The five biggest issues with the 'Official Story'

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
The fires were as hot as necessary to allow people to believe the collapse could start.

psik




posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
OOPS! Fire didn't make it collapse.



uk.news.yahoo.com...

psik
edit on 15-7-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


If you were a doctor, your patients would die because you do not distinguish but put everything into a collective. If someone says they have chest pains, it may be a heart attack or just gas. Just like a building can be built two different ways yet the same damage or pain is occurring.

If the WTC would have caught fire, I do not think it would have collapsed. It could have been contained and without the other structural damage it would have stood. It would then had to have be fixed as long as there core structure had no damage. You also do not have accellerants from jet fuel for this in your picture. Not excuses just variations that will cause a great difference in the outcome of a situation.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
How hot were the fires? The fires ranged in intensity and the temperatures achieved that day were found to be hot enough to weaken the structure by video evidence and comparison as well as NIST testing to give temps. You do not need to test yourself.

Was the fireproofing damaged or defective? Damaged and in some cases it was found the application may not have been up to standard.

Could the fires have affected the steel? Yes. Most materials, when heated, will lose the strength that is created by forging.

What would heating the steel have resulted in? The heating of the steel would have made the structure unstable and at some point would not be able to hold the loads designed for use by steel that is not heated.

edit on 14-7-2012 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)


Tell me something. If a controlled demolition company is taking down a tall building, why don't they just blow all the columns on some upper floor at once, and let the top section pile drive the rest of the building straight down to the ground. Why not call them or email them and ask them this question? I'll tell you why, because they would laugh at you.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by esdad71
How hot were the fires? The fires ranged in intensity and the temperatures achieved that day were found to be hot enough to weaken the structure by video evidence and comparison as well as NIST testing to give temps. You do not need to test yourself.

Was the fireproofing damaged or defective? Damaged and in some cases it was found the application may not have been up to standard.

Could the fires have affected the steel? Yes. Most materials, when heated, will lose the strength that is created by forging.

What would heating the steel have resulted in? The heating of the steel would have made the structure unstable and at some point would not be able to hold the loads designed for use by steel that is not heated.

edit on 14-7-2012 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)


Tell me something. If a controlled demolition company is taking down a tall building, why don't they just blow all the columns on some upper floor at once, and let the top section pile drive the rest of the building straight down to the ground. Why not call them or email them and ask them this question? I'll tell you why, because they would laugh at you.
I can't wait to hear what these structural engineering 'geniuses' have to say to this question. And, based on their reasoning for the collapse in the first place, why wouldn't it work?



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


If you were a doctor, your patients would die because you do not distinguish but put everything into a collective. If someone says they have chest pains, it may be a heart attack or just gas. Just like a building can be built two different ways yet the same damage or pain is occurring.

If the WTC would have caught fire, I do not think it would have collapsed. It could have been contained and without the other structural damage it would have stood. It would then had to have be fixed as long as there core structure had no damage. You also do not have accellerants from jet fuel for this in your picture. Not excuses just variations that will cause a great difference in the outcome of a situation.


You see that is the 9/11 problem.

That one day is the only day in the history of skyscraper fires that a collapse has occurred.

But all you can do is compare an inanimate skyscraper to the complexity of a biological organism.

psik



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Tell me something. If a controlled demolition company is taking down a tall building, why don't they just blow all the columns on some upper floor at once, and let the top section pile drive the rest of the building straight down to the ground. Why not call them or email them and ask them this question? I'll tell you why, because they would laugh at you.


They WOULD laugh at you, because there would be no way to control where the debris would fall. In a controlled demolition, they want all the debris to land in a confined space. In a pancake type collapse, there is no guarantee that the building debris will land where you want it to (Like how debris from the WTC towers hit other structures, seriously damaging them in the process).

however...something like that has been done:




posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Tell me something. If a controlled demolition company is taking down a tall building, why don't they just blow all the columns on some upper floor at once, and let the top section pile drive the rest of the building straight down to the ground. Why not call them or email them and ask them this question? I'll tell you why, because they would laugh at you.


They WOULD laugh at you, because there would be no way to control where the debris would fall. In a controlled demolition, they want all the debris to land in a confined space. In a pancake type collapse, there is no guarantee that the building debris will land where you want it to (Like how debris from the WTC towers hit other structures, seriously damaging them in the process).

however...something like that has been done:




Interesting, thanks. I guess I should have specified a STEEL-FRAMED building. I suspect that would look more like this:



or this....



In the case of Towers 1 and 2, we might have had the top sections of those buildings rolling through the streets of lower Manhattan like a bowling ball while most of the structure below the impact line would have kept standing.

