Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Steel Down Of 9/11

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Pagedisciple
 




.. Really? All 1600 members of Ae911truth are "backyard engineers? or, I can hear you're next comment already, "nut-cases?"

No but have you ever looked at their field of expertise?
I see a lot of electrical engineers, software engineers etc. Just what do they bring to the table?
And while we are at it architects (the majority on ae911) do not design the structual steel elements that hold the building up. That's the job of structual steel engineers. One of their main groups is AISC.
AISC
American Institute of Steel Construction.
Funny how not one of the 1700 mentions that they are a member of this organization.
It's also funny that the AIA distances themselves from ae911 and Richard Gage.

Don't you also find it odd that Richard Gage and his 1700 has never put forth a paper detailing how and where the CD crews could place charges to bring down any one of the three buildings? He has had his website for five years and that entire time he has done nothing more than sell DVDs, ask for donations and travel to cities selling tickets to his speeches. He isn't the least bit interested in solving the mystery, he's too busy making a living off of it.




posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Pagedisciple
Careful "Dave", you're starting to sound like one of us who has questions.

Although, you DO speak an awful lot about lasers from space & nefarious (or was it sinister?) spooks.
& now "mysterious force X." You guys used to give 2 $#^s & at least try man, c'mon, really?


There's a difference between acknowledging there are gaps in our understanding that we don't know and we probably won't ever know, and trying to fill in the gaps with abject paranoia to make everything sound spooky-scary to the uninformed. You have to know it isn't me who's bringing up "lasers from outer space", "no planes", "faked crash sites", or whatever. It's your fellow conspiracy theorists here. All I'm doing is pointing out how the multitude of "absolute truths behind the 9/11 attack" is de facto proof that you're all seeing what you yourselves want to see here.

Otherwise, how is it that three people can see the exact same evidence and yet they come up with three completely different and contradictory conclusions?


"Just because there are still gaps in our knowledge it doesn't give you license to fill in the blanks with abject paranoia and then pass them off as fact." Take that same statement coming from your opponents & substitute "resigned belief" instead of "abject paranoia" and I think the shoe seems to fit you fairly well fellow questioner.


I can agree with this, to some extent, but you don't understand...or refuse to understand...why that is. The towers stood for over 30 years without incident until they were whacked by several planes, after which they collapsed in an hour. Even to anyone remotely disinterested in the events of 9/11, it still necessarily means there had to be some sort of correlation between the "whacking" and the "collapsing". The question isn't why I don't care to calculate out what happened to every nut, bolt and door hinge to determine why "whacking" led to "collapsing". The question is why the conspiracy theorists always try to go out of their way to fill in the blanks between "whacking" and "collapsing" with their own choice explanations when they aren't even necessary.

Cough cough (nukes in the basement) cough.


Nice to know that you can agree with us occasionally,.. I'm curious because, that's my nature, but, this "whacking" you speak of? I'm sorry, maybe I'm forgetting, but do any of the beloved OS theories say, "these buildings fell because of "the whacking?" I thought fire was the reason in all the OS's for the towers "collapse" that I've seen since day one? Are you telling me there is an OS study that considers " the whacking?"

~ "You have to know it isn't me who's bringing up "lasers from outer space", "no planes", "faked crash sites", or whatever. It's your fellow conspiracy theorists here. All I'm doing is pointing out how the multitude of "absolute truths behind the 9/11 attack" is de facto proof that you're all seeing what you yourselves want to see here."

A cursory glance through many 9/11 threads would seem to suggest that you usually ARE the first one to throw these kinds suggestions around, yet always to put yourself on a pedestal though by insinuating that anyone who has questions ARE THE SAME AS those who originated these more outlandish & ridiculed theories.

~"Cough cough (nukes in the basement) cough." yup, nobody brought that up in this thread til you. Congrats, here's your tin foil hat! It matches the news shoes you just got a while ago.


Again, I would love to believe a theory that didn't tend to disturb my mother. But I think I know what is getting "the whacking" around here.

Cheers for agreeing & having a sense of humor at least.
edit on 30-7-2012 by Pagedisciple because: edited cuz the "Cough cough (nukes in the basement) cough" was priceless enough to add to my post



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


How exactly did they "lie" about cross trusses? It was not a secret really. They were called "Bridging Trusses". Hell they even point them out here:


In fact,
hell everything you just said can be disproved by this one graphic! You can see the knuckles on the truss sticking up the deck and obviously it goes into the concrete.

