911 Mysteries / A&E For 911 Truth ... Lies Revealed

Here is what I'm talking about.



wtc.nist.gov... (88/275 of the pdf file) Page 28 Chapter 2 of the report.

Notice how big the core columns appear to be.

Now, let's look at a drawing I did to scale of a typical floor. Remember, this is to scale.



Now, why the difference? And especially, why no mention that it is not to scale?

In an engineering report, when it doesn't say anything about a scale, one assumes that it is to scale with itself. Why did they mislead and do this?

If you want to start pointing fingers and talk about lying to fit your agenda, NIST is right up there with them all.

[edit on 11/27/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 11/27/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 11/27/2007 by Griff]

Here they are side-by-side for comparison and scaled to one another for easier viewing.

What? No comment from the "debunkers"?

It's not in "screw loose change" or "debunking 9/11" so I guess I'll never get an answer?

Originally posted by Griff
What? No comment from the "debunkers"?

It's not in "screw loose change" or "debunking 9/11" so I guess I'll never get an answer?

Ok, I'll bite.

So NIST misrepresented the size of the core columns, making them look bigger than they really are. But NIST also says that the core columns were severed by engines and/or landing gear.

So tell me, how does influencing people to believe that the core columns are larger than real life, and thereby presumably more difficult to sever help out NIST's theories? How does it make people believe that their theory is accurate by making their theory less believeable to those not willing to do the work, and just believe what they see on a piece of paper?

Or do you think that, just perhaps, they enlarged the core columns in the drawings for clarity's sake?

Originally posted by Haroki
So NIST misrepresented the size of the core columns, making them look bigger than they really are.

Yes.

But NIST also says that the core columns were severed by engines and/or landing gear.

Yes.

So tell me, how does influencing people to believe that the core columns are larger than real life, and thereby presumably more difficult to sever help out NIST's theories?

Because you are looking at it backwards.

NIST's theory doesn't revolve around the core columns.

It revolves around the floor trusses and the perimeter columns.

Now, seeing that picture and knowing how big the core columns are, one will say "ok...look how puny the floor trusses were".

Now look at the difference in my picture. Notice how the floor trusses don't look as puny as they do in the NIST picture?

That's the problem. Not the columns themselves but the comparison to the floor trusses and outer perimeter columns.

That is misleading at best. Lying at worst. Either way, shouldn't have been done. Not in an engineering report. Period.

How does it make people believe that their theory is accurate by making their theory less believeable to those not willing to do the work, and just believe what they see on a piece of paper?

Because it makes the floor trusses appear to be speghetti thin that's how.

Or do you think that, just perhaps, they enlarged the core columns in the drawings for clarity's sake?

Then they should state this. Period.

If not, they are deliberately misleading the public.

[edit on 11/27/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Haroki

So tell me, how does influencing people to believe that the core columns are larger than real life, and thereby presumably more difficult to sever help out NIST's theories?

Because you are looking at it backwards.

NIST's theory doesn't revolve around the core columns.

It revolves around the floor trusses and the perimeter columns.

Now, seeing that picture and knowing how big the core columns are, one will say "ok...look how puny the floor trusses were".

Now look at the difference in my picture. Notice how the floor trusses don't look as puny as they do in the NIST picture?

That's the problem. Not the columns themselves but the comparison to the floor trusses and outer perimeter columns.

That is misleading at best. Lying at worst. Either way, shouldn't have been done. Not in an engineering report. Period.

How does it make people believe that their theory is accurate by making their theory less believeable to those not willing to do the work, and just believe what they see on a piece of paper?

Because it makes the floor trusses appear to be speghetti thin that's how.

Or do you think that, just perhaps, they enlarged the core columns in the drawings for clarity's sake?

Then they should state this. Period.

If not, they are deliberately misleading the public.

[edit on 11/27/2007 by Griff]

NIST's theory doesn't revolve around just the floor trusses and the exterior columns. It also revolves around the core columns being severed. It spends much time examining how sagging floor trusses can pull in exterior columns when they're heated, true.

But the report also states how load was transferred - when those exterior columns were pulled in - through the hat truss to other exterior columns and to the damaged core columns. This is their explanation of how the global collapse ensued, I believe.

The floor trusses look equal in size to me in both drawings - nice job by the way. I'd say you're stretching here to try and make NIST's report biased. Please just stick to the facts and don't fall into the trap of ad hom'ing everyone that gives evidence that goes against your beliefs. I believe that's what ATS is all about.

You are correct that they should have stated that the drawing isn't to scale. But again, I disagree with the effect it would have on an uninformed viewer. I'd think that it would influence them to think that it would be less likely that the core columns could have been severed and NOT influence anyone to make judgement calls about how "spaghetti thin" the trusses were.

But, if the drawing makes people believe that the trusses are so weak, then it would also influence people to disbelieve NIST when they say that the sagging trusses had the strength to pull the exterior columns in. If one were to believe that the trusses were so weak, I'd think that they'd question whether or not the trusses would break first before they had the oppurtunity to pull in the exterior columns, yes?

I've changed my mind, you're DEFINITELY stretching here.....

Originally posted by Haroki
I've changed my mind, you're DEFINITELY stretching here.....

I'm not strecthing anything but spaghetti thin trusses and the fact that NIST is also guilty of manipulation to fit their agenda. As far as what anyone wants to take into account further than that is up to them. All I'm showing is that NIST is manipulating and misleading. A little more so in my book because they are the ones who should not in any way do this.

