Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

Originally posted by Ben81
reply to post by FDNY343

 

So... you beleive the official version to be accurate ??

100 % accurate ????

No. I believe that the NIST underestimated the fuel loads in the towers. That includes 7WTC. But, it doesn't matter. They showed that even with the lower fuel loads, and the lower temperatures, it would still collapse.

Do you have a point?

reply to post by ANOK


oh thank you for the correction. that's very interesting..

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by ANOK
no mass was left in the footprints to account for any crushing of floors by other floors.

What was in the basement then? Nothing? Not a single piece went into the basement?

Hummm......You've ignored this before. Will you do it again?

When did I ignore this lol? I seem to remember you making this claim to bsbray and you failed.

The basement huh? What evidence do you have that the basements filled up with floors?

Do you think the basement was just a huge empty cavern lol?

Here's a pic of basement level 4, what do you notice?



The basements was 6 floors of shopping mall, parking, and underground train terminal, you really think that is enough to hide all the debris?

If you're just going to keep making things up at least research the possibility first.

reply to post by ANOK


Oh great, he's trying the "all the mass crammed into the basements even though the structure on the ground level was still intact and there was clearly a massive amount of mass from the buildings spread radially in all directions" argument again.


Apparently FDNY is the only "investigator" to realize that all the WTC mass was crammed into their basements, rather than being thrown out in all directions like everyone else can see with their eyeballs in every single "collapse" video.



I wonder if FEMA noticed any large amount of debris all crammed down into the basements?

Originally posted by FDNY343
No. I believe that the NIST underestimated the fuel loads in the towers. That includes 7WTC. But, it doesn't matter. They showed that even with the lower fuel loads, and the lower temperatures, it would still collapse.

NIST showed all that, really?


Is that why they called their final ideas a "hypothesis" rather than a fact or even a theory?

So what do you think the NIST report proved, exactly? I've had years to look over it and I never found anything. I'm glad someone like you has finally come along to show what NIST proved. When did you read their report?

Originally posted by tallymebanana
reply to post by ANOK

 

oh thank you for the correction. that's very interesting..

No problem it's an easy assumption to make.

At least you except the correction, most of our resident OSers would still argue they're right regardless of evidence to the contrary.

The following table gives links to a set of images for each of the core columns...

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

The gifs on that site show the core columns and the size as they tapered.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by ANOK

 

Oh great, he's trying the "all the mass crammed into the basements even though the structure on the ground level was still intact and there was clearly a massive amount of mass from the buildings spread radially in all directions" argument again.


Apparently FDNY is the only "investigator" to realize that all the WTC mass was crammed into their basements, rather than being thrown out in all directions like everyone else can see with their eyeballs in every single "collapse" video.

I wonder if FEMA noticed any large amount of debris all crammed down into the basements?

edit on 10-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

I never claimed that all the debris went into the basement. But, I know for a fact that some of it did.

See here






These are pictures from the basement area of the WTC Towers. Do you see it completly intact? I certainly don't.

Here is a photo of the PATH station after the attack.
www.hudsoncity.net...

Oh **** that's not intact either!! WTF happened to it????

Yeah, so was there parts of the floors that ended up in the lower levels of the WTC?

Absolutely yes.

Did ALL of the debis from the above levels go into the basement? No. That is a strawman that you people have made up.

Here is another interesting photo. Someone claimed, (I don't recall who, either BSB or ANOK, or maybe someone else, but....) that there were no debris in the footprint, or that there was nothing left to collapse the lower lobby levels, or something of that sort.

Well, here is a great photo.




This is the lobby areas of the WTC tower. Notice the debris piled up to almost the top where the "candlesticks" begin?

Here is a good reference to how tall that is.



Now, who can't do research?

It certainly isn't me, that's for damn certain.

I've got hundreds more photos just like the ones I posted.

Originally posted by bsbray11
NIST showed all that, really?

Yes. Try reading it for comprehension.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Is that why they called their final ideas a "hypothesis" rather than a fact or even a theory?

No, it's because there are variables that they couldn't account for. It's called a margin of error. And because we didn't have video and thermocouplers, and millions of sensors inside the tower to measure displacement, it cannot be proven 100%. Maybe column 505 fell before column 509? Maybe? That is why it is the best available hypothesis.

