Let’s Agree to Put an End to the Petty 9/11 Argument’s

Just a note of contention as i have been posting in here for many years...over and over both sides use Controlled demolition as examples to show how it was or was not a controlled demolition....but just once...could some of the Os supporters show one example of a symmetrical collapse of any steel structure that has come down in such a fashion....I already ready know because of experience on this site and others...that people will come in and say..."oh but they were not hit by a plane...well neither was building 7. So go for it....been here to long to know that no one will be able to show such an example ....but i will go even further....show an example of one that collapsed with an hour.....now building 7 apparently had more time for this to occur...we will say from 10am till 5 pm since the fires in building seven did not start till after the collapse of the towers...i mean i say this as that is what is always presented by OS supporters.

I would like a example....no arguing...just an example....we know some debris hit 7 but was it enough to cause a global failure in the structure....also....knowing that it has been presented that internal column failures but the building went straight down upon itself....interesting....I am not going to put forward the logic here as it has been done so many times before....Some mentioned in this thread how should they have fell down....well...i guess logically it should go through the path of greatest resistance....i mean logically that is what occurred...Is it not.....the path of greatest resistance after all would be straight down.

Now stating that...please show me examples of buildings falling through the path of greatest resistance (steel) due to fires.....and i know i have to reiterate this...building 7 was not hit by a plane.....I am not going to show more controlled demolitions...i am not going to show Bazants failings.....I am not going to show anything....i want to be shown by the OS supporters the truth.

reply to post by plube

could some of the Os supporters show one example of a symmetrical collapse of any steel structure that has come down in such a fashion....

Verinage Demolition.

reply to post by samkent


Once again a non reader...verinage is a controlled demolition.....please read what i asked...also....you have not a clue really now do you...i mean come on....show me a single example of your own reference where in a steel structure a verinage demolition was used.

It just shows by your post that it is an OS supporter just spewing out falsehoods to try and make things out to be a deception of logic and reality....That was total hogwash wasn't it, to just say something like that without thinking about what has been asked the reason i know that what i stated will not be shown...Is simply because it can't.

you came in and used a controlled demolition method to say it was not a controlled demolition that was used on the day of 911.....why is it The Os keep trying to show CD examples to show it was not a Cd on the day of 911....Why not be brilliant and show a steel structure on fire that collapses symmetrically straight down through the greatest path of resistance to the ground......You know why you will not take this route don't you.....Because you can't.

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by GenRadek

 

I find it interesting that you use the example of a thread unraveling a shirt.....which meets with resistance, unlike the collapse of 3 buildings that should have behaved differently given the level of damage. Do you believe all these experts are wrong? Why do you believe this? I provided some crediable evidence to support why I don't believe the OS, can you produce evidence that contradicts them?

What experts are you referring to? AE9/11T? They discredit themselves by the nonsense they put forward. Also, they are hardly experts in regards to the events on 9/11. And yes, they are wrong. Dead wrong. All they do is regurgitate the same debunked stuff over and over, yet they have zero or less understanding.

I can proivde the evidence with NIST's fnal reports. Also Purdue has a simulation. I also have the actual experts at "Implosion World" that disagree with the Truther nonsense and state that WTC collapses were NOT demolitions. I can also direct you to many other papers written by REAL professionals that disagree with the 9/11 Truthers as well. Hell I would advise you to use the ATS search button and you will be directed to a lot of evidence that pretty much throws the Truther claims to the dustbin..I would advise you to start there and read through it all. Also, there are many sites that correctly put eyewtiness accounts in proper context.

NIST WTC study

9/11 Stories and Accounts

Implosion World WTC Q&A

UK Fire Study WTC

Debunking 9/11 myths

Purdue University WTC

Firehouse Magazine

There are many many papers, articles, and websites that have real experts that support the events as happened on 9/11.

reply to post by plube

verinage is a controlled demolition

But it shows what happens when you lose the strucural integrity.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I personally believe the official story, I have my evidence as to why I believe it to be true if I engage in a debate on 9/11 with a “truther” I will present my reasons for by believe but if Mr. Truther does not want to believe what I have to say then I really don’t care. It makes no difference to me if he chooses to bath in pool of what I perceive to be as ignorance. Likewise if one takes a conspiracy view of 9/11 why does it matter to you that I say I hold a different opinion than you despite you showing me your evidence. Why do we need to then get into these petty arguments where we accuse each other of lying, being stupid, flaming posts and resorting to bully tactics such as all ganging up on the truther or OSer.

