Enough with the dishonest behaviour Truthers - I'm calling you out.

page: 40
60
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by truthrising2012
 


Controlled explosions start at the bottom, that is the method. There is not one video or eyewitness who says there was an explosion at the the bottom of any building at the WTC. We did see explosions (from the jets) at 100 plus floors above the bottom.

That is certainly suspect in saying if it were a controlled explosion or not. Since the explosion occurred where the plane hit, that would mean a plane did hit it.

All controlled explosions start at the bottom. Did you see an explosion at the bottom of the WTC?




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by truthrising2012
 


Controlled explosions start at the bottom, that is the method. There is not one video or eyewitness who says there was an explosion at the the bottom of any building at the WTC. We did see explosions (from the jets) at 100 plus floors above the bottom.

That is certainly suspect in saying if it were a controlled explosion or not. Since the explosion occurred where the plane hit, that would mean a plane did hit it.

All controlled explosions start at the bottom. Did you see an explosion at the bottom of the WTC?



Me personally? No I wasn't at the location when it occurred. I also don't recall anyone at the base or basement of the WTC ever hearing any explosions, only the people on the exact floor of where the plane hit is where they heard the explosion of the impact of the plane hitting the building.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthrising2012

Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by truthrising2012
 


Controlled explosions start at the bottom, that is the method. There is not one video or eyewitness who says there was an explosion at the the bottom of any building at the WTC. We did see explosions (from the jets) at 100 plus floors above the bottom.

That is certainly suspect in saying if it were a controlled explosion or not. Since the explosion occurred where the plane hit, that would mean a plane did hit it.

All controlled explosions start at the bottom. Did you see an explosion at the bottom of the WTC?



Me personally? No I wasn't at the location when it occurred. I also don't recall anyone at the base or basement of the WTC ever hearing any explosions, only the people on the exact floor of where the plane hit is where they heard the explosion of the impact of the plane hitting the building.


Applause and a star. Thank you.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Underwriters
Laboratories performed four tests which incorporated six variables:
1. Truss span: 17 ft or 35 ft
2. SFRM thickness: 3/4 inch or 1/2 inch
3. Restrained (unable to flex with expansion) or unrestrained
All four tests incorporated the full design load. In an effort to keep the results scaled for the
shorter lengths, the load assigned to them was doubled.
What they found was that
“All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours
without collapsing.” (NCSTAR 1, 143)
In the opening pages, NIST confirms that
“…in all cases, the floors continued to support the full design load without collapse for
over 2 hours.” (NCSTAR 1, xli)


Source

the performance test actually go against what they are saying....Also NIST could not even get access to the area...or most of the materials that would be necessary to come to reasonable conclusions.

But keep on believing what you are being told,,,,,,

As you see even NISTS own testing did not support what wayne posted...



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube

I have read it and it does not back up one thing of what you said...it is saying after the collapse and looking at the seats they were bent down.....
.


It means exactly that NIST agrees with a pancake-like collapse progression.

But you don't want to believe it.

Fine.

I'll find the passage in the actual NIST report. Then you can confront your conflicting beliefs.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube

the performance test actually go against what they are saying....Also NIST could not even get access to the area...or most of the materials that would be necessary to come to reasonable conclusions.

But keep on believing what you are being told,,,,,,

As you see even NISTS own testing did not support what wayne posted...


You are out of your league here. that is obvious to any neutral party.

At best, the study of the trusses and their reaction to being exposed to fire can be used as an argument by truthers when they want to argue the collapse initiation.

Not the collapse progression. As in collapse progression to the ground...



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





The 2nd law does not contradict the 3rd law, they all work together. The 2nd law explain the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration. You have to consider the 3rd law in context. The 3rd law states that when two objects collide the forces on both objects is EQUAL, which is why 15 floors can not crush 95 floors. An increase of mass, or velocity, of one object increases the forces felt by BOTH objects, again equally.


The fact that you are confused over this is why you can't see a problem with the NIST explanation of the collapses. I know it's hard to get your head around, and just reading about it on line might not help you understand what you're reading.

Do they not teach this stuff in high school any more?



I believe that you are the one that does not understand.

The above floors are falling increasing in velocity. Are they not?

You do not need 15 floors to crush 95 floors. All you need is 15 floors crushing the top of the next floor to be crushed. The rest of the 95 floors has nothing to do with the I beam bolts, gussets, clips whatever you want to call the whole package. The bottom floor has nothing to do with the upper floor accepting the load of the falling floors.....