They were just testing the response of the trusses and the concrete. The bridge trusses would have also been affected similarly. As for the dampers, they were mentioned in the report. However, they would have produced minimal extra effects on the overall truss systems and even yielded weaker resistance once affected by the fires. Again, the dampers did not do much except for damping the swaying of the building from wind. Majority of the load carrying was done by the top chord of the truss attached to the seat truss.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube

I am not sure what i am making up...it is being told by the same witness you showed...NOT ME....i just went and did some digging into what you had presented...so how is that a truther deception in any way shape or form.....you can get into the semantics about tape measure and such....but it is his witness account...It seems ok that you can put forward witness accounts ...yet when i show what he is saying...then it becomes a truther thang....


Come now, Plube, you're an intelligent fellow, so you have to know the difference between someone making a generalized statement in an attempt to explain what he saw, and holding someone by the exact literal wording he used in order to lambaste him. Noone is taking him literally at his "he saw fires literally every ten floors" except for the truthers. He saw fires every *few* floors. Why are you even arguing the point?

Besides, knowing the exact floors he saw them on is an interesting detail but it doesn't affect the credibility of his eyewitness account. He was there. You and I weren't.



then not only that the cables apparently snapped...then the lift doors open also....then the person makes it to Rodriquez to relay his story...also the person standing in front of the lift doors practically got his skin vapourized...is this from the falling heat...I ask you ...do you not question things....I mean all this could be true...but heat rises....the volume of fuel that would be needed to travel down 1000' of shaft would be a great amount would it not....also this would have been within how long from the planes hitting..Do these not seem strange to yourself.


That's not quite true. It's hot air that rises, not the heat itself, because heat is radiation while air is a gas. You cannot expect to hold a hot coal in your hand and not be burned simply because you're holding it by the bottom.

You're still ignoring the fact that someone was severely burned in the elevator shaft that directly led up to the impact area.


It must be because of my degrees that i don't just accept things...but i think it is more to do with common sense...I don't believe a person with degrees has any more ability to question things than a person without any degrees....I think you should question things first before you present things.


In that case, you're all but accusing everyone of being a liar first and then demanding to be shown proof why they aren't liars, aren't you?



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Pagedisciple
 




.. Really? All 1600 members of Ae911truth are "backyard engineers? or, I can hear you're next comment already, "nut-cases?"

No but have you ever looked at their field of expertise?
I see a lot of electrical engineers, software engineers etc. Just what do they bring to the table?
And while we are at it architects (the majority on ae911) do not design the structual steel elements that hold the building up. That's the job of structual steel engineers. One of their main groups is AISC.
AISC
American Institute of Steel Construction.
Funny how not one of the 1700 mentions that they are a member of this organization.
It's also funny that the AIA distances themselves from ae911 and Richard Gage.

Don't you also find it odd that Richard Gage and his 1700 has never put forth a paper detailing how and where the CD crews could place charges to bring down any one of the three buildings? He has had his website for five years and that entire time he has done nothing more than sell DVDs, ask for donations and travel to cities selling tickets to his speeches. He isn't the least bit interested in solving the mystery, he's too busy making a living off of it.



"Funny how not one of the 1700 mentions that they are a member of this organization." Have you personally made attempts to contact all of them to verify this? One of them? I'm just curious.

& Of course AIA distances themselves from Gage, they wouldn't wanna be seen with those who might ruffle any feathers now would they? It's sometimes hard enough to get people to think about this horror in a relaxed situation, let alone a semi-formal one where everyone's sphincters are tight enough to squeeze coal into diamonds.

Hmmm, & now that you bring up your last point,.. that IS odd. ..Because I've seen literally everything I've ever watched made by anyone having anything to do with with AE911truth, FOR FREE!

I don't need to buy a t-shirt, I have a full wardrobe. Maybe when this cool Tim & Eric T-shirt gets holes in it & I have to replace it I'll look toward some new shirts like theirs. Do you know if they sell em' on Amazon?



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pagedisciple

Nice to know that you can agree with us occasionally,.. I'm curious because, that's my nature, but, this "whacking" you speak of? I'm sorry, maybe I'm forgetting, but do any of the beloved OS theories say, "these buildings fell because of "the whacking?" I thought fire was the reason in all the OS's for the towers "collapse" that I've seen since day one? Are you telling me there is an OS study that considers " the whacking?"