Well, for one thing, there's a huge difference between looking at the evidence and then deriving a scenario that best fits the facts, and deriving a predetermined scenario first and then inventing your own evidence that supports the scenario.

Case in point- let's say a hundred people claimed they saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Guess which viewpoint will look at this and assume a plane hit the Pentagon, and which viewpoitn will insist the hundred people were all sinister secret agents and lying to cover up the the Pentagon secretly being hit by a cruise missile.

reply to post by samkent


What it shows is in a few select concrete type structures that below 50% of a structure you could collapse a structure where the Upper block is sufficient in mass to crush down the lower block...but was this the case on 911....not at all so the comparison is not applicable....It was only the upper section of failure the stronger lower section was intact....the structures were all steel....So why would you want to keep using this as a example...it does not apply....so could you please just show a steel structure that suffers a global collapse that is symmetrical due to fires....the Os says it was not CD so show a non CD collapse due to fire in a steel structure that suffers a somewhat similar collapse....you have been here awhile...just as i have....so you know the drill.....you can't...and not one of the OS movement has ever shown something even close to suffering this type of collapse due to fires in a steel structure yet...not once.

I want something new from the OS side...instead of the same rehashing...I have not been here for a awhile because it is always the same....and i can see nothing has changed....good luck....because it will be needed for you to find one example of such a collapse....but for some reason because people were told happened on the day it is acceptable without any further thought.....baffling.

reply to post by plube

I want something new from the OS side...instead of the same rehashing...

Hmmm. How many times have I thought the same thing from the other direction.

Until you can get a large number of structual engineers to agree with you it's just another rehash.

Perhaps you can tell me why engineers from 'unfriendly' countries would tow the US line?

reply to post by GenRadek


Well, just read the first link you provided, and isn't it interesting that other then saying they would investigate building 7 ...No mention is made in the rest of the report....total double speak...and as you asked I provided engineers, and very crediable experts in this field.....1000's actually and you just completely disreguard it...I say nonsense......but I will give you the respect to read through all you provided, your response indicates to me you did not do the same.....

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by exponent

 

The problem I find with your logic is saying that prior to researching the facts of 9-11 many already had formed a strong opinion that the OS was a lie. For myself, I approached the subject with an open mind, but the evidence is so overwelming that this was an "inside" job, and I honestly have a difficult time comprehending how any reasonable person could see it otherwise...

The problem is that you've likely only heard one side of the story. Most people know only of what they heard on TV and then what the conspiracy documentary or site they view tells them about it. This is why so many people have such misconceptions about the 'official story'.

I'm sure that if you gave me a couple of hours, a projector and a willing audience I could convince them of anything. This is exactly how AE911Truth operates. They rent a room, crowdsource invitations and then blast their argument at the viewer giving very little context or time to absorb the information. Once this is done they ask them to sign an innocuous petition calling for a 'new investigation'. They then use this signing as license to promote ridiculous claims with the (often) unwitting viewer left in the dark.

I've been researching 911 for probably half a decade now and all I have discovered is the depths that some people will go to believe they are correct. If you want to challenge me on anything or ask any questions feel free to post or PM them. I'm a pretty straight-forward person and you can view my posting history to see how much I'll write if given the opportunity

Originally posted by ANOK
Tension? Really? You have explained nothing to me mate.

Tension has nothing to do with sagging trusses pulling in columns.

It's the same as the last time you claimed this, and the time before, and the time before. A truss fully sagging is a catenary. A catenary is purely in tension. The papers I linked you both discussed this but you refused to read them.

Please answer these questions...

How does a sagging truss put any tension on anything?

All truss elements are under tension, tension transmits through the top chord to the bolted connections. Same as last time you claimed this.

IF what you say is true then why didn't the 1" and 5/8" bolts fail first, or even the truss itself? Do you think the bolts, and truss, could take more tension than the columns?

Yes they could, trusses only exerted a limited force individually but worked together to pull in the outer walls. Some trusses did break bolts, some whole floor sections disconnected. Doesn't change the evidence for it and the illogical nature of your claim. Same as last time you claimed this.

If you truly understand the physics involved in building collapses, you should understand the relevance of this vid, and why it demonstrates the impossibility of sagging trusses pulling in columns by catenary action, or tension.

I understand that video just fine. It demonstrates a restrained frame undergoing a sudden shift into massive tension. The frame is made of a very inelastic material and it survives. Same as last time you claimed this.

