The five biggest issues with the 'Official Story'

page: 11
6
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Well here is a floor truss angle cleat care to explain how thats over engineered




edit on 25-7-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


There was nothing wrong with those truss cleats... they did the job for 30 years through hurricanes, small earthquakes, the 1993 bombing, and they stood for nearly an hour after the alleged plane hits on 911.

According to the OS they were strong enough to hang on to the sides and pull them inwards as the floors sagged before the perimeter columns actually snapped. In most contradictory fashion, you're saying they were weak and inadequate but you can't have it both ways.

You can ease your mind of all this cognitive dissonance by facing the fact that the towers were blown to smithereens, which anyone with a functioning brain can see.
edit on 25-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


The truss seats were unable to take on the DYNAMIC vertical load. THAT is what you are failing to understand. The truss seats were supporting the single floor only. They were responsible for just holding up ONE floor. When 15+ floors crashed down on it, that was more than enough to sever the connections. The truss seats had no other responsibility other than hold up the truss holding up the one floor. It also connected the truss to the exterior and interior columns on each end. It was just fine holding together during the sagging of the truss, although this may have also affected the strength, but once the upper section came down, that was it. But maybe you can show me where exactly it was stated the floor trusses were designed to take on a massive dynamic vertical load and survive.

Methinks you have no idea of the nuances of the WTC design.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


Ah yes, cause showing us a massive CONCRETE reenforced structure is exactly the same as a steel tube-in-tube design with trusses for floor supports. Of course! In trutherworld, all skyscrapers are all the same design and behave the same way, no "if" "ands" or "butts" about it. The WTC is the same as the ESB, and the Sears Tower is the same as Kalif Burj.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Here look at this link I have posted before.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Now since YOU guys avoid this or are not able to use it lets look at an example.

WTC floor height 3.66 mtrs mass 10 kg yes a simple 10kg mass could be a bowling ball you know the one Gage mentions in every interview.

Now the problem is we cant put in a distance the mass was stopped as that didn't happen so lets use 2 examples to give an indication of what the dynamic loads could be like.
So lets put the figs in the calculator above for disatnce stopped use angle cleat thickness about 1" or 25.4 mm or 0.0254 mtrs then use the bolt thickness 16mm or 0.016mtrs.

So a 10kg mass dropped 3.66 mtrs will reach 8.46 mtrs per second and have 358.6 j of KE

If stopped in 0.0254 mtrs average impact force would be 14121 n divide by 9.81 for kg and your answer is

1439 kg or 1.439 TONS for a 10 kg mass the concrete for 1 floorslab was 600,000kg work that one out


North Tower 15 floors, South Towers 31 floors and YOU think they could stand up


Answer for 600,000kg is 847275590 n or 86368561 kg if stopped over 1" or 86,368.561 TONS

NOW as NOTHING was stopped what were the actual loads.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Here look at this link I have posted before.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Now since YOU guys avoid this or are not able to use it lets look at an example.

WTC floor height 3.66 mtrs mass 10 kg yes a simple 10kg mass could be a bowling ball you know the one Gage mentions in every interview.

Now the problem is we cant put in a distance the mass was stopped as that didn't happen so lets use 2 examples to give an indication of what the dynamic loads could be like.
So lets put the figs in the calculator above for disatnce stopped use angle cleat thickness about 1" or 25.4 mm or 0.0254 mtrs then use the bolt thickness 16mm or 0.016mtrs.

So a 10kg mass dropped 3.66 mtrs will reach 8.46 mtrs per second and have 358.6 j of KE

If stopped in 0.0254 mtrs average impact force would be 14121 n divide by 9.81 for kg and your answer is

1439 kg or 1.439 TONS for a 10 kg mass the concrete for 1 floorslab was 600,000kg work that one out


North Tower 15 floors, South Towers 31 floors and YOU think they could stand up


Answer for 600,000kg is 847275590 n or 86368561 kg if stopped over 1" or 86,368.561 TONS

NOW as NOTHING was stopped what were the actual loads.


Then you should have no trouble building a multi-level model with at least 20 LEVELS where the top 15% destroys all of the levels below. Oh, but you keep insisting on 12 feet so it would have to be at least 240 feet tall. Yeah, that is too much trouble for you to build so all you can do is talk and claim that a smaller model is invalid even though you can't tell us how much energy was required to break loose a floor outside the core.

You can't even tell us the weight of steel in a floor outside the core but want to make a big deal of math.

But don't all of those tons include the core that had to come down on the core where the columns were and not just empty space?

psik



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


So you come in and show this photo and you are what?...

you showed a building...are you trying to pass that photo off as this building design....







