yup ... indeed ..

reply to post by ANOK


The same people with the SAME arguments. You know, if they had proof, they would not need this page.

Link

Let's continue to deflect and not worry about what is going on 'today'. I really wish some of you would take your expertise and look into the latest Texas explosion. You might find something there...

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
reply to post by ANOK

 

All the Official story supporters do not understand physics. They all just trust anything the government and NIST tell them, and regurgitate the pseudo-physics presented by NIST as fact.

This is where the problem lies. There would be no 'debunkers' if they thought for themselves, and did some proper research. Starting with a crash course in physics, and how to get a grip on reality are good places for them to start...

What evidence do you have to support your first statement. It is blanket and quite ignorant. If someone does not agree with you that makes them a government lemming?

The place to start is look at what happened and the history of the structures involved. Physics did not decide to not show up that day and as I have stated before, it is a miracle that towers stood as long as they did. Where are the paint chips...the thermite...or like I have asked for years on this site...

SHOW ME ONE DETONATOR OR PIECE OF EXPLOSIVES AND YOU GOT US ALL....

They are still finding bone fragments on rooftops and recently found a piece of landing gear so do not use the old " the government picked it all up and sent it to China" garbage.

WHERE ARE THE EXPLOSIVES?????

Originally posted by esdad71

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
reply to post by ANOK

 

All the Official story supporters do not understand physics. They all just trust anything the government and NIST tell them, and regurgitate the pseudo-physics presented by NIST as fact.

This is where the problem lies. There would be no 'debunkers' if they thought for themselves, and did some proper research. Starting with a crash course in physics, and how to get a grip on reality are good places for them to start...

What evidence do you have to support your first statement. It is blanket and quite ignorant. If someone does not agree with you that makes them a government lemming?

The place to start is look at what happened and the history of the structures involved. Physics did not decide to not show up that day and as I have stated before, it is a miracle that towers stood as long as they did. Where are the paint chips...the thermite...or like I have asked for years on this site...

SHOW ME ONE DETONATOR OR PIECE OF EXPLOSIVES AND YOU GOT US ALL....

They are still finding bone fragments on rooftops and recently found a piece of landing gear so do not use the old " the government picked it all up and sent it to China" garbage.

WHERE ARE THE EXPLOSIVES?????

How would bone fragments be jettisoned to nearby rooftops? Especiallyrooftops so far awaythatthey wernt found within weeks of 9/11.

Where are the black boxes?

Why did both towers cores stay intact for up to 20 seconds before they were destroyed?

Why does it HAVE to be explosives or os?

Why do neither explosives or os really explain what happened on 9/11?

Why the no models of collapse?

Because the truth is stranger than fiction

reply to post by Another_Nut


These questions sound just like someone who just found this site who wants to come to the defense of those who are out show the government did it.

How would bone fragments be jettisoned to nearby rooftops? Especiallyrooftops so far awaythatthey wernt found within weeks of 9/11. Watch the videos of the collapse and the planes hitting. Then check some airiel views...

Where are the black boxes? What would you gain from them? We have 93 but what would be gained?

Why did both towers cores stay intact for up to 20 seconds before they were destroyed? Because they collapsed...also, the cores stayed intact contradicintg what happens in a CD

Why does it HAVE to be explosives or os?

Lasers some space? No matter the technology used to detonate, something has to 'trigger' it.

Why do neither explosives or os really explain what happened on 9/11?

There was no need for explosives. two big planes hit the towers and they collapsed.

Why the no models of collapse? There are ones out there..look up BYU...

Because the truth is stranger than fiction

Look into 93 and 587...those were cover up.s

Originally posted by esdad71

The same people with the SAME arguments

Yeah I know, after all these years the same old crowd with the same old nonsense.



When is someone going to demonstrate what NIST claims happened? Shouldn't be hard to do if it's possible.

Constant lip service is not going to convince me of something I know can't happen.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

These questions sound just like someone who just found this site who wants to come to the defense of those who are out show the government did it.

How would bone fragments be jettisoned to nearby rooftops? Especiallyrooftops so far awaythatthey wernt found within weeks of 9/11. Watch the videos of the collapse and the planes hitting. Then check some airiel views...

Where are the black boxes? What would you gain from them? We have 93 but what would be gained?

Why did both towers cores stay intact for up to 20 seconds before they were destroyed? Because they collapsed...also, the cores stayed intact contradicintg what happens in a CD

Why does it HAVE to be explosives or os?