Maybe you have a better one that matches the fact and know events of the day, and is backed by 10,000 pages of documentation and science?

Originally posted by bsbray11
So what do you think the NIST report proved, exactly?

That it was not a controlled demolition.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I've had years to look over it and I never found anything.

Maybe you should try reading it, instead of just looking at it.

www.wtc.nist.gov

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm glad someone like you has finally come along to show what NIST proved. When did you read their report?

I read it in 2009-2010.

When did you read it? You state that you have looked at it, but did you read it?

This is what NIST found. They even address explosives.

www.youtube.com.../f/14/PK_iBYSqEsc

NIST is used to evaluate accidents and recommend building codes and changes. This was used in the building of WTC7's replacement. They make recommendations. They are not there to investigate the why but how to prevent it from occurring again. There is a big difference as there is double the work.

The NIST WTC recommendations impact about 37 specific national standards, codes, and practice guidelines or regulations. In carrying out this work, NIST recognizes that not all of the recommendations will have an impact on model building codes. Many will impact standards that are referenced in model codes. Others will impact stand alone standards used in practice but not referenced in model codes. A few will impact practices, including education and training, that don't have any impact on codes and standards. Please check the following links...

wtc.nist.gov...
wtc.nist.gov...

The fact that you simply dismiss NIST shows that there is no open mindedness nor the desire for truth. When you discredit everything you are only left with an opinion...

reply to post by FDNY343


Here is another picture of pancaked floors, actually stacked up:



and another

Originally posted by FDNY343
I never claimed that all the debris went into the basement. But, I know for a fact that some of it did.

I didn't claim none of it did either, so what is your point?

So what is some of it did? This is not an all or nothing argument. No one is saying NONE of the buildings rubble was in its footprint, just not enough.

Yeah, so was there parts of the floors that ended up in the lower levels of the WTC?

Absolutely yes.

I hope you realise that the lower levels had floors also, right? How do you know what was from the upper levels and what was from he lower levels?

Did ALL of the debis from the above levels go into the basement? No. That is a strawman that you people have made up.

No it isn't, no one is saying ALL the debris was supposed to be in the footprint, that is a strawman you are making.

But you were trying to claim the missing debris needed for it to be a progressive collapse went into the basement.

Here is another interesting photo. Someone claimed, (I don't recall who, either BSB or ANOK, or maybe someone else, but....) that there were no debris in the footprint, or that there was nothing left to collapse the lower lobby levels, or something of that sort.

Again NO one said there was NO debris in the footprints, strawman.

The debris of a 110 story building doesn't even reach the top of the lobby level. I already showed you this with photos, you are not showing anything that I haven't already shown you.

I also find it interesting you can't remember who you debate what with, maybe that's why you can't keep your arguments straight, and forget what has already been shown and proven.

This is the lobby areas of the WTC tower. Notice the debris piled up to almost the top where the "candlesticks" begin?

Yes I know, I showed YOU a picture of this ages ago to show you no debris was higher than the top of the lobby levels. A progressive collapse, and Bazants paper requires complete floors to be pancaked on top of each other, not crushed debris no higher than the lobby.

Now, who can't do research?

LOL this research has already been done, thanx for verifying mine and others point.

I've got hundreds more photos just like the ones I posted.

Great, post them. You seem to not understand the point, but thanx anyway. You can show me all the pictures in the world, they all show the same thing, the majority of the mass was ejected laterally 360d. For a progressive collapse all the mass would be needed to do the crushing, otherwise how does it crush it's own weight when it is designed to hold it's own weight at least twice (factor of safety). Less mass than it had is not going to do any crushing to a building that was designed to hold it's own full mass.

reply to post by ANOK


This is incorrect

For a progressive collapse all the mass would be needed to do the crushing, otherwise how does it crush it's own weight when it is designed to hold it's own weight at least twice (factor of safety). Less mass than it had is not going to do any crushing to a building that was designed to hold it's own full mass.