There is no "official story" explanation for why the towers collapsed. There ARE numerous reports by numerous sources that attempt to explain numerous scenarios for why the towers collapsed, which is why they all acknowledge their estimates are mostly educated guesses and cannot be viewed as canonical.

...and yes, there is a study that considers the whacking- the report Perdue University released was based upon computer modelling, and in their estimate the incompressible fuel from the planes acted like a wrecking ball against the structure and caused more critical damage to the building than either the NIST or FEMA reports take into account. It's the report I subscribe to myself.



A cursory glance through many 9/11 threads would seem to suggest that you usually ARE the first one to throw these kinds suggestions around, yet always to put yourself on a pedestal though by insinuating that anyone who has questions ARE THE SAME AS those who originated these more outlandish & ridiculed theories.


In such cases, you should also have observed that whenever someone accused me of such a thing, odds tend to be very good that one or more proponents of said theories come out of the woodwork. If not, then you can easily provoke them; tell Dillweed that it really was a plane that crashed into the Pentagon, and see what he says.


Again, I would love to believe a theory that didn't tend to disturb my mother. But I think I know what is


Well, here's one you might submit to her- the 9/11 attack succeeded not because of any sinister secret plot to take over the world, but becuase of monumental incompetence that we've only begun to scratch the surface on. A gov't that can't hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels will certainly have had similar Keystone Cops moments during the 9/11 attack, and all these coveups and conspiracies are just a bunch of people afraid of admitting they screwed up and allowed 3000 people to die. The 9/11 commission report documented a few of these issues but there's certainly more we dont' know about.

Guess why I'm mentioning that scenario. Go ahead, your first guess will probably be right.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Pagedisciple

Nice to know that you can agree with us occasionally,.. I'm curious because, that's my nature, but, this "whacking" you speak of? I'm sorry, maybe I'm forgetting, but do any of the beloved OS theories say, "these buildings fell because of "the whacking?" I thought fire was the reason in all the OS's for the towers "collapse" that I've seen since day one? Are you telling me there is an OS study that considers " the whacking?"


There is no "official story" explanation for why the towers collapsed. There ARE numerous reports by numerous sources that attempt to explain numerous scenarios for why the towers collapsed, which is why they all acknowledge their estimates are mostly educated guesses and cannot be viewed as canonical.

...and yes, there is a study that considers the whacking- the report Perdue University released was based upon computer modelling, and in their estimate the incompressible fuel from the planes acted like a wrecking ball against the structure and caused more critical damage to the building than either the NIST or FEMA reports take into account. It's the report I subscribe to myself.



A cursory glance through many 9/11 threads would seem to suggest that you usually ARE the first one to throw these kinds suggestions around, yet always to put yourself on a pedestal though by insinuating that anyone who has questions ARE THE SAME AS those who originated these more outlandish & ridiculed theories.


In such cases, you should also have observed that whenever someone accused me of such a thing, odds tend to be very good that one or more proponents of said theories come out of the woodwork. If not, then you can easily provoke them; tell Dillweed that it really was a plane that crashed into the Pentagon, and see what he says.


Again, I would love to believe a theory that didn't tend to disturb my mother. But I think I know what is


Well, here's one you might submit to her- the 9/11 attack succeeded not because of any sinister secret plot to take over the world, but becuase of monumental incompetence that we've only begun to scratch the surface on. A gov't that can't hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels will certainly have had similar Keystone Cops moments during the 9/11 attack, and all these coveups and conspiracies are just a bunch of people afraid of admitting they screwed up and allowed 3000 people to die. The 9/11 commission report documented a few of these issues but there's certainly more we dont' know about.

Guess why I'm mentioning that scenario. Go ahead, your first guess will probably be right.


I'm not sure what you want me to guess, but I really do think it is Fantastic to hear you say there may have been at least a covering of behinds "Dave", it's great to hear that you seem to have serious questions about the competency of our elected officials. Wouldn't you want these incompetents that caused such a failure to be rooted out from service? I think I would like the "Keystone Cops" off the job if that's really the case, I would hope you can agree to this also.

