How Dangerous is 9/11 Truth?

reply to post by Wide-Eyes

If all truthers had just said 'that defies physics, wtf?'

the term 'truthers' has gotten twisted as well here on ATS, however.. physics is what I wanted to look at the very first time when I saw it on TV.. if anyone has welded steel for any length of time, they should know .. if you haven't .. it's the first place to start ..

yes.. extremely dangerous the 9/11 truth is .. much pain you will have...or death should you trying and confront TPTB ..

look first into deaths of people that have ... and the light of truth you will see..

ETA: space weapon tech

reply to post by psikeyhackr


It appears you have little understanding as to how the building collapsed at all. How can someone argue so incredulously, when being absolutely ignorant of the facts is beyond me.

When I talk about "floors" I am talking about the truss supported structure that created the floor area. It was attached to the exterior and interior columns with tabs that were welded to the columns.
Like this:





The building collapsed and the floors fell inside the "tube" created by the interior and exterior columns. psikey, THIS is why your experiment falls on its face. Show me where the support is like your paper loops under the washers in this design. As you can see, all that holds up the floor is the end of the trusses attached to the tabs. Also, once the floors fell inside, what was left standing up? The vertical columns which ended up falling over as there was nothing holding the structure up. It then just peeled open like a banana peel.

Jeeze, you've only had this information for the last 10 years and you STILL dont even understand the basic design of the WTCs? Whos blathering now?

I do think 9/11 Truth is dangerous, because it embraces ignorance!

reply to post by GenRadek


So why did the core collapse then? And please don't try to tell me the core couldn't stand without the floors.

For every hypothesis you come up with there is a problem, every time. You should think it though a little better instead of acting like you're the expert.

Videos of the event prove you wrong anyway, have you ever actually watched the collapse lol?

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by GenRadek

 

So why did the core collapse then? And please don't try to tell me the core couldn't stand without the floors.

The core couldn't stand without the floors. It had no resistance to overturning moments and would collapse in light wind.

reply to post by exponent

The core couldn't stand without the floors. It had no resistance to overturning moments and would collapse in light wind.

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.

If there is nothing else that proves OS'ers (even though there is truly no OS) have no leg to stand on, this truly indicates the twisted nature of the thought process. On the one hand, the core could not stand without the floors, yet on the other it would remain standing...remarkable double talk.

Originally posted by totallackey
If there is nothing else that proves OS'ers (even though there is truly no OS) have no leg to stand on, this truly indicates the twisted nature of the thought process. On the one hand, the core could not stand without the floors, yet on the other it would remain standing...remarkable double talk.

The core could not stand without the outer walls and floors.

You clearly don't understand the construction of the building. The primary load paths were through the exterior walls and the core. The floors provided lateral bracing but the adjacent moment frame was the main structural element.

You seem genuinely confused about what we're discussing here. The reason I and others focus on the floors is that they were vertically weak. They served only to hold the loads of the office floors and so would be easily compromised and damaged by debris.

The reason they're important in bracing is the horizontal strength, they transfer load across the building and so allow it to be handled by many diverse elements including the hat truss. This is not going to help them resist collapse.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

YAWN

The same BS I have seen and heard before and before and before.

So why hasn't any engineering school built a physical model that can duplicate this so called collapse?

They have only had ELEVEN YEARS.

9/11 is a huge global psychological issue.

Conformity and Cultural Conditioning
www.beyondmentalslavery.com...

rer.sagepub.com...

The 9/11 religion is just a really stupid form of insanity.

It is because of the global psychology that 9/11 Truth is so dangerous. Who did it and why is not what is so important.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So why hasn't any engineering school built a physical model that can duplicate this so called collapse?

For the same reasons no one built a model of the Titanic.
The causes are known and they do not surprise the experts.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
[So why hasn't any engineering school built a physical model that can duplicate this so called collapse?

They have only had ELEVEN YEARS.

9/11 is a huge global psychological issue.

When you find out the truth about 9/11, you realise why the secrecy and silence. If you think the world is in a messed up state now, it would have been alot worse if things went differently.

People have had 11 years to look for the truth themself, yet they seem to rely on other people to do all the research for them.

We constantly get this crap about the WTC collapsing because it was not a normal skyscraper.

But a normal skyscraper has columns 30 feet apart. That means there would be 24 columns in an area 90 by 150 feet. But the core had 47 columns in 85 by 135 feet. So the core had an 130% higher column density than the grid skyscrapers that you think are so great but then claim the core could not hold itself up.

Real Intelligent!

(47÷(85×135))÷(24÷(90×150))

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

But a normal skyscraper has columns 30 feet apart. That means there would be 24 columns in an area 90 by 150 feet. But the core had 47 columns in 85 by 135 feet. So the core had an 84% higher column density than the grid skyscrapers that you think are so great but then claim the core could not hold itself up.

