Or a link from NIST? You said they explained it, I think I already asked you to show me where. Put up or shut up....

Originally posted by Nutter

If no other force was applied, and those columns held the load from day one, where's this extra force to cause buckling/bending?

Are you referring to the hinge wall?

Or the building as a whole?

Cuz the answer is slightly different.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Or a link from NIST? You said they explained it, I think I already asked you to show me where.

So do you deny that sink accompanied the tilt?

Do you need help?

reply to post by Joey Canoli


You're the one denying a tilt, saying there was no fulcrum, but instead a "hinge." So yes, I'm asking for help: I want you to show me the technical definition of "hinge" in physics. "Fulcrum" has an accepted definition, and is inherent to all rotational motion, including tilting.


So, "Joey Canoli" 's opinion of WTC2's tilt: it didn't exist. Only the back wall was "bending." And because there was no rotation there was no fulcrum, but a "hinge" instead, which he can't define.

All in all I guess I just wish there were better "debunkers" on ATS.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

There was rotation in conjunction with sink. The movement wasn't in the 9:00 direction. It was in the 7:00 direction.

Hmmmm.

From this post, I'm acknowledging rotation AND sink. You're avoiding that acknowledgement of fact.

Looks like you're lying about my stance on this issue.

Imagine that.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Rotation means circular motion. Meaning motion about a point. That point: a fulcrum. That you claim somehow does not exist.

It's either one or the other.


Now by refusing to give me a technical definition for "hinge," are you admitting it's a word you made up and has no technical meaning whatsoever?

To have the government come clean about it, plain and simple.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Now by refusing to give me a technical definition for "hinge," are you admitting it's a word you made up and has no technical meaning whatsoever?

My theory is that Joey heard some structural engineer using the word "plastic hinge" and thought of a door. When in actuality a "plastic hinge" is only a term used to describe bending.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Rotation means circular motion. Meaning motion about a point. That point: a fulcrum.

Ok, fine.

Let's use the physics defined version of fulcrum. It makes no difference to my argument.

So, where was the fulcrum?

The core or the wall?

Originally posted by Nutter
My theory is that Joey heard some structural engineer using the word "plastic hinge" and thought of a door. When in actuality a "plastic hinge" is only a term used to describe bending.

Nope.

I'm using laymen's terms.

Everyone has an understanding what is described by a teeter totter fulcrum. Same thing for a hinge.

And at any rate, a plastic hinge - which describes bending - is exactly what the far wall was doing.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by Nutter

 

I'm not taking the truther's side. I am referring to the "Rules of Evidence". Personally I believe that the planes brought down the towers. I believe there's a conspiracy here, but the majority of people are on the wrong track.

According to NIST, we have no idea what caused the global collapse. They did not provide an explanation. They couldn't use a computer model because it was too chaotic. Strangely enough with all of those engineers they didn't attempt to provide the public with a mathematical model for the global collapse either. They only told us what lead up to collapse initiation. They agreed with a 3 day old Bazant paper which was wrong in the first place.

Actually the lack of enough fireproofing and gravity brought the towers down with the exception of WTC 7 where explosives of some sort brought that tower down.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
And at any rate, a plastic hinge - which describes bending - is exactly what the far wall was doing.

You forgot to include that bending describes compression on one side and tension on the other.

Either way you look at it, those columns were experiencing tension on the outside face.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by Nutter]

I can't say for sure if any part of 9/11 was an inside job, but this link is absolute proof to the cause of the towers collapse:

www.tms.org...

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

"""exception of WTC 7 where explosives of some sort brought that tower down."""

Could you please be more specific and provide "some sort" of refference to a type of explosives of some sort that you think might have been used on 7??
"Explosives of some sort"???
You have to give us something!!!
At least a theory; on type, quantity, where they were placed, how were they detonated, how were the explosions muffled, etc...
Please...


[edit on 23-11-2009 by rush969]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Let's use the physics defined version of fulcrum. It makes no difference to my argument.

