How Dangerous is 9/11 Truth?

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
The reason why they havent done so is, that, to the experts, the collapse is pretty much mustard after the meal. They wanted to find out what caused the START of the collapse, but unfortunately for you, they actually UNDERSTOOD that once the collapse started, nothing was going to stop it. They did not feel the need to go into another super detailed investigation to figure out that once the collapse started, it will fall down. The unique design of the building helped facilitate the total collapse and this has been brought up by other independent persons and organizations. But the point is that they had the way the building was designed in their hands and just from the blueprints, could see that the floor connections and the way it was built would not have been able to arrest the collapse.


Just more blather.

The Potential Energy of the building cannot even be computed without knowing how much mass was at what height.

There is never even any discussion of how much energy is required to collapse a single level. And that would change down the building as the steel got thicker and therefore heavier. I had to make my paper loops stronger toward the bottom to support more weight.

In fact we never even encounter how much a single floor assembly weighed. The weight of the concrete can be computed form the volume and density. That was 600 tons. How often do you ever see it. What was the weight of the steel pans and trusses? Where is that ever encountered? But I could do empirical tests to determine how much energy was required to crush a single loop, 0.118 joules.

All you can say is believe the people you claim are experts but the experts don't have to supply you with any data that is worth a damn.

You can accept the priesthood of your choice all you want.

psik




posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 





The floors were NOT holding up the floor above them. They just held up their weight.


Okay...I give up. Read this once, twice, even three times...WTH!?!?



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The entire construction acted together to support the weight above them. The guy who posted, "the floors did not support the floors above them," is talking out the side of his neck. Anyone with half a brain would know the individual floors were necessary to provide support for the floors above them. Any building requires bottom support and that includes the floors below. Next thing you know, this joker is going to come back and say a house of cards only requires cards placed on edge and not flat cards on top of each floor.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


It's pretty obvious to me that beam was bent when it was very hot. Bend cold steel and it will show cracks around the bend.


What are you basing that on? If steel would show cracks from being bent it would mean it was a brittle metal, and without even looking it up I know they'd want the steel to be flexible since the building would necessarily have been designed to sway in the wind.


Even IF the fires reached 1000c, it would take far more than an hour for that heat to transfer to the steel.


If fires had caused this column to fail in this way then it would have signs of fire damage on it I.E. blackened areas or deformations in the metal. Like I said, physics need to apply to your conspiracy claims just as they do to everyone else.

No, this beam was destroyed by the mechanical forces from the collapse itself, which sipports the scenario that, yes, the collapsing wreckage did legitimately have enough force to destroy the stationary floors and columns beneath it. The information this column contains is the whole reason why they preserved this specimen.
edit on 28-11-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The entire construction acted together to support the weight above them. The guy who posted, "the floors did not support the floors above them," is talking out the side of his neck. Anyone with half a brain would know the individual floors were necessary to provide support for the floors above them. Any building requires bottom support and that includes the floors below. Next thing you know, this joker is going to come back and say a house of cards only requires cards placed on edge and not flat cards on top of each floor.


When you take four cards and tape them together into a square, it WILL support a fifth card that you put on top of the square even though the card is only being supported by the edges. Try it if you don't believe me. That is more or less how the floors in the WTC were constructed.

I think this is one of the main reasons why conspiracy theories linger so long- too many bad and inaccurate analogies being used to support them.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Before I go further, a quick question, do you agree that at least the lower beam in the pic is not a core column, but a piece of exterior wall?

And where would you say was the bent beam located in the building?
edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

People have been killed over it, including a WTC7 Security Guard by the name of Barry Jennings I believe it was who's testimony flew in the face of the official story in the sense that he witnessed explosions, and bodies PRIOR to the destruction of the North Tower which was credited, officially, with having so damaged 7 that the building simply collapsed due to fire and the damage from the falling north tower debris.

edit on 28-11-2012 by NewAgeMan because: typo



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Before I go further, a quick question, do you agree that at least the lower beam in the pic is not a core column, but a piece of exterior wall?

And where would you say was the bent beam located in the building?
edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)


The beam at the lower right is an external column tree trident piece, installed only at one height in the buildings. At least, that's what it appears to be quickly. I haven't looked up its reference #.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The entire construction acted together to support the weight above them. The guy who posted, "the floors did not support the floors above them," is talking out the side of his neck. Anyone with half a brain would know the individual floors were necessary to provide support for the floors above them. Any building requires bottom support and that includes the floors below. Next thing you know, this joker is going to come back and say a house of cards only requires cards placed on edge and not flat cards on top of each floor.


You're mistaken. The floors in the WTC were not attached between column sections, but were in fact attached to angle clips welded to the sides of the columns.

The floors (not the columns of a particular floor) supported no structural loads whatsoever. He is correct.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


So, read the post. You are telling me you can build a house of cards made of nothing but cards stacked on their edges (i.e., NO FLAT CARDS)? I would like to see that...



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Then why would the NIST see fit to even mention stress rates on the concrete floors of the towers? You people amaze me with your lack of vision. To think the entire construction was not crucial to the building remaining standing is so freaking ridiculous as to defy any response. Youse guys are dismissed.