It did not need all of the mass as there was plenty when it collapsed. There was MORE than enough mass when it started to topple and fall to crush the inner structure, which is what happened at the WTC 1 and 2. The inner core was attached to an outer core. When it failed, it does not take a genius to know what would happen. Nothing melted..it did not have too. It weakened and failed.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by FDNY343

 

Here is another picture of pancaked floors, actually stacked up:



and another

You've shown those pics before with no reference. How do we know that is the towers?

Even so we already know how high the debris pile was, as shown in the pics kindly provided by FDNY, not enough to account for a 110 story building progressively collapsing. Any mass ejected would be less mass to do any crushing. There is not enough energy in the building itself to completely crush itself, there would have been floors visible, not a pile of crushed debris.

Originally posted by esdad71
It did not need all of the mass as there was plenty when it collapsed. There was MORE than enough mass when it started to topple and fall to crush the inner structure, which is what happened at the WTC 1 and 2.

No there wasn't. The buildings components have to be designed to a safety factor of at least x2.

Where did the extra mass come from to overcome what it was designed to hold?

The inner core was attached to an outer core. When it failed, it does not take a genius to know what would happen. Nothing melted..it did not have too. It weakened and failed.

When what failed? What failed esdad? The inner core failed? Do you have ANY evidence for that? Please don't quote NIST, because that is what is in question. You can not prove the core failed. How can the core fail? Any failed parts of the core would be compensated for, other parts of the core would take the extra load.

What happened to the sagging truss theory esdad? Is that what you're talking about? You think light weight sagging trusses had the ability to pull in larger 4" thick box columns? It's ironic that OSers want the trusses to be these light weight weak points but also want them to be so strong they can both be sagging from heat expansion and pull in more massive columns. Do you ever think critically esdad?

I never said anything had to melt, strawman. And no it doesn't to take a genius to know what would happen, just common sense and basic physics.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by FDNY343

 

Here is another picture of pancaked floors, actually stacked up:



and another

You've shown those pics before with no reference. How do we know that is the towers?

Even so we already know how high the debris pile was, as shown in the pics kindly provided by FDNY, not enough to account for a 110 story building progressively collapsing. Any mass ejected would be less mass to do any crushing. There is not enough energy in the building itself to completely crush itself, there would have been floors visible, not a pile of crushed debris.

edit on 4/12/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob

I don't suppose that you will be showing any math to go along with this? Or, I dunno, maybe a discussion submitted to Dr. Bazant showing his assumptions incorrect?

It would certainly lend some credibility to your story. When should we be expecting your paper?

Will it be published in Bentham?? *snicker.....Snort**

Yeah, the way I see it, you're not understand Bazant's paper, and you're arguing from your own personal ignorance.

reply to post by ANOK


I'm sure you don't assume that the horizontal trusses were meant to withstand 2 times the vertical stress of the vertical columns, do you?

Horizontal beams are not meant to have nearly as much vertical strain, just a distributed weight of the floor, which was made as lightweight as possible. Once those start failing, as they would "have" to do, or it wouldn't make any sense, the vertical columns will sway from lack of rigidity, very quickly failing as well.

reply to post by ANOK


When the outer core no longer connected to the inner core. That is how the building is designed. It was designed like no other building at that time and I would like you to name 5 other skyscrapers that followed this design. It is unique so you cannot compare to other buildings.

When the structure failed, which you can easily see occur in the South Tower just prior to collapse, there was nothing to hold the upper 20+ floors. The perimeter or outer columns, after trying to sustain the weight, finally snapped and initiated the collapse.

Here is a video I am sure you will not watch but explains to you, in simple terms, what happened and takes away your strawman argument which is not an argument but a theory that you cannot prove.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Varemia

Horizontal beams are not meant to have nearly as much vertical strain, just a distributed weight of the floor, which was made as lightweight as possible.

OK.

Once those start failing, as they would "have" to do, or it wouldn't make any sense...

Why would they "have" to do? Where do you get that assumption from? What wouldn't make any sense?

...the vertical columns will sway from lack of rigidity, very quickly failing as well.

That is just another nonsense assumption. The floors were not holding up the core columns, it's the other way around mate. There is no reason failing trusses would compromise the core columns. The core was the strongest part of the structure, it would not fail from falling trusses. The trusses were not designed to hold anything but the floors, they had nothing to do with the buildings ability to hold itself up.