The single I beam clips(or channel) along with the two 5/8 inch bolts connecting the upper part of the truss and the two 1 inch bolts connecting the bottom of the truss to the I beams.........Bolts have something called shear strength....


Shear strength in engineering is a term used to describe the strength of a material or component against the type of yield or structural failure where the material or component fails in shear. A shear load is a force that tends to produce a sliding failure on a material along a plane that is parallel to the direction of the force. When a paper is cut with scissors, the paper fails in shear.

In structural and mechanical engineering the shear strength of a component is important for designing the dimensions and materials to be used for the manufacture/construction of the component (e.g. beams, plates, or bolts) In a reinforced concrete beam, the main purpose of stirrups is to increase the shear strength..

en.wikipedia.org...

The construction aspects of the I beams and truss gussets, bolts, clips were subject to forces outside of their design specifications..

A design specification provides explicit information about the requirements for a product and how the product is to be put together. It is the most traditional kind of specification, having been used historically in public contracting for buildings, highways, and other public works, and represents the kind of thinking in which architects and engineers have been trained. Its use is called for where a structure or product has to be specially made to meet a unique need. For example, a design specification must include all necessary drawings, dimensions, terms, and definitions of non-standard terms, and the materials used must be described fully to include thickness, size, color, etc.

en.wikipedia.org...
Secondly, I do not give a crap about the nIST report. I can do my own research. You guys can go on and argue about "what ifs" and "possiblities" of the report. I am capable of making my own sound judgements from the facts.........

For you to sit and question my educational background shows me that you wish to sit and bicker about who's got the bigger di%&........

You are wrong about Newton's Laws. They completely explain how the upper mass while accelerating and picking up momentem can subject the construction materials well pass their design specifications.

I see you repetitively stateing Newtons Laws but do not even attempt to put them in a construction perspective......15 floors only fell on one floor......

You seem to be the one lacking in construction understanding.......I really think that you are out to sound smart for stars and flags from a less educated crowd around here......

By the way I have stated so many times here on ATS that I have completed two years of welding technologies at the collegiate level....I had a pretty good GPA.

Please do not question my education again....... I believe that you are the one misinterpreting Newton's Laws to feed your agenda.

Have you taken any classes concerning metals and construction?....... I have.........

Again why do you keep bring ing up the NIST explanation? I do not believe I have quoted anything from that thing recently. I gave up on it because alot of the infomation even says "probably".

edit on 16-9-2011 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by Ewok_Boba
 


So a computer burning in one room can cause damage? That much you admit? And the video I posted was silly and I posted it for a reason. It is people like you who demand credibility while yet denying the credible accounts of the victims and witnesses.

Do you even know where the origins of the lies came from?

Here is one link www.slate.com...

We can post videos all day long, but at the end of the day, airplanes were hijacked, thousands were killed and the Twin Towers fell. Why is it so hard to give any honor and remembrance to those who died?


What does any of this have anything to do with honor and remembrance. I'm talking about your credible sources as to how electronics contributed to a fire which burned support on a skyscraper. Stay on topic, or don't expect another response. Enough with the "people like you" nonsense. I never denied the "credible" accounts of victims and witnesses. This is just about electronic contributions to the fire. You're stonewalling. Either stick to the point, or just stop responding.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube

Well you my friend are out of date as NIST throughout the pancake theory with the wash approximately 3yrs ago....so you might want to look that up....


Time for the money shot.

From : 1-3C p 117.

"Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking." "

www.nist.gov...

Consider yourself bukakked.

Will you now do as I asked? Will you refute publically your claim that NIST has "thrown out" the pan-cake collapse progression?

Cuz to the rational, it looks like something else.....



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


sorry mate your whole thing failed.....and you can go on and on...but it does matter big time and the energy is transferred and...yes soon as the upper block hit that special floor your talking about...engery is transferred in the fracturing of the seats and dampers....also you have a massive central core which in your repsonse you have not taken into accound at all....where it is actually resisting the falling upper block....and also the upper block would not just collapse symetrically upon itself in one go in the same way with two different impacts....which would have affected each building differently....

now to say that the physics don't apply because why...IT' S construction....now that is just unbelievable.....as basically for it to stand the forces actually need to add up to zero or you need to build the structure with enough stength to over come all forces...in this case...gravitiy and the structures own load.

shear strength you seem to feel has not been discussed in these threads before....you could actually use the term and it would have been understood. but yes the conservation of momentum and energy definately applys in this under all circumtances...just as it applied to the planes hitting the structure....they had momentum.

let me ask you this.....say the plane exerted 20000N of force upon the tower...how much did the tower exert on the plane.

also the seats were connected to the spandrels of the perimeters wllas and they were connected to the I-Beams of the core.