So please, join us in asking questions, questions with possibly painful or incompetent answers, won't you? If we ALL would just get ALL of our questions addressed in a civil manner & thoroughly by those whom should be held responsible, I would like to believe we could start to put this nasty business behind us. Those that are found responsible must be held accountable, so that we may better ensure that we do not ever have a repeat like it.

C'mon "Dave," wouldn't it be nice to put this madness to rest once & for all? You have concerns about Keystone cops, I have concerns about lateral ejections of 300 ton steel beams going 300 feet. C'mon bro'!? I have songs to write, this is a drag on my sonic output. You have a life to lead too, this can't honestly be THAT fun for you to want to do for all these yrs & the forseeable yrs into the future. Wouldn't you like to know that one of us had questions (hell, both of us) that finally got answered & accounted for?

It just seems like prudent procedure to me, but what do I know, I listen to hippies music about peace & love, I'm an idealist.

Cheers Dave
edit on 30-7-2012 by Pagedisciple because: because I'm human too & misspelled a word



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pagedisciple

Originally posted by Snakey

Originally posted by Pagedisciple

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by Pagedisciple
 




We're to keep a straight face when they say gravity helped pieces of steel weighing several tons each, to FLY LATERALLY, FAR ENOUGH (geez, I can barely type this without wincing) to cause damage enough to gut out a significant portion of the WTC7, another steel framed concrete building, that, funnily enough we've never really seen photographic proof of this gutting

Apparently there was a piece of steel weighing 300 tons that docked some 100 meters away. Then again, the Inertia that could collapse the towers to rubble in 15 seconds could also make parts of the frame fly under compresion. I don't see any contradiction in such a scenario.



Okay, more than 300 feet away for a 300 ton piece of steel. The "inertia?" (inertia here is defined as
"A property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force"),... "uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force" A straight line, unless external force,.... how are lateral ejections of over 300 feet, of beams weighing 300 tons, dislodged from this straight line? What was the "external force"?

A 300 ton piece of steel flies 300 feet from where it used to be & you really think gravity alone explains this?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your reasoning & I would like to.,.. PLEASE show me ANY other instance of a gravity driven collapse causing steel members to fly laterally for over a hundred meters... I would LOVE to believe in any OS that made sense to me, I really would. But I've not seen it yet & this explanation does little to disprove my own experiences with gravity.

Cheers!


I didn't say I agreed with the offitial explanation of the collapse. If the the upper part could produce the momentum to smash the much more massive bottom to nothing, you could expect such force could also sling snapped steel parts sideways. Many people assume(myself inlcuded) that gravity could not collapse the buildings so quickly, without resistance, and in a symetical downwrad thrust, but then some of them have problems with steel members flying sideways. I see a contradiction here, one of many with respect to 9/11, the effect of either confusion or disinformation and most likely of both. The towers were the tallest structures in NY. The downward trajectory alone would allow for a decent distance under even a small push. The compresion that folded the WTC would have had to be very large, large enough to also be capable of slinging even very heavy beams or columns along a downward projectory far away from the building. I would see nothing wrong with them flying even further if I believed in the default story. I can not back it up with anything because nothing similar ever happened, not even in anyone imagination prior to the 9/11 I would bet.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


stand corrected on that comment and thanks for being persistent and i will post all the NIST test on what you have stated and I humbly correct here about the NIST they were exceptional in all their testing(sarcasm).....but did the test reflect reality....They loaded the test sections...they did restrained and unrestrained testing...The floors did not collapse after even 2hrs hours of burn time...so no qualification here...I was wrong in that...and i will show it ...cheers for the remarks....You have always been respectful in your replies....and is always appreciated.

will continue on with all posting of steel and trying to locate positioning.
edit on 033131p://f06Monday by plube because: (no reason given)
edit on 033131p://f07Monday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pagedisciple
 
C'mon "Dave," wouldn't it be nice to put this madness to rest once & for all? You have concerns about Keystone cops, I have concerns about lateral ejections of 300 ton steel beams going 300 feet. C'mon bro'!? I have songs to write, this is a drag on my sonic output. You have a life to lead too, this can't honestly be THAT fun for you to want to do for all these yrs & the forseeable yrs into the future. Wouldn't you like to know that one of us had questions (hell, both of us) that finally got answered & accounted for?


