Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T's List of Demolition Signs

page: 10
14
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


Just briefly, MI5, in a true barrel effect, the distortion is not confined to a small portion of the photograph. I'd note that the photo you posted illustrates that the distortion only grows more severe toward the edges of the frame. I don't think this is consistent with a barrel effect distortion. There are multiple photos and movies that show the distortion from diffferent angles - it cannot be an artifact of a photographic lens.

I'm off to visit my mother on mothers day. Can anybody field this for me? There's an animated gif of the columns being pulled/pushed inward before the collapse initiation. That wasn't caused by a barrel effect.

by the time I return this evening, I hope you will have actually responded to my request, MI5, and posted some evidence that the NIST model of WTC7 was lacking some structural elements that were present in the real building. I know it seems like a small thing, but that would really move the debate forward.




posted on May, 13 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 





...in a true barrel effect, the distortion is not confined to a small portion of the photograph.


It is when the photo is cropped and magnified like yours.



I'd note that the photo you posted illustrates that the distortion only grows more severe toward the edges of the frame.


You are groping in the correct area; my photos are not cropped and fully captures the distortions presented by the specific lens assembly that took the photos. The radial distortion are incremental with the worst to the perimeter and the least affected area in the centre. The whole photo is distorted.

Similarly your photo fully captures the distortions presented by the specific lens assembly that took the photo only it has been cropped and magnified.

The whole basis of your argument was about bending columns and I have now explained why you are completely wrong.

I too am going to visit my Mother on Mother's day and ask that someone explain to Fixer how wrong she/he is.

By the time I return this evening, I expect an abject admittance by you on how wrong you are Fixer.
edit on 13-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


You can follow the link here which also has video of the exterior columns being pulled in prior to collapse:

Bowed Columns

It is not a result of, as you claim, photo distortion. Why would it be one section of the wall?



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


You can follow the link here which also has video of the exterior columns being pulled in prior to collapse:

Bowed Columns

It is not a result of, as you claim, photo distortion. Why would it be one section of the wall?




Someone actually made a website confusing lens distortion with bending beams?!

I took screen shots of the whole site for purposes of mockery in case they close it down.
edit on 13-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
It's obvious the bowed columns claim is bogus.

There is no way the trusses could have put a pulling force on the columns. So if something bowed the columns it wasn't the trusses.

Simple physics, IF the trusses did sag it was because of the steel expanding from the heat, they couldn't push out so they sag instead, it would have not caused it to have put anymore force on the columns, other wise they would never have sagged in the first place and just pushed the columns out. All the force of the truss is taken up in the sagging.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
It's obvious the bowed columns claim is bogus.

There is no way the trusses could have put a pulling force on the columns. So if something bowed the columns it wasn't the trusses.

Simple physics, IF the trusses did sag it was because of the steel expanding from the heat, they couldn't push out so they sag instead, it would have not caused it to have put anymore force on the columns, other wise they would never have sagged in the first place and just pushed the columns out. All the force of the truss is taken up in the sagging.


If you're being serious, it does not help the cause of making the people who believe in the truth movement look any better. Have you ever seen a string pull two sides inward when you depress the center? Essentially, the same thing happens when trusses sag. The weight becomes focused on the weakest point, and it exerts a pulling force on the weaker of the two sides, which would be the external columns, as opposed to the core columns.

Make sense? I can give it another go at explaining if this explanation has reached blind eyes.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


I just love it when Truthers make crap up and then believe it to be real. Havent heard that one before. Lens distortion of the exterior columns, even though there is video of the beams bending inward prior to collapse.



Truthers, making crap up since 2003.........
edit on 5/13/2012 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


ANOK, I found this to be a pretty good explanation off of JREF forums, on the inward bowing exterior:

Inward Bowing Columns explained.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 





...in a true barrel effect, the distortion is not confined to a small portion of the photograph.


It is when the photo is cropped and magnified like yours.
.
.
.
...The radial distortion are incremental with the worst to the perimeter and the least affected area in the centre. The whole photo is distorted.


What you're alleging is that portions of many photos from different cameras pointed in different directions somehow showed a distortion only on a single part of the same building. How big of a coincidence are you asking us to believe in?

I'd also like to point out that since you allege this warping is merely caused by the lenses of the cameras, then whatever they are pointed at should display an identical distortion, including undamaged buildings shown on film that day. But I have never seen a similar distortion (isolated to a small area and with undistorted image surrounding it.