Conservation of Momentum
The momentum of an isolated system is a constant. The vector sum of the momenta mv of all the objects of a system cannot be changed by interactions within the system. This puts a strong constraint on the types of motions which can occur in an isolated system. If one part of the system is given a momentum in a given direction, then some other part or parts of the system must simultaneously be given exactly the same momentum in the opposite direction. As far as we can tell, conservation of momentum is an absolute symmetry of nature. That is, we do not know of anything in nature that violates it.


now as you can see in this law...and read the end.....we do not know of anything in nature that violates it....the momentum from the upper block will tranfers that potential energy into the lower block...but that engery will soon enough run down.


Conservation of Angular Momentum
The angular momentum of an isolated system remains constant in both magnitude and direction. The angular momentum is defined as the product of the moment of inertia I and the angular velocity. The angular momentum is a vector quantity and the vector sum of the angular momenta of the parts of an isolated system is constant. This puts a strong constraint on the types of rotational motions which can occur in an isolated system. If one part of the system is given an angular momentum in a given direction, then some other part or parts of the system must simultaneously be given exactly the same angular momentum in the opposite direction. As far as we can tell, conservation of angular momentum is an absolute symmetry of nature. That is, we do not know of anything in nature that violates it.





Disappearing Angular Momentum
The deceleration of the top's rotation is even more discrediting to the idea of a gravity-driven collapse, which cannot explain the documented changes in angular momentum. Conservation of angular momentum is the tendency of a rotating solid object to continue rotating at the same rate in the absence of torque. Initially the block consisting of the top 30 stories of the tower acted as a solid object, and rotated about a fulcrum near the impact zone. Although the fulcrum was the axis of rotation, the block had two types of momentum: the angular momentum of the block around its center of gravity, and the linear momentum of its center of gravity tilting away from the tower's vertical axis. When the portion of the building below the collapse zone disintegrated, the block would preserve its angular momentum by continuing to rotate at the same rate (but the acceleration of the rotation would cease due to the removal of the torque that was being applied by intact columns at the fulcrum). But in reality, the rotation of the block rapidly decelerated as the downward plunge began. Once the fall started, any resistance it encountered from parts of the building would have imparted torque on the block in the same direction as the original fulcrum, and would have accelerated its rotation.

Given the apparent absence of any torque to counter the rotation of the block, the slowing of its rotation can only be explained by the breakup of most of the block, which would have destroyed its moment of inertia.


SOURCE
edit on 053030p://f34Friday by plube because: (no reason given)
edit on 053030p://f35Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Not sure if this has been covered because i don't wanna spend the next few hours reading the past 40 pages, but one question i've always felt was valid for anyone who believe that it really was fires that brought it down is this;

How would you, the original poster and the like, melt steel which is rated for 2600-2800 degrees when the fire temperatures alleged in the official story were only 1300 degrees?

or

Have you ever played the game Jenga? For those who don't know, it is a game where you stack wooden rectangles 3 wide and in an alternating fashion, with object of the game being to remove one wooden piece at a time without the tower collapsing. When you remove an outer piece along with the middle piece of the same level, everything above that falls off and away from the footprint of the tower, or, in other words, takes the path of least resistance. Considering the official story claims that both planes damaged the exterior as well as the inner columns, why did the top of the building not do the same? Another analogy could be when you are cutting a tree down, you cut through roughly 75% of the trunk as to allow the tree to fall in a somewhat predictable manner. Why did we not see at the very least the tops of either building falling off and onto the surrounding building instead of down into it's own footprint for the most part.

or

How would you explain the top center of all 3 towers, including wtc 7, collapsed inwards out. To ellaborate., why did the antenna of the north tower fall through the building before any other part of the building? Since the planes damaged one side of the buildings, wouldn't it be simpler for the outer edge of the tower to collapse first on the side where they were damaged and instead of through the path of greatest resistance? Same question for building 7 and it's related pent house.

or

How would one explain the pyroclastic clouds that have become so infamous of the collapse, for filling the streets of Manhattan with dust and ash? Even if your logic was right and the building collapsed inside it self without the aid of explosives, there is not enough energy in the free fall to pulverize all of the concrete into dust from each floor. As per estimates by physicists, it would require 10 times the kinetic energy which the buildings fell with to turn the concrete to hot ash which is what happened, Unless you can offer an alternative to the clouds being pulverized concrete, i feel you have not researched your topic and are as prepared for debate as you could be.

and

How would one explain the chemical tracers for military grade thermite and actual solid pieces of thermite being found in the dust and ash? A document you can read on the topic;

911research.wtc7.net...