Why wouldn't you read the two papers I linked you that described exactly the configuration in the towers and their experimentation with modelling these configurations? Is a youtube video good enough but peer reviewed papers from noted structural engineering schools not?

Stop using a double standard please.

all i can say is, good luck with that. the subject polarises opinions like no other and subsequently results in inevitable squabbles. ad infinitum.

Originally posted by samkent
But it shows what happens when you lose the strucural integrity.

Nothing changes in the 911 debate. How about instead of ending the debate the OS supporters bring something new to the discussion? Because so far everything they claim has been debunked ad nauseum. All we do is keep repeating the same old over and over again.

Your claim is nonsense, and just shows you fail once again to understand the physics involved.

This video is actually directly relevant to the NIST claim, and yet you all either ignore it, or simply fail to see the relevance.



But you want to use a method of collapse that uses physics far differently than a natural collapse. The vérinage is a controlled method of collapse. Yes the structural integrity is effected, but it's effected equally in all supports in a controlled method, designed to make it do what it does. A vérinage collapse does not work by taking out one side of the building, or one column, or from fires.

Natural collapses do not act like controlled collapses. Let's end these stupid claims!

Originally posted by exponent
It's the same as the last time you claimed this, and the time before, and the time before. A truss fully sagging is a catenary. A catenary is purely in tension. The papers I linked you both discussed this but you refused to read them.

Yes the same answer to the same claim you keep making over and over again. See how that works?

All truss elements are under tension, tension transmits through the top chord to the bolted connections. Same as last time you claimed this.

So how does that cause the sagging truss to pull in the columns? If it is sagging then it cannot put any more tension on the columns than it did in it's normal state.

When steel is heated it expands. That expansion has to go somewhere. If it is pinned, in tension, between two unmovable points it cannot expand outwards, so it sags. If it cannot push the columns out it will not pull them in either. All the tension is taken up in the SAGGING.

Yes they could, trusses only exerted a limited force individually but worked together to pull in the outer walls. Some trusses did break bolts, some whole floor sections disconnected. Doesn't change the evidence for it and the illogical nature of your claim. Same as last time you claimed this.

There is no way that the trusses could put enough of a pulling force on the columns to move them, as I just explained. The bolts would be a far more weak point than the columns, in fact the trusses themselves would be more likely to fail before the columns.

My claim is not illogical, you're just confused by the physics involved.

I understand that video just fine. It demonstrates a restrained frame undergoing a sudden shift into massive tension. The frame is made of a very inelastic material and it survives. Same as last time you claimed this.

In that video the floors lost their weight bearing columns, they had extra weight added, they were still rigid (not sagging from heat), and yet still didn't pull in the columns they were attached to. The WTC floors lost no weight beating columns, they had no extra weight added, and they were sagging from heat.

No you didn't understand the point of the vid. Maybe you do now I've explained it?

Why wouldn't you read the two papers I linked you that described exactly the configuration in the towers and their experimentation with modelling these configurations? Is a youtube video good enough but peer reviewed papers from noted structural engineering schools not?

Because I already read everything you offer. You have nothing new. If there is a point you want to make, make it.

Stop using a double standard please.

I make my points, I don't give you stuff to read with no clue as to your point. You are not debating, you're basically saying I don't believe you because I read this.

11 yrs and still arguing f me

Nobody will ever know.... Face it! And get on with life.

Originally posted by ANOK
Yes the same answer to the same claim you keep making over and over again. See how that works?

Yes, I link this paper: www.sciencedirect.com... which is one of several that supports my claim with rigorous modelling and detail and you refuse to read it, wait a few months and make the same claim again. I'd feel that I was being harsh if this weren't the third or fourth time you'd tried it.

So how does that cause the sagging truss to pull in the columns? If it is sagging then it cannot put any more tension on the columns than it did in it's normal state.

The columns do not undergo significant inward tension in normal service, trusses are composite elements which is how they absorb the imposed load. This is really basic structural stuff and I'm not sure how many times I have explained it.

When steel is heated it expands. That expansion has to go somewhere. If it is pinned, in tension, between two unmovable points it cannot expand outwards, so it sags. If it cannot push the columns out it will not pull them in either. All the tension is taken up in the SAGGING.

Sagging does not 'take up tension'. You are correct that the heating expands the steel, this does push the columns outward, it also however breaks truss elements and as the heating continues it sags far enough to put all elements into tension. This tension would normally be balanced by the composite elements of the truss. If it has sagged this far they have been damaged or have switched into tension.