How did I know this was going to be let go without a word from those who claim LIARS when it comes to one side but turn the other cheek for the other? Typical.

reply to post by thedman

look... this is pretty simple...the has NEVER..EVER...been a collapse of this type of steel and concrete buildings like the world trade center buldings or smaller towers, in the entire world history of construction...don't you find it a little odd and stupid not to talk to the design and structural engineers that actually built the towers? the ONLY...i repeat ONLY way to bring down buildings in that fashion, is by controlled demolition...any 1st year structural engineer in collage knows that...there are plenty of websites you can go to and see how it was built, and the simple laws of physics point to the truth...but of course, why trust science, when you have storytelling going on and all of us are to believe the "official" version...and there are many other reasons why 9/11 was a cover up...but of course you'll say "it's just the conspirecy nuts"... it is so hard to believe in the BIG LIE and that's why it has worked so affectively in the past. the german people of the 30's were smart, educated, and proud of their country... there are alot of them that have finally come out and spoke about what happened and why their country slowly was led down the path to tyranny, without them even noticing until it was to late. history tells us everything about ambitous and disastrous leaders.

reply to post by jimmyx


Jimmy ...back it up dude. There have been many papers published that show mathmatically and physically how and why the towers collapsed..try reading them

Please forward me a paper that has been published to support your claim....you can't.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Please forward me a paper that has been published to support your claim....you can't.

I see we're making progress. It's no longer a "peer reviewed paper". It's now just a paper.

As far as publishing. Show me the construction documents (blueprints) and I'll have your paper ready. Until then, we can't.

Why do I have to keep explaining this?

BTW, CO. Gonna comment on my findings of NIST's misdeeds? Or are we just going to ignore it and hope it goes away?

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by thedman

 

the ONLY...i repeat ONLY way to bring down buildings in that fashion, is by controlled demolition...any 1st year structural engineer in collage knows that...there are plenty of websites you can go to and see how it was built, and the simple laws of physics point to the truth..

What laws of physics are you referring to? And what calculations based on those laws show your position to be correct?

I assume you've conferred with structural engineers regarding your hypothesis?

Originally posted by nicepants
What laws of physics are you referring to? And what calculations based on those laws show your position to be correct?

I assume you've conferred with structural engineers regarding your hypothesis?

No need to.

If it was that easy, we wouldn't be paying Controlled Demolitions, Inc. millions to do it. Now would we?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by nicepants
What laws of physics are you referring to? And what calculations based on those laws show your position to be correct?

I assume you've conferred with structural engineers regarding your hypothesis?

No need to.

If it was that easy, we wouldn't be paying Controlled Demolitions, Inc. millions to do it. Now would we?

So rather than discussing your hypothesis with experts in the field, you choose to believe it based on your own opinions and beliefs? Are you a structural engineer?

Originally posted by nicepants
Are you a structural engineer?

Yes.

Just to make sure i don't get called out on this. Here are my transcripts.







Hopefully I posted the blanked out ones and not the ones with my name and SSN.

[edit on 11/29/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 11/29/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
How did I know this was going to be let go without a word from those who claim LIARS when it comes to one side but turn the other cheek for the other? Typical.

If you're referring to me, I didn't reply cuz you didn't bring anything new to the table.

If you remember, I said that I agree that NIST should have noted that their drawing wasn't to scale, but that you were stretching in your quest to bash NIST. Now I'd call THAT typical....

But we don't need to discuss that part. We disagree, enuf said. Anything more would be pointless.

If you want to respond to what I said about the drawing re: larger than real core columns that would be harder to sever with the plane, or "spaghetti thin" trusses that wouldn't have the strength to pull in the exterior columns, I'd be happy to discuss it.

PS - you ever pass your Math 241 class?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by nicepants
Are you a structural engineer?

Yes.

Just to make sure i don't get called out on this. Here are my transcripts.

Hopefully I posted the blanked out ones and not the ones with my name and SSN.

[edit on 11/29/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 11/29/2007 by Griff]

So, based on that, what makes you more qualified than the engineers who disagree with you?

I'm somewhat shocked that an actual structural engineer would have such a tough time understanding the fact that these buildings could fall without the use of explosives.

Perhaps you could post your calculations?

[edit on 29-11-2007 by nicepants]

reply to post by nicepants


I already answered your question. Yes.

I am a civil engineer that has taken the appropriate classes and now work for an architectural firm.

Guess what I work on. Structures. So yes. That makes me a structural engineer.

Now, if you mean do I have my SE. No I do not. But I will be a PE in about a month (if the gods smile on me that is). Not really, I'm pretty sure I passed the exam.

Originally posted by nicepants
So, based on that, what makes you more qualified than the engineers who disagree with you?

Nothing. And I never said I was. Nice try though.

I'm somewhat shocked that an actual structural engineer would have such a tough time understanding the fact that these buildings could fall without the use of explosives.

When have I ever said that explosives had to be used? All I've ever said is that plane damage and fires wouldn't give us the outcome seen that day.

This is why I try not to speculate. Because there will always be one that tries to put words in my mouth.

Perhaps you could post your calculations?

If you've taken engineering classes, then you'd know that I would need the construction documents. The entire documents and not just what NIST has spoon fed the public with. Or the leaked architectural drawings.

reply to post by Haroki



Nope. Wasn't directed at anyone in particular.