If i were to begin debunking 9/11 i would start with the people who believe it was a controlled demolition, and watch every documentary i could, with a note-pad and pen, and one by one list all the claims made by truthers on the topic, and debunk them individually, and with worthwhile research. For example, can you prove with facts and evidence any of the claims you made in the original post? If so i would greatly desire seeing them as i am a truth-er as well.

And lastly, another one of my favorite questions; how does a falling building melt steel into pools which so many claim to have been at the bottom of rubble, and in the basement. Fire fighters claimed it was like a foundry in the basement with pools of molten steel before the building even collapsed?

www.infowars.com...

Again let me state that in the 9/11 commision report, they claim that the fires only reached as high as 1300 degrees and let me say it again, steel melts at twice that temperature. So if it was just fire, then how in the world did it melt steel? If you feel that the firefighters were just lying then why should you trust any fire fighter to save your ass if all that they are looked for is fame or fortune, and additionally how can you trust any architect or engineer, especially the one who designed your apartment or home when 1 in 10 run around spouting this ridiculous conspiracy. I am a firm believer in occums razor, which i in science, when presented with two ideas, the simpler logic tends be correct. So here are your choices, you choose what is more probable;

A building designed to specifically handle the weight and impact of a 707 ainplane, defied both physics and thermodynamics, by collapsing coincidentally in the most uniform fashion, and that two airplanes were able to bring down 3 buildings constructed of concrete and steel in about an hour.

or

Did the building collapse in a fashion that is in near complete disagreement with the story purported by our government? Whether or not they were aided by the U.S. government is raw speculation, so i offer no argument for that viewpoint.

I can keep going...



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


don't even need to acknowledge that one mate...but i see your insolence has not improved...is this one upmanship your trying...did you even bother to look at the date of that report.....

you know why they had to recant....it's because it was proven the towers would not have collapsed in the time they did if pancaking occured...do you know why this is....IT is because of the law of conservation and momentum.....TIME the time would not allow this to occur....

but you go ahead and go back and try again...it was a nice try....but hey....you keep believing what you seem to feel so strongly about.....thats ok....

i know my background...and i have a fairly decent understanding of what did not occur on the day....

It is your loss to just believe what a biased report tells you....and not only that a report that has not yet met any of the observed circumstances on the day....the problem here is the truthers look at the observable data also...which FEMA and NIST failed to do......so when the time comes i hope you enjoy your stay in the Fema camps.....Because i wont be there with you.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube

don't even need to acknowledge that one mate


Correction.

You can't, cuz it clearly proves that you have been deceived by others. And since the majority of truther beliefs are based on how you have looked at all the evidence, and this positively proves that you personally haven't..... well then, once again, the rational can see that your statements/beliefs are nothing but a hollow lie, backed by nothing.....


i know my background...and i have a fairly decent understanding of what did not occur on the day....


Regardless of what you think you know, I have proven that your baseless belief that NIST threw out the pancake collapse progression years ago to be false.

This proves that you are repeating false claims.


so when the time comes i hope you enjoy your stay in the Fema camps.....Because i wont be there with you.


Your paranoia is showing.

Pull down your dress a little....



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Cilvanus
 


Thank Cil very well presented and all very valid points and fair questions that need answering....there are so many problems with the OS that it beggars belief.....I can only assume the some people in here must be working for the PTB as it seems so strange to me to just believe it.....

some of the things i get called by some of the OSer' for having an opinion is carzy in itself....a total and complete smear campaign against people who think for themselves...we are uneducated....damn...i did not know this....

Anyways...i don't think you will get many constructive response in here...but good luck.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


your doing the same thing still....making snarky little remarks...


NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.


SOURCE

this is a reply to questions ask by A&E from NIST.......but hey...will you bother to read...nope.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 





sorry mate your whole thing failed.....and you can go on and on...but it does matter big time and the energy is transferred and...


Failed how?

The energy is transferred, but it is too much energy. 100's or 1000's of tons falling is a huge amount of energy to be absorbed by the connections at one instant.




yes soon as the upper block hit that special floor your talking about...engery is transferred in the fracturing of the seats and dampers..