ETA: For someone who claims familiarity with the NIST Reports, you should not even be posting the nonsense you just posted. NCSTAR 1-2B page 75 of 290 total pages proves your statement TOTALLY false.
edit on 28-11-2012 by totallackey because: Further content



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
Then why would the NIST see fit to even mention stress rates on the concrete floors of the towers?

Because the floors held the office load and were connected to the columns. They did a lot more than just show internal concrete stresses. Why are you using this as an excuse to avoid facing reality?


You people amaze me with your lack of vision. To think the entire construction was not crucial to the building remaining standing is so freaking ridiculous as to defy any response. Youse guys are dismissed.

Your attempt to handwave your inaccuracy is telling, luckily the structural details of the tower can be trivially researched by anyone. You are wrong. Deal with it.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I will simply state you should read my now edited post. Again, you have ZERO clue about what you are writing.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by exponent
 

I will simply state you should read my now edited post. Again, you have ZERO clue about what you are writing.

Your edited post included:

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by exponent ETA: For someone who claims familiarity with the NIST Reports, you should not even be posting the nonsense you just posted. NCSTAR 1-2B page 75 of 290 total pages proves your statement TOTALLY false.


Perhaps in future you can quote what you are talking about. I assume you mean this:

Impact damage to the floor trusses and floor slabs could have significantly contributed to the loss of
structural strength and subsequent collapse. The truss floor sections provided lateral support to the
exterior wall at each floor level
. Any damage or holes in the concrete floor slab could provide a path for
the fires to spread from floor-to-floor. Therefore, the calculation of the floor system damage was an
important component of the global impact analyses.

(bolding mine)

This is absolutely correct of course, but doesn't provide any gravity load resistance. I don't see anyone suggesting that the trusses don't provide lateral bracing, but they hold only office loads. Exactly consistent with what has been said.

You remain wrong.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


So the word "COLLAPSE," obviously means nothing to you. Are you being purposefully obtuse? What do you think the towers collapsed to...the nearest available cloud, perhaps?



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by exponent
 


So the word "COLLAPSE," obviously means nothing to you. Are you being purposefully obtuse? What do you think the towers collapsed to...the nearest available cloud, perhaps?


I cannot even understand what you are trying to ask here. The towers collapse did involve truss elements, however it did not involve defeating the entire gravity load apparatus of the tower. Because of the destruction in the floors.

How can you dispute this? You link the NIST report and mention the floors provide some bracing, but somehow simultaneously deny that they only hold the gravity loads and so are significantly more vulnerable than the columns.

What exactly do you think happened? And to try and not be off topic, as you know Psikey I think 911 truth is harmless. You guys aren't dangerous, you're just confused (and I don't mean that offensively or in a patronising manner)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


You can read my posts and determine exactly what I am stating. The entire building construction was required in order to resist the gravity and remain standing. You can certainly erect a tower with no floors and it will remain standing; however, once you add floors to any structure, their existence MUST CONTRIBUTE toward the resistance to gravity.

Again, to state otherwise is false.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by exponent
 


You can read my posts and determine exactly what I am stating. The entire building construction was required in order to resist the gravity and remain standing. You can certainly erect a tower with no floors and it will remain standing; however, once you add floors to any structure, their existence MUST CONTRIBUTE toward the resistance to gravity.

Again, to state otherwise is false.


I state that removing all truss structures and core beam flooring on floor # 18 would not collapse the structure and indeed it would remain standing without these elements.

Under your logic this is wrong. Please explain how a removal of this floor would collapse the towers entirely.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
What are you basing that on? If steel would show cracks from being bent it would mean it was a brittle metal, and without even looking it up I know they'd want the steel to be flexible since the building would necessarily have been designed to sway in the wind.


Individual pieces of steel did not need to bend, and obviously the whole building did not sway enough to cause any steel to bend to any major degree. Just go try and bend a length of cold construction steel and you will not get a smooth curve, that requires heat. I have done enough work with steel to know this.


If fires had caused this column to fail in this way then it would have signs of fire damage on it I.E. blackened areas or deformations in the metal. Like I said, physics need to apply to your conspiracy claims just as they do to everyone else.


I agree, so how did that piece of steel get so hot if it wasn't from the fires? That IS the question we've been asking for awhile now.


No, this beam was destroyed by the mechanical forces from the collapse itself, which sipports the scenario that, yes, the collapsing wreckage did legitimately have enough force to destroy the stationary floors and columns beneath it. The information this column contains is the whole reason why they preserved this specimen.


No, there would not be enough energy from the collapse to cause construction steel to bend smoothly showing no sign of cracking or buckling at the bend.

You get cracks on the outside of the bend because the metal when cold won't stretch, and you get buckling on the inside of the bend because the metal is squeezed. It does not need to be brittle for this to happen.

The harder and colder steel is the more brittle it is BTW. The hotter it is the more ductile it is, thus it can be bent with no cracking or buckling.

Example...


Some metals, such as most conventional steels, become extremely brittle at cryogenic temperatures, and can't be used as they have little or no resistance to the propagation of cracks. Note that this is not the same thing as "strength"; a material can be strong (resist separating when pulled), but relatively brittle.

Indeed, it turns out that things like carbon steel become brittle because they get *stronger* at cryogenic temperatures.


yarchive.net...

That fact that you don't know this just proves you really do not have the background to even understand any of this. Just another person who reads other peoples opinions, and takes them as their own.

edit on 11/28/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join