Lasers some space? No matter the technology used to detonate, something has to 'trigger' it.

Why do neither explosives or os really explain what happened on 9/11?

There was no need for explosives. two big planes hit the towers and they collapsed.

Why the no models of collapse? There are ones out there..look up BYU...

Because the truth is stranger than fiction

Look into 93 and 587...those were cover up.s

edit on 5-5-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

First attack me personally ? Check.

Don't you think those roovea were check in the days weeks and months after 9/11? Really how far away did it have to be to remain unfound till today?

Um how about how do you make black boxes disappear? Passport found ? Check. And since im not sure the planes trajectories it would be invaluable. Really who says "what would we gain from black boxes" . That's absurd.

The cores also contradic the os . O noes!

so there has to be a trigger? Ok. How do you know what the triger has to be?

Please show me a model that conforms to the nist claims

First attack me personally ? Check.
Don't you think those roovea were check in the days weeks and months after 9/11? Really how far away did it have to be to remain unfound till today?
Um how about how do you make black boxes disappear? Passport found ? Check.

And since im not sure the planes trajectories it would be invaluable. Really who says "what would we gain from black boxes" . That's absurd.
The cores also contradic the os . O noes!

so there has to be a trigger? Ok. How do you know what the triger has to be

Please show me a model that conforms to the nist claims

An attack. No, I am setting the stage for our debate. Your questions are akin to someone who is not very versed on 9/11. I have had this conversation too many times. You are asking for things that someone who is going to come in here and start telling all of us how it is should know.

1. I will assume you have never been to NY. I was born there. It is a very, very big place with lots of big buildings. The disaster that was huge.

Link to IMage

When there is a 1200 foot spread you will find pieces and remnants for decades. This is also just the crashes not the collapse.

2. The black boxes did not disappear. Not sure who told you that. In fact, I am pretty sure they were recovered. There are conflicting reports but if we are talking about WTC site I am pretty sure they were found ( i know that are not in the 9/11 commission report but I do not believe everything I read)but, please tell me, what would it help with your case? Just want to know. Answer ONE question with your own thought.... or File a FOIA request and see what you get. Also, since they just found that BIG ASS piece of landing gear, take it upon yourself to check every piece of a 5 block radius. If you found them you would be a hero.

3. Please explain to me the architectural make up of the building and the cores. How does it contradict something that does not exist. You see, Nothing contradicts and OS because there is no OS, just what happened. Truthers created the separation.

4. The entire argument of those who are left, who tossed out the lasers from space people, is that this was a CD. Even if you used super duper nano thermite cultivated from Mars you need something to trigger it. This is basic physics so if you can't get that, why are you telling so many people that they do not understand Physics. Different when you look at it that way, right?

5. Show you a model that backs up NIST claims...are you fishing because that is baiting. Also, which NIST report, the initial, the revised, the final or the amended? There are 2 videos you should watch from respected and qualified as well as published indiviiduals.

6. Students at Perdue created this video. Please, take the time to watch it.

Link to Perdue

But, if you want one that backs up NIST also, here you go...the speaker holds 2 degrees from MIT

Link

If you watch these, you may start to see that it actually happened the way we saw. The towers gave way.

Now, if you want a real conspiracy, look up these links...watch the toll booth video...that is an explosion.

Link 1

and the link to KSM and 9/11 and the missing hijacker...

Link 2

You think since i see the WTC 1,2, and 7 for what it is, a place to pull people from a real conspiracy, you think i but into it all.

The US government shot down 93 and covered up 587. Sorry, they did not CD 7....

reply to post by ANOK


Whats up ANOK...

I have said this before, we do not need washers to prove this. I understand the thought and work that went into that but there is nothing that I can see that stand out. I will be honest, in the early days it was easy to say it was something else, but it was not.

So I looked elsewhere and found 93 and 587. These are real conspiracies.

If someone would just find that trigger this would all be put to rest...

Originally posted by esdad71
WHERE ARE THE EXPLOSIVES?????

You are changing the subject.

You don't have to find explosives to know that the collapses could not have happened as the NIST report hypothesis claims.

And shouting it doesn't make any difference, physics doesn't change simply because you can't find any direct evidence of explosives.

No evidence of explosives doesn't give lightweight sagging trusses the force to pull in columns. Bringing up other points also won't change that fact. It is more likely that the evidence of explosives was 1, not looked for 2, was destroyed in the collapses, or any reason other than sagging trusses pulled in columns. Complete stretch to a highly improbable outcome.

