Towers Of Lies

reply to post by samkent


THAT was never mentioned in the official report, the official report states that "debris" from the twin towers hit WTC 7 and caused it to collapse and plus the weak fires which cannot even destroy a house (bring it to rubble), brought down a 60+ story tower in 5 seconds..that defies logic.

Originally posted by PedoBear
reply to post by samkent

 

THAT was never mentioned in the official report, the official report states that "debris" from the twin towers hit WTC 7 and caused it to collapse and plus the weak fires which cannot even destroy a house (bring it to rubble), brought down a 60+ story tower in 5 seconds..that defies logic.

edit on 3-4-2012 by PedoBear because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-4-2012 by PedoBear because: (no reason given)

It is obvious that you haven't in fact read NIST's " Final Report On The Collapse Of World Trade Center Building 7" or you wouldn't have said that the report stated it was falling debris that caused it's collapse.

Your description of "weak fires " hardly ties up with this video of the south side where you can see dense smoke belching from top to bottom :-

www.youtube.com...

Btw, WTC 7 was 47 stories, not 60+, and your 5 second collapse time is nonsense because that is even faster than freefall. Have a good look at a video that shows the east penthouse falling in and time it yourself from there.

Originally posted by PedoBear
reply to post by samkent

 

THAT was never mentioned in the official report, the official report states that "debris" from the twin towers hit WTC 7 and caused it to collapse and plus the weak fires which cannot even destroy a house (bring it to rubble), brought down a 60+ story tower in 5 seconds..that defies logic.

Would you mind terribly pointing out where in the 9/11 Commission Report it discussed the reasons for the collapse? *My* copy didn't cover the reasons for the collapse one way or the other- it simply covered why did it, how they did it, and how the gov't responded, plus a few recommendations.

If you've never read it...and it's pretty obvious you didn't...then how can you insist with any intellectual honesty the report is just "a pack of lies" when you've never read the thing to even know what the lies actually are?

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I meant the core alone couldn't support the entire structure of the towers, not themselves. In fact the core stood for several seconds after the collapse before they underwent destruction from being battered by the collapse.

I was not accusing you of saying the core could support the entire building.

The only mistake you made was the wall panels being two stories tall. No biggie.

psik

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Only one thing you say is wrong: That the core provided the resistance to lateral forces. The opposite is true and any engineering/ physics textbook should tell you why.

There is a concept called moment of inertia, which describes the resistance to bending of a given geometric arrangement of material about a defined axis. It tells us for example that a solid steel rod is in fact less able to resist bending than, for example a hollow pipe made of the exact same quantity of steel (a larger overall diameter is implied). It also describes the difference between bending a ruler across its flat is easier than bending it across its narrow edge. Here is a video where an engineer or physicist demonstrat
es @ 3m10s.

Short story: Skyscrapers work the same way. Structure located at the perimeter of a building is more efficient in resisting lateral loads such as wind and earthquake. You can even read about this on truther sites Or give Wikipedia a try.

In any case, the vast bulk of lateral loads were resisted by the perimeter columns, rather than the core.

And this means, of course, that the core could not have stood up all by itself, as designed. I would expect it to destablize quite fast on a breezy day.

Your link is about a single I-beam. The core was 47 I-beams connected by horizontal beams at every level. What shape did the tower take on when the plane impacted? I provided a demonstration.

www.youtube.com...

Where is your equation for S-curves? Why don't you geniuses with mathematics just build a physical model that can completely collapse due to the fall of its top 15% or less?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Why don't you geniuses with mathematics just build a physical model that can completely collapse due to the fall of its top 15% or less?

psik

Those geniuses don't have a problem with the reasons for the collapse.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


So you built a model of a tower out of cardboard and tugged on it with a string. What is that trying to prove? I can't see how that confirms the wacko idea that the WTC complex was a hollow shell.

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So you built a model of a tower out of cardboard and tugged on it with a string. What is that trying to prove? I can't see how that confirms the wacko idea that the WTC complex was a hollow shell.

No point in trying to explain anything to someone who can't figure out there is no cardboard.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


My point is, if you're trying to do 'science' you need to explain your methods and materials used. You made a video that doesn't show us anything other than the small model you made has flexibility when its being tugged one direction or the other.

I can't tell what your hypothesis is, because there is no theory.

reply to post by Alfie1


That report is fabricated.

Invalid as evidence.

reply to post by KarensHoliday


Everything the truth movement has produced is fabricated.

Invalid as evidence.

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

My point is, if you're trying to do 'science' you need to explain your methods and materials used. You made a video that doesn't show us anything other than the small model you made has flexibility when its being tugged one direction or the other.

I can't tell what your hypothesis is, because there is no theory.

Well I guess some people can't notice that the behavior of the model changes as different weights of the model are specified and the questions about steel and concrete are repeatedly put on the screen. People should not talk about science if they can't figure out the obvious things to ask about 9/11.

