Small math, big truth

reply to post by SLAYER69


You don't seem to realise that those planes were loaded with explosives, hitting ships loaded with explosives.

So thanx for showing us what a plane loaded with explosives can do.

It still doesn't explain how 3 buildings globally, and symmetrically collapsed from asymmetrical damage and sporadic fires. But whether the aircraft were real, or not, is irrelevant, asymmetrical damage does not cause symmetrical global collapses with no resistance.

We need to forget this line of thinking, we need to know what happened after the collapses initiated. The part that NIST didn't cover, and want people to just believe in the the fairy tale that collapse was inevitable. That is the biggest lie in the NIST report.

(Jap., “divine wind”), suicide squadrons organized by the Japanese air force in the last months of World War II. The term was originally applied by grateful Japanese to a typhoon that destroyed a Mongol invasion fleet in 1281. It was revived in 1945 and applied to pilots who flew their aircraft, loaded with explosives, into U.S. naval vessels. Kamikaze pilots, who sacrificed their lives in a last-ditch effort to stop the American advance, sank about 40 U.S. ships.

[edit on 1/4/2009 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK


You don't seem to realise that those planes were loaded with explosives, hitting ships loaded with explosives.

thanks for your opinion.
Yes I'm well aware of some of those planes having explosives.

Watch any documentaries not all had explosives

Originally posted by SLAYER69
thanks for your opinion.

Great, re-read my post it's not an opinion.

And how do you know those that you posted a clip of were not loaded with explosives? Sorry but your line of argument is a stretch, at best.

If you read my post you would also have noted that your argument is irrelevant anyway as the planes didn't cause the towers collapses, even NIST admits this.

Anyway you look at it those towers should not have globally collapsed, you have yet to show how this is physically possible.
Where did the resistance go? How do office fires get hot enough to cause thousands of tons of construction steel to fail? How does asymmetrical damage create a symmetrical collapse? Why did the buildings ALL fall into the path of MOST resistance?
Have you ever worked with steel? Ever been to a foundry? Ever taken physics 101?

[edit on 1/4/2009 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK


Sorry not falling for it.
You believe what you want and I'll stick with Architicts and Engineers
Good day sir.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Sorry not falling for it.
You believe what you want and I'll stick with Architicts and Engineers
Good day sir.

LOL in other words you're not going to research ANYTHING yourself, and just take the word of other people?

Falling for what? I'm not doing anything but trying to get you to ask questions, you obviously don't care about finding the truth.

So here are some professional architects and engineers for you...
Architecs and Engineers for 911 Truth

Or do you only believe those that parrot the official story?

learn some physics man, and then you might actually have a clue as to what I'm talking about.

reply to post by ANOK

We need to forget this line of thinking, we need to know what happened after the collapses initiated. The part that NIST didn't cover, and want people to just believe in the the fairy tale that collapse was inevitable. That is the biggest lie in the NIST report.

And no one will ever know exactly what happened. You could have studied every last scrap of wreckage from all three buildings and you still wouldnt have known with 100% certainty what exactly happened. Without data recording devices inside of each building, all you will ever have is a best "guess" as to what happened. So call it a fairy tale if you want, but its as close to the facts as anyone will ever get.

So here are some professional architects and engineers for you...

Oh goody, then we can have an argument on whose architects and engineers have a bigger slide rule. For every "professional" on that site, we can find another "professional" who says NIST got it right.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by ANOK

 

Sorry not falling for it.
You believe what you want and I'll stick with Architicts and Engineers
Good day sir.

So should we believe you because.....you can't even spell architects.

or these guys?www.patriotsquestion911.com...

yeah, I'm going with architects and engineers too.

reply to post by whaaa


Oh yes a typo! How dumb I must be? Obviously because I made a spelling mistake all those architects and engineers who don't buy the official story must be wrong? The debunkers logic is pure genius.

So, you just admitted that you only want to believe the governments version of events, and will ignore anyone who contradicts it. Well done!

So why don't you all quit trying to tell us you only listen to 'engineers and architects' when you are blatantly lying?

You only listen to those that don't make you question your belief in your government and the 'official story'.

Have the debunkers got any credibility left?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Oh goody, then we can have an argument on whose architects and engineers have a bigger slide rule. For every "professional" on that site, we can find another "professional" who says NIST got it right.

Well done, another genius debunker.

Funny but it's the debunkers who play that game, but as soon as it's turned on you you show your true hypocritical colours.

Admit it, you don't listen to 'Architects and Engineers', you listen to 'Architects and Engineers who say what you want to believe'.

