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.

 

9/11 demolition theory debunkers

page: 11
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Bob Villa? Really? Still, I don't care what you find at internet college. Furniture, equipment and anything else doesn't move is "dead load". Things that move are "live load". Furniture and equipment that are not permanently affixed may become live, but when stationary they are dead. They may not be part of the structure but the loading effect is the same. Unlike a something that moves. Live loads have the potential of altering their loading profile. Think about walking. As you walk you are constantly changing the amount of pressure or loading that you are subjecting the structure to, start running and it changes again. Start hopping and now we have a different load profile plus an impact load.


ROFL

My are you brilliant. Why don't you find live load in the NCSTAR1 report.

This is not a complicated concept. The building is dead load. Everything else ain't?

psik




posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Bob Villa? Really? Still, I don't care what you find at internet college. Furniture, equipment and anything else doesn't move is "dead load". Things that move are "live load". Furniture and equipment that are not permanently affixed may become live, but when stationary they are dead. They may not be part of the structure but the loading effect is the same. Unlike a something that moves. Live loads have the potential of altering their loading profile. Think about walking. As you walk you are constantly changing the amount of pressure or loading that you are subjecting the structure to, start running and it changes again. Start hopping and now we have a different load profile plus an impact load.


Here it what the NIST says about live loads:

NCSTAR1-1

Live Loads

Live loads are those resulting from the use and occupancy of the building, and include loads such as weights of occupants, furniture, filing cabinets, safes, mechanical equipment, and other items that the structure is called upon to support. Live loads are specified in terms of weight per unit of floor (or roof) area or in terms of concentrated loads. The values specified in codes are based largely on load survey data, experience, and judgment.

Floor Live Loads
In general, values of minimum uniformly distributed live loads specified in codes are organized on the basis of use or occupancy of spaces, and there is no consistency in the names of these use categories. Thus, comparison between codes is not straightforward. Table 4-2 gives some examples of minimum uniformly distributed live loads for floors. It is seen that there is general agreement in the values of these selected minimum uniform live loads specified by the four codes.


Strike Three! You're Out!

This is why we can't get this crap resolved. Endless idiotic denials of even trivial BS.

So now ridicule the NIST all you like.

Google "Live loads are those resulting from" and see what turns up.

It didn't take long for me to find since I have the NCSTAR1 report burned to DVD. But I don't see any point in reading posts by someone that plays such trivial games over an issue this important.

psik



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The values specified in codes are based largely on load survey data, experience, and judgment.


Reading is fundamental!

You are dancing around the simple fact that anything you would need to know about the towers is in that report. The only thing not in there is someone to pay attention to you. Sorry.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

It didn't take long for me to find since I have the NCSTAR1 report burned to DVD.

psik


Hiya - just have a quick question on the NCSTAR reports if you don't mind and apologies if this has been covered before I'm new to the topic.

In NCSTAR1A (Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Centre 7) there is a detailed sub chapter on the 'Timing of Collapse Initiation and Progression' (3.6 on pg.44). I was wondering if you know of a similar section to discuss the collapse timing for WTC 1 & 2. I was unable to find a section specifically in NCSTAR1 or the more detailed NCSTAR1-6 'Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Centre Towers'.

I'm assuming that it's just an oversight on my part and would welcome you pointing me to the correct report or section.

Thanks for any responses that assist with my research - good day.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Well, prove me wrong.


You could prove yourself wrong with the slightest bit of effort.


How? How could I know what research you've done?

Are you suggesting that your research is all over the internet? If I just google "Jezus's 9/11 research" I will get pages of your personal discoveries?

I genuinely cannot believe that you are failing to grasp this. I will explain it one more time.

Your contention is that you have done some original research into 9/11.

I asked you for some evidence to prove that you have indeed done some original research. I'm not even asking for the material itself. Just a general pointer as to what it might be.

And yet you continually act as though I am asking for any 9/11 research, by anybody. I'm not. I'm interested in what you personally have accomplished, as per your claim above.

Note that this question has nothing to do with 9/11 being or not being an "inside job". I'm not asking to discuss that and I'm not at this point disagreeing or agreeing with you. As such your contention that you won't answer because "I just don't have an open mind" is fallacious.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I genuinely cannot believe that you are failing to grasp this. I will explain it one more time.