GenRadek already posted a link to a great site with lots of images from diffferent cameras and camera angles, and even video showing the bowing increasing over just a few moments. None of the evidence is consistent with barrel distortion, in that none of the photos exhibit the telltale increasing distortion from the center outward.

if this distortion were due to a barrel effect, one side or the other -or both- of the warped columns would appear more warped than the "warped" portion, because, as you just said, the least distorted area of the photo is in the center and the distortion gradually increases from there outward. No matter how a photo is cropped there should be a gradual increase in distortion as distance from the center of the frame increases. This is not present in the photos that I posted to any visible degree. Thus, the bowing shown in the photographs is not attributable to barrel distortion.

I understand you are just making this up as you go along, but I'm willing to play along for a while.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
They tested 4 floor sections with trusses in a furnace. Why don't they just test 4 more without fire proofing and see if this SAG can be duplicated in less than TWO HOURS. Because if it can't.....

Wouldn't that be the SCIENTIFIC thing to do?

psik



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 




Have you ever seen a string pull two sides inward when you depress the center? Essentially, the same thing happens when trusses sag. The weight becomes focused on the weakest point, and it exerts a pulling force on the weaker of the two sides, which would be the external columns, as opposed to the core columns


I just had to log in to laugh at this.

Just read that bit again, this time imagining the hand of god coming down and depressing the trusses. There WAS NO HAND OF GOD DEPRESSING THE TRUSSES. The thing that is causing the sagging in your example is your HAND DEPRESSING THE STRING.

It is not the weight of the string, which, you will recall, has not changed.

Thanks for the laugh though.
edit on 14-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
I just had to log in to laugh at this.

Just read that bit again, this time imagining the hand of god coming down and depressing the trusses. There WAS NO HAND OF GOD DEPRESSING THE TRUSSES. The thing that is causing the sagging in your example is your HAND DEPRESSING THE STRING.

It is not the weight of the string, which, you will recall, has not changed.

Thanks for the laugh though.
edit on 14-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)


Weight distribution has changed, no? Trusses are a bit bigger than the string experiment, and have more weight to pull with when they sag. Are you trying to say that when they sag they are just getting longer and that no forces are changing whatsoever?



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Darkwing01
I just had to log in to laugh at this.

Just read that bit again, this time imagining the hand of god coming down and depressing the trusses. There WAS NO HAND OF GOD DEPRESSING THE TRUSSES. The thing that is causing the sagging in your example is your HAND DEPRESSING THE STRING.

It is not the weight of the string, which, you will recall, has not changed.

Thanks for the laugh though.


Weight distribution has changed, no? Trusses are a bit bigger than the string experiment, and have more weight to pull with when they sag. Are you trying to say that when they sag they are just getting longer and that no forces are changing whatsoever?


Since the trusses were holding a 4 inch thick concrete slab plus the live load the weight was not concentrated at one point. Plus there were lots of trusses parallel to each other 6.6 feet apart. So how did so may get equally hot at the same time so that they all sagged at once? That is another curious thing. So where is the test to substantiate this sagging. Why doesn't the NIST want a scientific test?

psik



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 




Weight distribution has changed, no? Trusses are a bit bigger than the string experiment, and have more weight to pull with when they sag. Are you trying to say that when they sag they are just getting longer and that no forces are changing whatsoever?


Of course the forces change.

But there is no additional weight bearing down on the structure as a whole. The members are not sagging because they are being pushed down, they are sagging because they are softening.

The weight that bears down at the connections is still ultimately exactly same in the case of the trusses, but not in the case of the string.

The only difference in the distribution of forces at the wall is that a lot of the force that was plumb before has now become torsional. But the weight being applied is exactly the same.
edit on 14-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


well the question of the missing planes....lol....have you heard of shanksville....a mistake...a mis guided missile....the one that was supposed to hit WTC7 ......7hrs of contemplating how to fix this senario.....now i use the term missile lightly....Missile an object used to hurl at a structure to cause damage.

you know the one that got away....but I do agree with others....Gen ...nice job in trying to collate data from sites...but JMO you might have tried to do it with neutrality to gain a bit better respect in your presentation....rather than being an informative thread....it was....a poke at truthers as a whole rather than something to be taken seriously.....shame because it was a lot of decent info....even though it is very biased....

