yup ... indeed ..

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Another_Nut
I will again point you to the spire thread where me and dreugene . Discuss crossbracing and he agrees that any cross bracing would affect the rigidity and he would have to think on it.

I agree, it would affect it. But there is a huge step to go from affecting rigidity to to model it as a block.

Without even knowing how many cross bracing there was, nor the strengnth of the cross bracing, its basically just making things up. When you make simplifications in your model you always need to justify those simplifications. You always need to have an approximation of the error margin you end up with. Else the model is basically useless.

I again ask you why don't you apply your statement above concerning red flags to the nist report? Do you not see any major red flags?

No I do not see major red flags.

Yes I have make it up . Because noone knows ( that I know of) how tye collapses REALLY worked.

Because nist didn't share their model or calculations.

So I have to start from scratch.

Ask and answer my own questions

And here I am.

Now why don't you subject the os to the same scrutiny you have shown me?

Why is the fact that nist has told you everything you needed to hear to set off red flags not set off red flags for you?

They say "trust us its basic physics, and no you cant see our models or calculations"

if you really cant apply your own ideology to the os then you really arnt hear to learn the truth but to block that flow of learning by refusing to see the facts .

They are hard and scary but they are true.

reply to post by Another_Nut


If you think that anything the truth movement has ever produced comes even close to the NIST report then you didn't do you homework.

Sure NIST can be wrong, as it is impossible to know what exactly happned. So we are left with the best guess. Guess who made the best guess so far?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

If you think that anything the truth movement has ever produced comes even close to the NIST report then you didn't do you homework.

Sure NIST can be wrong, as it is impossible to know what exactly happned. So we are left with the best guess. Guess who made the best guess so far?

we don't even know what nist's best guess is other than I believe, something along the lines of

Once collapse started TOTAL DEMOLITION of both towers was inevitable..

no model. No calculations. Just basic physics. And no proof.

Please think about that

Eta depending on your definition of "truther movement" I will happy agree.

reply to post by Another_Nut


That is because NIST was not investigating the collapse physics, but why the building started to collapse in the first place. Which is of course a much more interesting question from a standards perspective.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

That is because NIST was not investigating the collapse physics, but why the building started to collapse in the first place. Which is of course a much more interesting question from a standards perspective.

Is there anything that would change your mind about wtc1 2 and 7 being an act committed by 30 Arab terrorists? short of the government admitting full complicity?

im here to change my mind. Im looking for proof it was just as the os says.

But dam they make it hard

reply to post by Another_Nut


Yes there is. Tangible evidence of explosives. People in on it (which must have been many) speaking out. Widespread support of experts on an alternative theory (I know about this list of 1500 "experts"). Even video or audio evidence could convince me if it is good enough.

Though I must say that as the event ages, it becomes harder to convince me of an inside job. Simply because the chances that something like this not coming out any sooner are so extremely slim.

reply to post by Another_Nut


It wasn't 100% as NIST claimed but it DEFINITELY didn't need explosives I have found a site on the net that takes a fresh look at the whole event with links to a comprehensive look at it from both sides of the fence (video.photographic and structural analysis) I will be reading through the evidence they have today and if I don't find a link to it already on here I may make a thread re it.

You will see things that NIST seem to miss and also things that people like Architects for the Truth got wrong.way wrong!!!

reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

Thats what they said about the two world trade centers they both collapsed due to fires. Great post Star and flag op.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

Thats what they said about the two world trade centers they both collapsed due to fires. Great post Star and flag op.

Except that is not what NIST said; you evidently haven't read the report.

What they did say was " In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower."

Simply because the chances that something like this not coming out any sooner are so extremely slim.

reply to post by -PLB-


Just what would you classify as the operation "coming out" though?

How many people would have overall intricate knowledge of such an operation?

reply to post by Morg234


I am talking about millions of experts and scientists, and hundreds to thousands who are supposedly involved, depending on the flavor of conspiracy of the day.

Originally posted by Alfie1
What they did say was " In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower."

Yet only a very small amount was damaged, and there is no evidence that insulation was removed, that is just a convenient claim.

Fire only lasted about an hour before the first tower collapsed. That is not enough time for an office fires to cause that much steel to suddenly and completely fail. It would take more than an hour to even start heating up the steel, let alone soften it so much that it can't hold up the load anymore.

NIST failed to explain the collapses. All they did was offer a hypothesis for collapse initiation. Anything beyond the collapse initiation is stuff that you, and other OS supporters, have made up. You have no evidence for any of your claims, yet you act like it's written in stone.

The only point that needs debating about NIST is their claim that sagging trusses pulled in columns. Until someone can prove that can happen then I'll stick with known physics, and that is that sagging trusses can not put a pulling force on the much more massive columns they were attached to. This video shows that if you understand what you are looking at....