A steel frame building is very strong and very flexible, but according to an OS'er they turn to peanut brittle when hit by airplanes. Oh wait, airplanes aren't even needed as long as Lucky Larry utters the magic words.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Interesting, thanks. I guess I should have specified a STEEL-FRAMED building. I suspect that would look more like this:


Hmmm, those look like CONCRETE buildings, to me. You're not trying to pull a bait and switch here to embellish your conspiracy claims, are you?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Interesting, thanks. I guess I should have specified a STEEL-FRAMED building. I suspect that would look more like this:


Hmmm, those look like CONCRETE buildings, to me. You're not trying to pull a bait and switch here to embellish your conspiracy claims, are you?


Once again you are taking things out of context in order to lay false accusations on me.

The videos that gavron posted of buildings being pulled down with cables were not steel framed buildings. This would not be possible if they were.

The top video I posted is a steel frame and you can see the steel sticking out the top. The second one is questionable, but this is all irrelevant to the point I was making... which is that you cannot pull down a steel frame building with cables. The videos I posted were illustrations of what I perceive should happen if they were steel-framed.

I don't pull bait and switches to embellish my claims, that would be your department.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Apparently Dr Bazant, of Northwestern University would disagree with you: SOURCE



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


let me ask you to read through bazants paper...and you tell me where he shows how the core collapses upon itself....Also you come in amongst others who falsely show the verniage technique...which does not apply...next thing i am sure you will grasp onto the Implosion . com vid and try and pass that off...but i have broken that one down and there are only three steel structures being demolished in the entire vid...and guess what...they all leaned and toppled but when i pointed it out not a single OSer had anything to say in response.

In all the verniage demolitions it is 50% or more of the upper part dropping onto the lower part..also the upper block stays intact as crush down progresses....the bazant paper is....ONLY theoretical....IT is NOT fact as many OSer's do not seem to understand.,...IT is NOT proven FACT....

now did Bazant look at the observed when he was doing the paper...guess what...he did not or he would have noticed the was no intact upper block for his THEORY to progress....

now in your SPECIAL verniage collapse scenarios do we observe the upper block disintegrating as it comes down onto the lower block....you tell me if that is what you see here.



block drawing according to bazant...

now the observed



now the progression












Now we are led to believe that three steel structures two struck by planes on different floor locations and struck one full face and one to the corner and one not struck at all...Yet they seem to suffer very similar collapses.

But OSer's just believe this to be the case...and they present Verniage...and Bazant...yet it can be easily shown how those do not apply.....

Then they present NIST and FEMA...which they both conflict yet it seems both papers appear to be signed off on by the same people in both circumstances...yet that seems ok also.....

They they Recite the 9/11 commission report...YET 8 of the people on this work have publicly spoken out now saying it was setup to fail.....And how they hit obstruction after obstruction when trying to do the due process.

Then we get back to BAZANT who miraculously within 48hrs presents his first paper...yet NIST takes an Additional 2yrs to only take the Collapses upto the point of Initiation....but this is deemed acceptable by the OSer's.

yet it is truthers that are deemed delusional...well...for me i proud to be so darn delusional so as not to be taken in by the mass propaganda the masses are being sold.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Where on Earth does it say anywhere that "fires melted the steel" is part of the "official story"? To my knowledge there is no "official story" on the precise reason why the towers fell. That's why there are a number of reports and they more or less contradict each other. Even the NIST report said in the first page that their report was an educated guess and shouldn't be relied upon as an official report.

This is what annoys me about the conspiracy theorists relying on propaganda like this. They keep throwing around buzzwords they've picked up like "official story" and yet the things they insist are part of the "official story" isn't remotely "official" by any means except by their own imagination. So why are YOU calling it "the official story" when the people who created these reports aren't even saying they're "official reports"?
edit on 7-7-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)


Do you not believe an official report to be justified?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


That article has psk written all over it.




The relative smallness of energy absorption capability compared to the kinetic energy also sufficed to explain, without any further calculations, why the collapse duration could not have been much longer (say, twice as long or more) than the duration of a free fall from the tower top.

Therefore, no further analysis has been necessary to prove that the WTC towers had to fall the way they did, due to gravity alone.




Now you can stop worring about the distribution of steel and concrete.

You see the experts have the balls to put their name on a paper instead of hiding behind paid DVDs.

And look at all those qualified references at the end.

edit on 17-7-2012 by samkent because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-7-2012 by samkent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


ummm sam this is a paper written by Bazant Verdue...i believe it is the second paper after the Bazant Zednek the first paper....the listing at the end...IS references....it is not signatories to the paper itself....also it is what i have shown above and how the paper itself ignores the observed from the day.

