Where did the towers go?

Originally posted by -PLB-

I see that you are still confused about how heated trusses that sag can exert a pull force

.

Confused huh?

Another PLB post with absolutely no substance. You are good at telling people they're wrong, but like three year old it's all you do.

I fully understand how heat expansion works, thank you. The truss is sagging because it has nowhere else to go, if it could pull in columns it would never have sagged in the first place. It sags because it can't push or pull on the columns. The act of sagging is not putting anymore force on the columns, it hasn't gained weight, it is not a rigid truss anymore. How is that hard to understand PLB?

Until someone can demonstrate that claim I will stick with common sense.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by pteridine
Expansion would be offset by sagging under floor loads as the steel was heated.

That is correct, but it's not the answer to how they could pull on the columns.

The whole reason the trusses would sag is because of the expansion, if they sagged it means they couldn't push on the columns out, if they couldn't push the columns out they're not going to pull them in either.

The columns that had been sheared by the aircraft were discontinuous in that span and there was little to prevent the tops from being pulled inward as the floor sagged.

Hmm first you make an assumption you provide no evidence for. Secondly no, the floors sagging can not put a pulling force on the columns, as explained.

All this is simply made up by NIST, there is no science to support the claim. There was not even enough heat from one hour of fire to cause any steel to heat up enough to sag. Another thing you ignore is heat transfer...

Imagine the trusses as steel cables attached to the core and outer columns. Imagine the weight of the floors pressing downward and pulling the columns toward the core. With unbroken columns, the cables stay relatively straight and put tension on the columns. At the tops of broken columns, there is less support and the columns are pulled inward.
You aren't pretending to be dense; really don't understand this, do you?

reply to post by pteridine


Don't bother pteridine, it has already been explained to him in detail. I even pointed him to publications with experiments where this force it measured. He is either in pure denial or he is trolling.

reply to post by pteridine

You misunderstand me pteridine. I fear you are stretching your valuable mind too far. The process I refer to is the observed destruction of the buildings and the failure of NIST to address this process. I'm wondering if you agree that analysis of the actual destruction is a "waste of time" as supporters of the official story have stated. On one hand we have investigators from many walks of life trying to make sense of the destructive process. On the other hand we have the official story claiming only the impacts and fires are worthy of analysis. The actual destructive process being allegedly inevitable once the combined heat and damage had weakened the structure.
For the sake of the casual readers can I make it clear. My biggest question following the events was 'How did the towers do what we saw?' The only official answer is, 'It isn't worth asking, it was a natural consequence of heat and damage'. The NIST analysis merely covers the degree of impact damage and heat.
When sufficient influential people have realised the official investigation avoids the biggest question of all the tipping point will have been reached. This point may have already been reached. Many people are simply keeping a low profile and biding their time.
This thread being about 'Where did the towers go?' and Judy Wood I suppose I'd better add something relevant. I haven't seen any evidence to support the claim that much of the the steel was sent to China. I have heard an assessment from an experienced bomb disposal technician to the effect that much of the steel wasn't visible once the dust had cleared. I have seen the photographs taken from space showing a very large dust cloud that must have been composed of something. I'm aware that John Hutchison has greeted with enthusiasm the idea of taking a proper look at the debris on Fresh Kills to shed light on the destructive process. I cannot comment on Judy's work because I know very little about it. The comment that comes to mind is, 'Anyone who spends time debunking another's work would be better employed analysing the evidence themselves'.

reply to post by pteridine

The magic ray would use some unknown principal to cause the metal atoms to fly apart and turn to dust

If you do not think such stuff possible look up the suppressed technology of An inventor in Canada named John Hutchison. His best stuff was taken away from him...

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by pteridine

 

The magic ray would use some unknown principal to cause the metal atoms to fly apart and turn to dust

If you do not think such stuff possible look up the suppressed technology of An inventor in Canada named John Hutchison. His best stuff was taken away from him...

Yes, and if it did that the metal would oxidize resulting in a large exotherm and consequential explosion. It did not, so the metal was not dustifed and Hutchison's secret is safe with him.

Originally posted by Kester
reply to post by pteridine

 

The comment that comes to mind is, 'Anyone who spends time debunking another's work would be better employed analysing the evidence themselves'.