There is no way that the trusses could put enough of a pulling force on the columns to move them, as I just explained. The bolts would be a far more weak point than the columns, in fact the trusses themselves would be more likely to fail before the columns.

Based on what analysis? Several groups have studied this phenomena, all have concluded that indeed the requisite force (around 6kips) can be borne by the bolts but will results in column failure. Just because you guess that it won't is no reason to actually doubt their analysis.

No you didn't understand the point of the vid. Maybe you do now I've explained it?

Your explanation changes nothing, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Because I already read everything you offer. You have nothing new. If there is a point you want to make, make it.

This statement is incredibly oxymoronic, you state you won't read a paper I have linked because you have already read everything. That is a completely self defeating statement and just shows you to have closed your mind to any alternative.

I make my points, I don't give you stuff to read with no clue as to your point. You are not debating, you're basically saying I don't believe you because I read this.

I've made my point, you've said it's impossible because you don't think trusses can sag into tension and pull in on columns. I've linked you to a respected structural engineering school's detailed analysis showing that indeed they can sag into tension and pull in on columns. You've refused to read it.

End of story.

reply to post by MountainLaurel

Well, just read the first link you provided, and isn't it interesting that other then saying they would investigate building 7 ...No mention is made in the rest of the report....total double speak.

Wait, what the hell? What are you talking about??? Did you even click on the final reports of the WTC Towers and WTC7?? Did you even look at all? Go back to the first link and look at the right hand side of the page. Both reports are there. Geeze lueeze! Or maybe reading comprehension is to blame? Something tells me you didnt even bother to look.

you asked I provided engineers, and very crediable experts in this field.....1000's actually and you just completely disreguard it...I say nonsense......but I will give you the respect to read through all you provided, your response indicates to me you did not do the same.....

What thousands??? 1,753 is not considered "thousands". Also I wouldnt put much faith in the "experts" that signed on. Unlike you, I have studied this whole thing for many many years. AE911T is a joke and I am very familiar with them. I have watched their comedy routines and I'm sorry, but if one of their "experts" believes this is representative of the WTC collapses, I would really rethink his "credibility":


Richard "Boxboy" Gage. Providing laughs for over 4 years!

Fun fact! Dr. Griffin, the founder of the Truth Movement is first and foremost: a theologian! His opinion is the same as a shoe salesman commenting about string theory and strange quarks. He has ZERO background in anything relevant regarding the complexities of the 9/11 collapses.

I have read the list of "professionals" and "experts" on their site. It is a good joke of how not to take amateurs and elevate them to pro status.
Also more insite I have found about Richard Gage's background:
Richard Gage

reply to post by GenRadek


The thread said to stop with the petty argument and thats what you gave. There are thousands of other threads that cradle that sorta thing.

Originally posted by GenRadek

The problem you have is not being able to understand what he is demonstrating.

He made a very simple and humorous demonstration of Newtons 3rd law of motion. He could have used any objects to demonstrate that, he used those boxes to give some resemblance to the towers (that was the humorous part). He did it in a way so that a 3 year old, or OS supporter, could understand.

The reason you ridicule it is because you either fail to understand basic physics, or you know that Newtons 3rd law proves that there must have been another energy acting on the towers that was not investigated.

You have always ignored equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation, since day one. Those laws are the very reason NIST did not try to explain the collapses, and only offered an hypothesize for collapse initiation. Anything other than that is you simply taking things like Bazants paper and acting like you're an expert on all this.

You only think you know what you're talking about because you appeal to so called experts, but you cherry pick your experts to those who only say what you want to hear, and ridicule those that prove you wrong.

Another video here, showing the pre-written script - watch to the end, you can even see explosions going off.

After the BBC reports the collapse early, a few moments later the signal is lost and the anchor says there's technical difficulties. in other words = they realized they released the scoop early and pulled the plug. its crazy - no one could have predicted that WT7 was going to fall yet here they are with the story already sat on there desks and prepared for air - before its even happened.






and here is the "technical difficulties"



now skip to 6:50 in the video,

throughout the entire broadcast the signal is perfect and uninterrupted. but suddenly is disconnected - a perfect example of how the media is controlled by the same corrupt groups of people. what do we calll them? TPTB? Illuminati? Elites? whatever its clear that the mainstream media cannot be trusted at all.

the big problem is, the majority of the population only believe in mainstream media, How have people been so well conditioned ?