Here's the problem I have with that request- by the truthers' own words, they're really not asking questions. They're insisting that their own imagined scenario has to be true so they're looking to convince others into believing it too. Here's a case in point; this is a post another truther wrote in another thread, earlier today:

"If the damn military itself had any REAL balls, they'd get a battalion to march into the FBI offices, with tanks and close air support, if need be, grab the FBI director by the throat, put a gun to his head, and say "hand over the damn serial numbers, AND the maintenance records. NOW. We're SICK of your damn lies after Iraq, and you're getting us killed for political motivation. Now it's YOUR turn to pay, with your life if need be. SERIAL NUMBERS! NOW!!!!""

Does this sound more like "asking questions" to you, or does it sound more like "he's insisting that a given scenario has to be true and he's looking to convince others into believing it too"? It's nigh difficult to want to know more about what the standing orders were for the interceptors and how they actually responded during the attack when there are characters who insist there were never any interceptors scrambled in the first place.

So in the end, who here is really causing more harm to the effort to discovering the facts behind the 9/11 attack, me or the truthers? I would LOVE LOVE LOVE for there to be a united front to determine, "Hey, why did those buildings collapse in the way they did, anyway", but when there are zealots insisting "we want to know how Israel planted those mini-nukes in the basement", I don't see that happening. Do you agree or disagree?
edit on 30-7-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Pagedisciple
 
C'mon "Dave," wouldn't it be nice to put this madness to rest once & for all? You have concerns about Keystone cops, I have concerns about lateral ejections of 300 ton steel beams going 300 feet. C'mon bro'!? I have songs to write, this is a drag on my sonic output. You have a life to lead too, this can't honestly be THAT fun for you to want to do for all these yrs & the forseeable yrs into the future. Wouldn't you like to know that one of us had questions (hell, both of us) that finally got answered & accounted for?


Here's the problem I have with that request- by the truthers' own words, they're really not asking questions. They're insisting that their own imagined scenario has to be true so they're looking to convince others into believing it too. Here's a case in point; this is a post another truther wrote in another thread, earlier today:

"If the damn military itself had any REAL balls, they'd get a battalion to march into the FBI offices, with tanks and close air support, if need be, grab the FBI director by the throat, put a gun to his head, and say "hand over the damn serial numbers, AND the maintenance records. NOW. We're SICK of your damn lies after Iraq, and you're getting us killed for political motivation. Now it's YOUR turn to pay, with your life if need be. SERIAL NUMBERS! NOW!!!!""

Does this sound more like "asking questions" to you, or does it sound more like "he's insisting that a given scenario has to be true and he's looking to convince others into believing it too"? It's nigh difficult to want to know more about what the standing orders were for the interceptors and how they actually responded during the attack when there are characters who insist there were never any interceptors scrambled in the first place.

So in the end, who here is really causing more harm to the effort to discovering the facts behind the 9/11 attack, me or the truthers? I would LOVE LOVE LOVE for there to be a united front to determine, "Hey, why did those buildings collapse in the way they did, anyway", but when there are zealots insisting "we want to know how Israel planted those mini-nukes in the basement", I don't see that happening. Do you agree or disagree?
edit on 30-7-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)


I do in fact agree to your last point, (look at this, more than 1 post in a day that we can actually agree on something? I better play the lottery today or something) and AGAIN, I'm very glad to hear you say "I would LOVE LOVE LOVE for there to be a united front to determine, "Hey, why did those buildings collapse in the way they did, anyway" --

But again I feel you are possibly using a large brush with broad strokes when you paint all 9/11 "truthers" into a one dimensional cartoon, that we are ALL unreasonable & possibly all prone to violent acts over civil discourse, or that all of us believe in sinister agendas or mini-nikes or whatever else comes up,.. it's not fair to either side to do this imho. Much as I'm sure those on your side of the tracks feel like you've been similarly stereotyped.

Dare I say, I feel like we are learning something about each other today & actually speaking in respectful phrases instead of some of the childish prattling I've seen from both sides.

Who's causing more harm? Honestly probably extremists from both camps (much like in religion). How can we fix it? I dunno, but I do think us discussing things calmly like this instead of jumping on any talking point or perceived "Gotcha" advantages seems like miles away from the vitriol I usually see here & I am very glad to be a small part of it,...

How F%$#'d have all of us been since this has happened? Are we getting better? Denial of information by either side isn't making the problem go away any time soon. In fact I submit it only protracts this malady.