but it is ok....as PLB stated in another thread....have i finished what i have been doing in regards to a simulation....well i am getting closer to completing the project which is not easy as there are so many variables to consider when creating a decent simulation.....If we look at some of the ones from nist....and the one nova did...there are so many factors and details to consider....but so far...all attempts fail.....they fail for the collapse being a psuedo natural collapse....and they seem to fail in a CD type collapse......but then i am not a programmer so i am at the limitation of any parameters built into any over the shelf software i am able to get hold of.....sometimes one just has to accept these limitations.....but so far noting is conclusive ....so i am a loss as to how the OS side shows simulations and can fully state this is the senario....they must have blind faith in the limitations of the physics engines of the said software.

Now WTC7 .....if it was say a pre rigged building......the perps would have been getting nervous would they not....a plan was going bad.....there was a chance they would be found out....they needed to come up with a plan on the go.....also on the 23rd floor of this building was the pride and joy....the emergency command centre...THE BUNKER....the place in which these operations had been hashed out and implemented.....It had to go....to be destroyed......the missile missed .....and they needed a get out clause....and they used it.

just a possibility....but after all these years......I myself still work on a simulation....and am not afraid to say that no simulation shows the senario for what it is.....either way.....so in conclusion what really did bring the buildings down......these are steel framed buildings in which WTC7 was not hit by an aircraft.....it had suffered damage.....but only on one side....would that lead to a symmetrical collapse....not in my opinion.....also it was apparently brought down by fires...has this occurred before in the history of steel structures.....nope.....also would a fire lead to a symmetrical collapse where all columns fail simultaneously....nope.

So the conclusion of the evidence so far.....unconclusive.

So i hope everyone enjoys another truther bashing thread...which could have been so much more to further the truth but was instead only put together to fulfill EGO.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   
I can feel my blood pressure rising when I read your post. It is very upsetting that you spent so much time and effort voicing your opinion in an attempt to discredit true experts.
I consider the statements made by first hand witnesses such as firefighters and police, who also say they witnessed what appeared to them as controlled demolition, to be more than enough proof. But top that off with
licenced engineers, who know what really happened, risk their credibility and careers to bring to light the facts based on much more than just the videos of the "near free fall collapse". The penthouse collapsing first only adds to the proof of demolition. There were no fires on or near the roof.
Even most of the authors of the 9/11 commission report said they were denied evidence and that further investigation is warranted. By the way, building 7 wasn't even mentioned in that report.

As for the towers, let's assume for a moment that the impact of the "planes" and the fires caused them to pancake. How do you explain what happened to the main support columns, over forty of them, that were horizontal? They should have been sticking straight up in the air as the building came down around them.
That's a rhetorical question and I don't want you to try and explain anything more than you already have.
I believe you made this thread just to piss people off. You succeeded. It would be justice if you got caught in a fire in a steel building and it collapsed on your head proving me wrong, but that won't happen because never before or since 9/11 has a fire brought down a steel building.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


>sigh



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by Varemia
 




Weight distribution has changed, no? Trusses are a bit bigger than the string experiment, and have more weight to pull with when they sag. Are you trying to say that when they sag they are just getting longer and that no forces are changing whatsoever?


Of course the forces change.

But there is no additional weight bearing down on the structure as a whole. The members are not sagging because they are being pushed down, they are sagging because they are softening.

The weight that bears down at the connections is still ultimately exactly same in the case of the trusses, but not in the case of the string.

The only difference in the distribution of forces at the wall is that a lot of the force that was plumb before has now become torsional. But the weight being applied is exactly the same.
edit on 14-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)


I'm definitely curious, because you do have logic there. I'd like to see tests run on this before I make a decision either way. If it is modeled properly and tested, it should be fairly definitive.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





I'm definitely curious, because you do have logic there. I'd like to see tests run on this before I make a decision either way. If it is modeled properly and tested, it should be fairly definitive.


You can be fairly certain about this one because there were full scale mock-ups done that failed to demonstrate this effect.

If you really want I can dig up the link, but I'm sure someone else will know. They were of the WTC 1&2 trusses, but the physics should be the same.

It is analogous to putting a solvent on a stretched rubber band, it will start to droop and expand, but it won't pull in more. In fact it will pull in less. And that is, as far as I am aware, what happened in the full scale tests, apart from torsion forces at the end provided a wee bit of push out.
edit on 16-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join