What evidence do you think should be analyzed and for what? You cannot analyze everything for everything or you will never complete the first analysis. How will you determine when you are finished analyzing?

Originally posted by pteridine

What evidence do you think should be analyzed and for what? You cannot analyze everything for everything or you will never complete the first analysis. How will you determine when you are finished analyzing?

The photographic and video evidence showing the few seconds in which the towers were destroyed, and the physical evidence, many thousands of tons being on the Fresh Kills Landfill should be analysed. The reason is that the official investigation analysed the impacts and fires then stated the 'collapses' were inevitable. How many casual readers are aware the official investigation hasn't dealt with the 'collapses'? The 'thousands upon thousands' of professionals who are often assumed to have understood the official analysis of the 'collapses' cannot have done so. There has been no official analysis of the 'collapses'.

Everything cannot be analysed for everything but the first analysis can be completed. Its a joke to say there are not sufficient resources for the job and then put into place everything that has been done in the name of 9/11. The resources are there. They are being used to suppress the people of America and the world instead of being used to find out what happened on that day. There will always be some disagreement over when an investigation should be concluded. The readers can judge for themselves whether the posters who concentrate on evidence are right in saying the official investigation is 'a half-baked farce' as the editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering magazine described it.

The physical evidence should be treated as evidence, not merely looked through for evidence. The nature of the debris is an indicator of the means of destruction. The nit-pickers will immediately jump in and say I want every speck put under a microscope and subjected to numerous tests. This absurd nit -picking indicates a lack of willingness to offer a sound case. If the debunkers have a sound case to offer why can't they do so?

Originally posted by Kester

Originally posted by pteridine

What evidence do you think should be analyzed and for what? You cannot analyze everything for everything or you will never complete the first analysis. How will you determine when you are finished analyzing?

Everything cannot be analysed for everything but the first analysis can be completed. Its a joke to say there are not sufficient resources for the job and then put into place everything that has been done in the name of 9/11. The resources are there. They are being used to suppress the people of America and the world instead of being used to find out what happened on that day. There will always be some disagreement over when an investigation should be concluded. The readers can judge for themselves whether the posters who concentrate on evidence are right in saying the official investigation is 'a half-baked farce' as the editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering magazine described it.

The physical evidence should be treated as evidence, not merely looked through for evidence. The nature of the debris is an indicator of the means of destruction. The nit-pickers will immediately jump in and say I want every speck put under a microscope and subjected to numerous tests. This absurd nit -picking indicates a lack of willingness to offer a sound case. If the debunkers have a sound case to offer why can't they do so?

Demands for reinvestigation are common. The sticking points are:
1. Who would do a reinvestigation?
2. What would be reinvestigated and what would be seen after 10 years?
3. Who would pay for a renvestigation and how in depth would it be?
4. What are the limitations of the investigators?
5. When will it be considered complete?

Everyone who calls for such has their own ideas. Some want reinvestigation until their pet theory is supported, which means eternal investigation. As it stands, there are no grounds for reinvestigation. No new evidence has been brought to light and no one has confessed to a plot. There is no compelling reason to expend the resources for such, especially when the scope and limitations cannot be agreed on.
Maybe the the editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering magazine should begin by explaining why the official investigation was 'a half-baked farce' and define what should be done and what the limits are. Better yet, he should start a Reinvestigation Fund that all interested parties could donate to and reinvestigate until the cash ran out. I can see many such plans, each with an agenda, let by a person of good intentions.
See what you can do with the five points above. Start a thread with your premises and see how many would support your version. Write to a congressman and see if you get a reply.

I predict that we are done with official 911 investigations.

Originally posted by Kester
The photographic and video evidence showing the few seconds in which the towers were destroyed, and the physical evidence, many thousands of tons being on the Fresh Kills Landfill should be analysed. The reason is that the official investigation analysed the impacts and fires then stated the 'collapses' were inevitable. How many casual readers are aware the official investigation hasn't dealt with the 'collapses'? The 'thousands upon thousands' of professionals who are often assumed to have understood the official analysis of the 'collapses' cannot have done so. There has been no official analysis of the 'collapses'.