Do dampers not have a designed amont of enrgy they can absorb? I install dampers everyday when i hang up heavy duct work. They all have a designed amount of load they can accept. The one's I am currently using are rated at 100 to 350 punds. They are also used in different ways in construction.


The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers that helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants.



During the design process, wind tunnel tests were done to establish design wind pressures that the World Trade Center towers could be subjected to and structural response to those forces.[36] Experiments also were done to evaluate how much sway occupants could comfortably tolerate, however, many subjects experienced dizziness and other ill effects.[37] One of the chief engineers Leslie Robertson worked with Canadian engineer Alan G. Davenport to develop viscoelastic dampers to absorb some of the sway. These viscoelastic dampers, used throughout the structures at the joints between floor trusses and perimeter columns along with some other structural modifications, reduced the building sway to an acceptable level
en.wikipedia.org...

It seems the dampers were mainly in the towers construction to help absorb they swaying of the towers.....Not supporting or absorbing the extra shock of the amount of energy that was released.....



also you have a massive central core which in your repsonse you have not taken into accound at all....where it is actually resisting the falling upper block..



The core of the towers housed the elevator and utility shafts, restrooms, three stairwells, and other support spaces. The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m) and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower. The large, column-free space between the perimeter and core was bridged by prefabricated floor trusses. The floors supported their own weight as well as live loads, providing lateral stability to the exterior walls and distributing wind loads among the exterior walls.[32] The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors.[33] The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns and were on 6 foot 8 inch (2.03 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to the core columns on the interior side. The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers that helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants.



The World Trade Center towers used high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads, and sharing the gravity load with the core columns. The perimeter structure containing 59 columns per side was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces each consisting of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates.


They shared the load. When the planes hit the towers a large part of the supporting perimeter structure was damaged and unable to act within the design specifications. this transferred the massive amount of load to the interior core supports...........Which then proceeded to put more strain on the connections. More strain than they were intially designed to handle.

I am sorry but sheetrock cannot help support anything. It only adds to weight.

Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core
.
www.skyscraper.org...

Reinforced does not mean undamageable. Once it is damaged its design specs are altered.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cilvanus

How would you, the original poster and the like, melt steel which is rated for 2600-2800 degrees when the fire temperatures alleged in the official story were only 1300 degrees?


Why do you need an answer to this when the NIST report never makes the claim that the fires "melted" the steel? It is a strawman argument.


Considering the official story claims that both planes damaged the exterior as well as the inner columns, why did the top of the building not do the same?


www-math.mit.edu...

"The pivoting of the upper part must have started by an asymmetric failure of the columns
on one side of building, but already at this very small angle the dynamic horizontal reaction
at the base of the upper part must have reduced the vertical load capacity of the remaining
columns of the critical floor (even if those were not heated). That must have started the
downward motion of the top part of the South Tower, and afterwards its motion must have
become predominantly vertical. Hence, a vertical impact of the upper part onto the lower
part must have been the dominant mechanism."


wouldn't it be simpler for the outer edge of the tower to collapse first on the side where they were damaged and instead of through the path of greatest resistance?


The simple answer?

The same as above, only you don't realize it is the same question.

And to expand a little, the correct question is not whether it should collapse through the path of greater resistance. The correct question to ask is what outside force would be required to move the top block out and away from the footprint?


it would require 10 times the kinetic energy which the buildings fell with to turn the concrete to hot ash which is what happened,


This is just silly. There was no hot ash as a result of the collapse. People survived even though being covered from head to toe in dust. If your claim were true, they would have been scalded to death.


Unless you can offer an alternative to the clouds being pulverized concrete, i feel you have not researched your topic and are as prepared for debate as you could be


Try drywall instead as a major contributor to the dust. Much more easily broken, therefore much less energy required to turn it to dust. Right?.


How would one explain the chemical tracers for military grade thermite and actual solid pieces of thermite being found in the dust and ash?


Informal rebuttal here:

forums.randi.org...

and here:

forums.randi.org...



And lastly, another one of my favorite questions; how does a falling building melt steel into pools which so many claim to have been at the bottom of rubble, and in the basement.


Are they correct? They tell of red hot steel running...... Red hot steel isn't liquid yet. Aluminum that was red WOULD be in liquid form, as would be many of the other metals.


Fire fighters claimed it was like a foundry in the basement with pools of molten steel before the building even collapsed?


No one makes this claim. So far, you're the only truther I've personally seen make the claim that there were pools of liquid steel "before" collapse. You're confused.