If people seem to be deliberately being obtuse I don't get bent out of shape over it. The video has been up for 4 years and I don't recall anyone talking about cardboard. A number of people say I am hitting the model wit a shoe. I presume they think they are being funny but it just seems stupid to me.

As far as I am concerned anyone that wants to can duplicate the phenomenon and does not have to do it with the same materials. I bet they will get similar results regardless of the materials provided they are strong enough to endure the impacts.

psik

Originally posted by KarensHoliday
reply to post by Alfie1

 

That report is fabricated.

Invalid as evidence.

What's your evidence that it is fabricated? Or is that your opinion with nothing to back it up?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by KarensHoliday
reply to post by Alfie1

 

That report is fabricated.

Invalid as evidence.

What's your evidence that it is fabricated? Or is that your opinion with nothing to back it up?

Same old same old huh -V- ? ok then , i`ll finally bite for you since i`m bored ....... What is your evidence proving it is not fabricated ?
Its pretty clear you made your mind up already so the ...... " Or is that your opinion with nothing to back it up?" .... is a little hypocritical.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Read the other links. It's well established information that I'm trying to share with you.

Perimeter structure dealt with the vast majority of lateral forces in wtc1&2. And the vast majority of steel high rises built since that time. There are no reliable sources that will tell you any different.

So, If you're so sure that the core could resist lateral forces, please describe how that worked, structurally. Or at least provide a link to some reliable source who will say the same (who doesn't build models out of paper tubes and washers and broomsticks.).

I can rest assured that you will do neither of these things anytime soon, because.

1. You have demonstrated limited understanding of structural design.

2. No engineer will ever claim that the WTC core was designed to resist lateral forces.

well it seems like the same old OSers are beating that poor horse , it must have decomposed by now lads , give it a rest will ya ?

also , riddle me this OSers , ....... i`m tall , i`m on fire , i`ve been burning for hours , i`m in moscow , i still have not collapsed yet .... what am i ?

reply to post by psikeyhackr


There is a problem with building a scale model, getting the tinsel strength exactly representational, how can you simulate 1/10th concrete strength or less? I don't think thickness alone can do that. The only way a model can be constructed is full scale to test/demonstrate a collapse scenario. There are just too many factors. It's not like a scale model in a wind tunnel for testing aerodynamics of aircraft design.

Now I have seen scale model skyscrapers tested for earthquake give but that isn't a collapse scenario, its just a very rough estimate on lateral movements of a construction design and ballast/balance methods being tested for computer data.

Buildings aren't designed to support 15% of its top in motion, the top is the part with thinner columns anyway. This is why the second hit building fell first, it couldn't support 30 some floors set in motion above the damage for obvious reasons. These skyscrapers had a roof area equal to their footprint, no tapering of mass except for the core thickness on the way up. Also on the way up drywall replaced concrete (in tapering thickness) insulation of the core that also effects rigidity and strength.

Steel columns insulated with reinforced concrete is an excellent fire resistance and excellent strengthener. Concrete technology has undergone leaps since the early 70's also, Burj Khalifa (Dubai) didn't use steel construction until the 120th floor or so, largely due to advances in concrete technology. During construction NYC also banned the use of asbestos fire retardant and insulation and one of the towers was only about 60 floors high. They instead used a foam of something instead that got easily blown off of the floor suspension supports exposing the thinnest steel to the elements, and a critical link. One structural engineer is quoted as saying during construction that if these building get a wildfire upwards of the 80th floor they will collapse.

I can't provide links I quit WTC 9/11 arguments back in 2006. One has to clear the hard drive eventually. The debates were maddening, I wanted to delete all of the clutter except for a few photo documentaries and few archived links. The Navy.mil 'Eyes on the Fleet' photo archive has some nice aerial photos of ground zero for reference. What a sight it was.

Ok I found it. Looks to be just the top. The report said three floors I found. Under construction, surely with no interior infrastructure yet. Skeleton concrete reinforced steel is not an applicable comparison whatsoever.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Here's something new for you.

slenderness ratio.

your paper loops are too fat and short to exhibit buckling failure, so they are crushed instead.

read this en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by RockLobster
Same old same old huh -V- ? ok then , i`ll finally bite for you since i`m bored ....... What is your evidence proving it is not fabricated ?
Its pretty clear you made your mind up already so the ...... " Or is that your opinion with nothing to back it up?" .... is a little hypocritical.

So, basically what you're saying here is that you believe it's fake, and you believe it because you believe it, and you're calling me a hypocrite because I want proof that something is fake? Why must I prove it is not fake if you are the one making the original claim that it IS fake?

See, it works like this. I'm neutral on the evidence. If I have no reason to assume it is fake, then I will use it as evidence. If proof becomes apparent that evidence is faked or that faulty methods were used in coming to determinations, then I will stop using it as evidence, as it will be invalid.

First, however, I must have proof that it is invalid. Where is the proof?