But since you are not a strructual engineer you are going on a hunch.
No proof just like all the other angles of this conspiracy.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

But a normal skyscraper has columns 30 feet apart. That means there would be 24 columns in an area 90 by 150 feet. But the core had 47 columns in 85 by 135 feet. So the core had an 84% higher column density than the grid skyscrapers that you think are so great but then claim the core could not hold itself up.

But since you are not a strructual engineer you are going on a hunch.
No proof just like all the other angles of this conspiracy.

The obvious is not a hunch. That is why this 9/11 Truth is so dangerous.

Our structural engineers are liars about 300 year old grade school physics.

Laymen have to be kept ignorant and convinced that they are stupid.

That column density is a very simple calculation.

psik

reply to post by ANOK


Anok, are really going to pretend to be ignorant to continue this charade? Its been explained countless times why the core collapsed. Countless times. Just because you keep ignoring it or fail to understand it does not mean it has not been answered.

The core was not meant to stand on its own. It did stand for about 15+ seconds after the exterior and floors collapsed, but as you saw, it too fell down. Gravity. Gravity and damage. Simple, Anok. Really simple.

Also, Anok, how am I wrong? What videos prove me wrong? Hell I've been asking you for more than a year to provide evidence of the mass being all ejected outside the footprint, by which I mean floor trusses, floor pans, and floor segments found outside the footprint. You still have not been able to answer me and run and hide everytime.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

YAWN

The same BS I have seen and heard before and before and before.

And yet you cannot even begin to show what exactly is wrong with my explanation. Besides calling it BS. Hows about showing how and using some actual intelligent responses rather than ignorant ones?

So why hasn't any engineering school built a physical model that can duplicate this so called collapse?

Why should they? What would it have proven? What would it have done to add to the whole thing? The scientists and engineers and safety experts all didnt find it strange it fell the way it did, and they did not feel the need for a whole nother investigation to prove that gravity destroyed the building after the collapse started. Also, even if they did do it, I can bet a steak dinner that neither you nor any of the Truthers out there would believe it anyways because there would be no mention of explosives in it. So it would be pointless. Its pointless to those that have the brain cells and understanding of these types of events and such, and it would be pointless to those that are deluded to the point of EVERYTHING being a giant conspiracy and if it doesnt have a mention of explosives or magic thermites.

They have only had ELEVEN YEARS.

So? Its all been answered in those years. You still cannot figure out the basics. How can you begin to understand more complex things of the collapses?

9/11 is a huge global psychological issue.

Conformity and Cultural Conditioning
www.beyondmentalslavery.com...

rer.sagepub.com...

The 9/11 religion is just a really stupid form of insanity.

I agree with you there. Dr. David Griffin, theologian extraordinaire, has created one hell of a religion called the 9/11 Truth Movement. And yeah, it is pretty much everything you just said. Well done!

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
We constantly get this crap about the WTC collapsing because it was not a normal skyscraper.

But a normal skyscraper has columns 30 feet apart. That means there would be 24 columns in an area 90 by 150 feet. But the core had 47 columns in 85 by 135 feet. So the core had an 130% higher column density than the grid skyscrapers that you think are so great but then claim the core could not hold itself up.

Real Intelligent!

(47÷(85×135))÷(24÷(90×150))

psik

edit on 29-11-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)

Can you show me the key differences between a building like the Empire State Building and the WTC Twin Towers? Let us start there and see where the disconnect is in your beliefs and reality.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The obvious is not a hunch. That is why this 9/11 Truth is so dangerous.

Our structural engineers are liars about 300 year old grade school physics.

Laymen have to be kept ignorant and convinced that they are stupid.

That column density is a very simple calculation.

psik

Really? They are liars? Stupid? And yet, you cannot even create a proper experiment that is relevant to the basic design cues of the WTC. And after being told the errors, you continue to propagate your erroneous conclusions based on a flawed experiment. Just like Dr. Jones and his paint chips experiment.

Originally posted by exponent

The core couldn't stand without the floors. It had no resistance to overturning moments and would collapse in light wind.

Absolute nonsense.

The core help up the floors, the floors had nothing to do with holding up the core.

Overturning moments? LMAO. From it's own mass? Sorry but high-rise buildings simply cannot produce enough energy form their own mass to destroy themselves. Especially a steel framed building. Not enough energy to bend columns with no cracking or buckling.

IF the core became unstable because the floors all "fell down the tube", then it would not have followed the floors down vertically. Sorry but that is just common sense.

So how did the floors all fall down the tube anyway? Why didn't the collapse slow and stop from the loss of Ke to overcoming resistance? And no, the build up of mass of accumulating collapsing floors is not the answer, as the resistance would slow the collapse before that had a chance to happen. The weight of the floors would not be more than the resistance of welds and bolts holding them up. A floor could have easily been dropped on another floor, without collapsing the impacted floor.

The structure had to be able to hold far more weight that it actually was. Learn what Factor of safety (FoS) is.