So, where was the fulcrum?

The core or the wall?

First I said the core was the fulcrum. It was literally already posted on this thread, in previous posts.


Then YOU said, "There is no fulcrum, only a 'hinge'."


I said, "WTF is a hinge?"


Now you say, "Fine, it's a fulcrum, it doesn't make any difference, now where is it?"




Go back and re-read my posts again and you will get my response -- AGAIN. It does not matter if you want to disagree where the fulcrum was, because the tilting is obvious and all tilting NECESSITATES a fulcrum -- therefore if there was a tilt then there was a fulcrum by definition.


If you think about these things and realize them before you knee-jerk more posts, you won't have to back track 10 posts like that to admit you were wrong to begin with.

Originally posted by Nutter
You forgot to include that bending describes compression on one side and tension on the other.

Yes, that is the next common sense realization Joey is bound to have, unless he just digs himself further into a warped sense of reality just to deny what we say.


He was originally trying to say the tilt did not represent an asymmetrical loading condition for the global collapse to begin with. He is trying to say a tilt is somehow still a symmetrical loading condition.

We'll see how this mess unfolds I suppose...

Originally posted by bsbray11

It does not matter if you want to disagree where the fulcrum was,

Oh, but it does matter.

If the fulcrum is the core, then Valhall's thoughts are correct.

If you're not a troll, and admit that the fulcrum was the wall, then she's wrong.

So which was it?

Core, or wall?

Originally posted by bsbray11

He was originally trying to say the tilt did not represent an asymmetrical loading condition for the global collapse to begin with. He is trying to say a tilt is somehow still a symmetrical loading condition.

Wow.

Your memory sucks dude. Lay off the chronic.

I said the impact damage is assymetrical damage. I said the top tilting during the collapse initiation answers the question about whether or not it was a symmetric collapse. Namely, the part that would be expected to be affected by the assymetric damage - the top - collapsed assymetrically. Nothing strange there.

Then to the question about why the REST of the collapse was roughly symmetric, I asked why wouldn't it be, since there was no damage. You have no rebuttal for this so far.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
It does not matter if you want to disagree where the fulcrum was,

Oh, but it does matter.

Oh, but you still don't know what in the hell you're talking about.

Just like there wasn't a fulcrum, there was a "hinge," right? But oh wait -- no, it was a fulcrum.

You're learning this stuff as you go along, and making half of it up until you're corrected, and refusing to change most of what you say even then.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
If the fulcrum is the core, then Valhall's thoughts are correct.

If you're not a troll, and admit that the fulcrum was the wall, then she's wrong.

Whatever happened to this?:

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Yup, only there was no fulcrum. The far side wall acted as a hinge for a few degrees, until it exceeded its capacity to hold up load, then it collapsed down.

The fulcrum is a feature of the Valhal's delusional belief that there was tilting/tension, etc.

Your memory sucks dude. Lay off the chronic.

I said the impact damage is assymetrical damage.

Wrong:

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
I shouldn't have to explain how that tilt created asymmetrical loading

it woud be hilarious to see you try to show that, cuz you'd then have to treat the upper portion as a rigid block too, that was incapable of being destroyed from the bottom up.

You were clearly arguing that there was no asymmetrical loading from the tilt, not from plane impacts.

So now you have been reduced to lying about what you said in order to make up for how asinine it was. I don't believe any amount of "chronic" you could smoke could excuse you for outright lying about what you've posted. But being a troll offers a good explanation as to why you would lie like that.

Then to the question about why the REST of the collapse was roughly symmetric, I asked why wouldn't it be, since there was no damage. You have no rebuttal for this so far.

You must be unable to read the words "asymmetric loading condition." You know, the initial tilt of the entire upper block of building?

I was telling you the same thing 2 or 3 pages ago. Seriously, Joey, I am wiping the floor with you based only on the asinine comments you have provided me yourself over the course of the past couple pages. Why doesn't ATS have any REAL "debunkers"?