IT IS THEORETICAL

It is not fact...and it has not been proven at all to be true....also if you bothered to look at what i posted you may have realized this....but thanks for posting it...it confirms what i say about how things are being twisted.

in the case of all three collapses there is only a few factors that are true....planes struck two of the buildings....they did not collapse.

so that left only two factors....fires...and a gravity driven collapse.....so the questions become...could fires cause this.....and if so then the only thing left to drive the collapses to the ground would be gravity alone....

and for this to occur...you need to know the PE....which soon as the collapse initiates...becomes KE...So the question is....was there sufficient KE to cause complete collapse.

Now the paper you just cited...needs the upper block to remain INTACT....but some will will say that is accounted for....and many others will say it is not....so back to the theoretical paper of Bazant...because it is theoretical ....that in and of itself excludes it from being able to be counted as FACT.

Now i have had discussions about k-out in the equation...but K-out it seems and i am still waiting for a reply from Bazant...is not all the mass...it is only the mass being expelled at the crushing front....so since he seems to be elusive on this...and from the observed of the upper block as the photos above show...there is really no visible block c that can progress the collapse through the path of greatest resistance.

So in conclusion of the observed....the Bazant paper fails....also it fails on it's own merit as it can only be counted as theoretical...and not FACT.
edit on 073131p://f59Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)
edit on 083131p://f00Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


You do realize it is a theory since no other building had ever collapsed like that before? Two buildings, both unique in their design, happen to collapse in the same method? Do you have a video of another building built the same as the WTC towers that has collapsed? Or even been built? It was NOT a standard steel frame structure.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

That article has psk written all over it.


The relative smallness of energy absorption capability compared to the kinetic energy also sufficed to explain, without any further calculations, why the collapse duration could not have been much longer (say, twice as long or more) than the duration of a free fall from the tower top.

Therefore, no further analysis has been necessary to prove that the WTC towers had to fall the way they did, due to gravity alone.


Now you can stop worring about the distribution of steel and concrete.

You see the experts have the balls to put their name on a paper instead of hiding behind paid DVDs.

And look at all those qualified references at the end.


Yeah, unsubstantiated statements from Bazant are so meaningful..

Of course it should be easy for him to build a physical model that can collapse completely then.

It's been almost 11 years. I haven't seen it done yet. In fact I don't hear much discussion of it from the people who said the towers collapsed that way. I wonder why. That would be like putting their money where their moth is. It's not like my paper loops were designed to be rally strong and have a significant safety factor.

psik



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


Funny how you fail to include WTC 7 in there....but hey that is so typical...and i notice how you have failed to address what was presented to you about the Bazant paper...

Just to mention fires in building is theoretical...

Also WtC1-2 buildings Suffer a bomb blast in 1993....and also a raging fire in 1976....but funny how they all of a suddenly became these weak fragile structures that people want to portray since 9/11.

Why are you making out they were such a feeble design....they were not...they were a very robust design....

you have not addressed the fact that all buildings fell through the path of greatest resistance....you have not addressed the FACT that there wasn't any upper block C in the north tower in order to progress through the path of greatest resistance to complete the collapse according to Bazants theory.

I will add this for south tower...there was axial rotation occurring yet it stopped....the only way for this to happen is for the resistance to all of a sudden give way....but was there distortion in the lower structure where this was observable....nope

I mention north tower now as it is the one that all things need to be focused for the collapses as it had the least amount of KE available to progress the collapse....so that is the one that should always be focused on.

I could point out skyscraper fires before and since then that burned far longer and just as hot as the towers that have never...not once...suffered a complete global collapse....you realize there has been three such case since 911 that have suffered this effect and still stood.

lets look at just one shall we.




then Did it just collapse......no it did not did it.


so Fires and steel structures are theoretical....IT is FACT that Fire does not cause Steel structures to suffer...COMPLETE ...progressive global collapse.....



yuppers ....fires did this alright.....the only theory here is what really brought these structures down.....Because it certainly was not fires and gravity alone.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
.the only theory here is what really brought these structures down.....Because it certainly was not fires and gravity alone.


You of course ignore the plane that hit them, or do you believe the holographic plane nonsense?



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 




I could point out skyscraper fires before and since then that burned far longer and just as hot as the towers that have never...not once...suffered a complete global collapse....you realize there has been three such case since 911 that have suffered this effect and still stood.

They were not constructed the same way as WTC. If you bothered to look designers have since said WTC was a bad design and those methods will not be repeated in any future design.

Plus as has been mentioned many many times those buildings were not hit by aircraft.

Take two houses:
Start a fire in one.
Drive a car into the other and start a fire.
Which one is likely to collapse on to firemen?






top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join