Don't ANY of you think for yourselves? You always have to appeal to authority?

A&E For 911 Truth Founder Richard Gage is having a hard time getting true engineers to sign up for his website. That's not to say there isn't any.

I would like to know what papers their group has submitted for peer review regarding the towers and their collapses. (hint: I know of only 1)



Some Peer Reviewed Papers in Engineering Journals

"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C., JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

"Dissecting the Collapses" Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. By: Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R.. Fire Safety Journal, Oct2002, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p707, 10p.

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.

Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics; 2002 Vol. 128 Issue 7, p795-800, 6p.

"Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers" Clifton, Charles G., HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625, 25p

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Jun2005, Vol. 131 Issue 6, p654-657.

Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks. Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji.; Koshika, Norihide. Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 (January 2005) p. 6-15

The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes v. 162 no10 (October 2004) p. 37-9

WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. ENR v. 253 no17 (November 1 2004) p. 10-11

"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations" Monahan, B., Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall "Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1" Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities Volume 21, Issue 6, pp. 414-421


Engineering Conference Papers

"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" Marechaux, T.G. JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Abboud, N., M. Levy, D. Tennant, J. Mould, H. Levine, S. King, C. Ekwueme, A. Jain, G. Hart. (2003) Anatomy of a Disaster: A Structural Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapses. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 360-370

Beyler, C., D. White, M. Peatross, J. Trellis, S. Li, A. Luers, D. Hopkins. (2003) Analysis of the Thermal Exposure in the Impact Areas of the World Trade Center Terrorist Attacks. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 371-382

Thater, G. G.; Panariello, G. F.; Cuoco, D. A. (2003) World Trade Center Disaster: Damage/Debris Assessment In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 383-392



Fire Protection and Fire Modeling Papers

How did the WTC towers collapse? A new theory; Usmani, A. S.; Chung, Y. C.; Torero, J. L. Fire Safety Journal; 2003 Vol. 38, p501-533, 33p.

Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses. Fire and Materials, 29:4, July/August 2005. pp. 181 - 194. Chang, Jeremy; Buchanan, Andrew H.; Moss, Peter J.

"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings" Brannigan, F.L. Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

"Construction and Collapse Factors" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P. "Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Collapse Lessons" Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Burgess, I.W., 'Fire Resistance of Framed Buildings', Physics Education, 37 (5), (2002) pp390-399.

G. Flint, A.S. Usmani, S. Lamont, J. Torero and B. Lane, Effect of fire on composite long span truss floor systems, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (4) (2006), pp. 303–315.



Fire Protection Conference Papers

"Coupled fire dynamics and thermal response of complex building structures" Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, Volume 30, Issue 2, January 2005, Pages 2255-2262 Kuldeep Prasad and Howard R. Baum

Choi, S.K., Burgess, I.W. and Plank, R.J., 'The Behaviour of Lightweight Composite Floor Trusses in Fire', ASCE Specialty Conference: Designing Structures for Fire, Baltimore, (Oct 2003) pp 24-32.

Jowsey et all, Determination of Fire Induced Collapse Mechanisms in Steel Framed Structures, 4th European Conference on Steel and Composite Structures, 10 June 05, 69-76

Usmani et all, Collapse scenarios of WTC 1 & 2 with extension to generic tall buildings, Oct-2006 Proceedings of the International Congress on Fire Safety in Tall Buildings



Related Papers

Interactive Failure of Two Impacting Beams Xiaoqing. Teng and Tomasz Wierzbicki. J. Engrg. Mech., Volume 129, Issue 8, pp. 918-926 (August 2003)

Use of High-Efficiency Energy Absorbing Device to Arrest Progressive Collapse of Tall Building Qing Zhou and T. X. Yu Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130, 1177 (2004)

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30:2, January, 2005. pp. 2247-2254. Baum, Howard R.; Rehm, Ronald G.

Reconnaissance and preliminary assessment of a damaged high-rise building near Ground Zero. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings. 12 :5, 15 December 2003. pp. 371 - 391. Warn, Gordon; Berman, Jeffrey; Whittaker, Andrew; Bruneau, Michel

"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center" Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A., The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48

John K. McGee et al, “Chemical Analysis of World Trade Center Fine Particulate Matter for Use in
Toxicologic Assessment”, Environmental Health Perspective (June 2003)

UC Davis Aerosol Study: Cahill et al., “Analysis of Aerosols from the World Trade Center
Collapse Site, New York, October 2 to October 30, 2001”, Aerosol Science and Technology,

Lioy et al, “Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center
(WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001”, Environmental Health
Perspectives, Volume 110 #7

reply to post by ANOK


You have me confused with Slayer and Swampfox. It wasn't your spelling I criticized.
Read my link, you will see we're on the same page.

reply to post by ANOK


Sigh, once again sarcasm is lost on someone. I pointed out that you are trying to start a p*ssing contest with your post about that website. Quite frankly, that would be like trying to use a water gun against a firehose. Far more engineers and architects agree with me than Mr Gage.