Also why would I try to compare it to WTC 1 or 2 it is a forty story building....completely engulfed in fire...which would be compared to building 7....Why be so deceitful....yes it has a concrete core...if we must say...REINFORCED...there shouted it out for your benefit....the frame was steel....did it even suffer a partial collapse...NO....so why show pics of a building which is not the one being discussed.

also before you use some egotistical smiley to try and build an over inflated ego...I know building 7 DOES NOT HAVE A REINFORCED CONCRETE CORE....is that clear enough for you.

edit on 013131p://f02Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)


I suggest YOU find out what was said about the steelwork after the fire



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Topic, Please


Originally posted by exponent
Here is my suggested list of topics of discussion. Please only post your thoughts on the list of topics, rather than any debate over a specific topic. I really don't want this thread to become bickering as well

Indeed, even in the time since this thread was started, we've moved on.

There are various and sundry posts earlier in this thread that either include or are nothing but personal commentary. We don't do that anymore.

Instead, let's focus on the topic and refrain from any sort of snarky asides or anything else not directly related to the it.

Thanks.





P.S. Lest I be mistaken, this is not directed at the OP or any one member in particular, but anyone participating in this thread.


edit on 7/30/2012 by Majic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


The truss seats were unable to take on the DYNAMIC vertical load. THAT is what you are failing to understand. The truss seats were supporting the single floor only. They were responsible for just holding up ONE floor. When 15+ floors crashed down on it, that was more than enough to sever the connections. The truss seats had no other responsibility other than hold up the truss holding up the one floor. It also connected the truss to the exterior and interior columns on each end. It..
Yet one of the buildings collapsed near the top not 17 floors below. So now comes in the play of near free fall speeds vs drag and friction as it hits the next floor. The speed didn't pick up and didn't slow down. the dragging of hitting the next floor down would have helped I believe? like a (edited)stun*T* man landing on cardboard boxes. just 3 layers. He jumps from say 8 floors onto 3 or 4 stacks of x cubical size boxes piled together. The air in the box helps cushion his fall. This thing fell from a 12 feet while a person many times the mass and density of cardboard boxes jumps 100 times it's height. something sounds wrong with this. there is drag. the air pockets in the building being pushed out (which is what they're saying the squibs were) would have acted like an elevator hydraulic breaking system. it would have slowed down some expert say. kinetic energy is in the start not all the way down (as some liked to pass off). then there is building 7. It pancaked in reverse??
edit on 31-7-2012 by stew4media because: Spelled Stun Man instead of Stunt



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
How else do they melt steel in a steel factory if they don't use fire. Why does everyone bring up silly catchphrases created by knee jerk comments by television personalities? I think most of this is shillry to spin crap off it's axis of it point of logic.

No drag no air brake effect edited
not actually stop.. but have a drag between the air being pushed out and the friction cause by impacting each floor) end of edit: in a tubular type construction. the building would most likely fall left and right and everywhere in between.

and to the smirk face intimidation driving past .. enjoy your extra corrupted moonlighting. I love your angle on changing things.

edit on 31-7-2012 by stew4media because: correcting my own knee jerk statement so no one will catch phrase it!



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by stew4media
How else do they melt steel in a steel factory if they don't use fire. Why does everyone bring up silly catchphrases created by knee jerk comments by television personalities? I think most of this is shillry to spin crap off it's axis of it point of logic.

No drag no air brake effect edited
not actually stop.. but have a drag between the air being pushed out and the friction cause by impacting each floor) end of edit: in a tubular type construction. the building would most likely fall left and right and everywhere in between.

and to the smirk face intimidation driving past .. enjoy your extra corrupted moonlighting. I love your angle on changing things.


Have you ever seen some movie where they are portraying some more ancient time where a blacksmith is operating a bellows to force air into his furnace? Why do you think they did that? A really hot fire requires more oxygen for combustion. So if it was easy get steel so hot in a reasonable amount of time why did they use bellows?

That is one of the many ridiculous things about 9/11. The BELIEVERS have to Rationalize Backwards to justify things that could not possibly happen. At the foundries that you call "steel factories" they use oxygen to get the metal hot enough to melt.

www.steel.org...

That is the absurd thing about 9/11 where they do not tell us the tons of steel on every level. How much steel did they have to get hot enough to weaken in LESS THAN TWO HOURS? How much energy had to be generated to do that? People who just BELIEVE don't need to ask the obvious questions.

psik
edit on 31-7-2012 by psikeyhackr because: sp err





top topics
 
6
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join