The slightest bit of research and critical thinking will reveal the truth.

I have no interest in debating someone like you about the details.

It has been done MANY times already.

If you don’t understand the evidence by now, it is because of a personal issue.

I’m sorry if this is frustrating for you.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


" When the north tower, the first to go up, was finally topped out on Dec. 23, 1970, it was foggy, and no one could see the view. But James Endler, the West Point grad and construction contractor who oversaw the entire job for the Port Authority, made a point of showing up at a celebration for the workers held on one of the skeletal upper floors -- the first open-air party ever to take place 1,300 feet above the street. There was a band, soda and sandwiches. But when the band played the Mexican hat dance, the construction workers started stomping in unison, and Endler -- standing next to Jack Kyle, the Port Authority's chief engineer -- began to feel odd vibrations in the structure. The floor did not seem steady. After all the wind-tunnel tests, the computer calculations, the structural innovations, had something been missed? Had the thousands upon thousands of steel parts been fitted together incorrectly?

''Jack, how do we stop that vibration?'' Endler asked.

Kyle turned to him, expressionless. ''Don't play that song anymore,'' he advised. "


Hopefully , you can understand the implications of the above without asking for an explanation .

And yes , that would represent a 'live load' . Wouldn't you agree ?

Vibrations were felt due to workers dancing . Now , try to imagine what effect an airplane will have on the same structure after slamming into it at 4-500 mph .

www.nytimes.com...

[edit on 26-8-2010 by okbmd]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Okay. You're trolling. You haven't done any research and you're unwilling to admit it.

Nobody could miss the point by such a wide margin when it's been so obviously explained.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Bones, I agree with you and support your endeavor, however you are just wasting your time with some of the kids in here. They are here to play. Another good topic turned against good decent people who are on a continue journey in searching for the truth. In my opinion, some of you so call debunkers are not debunkers and do not know how to debunk. Many of you enjoy using ATS to play games and attack Truthers. This is what I see from most debunkers in the 911 forums; don’t believe me, just read some of the outrages statements from some of you. Many of you debunkers actually believe your opinions are above science, and physics as many of you have just demonstrated here today, on this thread. In my opinions, some of you are “hecklers,” not debunkers.

There are some debunkers that post in the 911 forums that are real debunkers most people have no trouble distinguishing the different from the “hecklers,” to serious debunkers.
A good debunker does not put himself above everyone.
A good debunker post credible sources to back his claims.
A good debunker does not demand his opinions are the truth.
A good debunker does not tell lies.
A good debunker does not twist the facts.
A good debunker is not emotional.
A good debunker respects the person he is having a debate with.
A good debunker does not need to insult his opponent.
A good debunker researches his topic before debating.

To be a Truther one must always keep an open mind.
To be a Truther one must research all sides of the topic.
To be a Truther one does not tell lies.
To be a Truther one does not distort the facts.
To be a Truther one doesn’t need to make up insane garbage as space beings, laser weapons, or invisible creatures from the under world pulled off 911.
To be a Truther one doesn’t need to insult and attack anyone.
To be a Truther one must respect his opponent.
To be a Truther one must show his sources to back their claims.
To be a Truther one, cannot believe in fairytales.
Once the truth is established it stands on it own, it cannot be torn down.


excellent post impressme.

little reminder for you all.


[edit on 8/27/2010 by JPhish]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

Vibrations were felt due to workers dancing . Now , try to imagine what effect an airplane will have on the same structure after slamming into it at 4-500 mph .


YOU can IMAGINE whatever you like.

Assuming the story is true that could have been affecting only one floor assembly. And what does an ODD vibration mean? Coincidental resonances can do strange things. It could have been some vibrating equipment that they took with them when they left and not the building at all.

How many times did the buildings withstand 100 mph winds since then? One wbsite said SIX but I haven't been able to confirm that.

That has no effect on needing to know the distribution of mass to analyze a supposed collapse.

This demonstrates more than any antiquated anecdotes.

www.youtube.com...

ODD VIBRATIONS are so Scientific.

psik

[edit on 27-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Typical response . But honestly , I didn't expect anything better than that . So , thanks for not disappointing .

Here's another little gem for you to brush aside :

"The trade-center towers could be the...biggest tombstones in the world."
Ada Louise Huxtable , architecture critic . New York Times , 1966 .