Look again at this video:

www.youtube.com...

When the plane's nose hits the powerful tower and its powerful steel, the wings should brake in the point of attack with the fuselage.

Either these scientists are more stupid than goats or want to piss out of all the world.



[edit on 6-1-2009 by Calatrava]

reply to post by Calatrava


Could you please translate your post into English?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


His English was perfectly understandable to me.

Here's the problem as I see it. You think you're smart and know what you're talking about because some people you respect haven't said, in general, that they think 911 was an inside job.

But where you fail is the details. The details that are not covered by NIST, or your respected 'professionals'. You think your explanation of the details 'makes sense' in the box you have put yourself in. Most of your argument comes from internet web sites, just like ATS, not from professionals. You haven't done any research for yourself, that's obvious. Either that or you really are purposely here to just lie and derail the discussions. Not an accusation, an observation.

And it's not down to differences in opinion, it comes down to refusal to even consider anything that puts the 'official story' in question.
You wouldn't even allow yourself to consider for one second that something doesn't fit with the 'official story', that would be devastating to your state of mind... That is not logical and rational thinking, it's the sign of desperation.

You can't seriously do any independent research and not be forced to step outside your government designed box. The excuses you find for the unanswered questions are lame at best.

Where is your 'professionals' explanation for the tilt of WTC2 for example? If these professionals had done extensive research into the collapses, shouldn't there be peer reviewed published papers about this all over the place?.

Originally posted by ANOK
Where is your 'professionals' explanation for the tilt of WTC2 for example? If these professionals had done extensive research into the collapses, shouldn't there be peer reviewed published papers about this all over the place?.

Hi Anok,

I can not be certain if these have been peer reviewed, but they are very detailed papers involving the tilt of WTC-2.

I hope you find them useful.

-CF

AN ANALYSIS OF THE TIPPING OF THE UPPER SECTION OF WTC 2
By
F.R. Greening

Here is his contact info if you have any questions for him:

F. R. Greening
[email protected]
Dr. Greening

Since this following paper was published, I feel it is safe to assume that it was peer reviewed.

Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press
9/13/01, Expanded 9/22/01, Appendices 9/28/01)

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis

By Zdenek P. Bazant, Fellow ASCE, and Yong Zhou

please see Appendix II : Why Didn’t the Upper Part Pivot About Its Base?
Bazant & Zhou

Here is another one that may be helpful:

Eduardo Kausel
Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
September 2001

Inferno at the World Trade Center, NY

I may suggest scrolling down to the part titled: Why did they not fall like a tree?
Kausel MIT





[edit on 5-1-2009 by CameronFox]

From my toolbox , I take out a steel spanner .

From my study , I take out an empty cigar tube .

ok

how do I cut thru the steel spanner with alluminium cigar tube ?

I am sure I can hit a tennis ball something like 60 miles an hour which is lousy but I can drive my car at , say 240 miles an hour .
NOw suppose I cemented the spanner in the middle of the road , uprighted , and hit it with my cigar tube , as I drive by at 240 mph . ( I know , I know , it is a tall order but so as the subject matter at hand )

what would happen ?


would the spanner get cut off where it got hit ?


I am seriously wondering and I am inclined to think that there would not even be a scratch on the spanner .

Originally posted by whaaa
You have me confused with Slayer and Swampfox. It wasn't your spelling I criticized.
Read my link, you will see we're on the same page.

Ooops sorry mate, got a little over excited I guess lol. I saw the quote with my name but didn't notice it was from slayers post.

So ...er, I can't edit it now so EVERYONE please note it should be directed at Slayer and Swampy, not Whaaa, thank you we will now return you to your regularly scheduled program....

reply to post by CameronFox


CameronFox comes through!! Thankyou for posting this.

Now seeing as you know this article, that's been around for awhile now, and you believe it explains the tilt, could you please do me a favour and explain it to me? Just break it down into simple terms using Newtons laws, I'm not good at the math, you do understand the math right?
I mean you wouldn't be just assuming it's right would ya?

I was hoping swampy would have offered Greening up for us but oh well you 'll do....