What is a 9/11 "truther"? Our Truth, and Theirs

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton
The remaining should hold up a part of the building for a few moments allowing it to lean over.


So what if the column(s) that failed first were not the perimeter columns but the ones closer to the center? It would seem to me that would result in a kink in the middle, followed by failure of all remaining columns more or less at once (due to load transfers). Thats kind of like what we observe on video and kind of like what NIST explains in detail in their report.
edit on 18-9-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton

I think it would be a rare occation indeed for a tree to fall straight down because someone cut deeply into one side. Have you never seen a tower lean and fall to one side after one leg is damaged or removed. This is the way any other structure should act if only a few supports are lost. The remaining should hold up a part of the building for a few moments allowing it to lean over.

Since the clearly did not appear to happen, the only other speculation left is for some force other than gravity to be at work.


Are you seriously suggesting WTC 7 was a solid object?



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Why, Yes, Dave!!!

I thought everyone knew there was no one inside when it came down.. That would mean no one could get inside a solid object.

Have you not been paying attention ???



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


How many interior columns failed ?

Would this cause sufficient load shifting toward the interior to cause ALL the exterior walls to remain intact as they fell, still attached to the floor pans ?

It does seem though that there should have been some resistance to this collapse, unless every vertical column on every floor failed as the collapse progressed.

Again, a very rare occurance indeed.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton
How many interior columns failed ?


Eventually all. This question is ambiguous.


Would this cause sufficient load shifting toward the interior to cause ALL the exterior walls to remain intact as they fell, still attached to the floor pans ?


Apparently.


It does seem though that there should have been some resistance to this collapse, unless every vertical column on every floor failed as the collapse progressed.

Again, a very rare occurance indeed.


On what exactly do you base the assertion that this is rare? There was plenty of resistance. Internal collapse happened several seconds before we see the outer shell coming down, as is evident by the penthouse collapse.

There isn't really that much of a mystery surrounding WTC7, except for the "I don't (want to) believe it". See my description of a truther on the previous page.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I do appreciate your voicing the most predictable answers to my questions.

Since the building collapsed all the way to the ground, it does appear that all the columns did fail,"eventually".

Just so I make the question a little more clear, I'll ask it this way.

Of the columns on the lowest floors, how many needed to fail in order for the innitiation of the collapse in the beginning?

Would this not also necessitate that all the vertical columns above them should also fail, generally in sequence, for the entire building to fall straight down and never show any indications of leaning.

This would also be necessary for it to fall primarily onto it's own foundation rather than into other buildings and properties. I don't know of any forces which would "correct" the direction of a falling structure in order for this to be accomplished.

Like I often say, " I am not really as smart as a lot of other people, so I need all the help I can get to learn these things."



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Carseller4
 


How long have people been praying and seeking the face of God ?

Are you sure there is one, of any kind, anywhere?

Where is the picture ???



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You're simply arguing for the sake of arguing, Psikey. The truth is that noone has any definitive idea what caused the towers to collapse. Yes, the planes impacted the towers, and yes, there were fires, and yes, the towers had unique designs which would cause them to react differently from traditional designs, but noone knows...and noone will probably ever know...what percentage was from the impact damage vs what percentage was from the fires vs what percentage was from how that specific design reacted to the damage inflicted on it. "They don't know" doesn't necessarily mean "they're hiding something." It ALSO means "they really and truly don't know".


When have I ever said what did cause them to "collapse"? Though be destroyed would be more accurate.

I have simply said that airliners and fires could not do it and certainly not in that little time.

Therefore SOMETHING ELSE MUST HAVE.

But then a lot of people get on my case for not being specific. So I am supposed to shut up and accept a lose lose situation. Not likely.

psik



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton
I do appreciate your voicing the most predictable answers to my questions.

Since the building collapsed all the way to the ground, it does appear that all the columns did fail,"eventually".

Just so I make the question a little more clear, I'll ask it this way.

Of the columns on the lowest floors, how many needed to fail in order for the innitiation of the collapse in the beginning?


If you want answers to questions like these, you can start with the NIST report. My initial answer would be: none.

But then again, "initiation of the collapse in the beginning" is both a pleonasm and ambiguous. So any serious discussion about the matter is not really possible in this kind of format.


Would this not also necessitate that all the vertical columns above them should also fail, generally in sequence, for the entire building to fall straight down and never show any indications of leaning.


No.



This would also be necessary for it to fall primarily onto it's own foundation rather than into other buildings and properties. I don't know of any forces which would "correct" the direction of a falling structure in order for this to be accomplished.


It wouldn't. If you disagree, show the proof.


Like I often say, " I am not really as smart as a lot of other people, so I need all the help I can get to learn these things."


You don't need help, you need persistence, spend a lot of time on it and do a lot of hard work. In the end you can even get a very nice degree which can get you a good job
.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Why, Yes, Dave!!!

I thought everyone knew there was no one inside when it came down.. That would mean no one could get inside a solid object.

Have you not been paying attention ???


Yes I have. I've read it twice and I still don't understand what you're talking about. You used an analogy of a tree made of solid wood as an example of how hollow building should have behaved, and now you're attributing empty buildings as being solid objects.

Please explain yourself, as you are beginning to wander in your analogies.
edit on 20-9-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Science is supposed to be a Truth Movement.

Science involves at least trying to obtain all relevant data about a problem to get an accurate understanding of reality.

So the Physics Profession should explain how airliners could totally destroy buildings 2000+ times their own mass in less than two hours and that would require accurate data on the buildings. So this incident should have been explained one way or the other long ago.