How can there be when we don't even know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level?

Even Richard Gage looked at me like I had grown a second head when I asked him about that. I was standing there thinking, "What is wrong with him?"

This is too simple a problem and the physics profession has let it go on too long.



The funny thing about Mackey is that he says "IT SHOULD SCALE PROPERLY". But how can you scale the WTC if you don't know the steel and concrete on every level? But when does he ever demand that information?

My model is not scaled. But I used paper to make the supports as weak as possible. That is not how any building is constructed. A bigger heavier version of my model would be a better test. But energy would be absorbed crushing the levels no matter what.

psik

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
See above that says nothing and refutes nothing

I am still waiting to see a physical model that can completely collapse. If the north tower could do it then why shouldn't it be easy to build a physical model that can do it? Why shouldn't an engineering school that charges $100,000+ for four years of education be able to afford to build a much larger and heavier model?

But then what engineering school has demanded accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete? They would look pretty silly talking about it after TEN YEARS.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Kester
There has been no official analysis of the 'collapses'.

How can there be when we don't even know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level?

This is the subject of my thread on the reinforced concrete infill panels. The nature of the buildings needs to be ascertained with reasonable thoroughness before we can make a satisfactory analysis.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I am still waiting to see a physical model that can completely collapse. If the north tower could do it then why shouldn't it be easy to build a physical model that can do it? Why shouldn't an engineering school that charges $100,000+ for four years of education be able to afford to build a much larger and heavier model?
psik

Something along these lines is possible.



If we know the details of the construction beyond reasonable doubt.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Why shouldn't an engineering school that charges $100,000+ for four years of education be able to afford to build a much larger and heavier model?

My guess is that they don't want to waste money on silly conspiracy theories.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Why shouldn't an engineering school that charges $100,000+ for four years of education be able to afford to build a much larger and heavier model?

My guess is that they don't want to waste money on silly conspiracy theories.

Nice to know that physics and structural engineering are silly conspiracy theories. Maybe concrete is also since the NIST can't specify the total amount in the towers in 10,000 pages.

psik

reply to post by aboutface


they progressively collapsed into their own footprints. all three of them.
it's a kind of magic (magic).
puf! now you see, now you don't.

aaaaand...
scene.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


The point, my good man is that you post the same two youtubes in nearly every 9/11 thread, and derail most of them into talking about your videos and theories, and persistent demands for information that anyone capable of making use of it could figure out for himself.

It was merely a humorous way of saying this: You are derailing 9/11 threads in a disruptive and repetetive manner by posting the same information and opinions over and over again in multiple threads, in an attempt to have the same debates over and over again.

Please keep your posts to the video topic of this thread, Dr. Judy Wood's theories of dustification and Directed Energy Weapons(DEW).

If you want to discuss your washers and broomstick model of the WTC video, please create a thread to do so, or contribute to one of the many, many threads already containing your video.

Maybe this one thread can stay on topic, please.

Thanks.

reply to post by Kester


See if you can answer these questions:

1. Who would do a reinvestigation?
2. What would be reinvestigated and what would be seen after 10 years?
3. Who would pay for a renvestigation and how in depth would it be?
4. What are the limitations of the investigators?
5. When will it be considered complete?

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

The point, my good man is that you post the same two youtubes in nearly every 9/11 thread, and derail most of them into talking about your videos and theories, and persistent demands for information that anyone capable of making use of it could figure out for himself.

Oh yeah, how many tons of concrete were on level 10? How many tons of steel?

Gregory Urich got the steel wrong because his perimeter panel estimates don't match an engineering article from 1970.

Documentation from various sources from before 9/11 say there were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. That is more than 300,000 tons per building. But since there were two types of concrete 110 lb/cu ft and 150 lb/cu ft and that documentation does not say how much of which just minimum and maximum weights can be computed.

Your claim that the information is available is nonsense. But this is really such a simple problem the data necessary to resolve this should have been addressed in 2002. Physicists and structural engineers should have been pointing out what data about the building was needed long before the NIST finished their report. It is curious that they didn't talk about it in 2002.

So now it is a matter of mystifying the problem and keeping people ignorant.

psik