Think of the outer mesh like a giant box, all four walls are attached to each other at the corners. Does a box need lateral bracing inside to keep it from collapsing down on itself? The core was 47 massive columns cross braced, in the same fashion any steel tower is built that needs nothing else to allow it to stand by itself.

But once again you are still making the assumption that trusses failed. There is no evidence of that, only assumptions. If you ignore those assumptions, logic wouldn't get you back to that hypothesis. Logic wouldn't lead to failing trusses caused the complete failure of a 110 story tower. Get real, you are just doing what NIST did in the first place, making things up to fit a preconceived conclusion. You are not looking at this with an open mind, otherwise you would "have" to admit the OS is incomplete.

Originally posted by esdad71
When the outer core no longer connected to the inner core. That is how the building is designed. It was designed like no other building at that time and I would like you to name 5 other skyscrapers that followed this design. It is unique so you cannot compare to other buildings.

Wrong. WTC was not the first, or last, tube designed building. The first one was built in 1963, and that design is still used today for the world tallest buildings.

en.wikipedia.org...

When the structure failed, which you can easily see occur in the South Tower just prior to collapse, there was nothing to hold the upper 20+ floors. The perimeter or outer columns, after trying to sustain the weight, finally snapped and initiated the collapse.

What weight? The building was designed to hold that weight more than once. How many more times does this have to be explained before one of you get it? Go learn what factor of safety is.

You are just repeating nonsense with nothing to support it, where are your physics that explain how this can happen? Can you use Newtons laws of motion to explain your claims, because I can use them to prove you wrong, and have done already. You must not keep up too much with the discussion because you keep coming back with the same debunked nonsense.

Here is a video I am sure you will not watch but explains to you, in simple terms, what happened and takes away your strawman argument which is not an argument but a theory that you cannot prove.

www.youtube.com...

What strawman? That vid starts out claiming truthers claim the steel had to melt, THAT is a strawman.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by esdad71
When the outer core no longer connected to the inner core. That is how the building is designed. It was designed like no other building at that time and I would like you to name 5 other skyscrapers that followed this design. It is unique so you cannot compare to other buildings.

Wrong. WTC was not the first, or last, tube designed building. The first one was built in 1963, and that design is still used today for the world tallest buildings.

en.wikipedia.org...

When the structure failed, which you can easily see occur in the South Tower just prior to collapse, there was nothing to hold the upper 20+ floors. The perimeter or outer columns, after trying to sustain the weight, finally snapped and initiated the collapse.

What weight? The building was designed to hold that weight more than once. How many more times does this have to be explained before one of you get it? Go learn what factor of safety is.

You are just repeating nonsense with nothing to support it, where are your physics that explain how this can happen? Can you use Newtons laws of motion to explain your claims, because I can use them to prove you wrong, and have done already. You must not keep up too much with the discussion because you keep coming back with the same debunked nonsense.

Here is a video I am sure you will not watch but explains to you, in simple terms, what happened and takes away your strawman argument which is not an argument but a theory that you cannot prove.

www.youtube.com...

What strawman? That vid starts out claiming truthers claim the steel had to melt, THAT is a strawman.

Wrong. You are saying it is a tube structure, which is correct, but it is one of MANY tube designs but not like the WTC. Like I said, name 5 buildings with the SAME exact structure of WTC 1 and 2. They are not the same. Some of the tallest structures use this design but not in the same fashion as the WTC. the WTC was designed and redesigned to extract the greatest amount of rental space possible. Many newer buildings,including the Sears/Willis Tower, is a bundled tube design which is different than the WTC.

What weight? Are you mentally challenged? How about the fact that suddenly 60000 tons of floors above the point of collapse could not support the floors? that is based a 3000 tons per floor...what needs to be explained with physics? I love this argument you guys always throw up like that will scare people away. If there is nothing to hold it up, there is only one way to go....

www.physforum.com...

Please, explain to me how you can use Newton to explain how 60000 tons of concrete, steel and office were to be suspended when it collapsed and float. Gonna call Criss Angel?

Also, watch the video and dont think like a truther or be offended....you might learn something. It shows exactly how it happened. No explosives. No conspiracy. Just the US caught with its pants down.