"Truther" has simply become a pejorative for people who can't accept a story with holes so obvious one must be blind to not see them. So now 9/11 is more of a psychological issue than one of physics.

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

psik


I can see where you are going with that, and "accurate data on the buildings" is an important part, never mind the rest. It also best describes an answer for the OP here, Good post.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Baloney. A "truther" is someone who derives his own favored alternative version of the events of 9/11 and then tries to get others into accepting his alternative version as "the truth". It's essentially a theorist who's too arrorant to acknowledge his opinions are a theory rather than a fact.

The proof is in the pudding- the "controlled demolitions" crowd, the "nukes in the basement" crowd, the "no planes hit the Pentagon" crowd, even the "lasers from outer space" crowd are about as opposite to each other in their beliefs as it gets, and yet they all consider themselves truthers. I daresay it's a given the towers weren't destroyed by demolitions AS WELL AS laser from outer space AS WELL AS nukes in the basement, so by definition, one or more of the "truthers" are wrong in their assertions. How can that be if they're all basing their positions on the truth rather than theory?


I don't know why you consider theorists as all arrogant, to me as having a belief in a God for instance, which is based on theology/the study of, that would be insulting. I however allow for others of a different creed to go their merry way. Yet by definition, there are a lot of people who's God is a wrong assertion since they all think that their God is the only one. You are attacking the messenger, not the message. That's not right.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by newsaddict


While I have questions about 9/11, as I'm sure you do too, I believe that's where "truthers" should stop.

At asking questions.

When we begin to make accusations we move from being mere truth seekers, to a position that forces us to have to defend our position.


Is it an accusation to say that the NIST does not specify the total amount of concrete in the towers?

Is it an accusation to point out that they say in three places that they admitted needing to know the distribution of weight of the tower to analyse the aircraft impact? How can the possibly get the distribution is they do not even know the total?

So aren't they engaged in a stupid contradiction and essentially admitting their analysis is unscientific?

psik



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Science is supposed to be a Truth Movement.

Science involves at least trying to obtain all relevant data about a problem to get an accurate understanding of reality.

So the Physics Profession should explain how airliners could totally destroy buildings 2000+ times their own mass in less than two hours and that would require accurate data on the buildings. So this incident should have been explained one way or the other long ago.

"Truther" has simply become a pejorative for people who can't accept a story with holes so obvious one must be blind to not see them. So now 9/11 is more of a psychological issue than one of physics.

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

psik


Are YOU really still going on abut this ! It WASN'T just the aircraft it was the resultant structural damage combined with the fires!!!!

Stop trying to make out the that only cause was the planes!!!!!



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Are YOU really still going on abut this ! It WASN'T just the aircraft it was the resultant structural damage combined with the fires!!!!

Stop trying to make out the that only cause was the planes!!!!!


I have provided and example multiple times that involved more damage than plane impact and fires could do.

Suppose we had the north tower intact and could magically remove 5 stories, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories in the air without support. They would fall. They would take 1.9 seconds to hit the top of the lower 90 stories and be travelling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec on impact.

Those 90 stories would be about 1080 feet tall. If the falling 15 stories could maintain a constant velocity while crushing six times as many stories as themselves even though they had to be stronger and heavier than the falling 15 stories, then it would take 17.4 seconds to destroy 90 stories. This would yield a total of 19.3 seconds to destroy the north tower.

But Dr. Sunder of the NIST told NPR in a podcast that the north tower completely collapsed in 11 seconds.

The 15 stories at the top of the 90 had to be strong enough to support the weight of 20 stories. Making them stronger means putting in more steel which would make them heavier. The 15 stories below that had to support 35, and the next 50, and the next 65 and then 80 and then 95. So all of the way down the building had to get stronger and heavier. That is true of all skyscrapers. So this presents a problem just on the basis of the conservation of momentum. How could a smaller lighter mass accelerate stronger and heavier masses and destroy the supports which must have held them while doing the destruction in less than triple the free fall time of 9.2 seconds.

Now why are we supposed to believe that was possible when the physics profession has not demanded and provided accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the north tower?

9/11 is the biggest farce of physics in history of science. Why should we care what they say about the Higgs Boson? They have really made an Irony of Curiosity. How do you get to Mars without Newtonian Physics?

psik



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I agree with the OP that our strong arm here is QUESTIONING the official story. As soon as we start theorizing, our theory can then be questioned. So long as we are simply questioning, we remain skeptics, not peddlers of a theory. And even if a theory is correct, no one wants a forced view onto themselves. Ask the questions, let the audience figure out the answer.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


What I don't understand is how after all these years you still don't have a clue about the failure mode of those towers. It were mostly floors that failed, not columns. Floors did not get stronger or heavyer further down.

What I also don't understand is that I keep trying to explain it. For some reason I can't accept that some people just don't get it. Oh well



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


What I don't understand is how after all these years you still don't have a clue about the failure mode of those towers. It were mostly floors that failed, not columns. Floors did not get stronger or heavyer further down.

What I also don't understand is that I keep trying to explain it. For some reason I can't accept that some people just don't get it. Oh well


Then why has the NIST rejected the pancake theory? Tell the NIST that they are wrong.


NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

www.nist.gov...

So the NIST already said you are wrong but you are trying to win with a rejected argument. So all you have is your own blather.

psik



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



NIST rejects the pancake theory as initiation. After initiation it is always floors hitting floor. To think anything else is even possible, you require a mindset that has little to do with reality.


For me it is just so surreal that after all these years, and after it being explained so many times, it just does not get through, and the same nonsense is repeated over and over by the same people. Oh well, I don't care that much, it just keeps amazing me.



new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join