If you feel that the firefighters were just lying


False choice fallacy. There is another choice other than telling the truth and lying. 3rd- they could be wrong about it being steel.


A building designed to specifically handle the weight and impact of a 707 ainplane


There are differing stories on this. In one case, a PANYNJ pr firm says what you claim. But Robertson says that it was not designed to handle a plane impact, merely that as a result of the design, it would handle a plane impact.

Which is correct?


defied both physics and thermodynamics


they didn't.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


asimple answer...it all takes energy to wehter it is a little amount or a large amount.....every little bit adds up in the system...every connection...and every weld...nut ...bolt...will all take energy to rip it apart....you cannot for one second discount the laws of physics and that is where you failed.

you can argue your points...and that is fine...but soon as you discount the physics...and you should know with your experience the force involved in ripping out evey seat...the upper 10th cannot take out the lower 90%...



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube

your doing the same thing still....making snarky little remarks...


NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columnsinitiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.


this is a reply to questions ask by A&E from NIST.......but hey...will you bother to read...nope.



This is 2006 stuff.

See the word I made all nice and big for you? That is the context to which NIST is replying.

You don't understand that though, do ya?

The fact remains - NIST, while discussing the failure mode of those floor connections, use the word "pan-caking" to describe it.

Therefore, it is proven to anyone rational that contrary to your repeating lies, NIST did not "throw out" the pan-cake collapse progression explanation.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 





and also the upper block would not just collapse symetrically upon itself in one go in the same way with two different impacts....which would have affected each building differently.


Gravity acts the same with both towers. They want to come down. Not fall over. Once a few structural supports are no longer viable gravity takes over. Hence down. Remember that the trusses are supported by bolts at both the interior core and exterior load bearing structure, shared jointly. Once one fails it creates a rubberband like shock to the other supports, because it was their job to support the weight. Once the weight is suddenly released the interior and exterior support beams spring back because there is no longer any load to keep them plum in place.

Put a rope through a brick. Hold both ends of the rope to lift the brick till the rope is tight.. Now cut the rope and see if your arms do not swing outwards and upwards. The energy is instanlty released.

Remember the exterior and interior wants to cave in to each other because of the pulling stresses of the trusses. When the energy is released the walls want to spring out as in some of the videos show of them collapsing. Some of the outer structure falls outwards.

I believe this is covered in Newtons third Law.

LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts. — Whatever draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that other.

en.wikipedia.org...

I could go on. But we will move on.




now to say that the physics don't apply because why...IT' S construction....now that is just unbelievable


Where did you get this from? Did you even read my whole statement above. Or did you pick through it like most people who support some kind of truther movement?

Here is a direct quote from me above.



You are wrong about Newton's Laws. They completely explain how the upper mass while accelerating and picking up momentem can subject the construction materials well pass their design specifications.


That is all of the time I have to waste on that comment





let me ask you this.....say the plane exerted 20000N of force upon the tower...how much did the tower exert on the plane.


Again I see this used all the time..............The building was stationary to somewhat of a degree.........It absorbed the impact quite well........It stood for a little while until the undamaged components of the building could no longer withstand the added stresses supported from the damaged sections.......

Remeber the energy transferred, you stated this yourself..............Impact and absorption.



also the seats were connected to the spandrels of the perimeters wllas and they were connected to the I-Beams of the core.


Again all supported by nuts and bolts that can shear when subjected to the right amount of force.




now as you can see in this law...and read the end.....we do not know of anything in nature that violates it....the momentum from the upper block will tranfers that potential energy into the lower block...but that engery will soon enough run down.


They are not blocks. They are constructed weight. Once the weight is released it is subject directly to increasing momentem and velocity from gravity. Now the bolts and beam channels have to try to support the entire falling load of all of the weight from above. Something that they were not designed to do. They were designed to support the gravitaional load and the sway of the buildings...........Not support a sudden shock of energy beyond the design specifications of the connections.

The spandrel plates were located at each floor, transmitting shear stress between columns, allowing them to work together in resisting lateral loads.


The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers that helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants.


I read nothing anywhere that says the towers were constructed to handle a massive amount of falling weig that is to be subjected to the support structure.

You are speaking outside of design capabilities..


Structural building engineering is primarily driven by the creative manipulation of materials and forms and the underlying mathematical and scientific ideas to achieve an end which fulfills its functional requirements and is structurally safe when subjected to all the loads it could reasonably be expected to experience.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_design]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_design[/ur



top topics
 
60
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join