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

Any links to the investigations of those pictured fires? Would like to see them before I make a response that is wholly uneducated upon mashed together pictures obviously pushing a biased point of view. It would be nice to compare architecture, structural design, source of fire, physical damage to the structure, etc, before saying anything beyond.

You would be the ATS hero of all time if you could produce what you are asking for related to WTC 1,2, and 7. Because we're still waiting after 12 years.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

Heh funny pic. Building 7 really is the smoking gun imo. But even more than that, the fact that 3 buildings all collapsed in on themselves due to fire on the same day... simply not buying it, the odds are astronomically low. It's just so obviously set up I think.

Not only that....it only took a little over an hour for 2 of the buildings to fall, and building 7 a couple hours before they blew that one up to.

Skyscrapers have been known to burn for 3 days and never fall. Maybe if they waited til day 2 to blow them up people wouldn't have been so suspicious ?? Lmao the only reason I knew something was wrong that day was how the buildings fell. It looked exactly like a highRise out of Vegas being controlled. Ha!

Originally posted by tracehd1

Skyscrapers have been known to burn for 3 days and never fall. Maybe if they waited til day 2 to blow them up people wouldn't have been so suspicious ?? Lmao the only reason I knew something was wrong that day was how the buildings fell. It looked exactly like a highRise out of Vegas being controlled. Ha!

Your challenge is to find 3 other buildings with the following criteria 2- 110 storey high with a steel frame tube in tube construction struck by aircraft that go and fire and don't collapse , 1 building 47 storey steel frame construction with high level open plan foyer struck by collapsing debris then left to burn for around 7 hours that don't collapse yes don't collapse.

Also like many others on here YOU CAN'T tell the difference between one building and another ALL of the examples of building fires used to back this false argument of yours are NEVER hit by a plane first and MOST are NOT steel frame tube in tube design or impacted by falling debris.

So I suggest you find out how a building is constructed before you make silly comments!!!

Originally posted by ANOK
and there is no evidence that insulation was removed,

Well there is all that fireproofing dust that can be seen lying on the ground @ 2:45 in this video.

reply to post by waypastvne


And what makes you assume that is "fireproofing dust"?

Even IF it is it makes no real difference, lack of fireproofing does not explain the collapses.

The NIST hypothesis is that floor trusses sagged and pulled in the columns. Lack of fireproofing does not give sagging trusses the power to pull in the columns. Can you even explain how sagging trusses could pull in the much more massive columns they were attached to, had always been attached to, and were designed to be held by?

Originally posted by ANOK

Yet only a very small amount was damaged, and there is no evidence that insulation was removed, that is just a convenient claim.

Fire only lasted about an hour before the first tower collapsed. That is not enough time for an office fires to cause that much steel to suddenly and completely fail. It would take more than an hour to even start heating up the steel, let alone soften it so much that it can't hold up the load anymore.

Oh look missing fire protection.



As for your other comment I will refer you back to the Cardington Fire Test this is office fire data taken from one of the data set spread sheets.

Secondary beam , grid line 3/4 , location B6

Time ----- Temp in Degree C
28.0 ----- 951 908 871 752
28.5 ----- 942 898 864 753
29.0 ----- 933 890 858 755
29.5 ----- 927 887 858 757
30.0 ----- 917 874 847 757

28-30 mins after test fire started.

Temps for lower flange then web then upper flange I will then draw your attention back to the fact that this is the effect of temp on strength of steel.



I will also point out to you yet again YOU don't know and we don't know the full extent of the damage that was done by the impacts.

What we do know it doesn't take a lot of effort to remove sprayed on fire protection (have you ever even been near the stuff) and that if fire wasn't a problem for steel why bother with it also as we can see fire doesn't have to heat the steel up much to be a issue even more so if it's damaged now go away and digest that , and another thing care to tell us if you have actually every been in a multi floor steel building during construction

I see you still use a REINFORCED Concrete building WHICH HAS INTERNAL COLUMNS to push your case NOT ONE piece of that represents the events of 9/11.

Apples with Apples that may fool other people like you but some on HERE have been on site and are in the industry.

reply to post by wmd_2008


You are really missing the point.

No matter how hot the fires were, or how weak steel become, sagging trusses can not put a pulling force on the columns they were attached to. That is the NIST hypothesis, and that is what is in question, not the garbage pseudo-science you and your buddies try to foster on people.

Now can you explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns they were attached to?

Originally posted by ANOK
Can you even explain how sagging trusses could pull in the much more massive columns they were attached to, had always been attached to, and were designed to be held by?

Yes I can explain it: Sagging trusses will produce a inward pull on the columns they are attached to. There you go, simple and easy to understand. The columns were under compression and failing, the trusses just gave them a direction to go.