Another thread, another Ban-- that seems to be the way of it now. As much as I no longer have the patience or stomach to argue the same arguments for the fortieth time, it's really too bad when a long-time poster gets banned, even one whom I had many adversarial exchanges with. I don't post much lately, but I still read threads.

As much as I respect the need of ATS to maintain a modicum of civility and decency on the 9/11 boards, I now think that the zero-tolerance policy has gone a bit too far. I understand the need to exclude deliberate, serial trolls, but when we've reached the point that a good 25% of regular 9/11 posters are banned, I think we've gone too far (I made up the statistic on the spot.) It's reached a point where there are fewer and fewer posters that are worth the effort of having a heated discussion with. In my estimation, both the volume and the quality of the debate on ATS' 9/11 forums has gone downhill since the moratorium and the introduction of the zero-tolerance policy.

To be sure, my hands are not clean here, I was definitely part of the problem, and had some TOC violations previous to the month(s?)-long forum closure. Mostly these concerned avatars and signatures, which I have to admit were deliberately provocative, and even antagonistic. Even though I was a bit over the top in a lot of discussions, I always took the debate and discussion seriously and considered opposing posters arguments as generously and carefully as I could.

I'm not writing this to defend any poster, or to protest a specific ban. I only wish to point out the general trend, which is toward a less interesting 9/11 debate on ATS.

Hopefully, someday, the 9/11 forum will reach a level of depth and quality far exceeding even what it was at its previous best, but I'm not seeing it yet.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by exponent

The core couldn't stand without the floors. It had no resistance to overturning moments and would collapse in light wind.

Absolute nonsense.

The core help up the floors, the floors had nothing to do with holding up the core.

And here again you show how little you have learned about the WTC design in all of these years.

Overturning moments? LMAO. From it's own mass? Sorry but high-rise buildings simply cannot produce enough energy form their own mass to destroy themselves. Especially a steel framed building. Not enough energy to bend columns with no cracking or buckling.

Anok, did you forget the fact that the cores had a section of building crash through it prior to collapse?

IF the core became unstable because the floors all "fell down the tube", then it would not have followed the floors down vertically. Sorry but that is just common sense.

Anol I have shown you a very plausible way MANY times how the core could have appeared to collapse "straight down" although in reality a large portion of it had fallen over first. You just chose to ignore it over and over cause it does not fit your religious belief.

So how did the floors all fall down the tube anyway? Why didn't the collapse slow and stop from the loss of Ke to overcoming resistance? And no, the build up of mass of accumulating collapsing floors is not the answer, as the resistance would slow the collapse before that had a chance to happen. The weight of the floors would not be more than the resistance of welds and bolts holding them up. A floor could have easily been dropped on another floor, without collapsing the impacted floor.

What resistance ANOK? You mean the shrinking resistance as the mass and is increasing along with velocity during the collapse? Are you saying the floor truss seats were getting bigger and stronger the lower you got in the structure? Once again ANOK, your lack of knowledge of the WTC structure is showing. Maybe one floor would hae been able to survive the impact of one floor, but how about a block of 15+ floors coming down as one? Forgot that huh?

The structure had to be able to hold far more weight that it actually was. Learn what Factor of safety (FoS) is.

Yes ANOK, please show us the FoS of a floor in relation to 15+ floors impacting it please!

Originally posted by ANOK
Absolute nonsense.

The core help up the floors, the floors had nothing to do with holding up the core.

The people who designed and built the buildings disagree with you. Where's your evidence for this?

Overturning moments? LMAO. From it's own mass? Sorry but high-rise buildings simply cannot produce enough energy form their own mass to destroy themselves. Especially a steel framed building. Not enough energy to bend columns with no cracking or buckling.

Citation needed. The core had extremely limited moment framing. Virtually any wind or eccentricity would be a serious danger as it was very slender in comparison.

IF the core became unstable because the floors all "fell down the tube", then it would not have followed the floors down vertically. Sorry but that is just common sense.

Common sense means 'what I assume'. This is all you are doing.

So how did the floors all fall down the tube anyway? Why didn't the collapse slow and stop from the loss of Ke to overcoming resistance? And no, the build up of mass of accumulating collapsing floors is not the answer, as the resistance would slow the collapse before that had a chance to happen.

The mass accumulates from the first failure. It's telling that you try and dictate what answers can be used.

The weight of the floors would not be more than the resistance of welds and bolts holding them up. A floor could have easily been dropped on another floor, without collapsing the impacted floor.

Citation needed. Just because a dead load can be held does not mean a live load can be held. We've been through this before, you can easily demonstrate a working floor system that fails on impact.

The structure had to be able to hold far more weight that it actually was. Learn what Factor of safety (FoS) is.

ANOK we've been at this for years. I've actually bothered to go educate myself. You have just stopped arguing and have started demanding that the truth obey your prejudices. Please realise that your opinions mean nothing and the fact you can't cite or explain any points you put forward shows how weak your reasoning is.