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Jezus
 


Okay. You're trolling. You haven't done any research and you're unwilling to admit it.

Nobody could miss the point by such a wide margin when it's been so obviously explained.


The great thing about actually doing research and critical thinking is that you don't have to make any assumptions or speculate on the truth.

You can actually prove it to yourself.

But I guess it is easier for you just to trust the official story and have faith that it is true...

This is easier than actually doing some reading...



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
If 9/11 was a closed case then why do debunkers waste their time arguing with truthers?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Wide-Eyes
 


Why do they spend SO MUCH of their time arguing with people they claim are not just wrong, but DELUSIONAL.

Why would anyone spend so much of their life repeatedly telling a delusional person that they are delusional?



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Wide-Eyes
 


I think my thread has really answered my own question for me, the vast majority of this thread has been about the demolition theory whether 'truther' or 'debunker'. Hardly any of the other conspiratorial aspects of 9/11 have been discussed...as i do not believe in the 9/11 demolition theory i find it sad how this is what it has become.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Typical response . But honestly , I didn't expect anything better than that . So , thanks for not disappointing .

Here's another little gem for you to brush aside :

"The trade-center towers could be the...biggest tombstones in the world."
Ada Louise Huxtable , architecture critic . New York Times , 1966 .


And you delivered a "typical response".

PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLSH!T!!!

You can't even tell us the weight of a floor assembly but we are supposed to care about some "tombstones" rubbish. Some people want this issue kept on the level of emotional rubbish instead of solving the problem.

psik



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Jezus
 


Okay. You're trolling. You haven't done any research and you're unwilling to admit it.

Nobody could miss the point by such a wide margin when it's been so obviously explained.


The great thing about actually doing research and critical thinking is that you don't have to make any assumptions or speculate on the truth.

You can actually prove it to yourself.

But I guess it is easier for you just to trust the official story and have faith that it is true...

This is easier than actually doing some reading...
Critical thinking and Research is great. You know what's even better than talking about it over and over again? Actually doing it, as well as showing that you did it by showing some actual evidence. Oh, and just to beat you to the punch:

"How about doing some actual research and critical thinking? Stop being such a mindless believer of the official story that I claim is full of errors without mentioning any actual errors"

But then again, you will reply to that response with:

"Well it's true, you haven't done any research and critical thinking. You see, the difference between me not using google and you not using google is that 9/11 was an inside job. If you don't know this, you aren't using the right search terms."

And you will reply to that with basically the same thing, just worded differently. Do you have a phobia of posting links or something? Will the government kill your family if you dare post a link to that infowars article which proves once and for all that 9/11 was inside job? Did Popular Mechanics strap a homemade bomb to your head that will go off the moment you copy and paste the web address to AE911TRUTH?

Chances are you're going to call some sort of logical fallacy on me, something declaring that as a victory, despite the fact that you've managed to say nothing in literally all of your posts you've made in this thread.

[edit on 29-8-2010 by technical difficulties]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by technical difficulties
showing some actual evidence


Where have you been for the last 9 years?

The actual evidence has already been shown...


Originally posted by technical difficulties
mentioning any actual errors


Where have you been for the last 9 years?

The errors have already been mentioned...

You don't even have to use Google, ATS has a nice search function and you will find the debate you are trying to have has already been done...repeatedly.


Originally posted by technical difficulties
Do you have a phobia of posting links or something?


No...I have a phobia of engaging a debate with someone that has no desire to learn anything...

You just want to argue...I'm sorry but this has already been done OVER and OVER again.

If you already did the research, and you already did the critical thinking, and you STILL believe the "Official Story", I can't help you...

It isn't that complex, if you don't get it by now then it must be a personal issue.

I'm sorry if this is frustrating for you...



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


You haven't done any research. You pretty much admit this above.

Apart from, I suppose, reading a bit of 911blogger and Alex Jones and nodding like one of those dogs in the back seat of a car. Well done, but that hardly counts.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Jezus
 


You haven't done any research.


You haven't done anything because you are too busy arguing and listening to others.

Think for yourself.

Do some research and critical thinking.

Don't worry about my research or my opinion, but instead worry about proving the truth to yourself.

While extensive research will make things very clear it only takes a little bit of research to realize how ridiculous the official story is.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join