Weird logic esdad, you sound a bit desperate to defend the NIST report.

reply to post by ANOK


then i will be real quiet...where are the explosives?

Physics were not suspended that day. Sorry you still cannot figure it out. The rest of us have.

Originally posted by ANOK
No it is you who doesn't understand what the PDF is saying. All you can do is look at the pictures and assume it is saying what you want it to.

In the initial stages of heating the restraint from the surrounding structure tends to resist the expansion of a beam

I have explained this many times. When the truss heats up it will expand and push out against the columns. If the truss is unable to push the columns out then the truss will sag. If the truss was unable to push the columns out, it will also not pull them in.

How many times has it been explained to you that as the truss/beam increases in temperature, it will go from expansion to tension, and hence will change into pull-in force instead of a push out force. You keep denying this. You stop reading after the part where they talk about expansion, and act as if there is no tension, no catenary action. The text I quoted 100% proves you wrong.

You have to read the rest as well as look at the pictures...

Read and comprehend. You clearly don't. You are unable to explain what it means when the lines cross the x-axis in 5b. You have no clue.

Variation of the horizontal restraint level can have a major effect on the behaviour of steel beam at high temperature and large displacement.

However, the state of stress associated with a member under a combination of catenary action and thermal bowing is not unique for a given deflection. This depends on the temperature distribution in the member, its material properties and restraint conditions.

IF the truss could put a pull on the columns enough to cause them to be displaced the 1" and 5/8" bolts would have failed first.

This is not the matter of discussion. The matter is if there could have been a pull in force at all, which you have been denying all the time. The next question would indeed be if they could cause enough displacement to initiate euler buckling. That is an entirely different subject. Basically you are changing the subject, probably because you have this nagging feeling that you were indeed wrong all this time, but are too proud to admit it.


But anyway, the other subject is a horse beaten to death anyhow, execpt for you I don't know anyone in the world who is still denying it, so lets move on. Prove that the bolts fail first. Show your model or math. You can't just compare the strength of a bolt to the strength of a column. That is the kind of over simplification you would expect from someone who is clueless.

This is the usual problem, you take a hypothetical, and think it applies directly to any situation. Your PDF is not taking into account the WTC.

Irony. Where do I say that anything in that paper directly appies to the WTC building? I am just proving to you that the concept of catenary action with concequent pull in exists, and the paper proves it, beyond any doubt, to any person with a basic understanding of the involved phyics.

You on the other hand come with a video of a concrete structure where 2 columns are blown away, and then imply it somehow does apply to any situation, including the WTC. Ouch, you are exactly doing what you are accusing me of doing yourself.

Why don't you do the actual calculations provided in your PDF for the WTC trusses and columns? Otherwise it is meaningless and proves nothing.

Values for pull in force at the WTC are already available in other publications. I don't need to calculate anything. These calculations don't give the full picture.

The paper proves nothing concerning the WTC. It proves that catenary action can occur in fires. It is not meaningless, it teaches us (mostly you) a concept. A concept you have been struggling to understand for years now.

Now where are your calculations that the bolts would break first? Your argument that it is common sense fails. If we apply your same common sense to a tree and a rope, you could also not pull over a tree with a rope, as a tree is much stronger. Same kind of simplistic flawed logic.

Are you guys checking rooftops for those black boxes???

reply to post by esdad71

where are the explosives?

Umm......they exploded?

Originally posted by esdad71
Are you guys checking rooftops for those black boxes???

Ya know I didn't exactly know how to respond to you.

I have had debates with goodoldave and dr Eugene hell I even like plb .

Because while we believe differently they have always been (for the most part ) polite and respectful.

You sir are not Dave Eugene or plb.

But you . You attack with your silly assumptions .

And we are off topic.

So, if you want to discuss the op ill be glad. If you want to ask a question or 2 of me ill answer gladly.

If you want to discuss the wtc 1 or 2, there are a few threads where I do that and you can look at my post history and to find one and ill be happy to talk .

As long as you stop the "assume" bs.


Eta
1. You know what assuming does? Well it will only do it to you this time.

2. Wrong.

3.please show me full blue prints of both buildings

4.ask plb what to do when someone says "it's basic physics" and wont show you a

5. Model . The fact that the nist reports model consists consists of your number 5 (trust us its basic physics.no I wont show you the model we used to arrive at that)

Now im done with ya.

Originally posted by esdad71
then i will be real quiet...where are the explosives?