Again, I appeal to your sensible side that is telling me you too have questions, as I'm sure many of the OS camp do. I really pray that we (all of us) can think with clear heads, without emotions getting in the way as much as possible.

Btw, you've got me wondering,.. what was it you wanted me to guess earlier? I hope the intended guess I was supposed to key in on does not do anything negative towards what I feel are fairly important strides in evolving our collective to something better.

Cheers again



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 





Kudos to your efforts...i really appreciate it.....I would say it is much more accurate to the real mass..do you have a link to it....that would also be appreciated but i am sure i will find it and have a look at it...cheers for your efforts.


Thanks, and no problem. I am sorry about the delay, recently I have had little spare time which is a shame as I really enjoy this forum . Please see the below link.

www.journalof911studies.com...
edit on 31-7-2012 by AvadaKedavra14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Is that all you keep going on about....how much of a floor section did collapse....was it an entire floor at once...or was it some...and then some and then some more...you make things up...you keep showing a picture of trusses...yet it is incomplete as none of the dampers have even been connected in the picture your proud of...so go ahead you keep on about something that is not relevant without accurate data as to how much load of one floor collapsed onto a floor below...also i don't agree that the truss seats were the failure so your dynamic loading is false from the start...you keep mocking by using smilely faces in posts which makes your comments childish.

until you show respect to people you reply too...as i said in the beginning....If you do not show respect you will be ignored.

edit on 103131p://f59Monday by plube because: (no reason given)


Well you have commented you wanted a better idea of the mass of the buildings MYSELF and others have being say from the start that the mass was nearer 250,000 tons per tower as the fig for the steel frame has been quoted on here on various threads as just over 90,000 tons as for your dampers they were to reduce the lateral movement in high winds to stop occupents from being sick and would provide little or no resistance in the collapse, now as you are always looking at youtube videos and you have a good indication of actual mass do YOU honestly think 31 floors dropping would not do what you saw and as for the north tower collapse you have 15 floors of concrete floorslab ,steel frame,hat truss and mast all falling so I say again if you guys are so confident work out an approx DYNAMIC load YOU DONT NEED ACCURATE DATA to show it works out many times the static load thats the really IMPORTANT POINT ,then you can forget about controlled dem, ANOK psik and others have ALWAYS avoided the question because they KNOW they will shot themselves in the foot if they do!! I will just add you to the list it seems!



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
 


yes i can say thisAs we can see it was systematic and quick for the disposal of the evidence....good thing we have video evidence available to us to go through everything....I will start to show plans and locations of steel soon...it is a lot of work to go through....but worth the effort....this is all within three months of the incident...the steel had to be moved off site first did it not..I can fully say this without fail...The investigation by NIST had not even really begun at this point....A paper by Bazant(the first one had already come out within 48hrs of the collapses)...so yes...it was very systematic...I am sure if they could have got rid of this material the very first day they would have....so can you show that it was not done deliberately what harm was it doing sitting there while investigations took place...none.


...and as per usual, you conspicuously hide from the fact that there are many, many, MANY photographs of what the steel looked like in it's post-collapsed state, not to mention, hundreds of steel workers and other technicians clearing the area out and seeing what was there personally. Not a single photo nor a single ground zero worker encountered even a microbe of any sabotage. You know that and so do I. With genuine crime scenes you can expect at least some clues- a spent shell casing, a spot of blood, a broken window, missing belongings, SOMETHING that shows something bad happened there, but despite the huge collection of photos and the huge army of eyewitnesses, you literally have nothing.

How then can you say "they quickly got rid of the evidence" when all you've done is shown it isn't even evidence of anything?



but enough of trying to derail the thread....I am doing more work and will get back shortly....enjoy the discussions...because there is more coming...the more people actually see how much they have been deceived the more they will come to understand the way the structures were built...the materials involved...then they will know the way they were shown to be these weak toothpick type structures is false the further they will push for truth.



I'm not trying to derail the thread. I'm pointing out that this thread follows the exact same modus operandi as every other of the 9/11 conspiracy movement- you're passing off what you yourself want to believe as if it's a factual statement despite the dearth of any tangible evidence. I don't mean to appear flippant, but after ten years the conspiracy theorists have gotten pretty stale in their nonstop repetition of the exact same material that proves absolutely nothing. If you can provide something new, then please do. It will be refreshing to actually see something more tangible than thinly veiled innuendo.




guess what....Not so far....so where did the fires cause such global damage that the towers lost strength and collapsed....so far from all the steel shots we are not seeing this deformation are we


Ahem...