You don't realise how stupid that question makes you sound. Lack of explosives evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen, there is plenty of other evidence that points to controlled demolition. You're just desperate for something to cling to because all the other claims have been debunked. You don't have much of an argument left do you?

Physics were not suspended that day. Sorry you still cannot figure it out. The rest of us have.

Nobody said physics were suspended, but for the collapses to happen the way you think they would have to have been. So seeing as you at least understand physics wasn't suspended, then you must have the answer I am looking for.

So how do sagging trusses put a pulling force on the much more massive columns, and do that without breaking the 1" and 5/8" bolts? What was the weak point esdad, the massive columns, or the bolts?

Be honest now esdad, and explain to me why you think the bolts would not fail before the much more massive columns?

Originally posted by ANOK
So how do sagging trusses put a pulling force on the much more massive columns, and do that without breaking the 1" and 5/8" bolts?

For instance:

− There is considerable uncertainty as to what the actual capacity of the strap anchor
system was to transfer pull-in forces from the floors to the walls. Assuming that the strap
anchors were installed as shown on the drawings, with only the minimum length and size
of welds specified actually installed, the tensile capacity of the strap anchor system is
controlled by the strength of weld at the strap anchors to the truss the top chords.
Typically, 5/16 in., 4 in long fillet welds were specified for this joint. For a pair of floor
trusses, joined to the wall by a pair of diagonal strap anchors, this translates into a
computed tensile capacity of 68 kip at room temperature and 6.6 kip at 800 ˚C. In full
floor model analyses that incorporated the strap anchors, these capacities were used.
However, if longer welds were provided, say in excess of 6 in., or somewhat larger fillets
were actually placed, the ultimate tensile strength of the strap anchor (1-1/2 in. x 5/8 in.
flat plate) could have controlled the capacity of this system. In such a case, the strap
anchors for a pair of floor trusses could develop a 101 kip tension force at room
temperature and a 9.8 kip tension force at 800 ˚C.
− Assuming a coefficient of friction of 0.33 and vertical reaction at an exterior seat of
13 kip, the friction force can be as much as 4.3 kip for a pair of trusses. The capacity of
the two 5/8 in.-diameter seat bolts present in each pair of trusses in shear is 44 kip at
room temperature and 4.0 kip at 800 ˚C. Therefore, at elevated temperature, the
combined action of friction and bolts could develop on the order of an 8 kip tension force
at the exterior seat.

reply to post by ANOK


I'm stooopid and you say this..

Nobody said physics were suspended, but for the collapses to happen the way you think they would have to have been. So seeing as you at least understand physics wasn't suspended, then you must have the answer I am looking for.

What do you do for a living?

If explosives were used, where are they? For 8 years not one of you can answer this question. I have Newton to back me up.

Originally posted by esdad71

If explosives were used, where are they? For 8 years not one of you can answer this question. I have Newton to back me up.

So when are you going to explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns? Don't forget to explain how the bolts didn't break first. All you've done so far is dance around the question avoiding any direct answer.

If explosives were used they would have been exploded, no? Did anyone even look for explosives? No.

Again you are just showing your ignorance by ignoring physics, and claiming it couldn't have happened because no one found explosives. That really is bad logic mate. You are simply covering your ears and yelling "I don't see explosives".

How does Newton back you up? You don't even understand Newtons 3rd law, if you did you wouldn't be supporting the NIST hypothesis. Not too mention momentum conservation.

Answer this question, if two objects collide, one weighing a ton, the other ten tons, which object receives the larger force? If the speed of one object is increased, how does it effect the force on each object?

reply to post by ANOK

Again you are just showing your ignorance by ignoring physics, and claiming it couldn't have happened because no one found explosives. That really is bad logic mate. You are simply covering your ears and yelling "I don't see explosives".

How does Newton back you up? You don't even understand Newtons 3rd law, if you did you wouldn't be supporting the NIST hypothesis. Not too mention momentum conservation.

It's not your physics we have a problem with.
It's your engineering. Or should I say your lack of engineering experience.

Where are the hordes of engineers to back up your side?
Those few on that website?? Most of them don't have qualifications in structual engineering.

After a dozen years the US government is still controlling all the worlds structual engineers.
Yea right. I got a bridge I'll sell ya too.

reply to post by ANOK


There is nothing to explain. Nothing. You can ask and ask us to do all the work over and over and it is the same thing. There was an initiating event, and when that happened, gravity takes over. What else do you need to know.

I am not covering my ears yelling where are the explosives, i just want to know where they are. One trigger...anything other than a paint chip.

Why are you still defending this theory?