THE THREAD WHERE I POSTED CLOSE UP VIDEO OF THE POINT OF FAILURE

It shows the exact point of failure of the buildings youre referencing, and not a single video showed any explosions causing the collapse; they all crumpled like beer cans due to the simple fact they couldn't hold up the weight any longer. This "so far from all the steel shots we are not seeing this deformation are we" thread isn't an area that helps your cause either.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   


There is no mechanism to pull in the columns.


It is as simple as the floor trusses did sag, So the fire expands the truss steel which pushes against the perimeter columns. initially perimeter columns are strong enough to resist the expansion and cause the expanding truss to sag. When the floor does sag it pulls on both perimeter and core columns but as the core columns are stronger its the perimeter columns that get pulled inward.



But what makes it logical to you? I explained why it couldn't happen, I want you to explain why you think it could.


As above.



Why would the trusses pull because they sagged?


How can they sag and not pull on the perimeter columns?



And again it will also pull on itself and the connections, so were the connections stronger than the columns? You've already said they weren't, so then why did the connections or the truss itself fail before it could cause the columns to be pulled in?


The truss did not fail though, I am saying the columns did via their connections.



Just saying you think it's logical does not answer the question. If you can't answer this question then why are you so sure the OS is correct? Faith?


Just my opinion, And I do not agree with all the OS, however some of it does make sense.



No they didn't. If the connections failed first, then how did the trusses pull in the columns? So you agree the columns were not the weak point, then why didn't either the trusses or the connections, 1" and 5/8" bolts, fail before the trusses could pull the columns in?


I said the connections connecting the columns together, would have failed when the columns were being pulled inward by the sagging trusses.




The pulling force would first effect the truss, then the connections and finally the columns. So why didn't the truss or connections fail first?


Evidently the truss connections were not being over-stressed and did not shear, where as the perimeter columns connections were sheared.
edit on 31-7-2012 by AvadaKedavra14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by AvadaKedavra14


It is as simple as the floor trusses did sag, So the fire expands the truss steel which pushes against the perimeter columns. initially perimeter columns are strong enough to resist the expansion and cause the expanding truss to sag. When the floor does sag it pulls on both perimeter and core columns but as the core columns are stronger its the perimeter columns that get pulled inward.

This is one of the few things that can be proven. Do you have examples of smilar thermal transformation to a frame structure. There have been lots of fires. If the government is so interested in proving it had no part in it why they don't build a frame similar to the one in WTC, not necessery that high of course, or find and an old one to scrap. We could see how thermal expansion works on the exact same box frame bridged with similar trusses and capped with hat trusses. I wouldn't like calculations or computer animation but real life research would be something. We know today the whole thing has become a matter of believe just like the UFO. Is the government so weak today to be unable to present something more substantial in its defence with respect to WTC than what it has done so far.
edit on 31-7-2012 by Snakey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Snakey
 




If the government is so interested in proving it had no part in it why they don't build a frame similar to the one in WTC, not necessery that high of course, or find and an old one to scrap.

They did. It was a copy of a section of one of the floors. They applied fire underneath and the trusses warped as expected.
I don't have the web page but it did have pictures of the results. Perhaps someone else still has the link.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Here it is!

Look at the detail provided.
Why doesn't Richard Gage and his 1700 produce something in writing to prove their accusations?
Oh That's right. They can't because they don't have any proof.

Look on page 84.
20.5 minutes.



The steel deck became heavly deformed south of the center deck support angle.


Also there are many listings of 'loud report' being heard, in the report. Are those the 'explosions' people claim to hear?????
edit on 31-7-2012 by samkent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
Here it is!

Look at the detail provided.
Why doesn't Richard Gage and his 1700 produce something in writing to prove their accusations?
Oh That's right. They can't because they don't have any proof.

Look on page 84.
20.5 minutes.



The steel deck became heavly deformed south of the center deck support angle.


Also there are many listings of 'loud report' being heard, in the report. Are those the 'explosions' people claim to hear?????
edit on 31-7-2012 by samkent because: (no reason given)


Thanks for that, I was going to try and find that myself as an example.









 
13
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join