You're picking one photo to try and represent the floors where columns would have been affected by heat? Are you sure those columns came from either the North Tower's floors 93 through 98 or the South Tower's floors 78 through 82? That's where the jets impacted and where the fires were. What about the link I posted that showed bending to columns? No comments on that? http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/hanger17.html I also don't see any evidence of damage from thermite or explosives on the column ends in your photo. Now what?
Neither was I. I was referring to oxy acetylene torch. Not sure where you got propane from. What do plasma torches have to do with cleanup of the WTC steel?
Which photo? Where are you getting 15 stories? Which photos are you claiming were taken on day one that show angled cuts?
So you are saying that the only beams that will show fatigue are those impacted by a jet.....So I am to believe that you believe the fires on the floor from the jet impact brought down the entire building.....because none of the other beams were in fact affected by the impact.....Which is odd considering how beams were ejected horizontally and vertically into other buildings showing no signs of fatigue.....By the way, you wont see evidence of thermite on beams that were snapped off from their bolts and anchor plates....nor will you see evidence of the explosives used in different parts of the building....You see that is why the buildings came down....from explosives....that is why the beams are not bent from heat that NIST claims they did....It's not about what you see in the pics.....its what you don't see and should have..
No. Columns and beams that lost strength from being heated by fires caused by the impact AND being under a stress load could cause fatigue/bending. No. Impacts of the jets caused some damage to the structure as a whole and thus weakened it on those floor levels mentioned. The resultant fires further weakened columns/beams causing the structural members affected to lost their integrity and release the structure above. The upper section that descended upon the lower section sheared connections on it's way down and tore the structure apart. That's one reason why you see perimeter columns laid out the way they were. None? There were no perimeter columns severed or damaged from the impacts? What about core columns that were severed or weakened from the impacts? You know this for sure? Again, how do you know that those SPECIFIC beams came from the areas affected by impact or resultant fires? How does NO FATIGUE equal proof of explosives? So how were those beams and columns "snapped off"? Explain please.What forces were able to do that? Stress/load related? Show me a photo of a structural steel member that shows signs of explosives used on it. So these are bent from explosives blasts? http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/hanger17.html
What beam/column in that photo shows any signs of explosives used to cut it? Then explain how the clean end of that box column the worker is sitting on was created. How about the "cut" I beam in the forefront of that photo?
Then shouldn't a simulation that completely removed 5 levels, 91 through 95, and dropped the top 15 stories onto the lower 90 resolve this issue? If the falling portion destroys the lower 90 levels then end of discussion. But if it comes nowhere near complete destruction then we have a serious physics issue. However the simulation would have to have accurate steel and concrete information. The NIST report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers, just the total for the steel. A simulation would have to have accurate steel thickness for beams and column throughout the tower. psik
Absolutely. NIST did say they have computer models but won't release them (and much more) even under FOIA. That must count for something ... in the OCT world.
If there was a great conspiracy covering up the towers being brought down by controlled demolition and that jet impacts, resultant fires, and failing structural components DIDN'T cause the collapses because that would defy physics, then why, after 15 years have none of the 2,726 architect and engineer signatories on the AE911Truth petition put their collective heads together and spend the money AE911Truth gathers every year and come up with an FEA that shows the impossibility of what the "OCT" claims? I'll tell you why. Because all everyone wants to do is point the finger at the government and whine about it instead of getting off their collective asses and doing some real work. You think Richard Gage wants his gravy train to stop? He'd rather collect his money and travel around asking questions and having dinner. Here's another kicker for you that shows how biased truthers are. Why is nobody putting up a stink about Hulsey's WTC7 study? Why is nobody clamoring for the details and numbers he is using when he comes out and says that fire could NOT have brought down WTC7? Almost every truther takes his word for it and spreads that garbage around and accepts it without question. That's not biased? Like you for example. How many years have you been clamoring about this stupid idea that nobody knows the amount of steel and concrete in the towers. Why haven't you calculated it? Have you tried to collect the drawings and do it yourself instead of wasting time crying about on forums? What about contacting some of the 2,726 architects and engineers mentioned above and ask them about it. Have you? Are the drawings not obtainable? What about your ridiculous "physics" model? You want that to show how the "physics" of a collapse should really work, but then say that the "washers and paper" model you created a video to show just that DOESN'T represent the towers? Are you kidding me? Where are all the FEAs showing how explosives/thermite could have caused the collapses as seen, complete with the amounts needed and showing which connections or structural components needed to be demoed? Why has not one single truther engineer come out and attempted this? All you people know how to do is ask questions, point fingers, and say there were some pretty weird coincidences going on. 99% of the truthers don't want to get off their butts and do any work to prove their claims.
How about you and the other folks who use physics and Newton's laws as arguments regarding why the towers could NOT have completely collapsed due to fire and gravity answer some questions for me. Anyone can take a stab at it. Example 1. Example 2. Based on some folks understanding of Newton's laws and physics, in both examples, the lower, larger section should stop the decent of the smaller upper section correct? Both upper, smaller sections are being dropped from 50 feet. Do you agree or disagree with this conclusion for both examples? Why or why not? According to you and your "washer and paper" model you made a video of showing the physics of a collapse, the decent of the upper section should always be arrested at some point correct psikey? Anyone?
There was a BBC TV documentary a few years ago analysing why the towers collapsed, with architects and engineers explaining why, with the aid of diagrams and computer simulations. In short, the conclusion was that the metal truss frameworks supporting the floors melted and gave way. They pointed out that there's a saying in the building industry- "Never trust a truss", because if just one truss goes, the whole building will collapse like a house of cards.
Gamolon, the more you post the less sense you make. It is a pathetic "argument" to say that Gage is becoming wealthy from his efforts, an absurd statement. Common sense and a most rudimentary understanding of physics tells the common man willing to examine the facts that office fires on the 80th floor did not cause what happened there. Firemen went up into the towers KNOWING that the buildings met the fire code, and that there has never been an example of high rise collapse from office fires. Gage is very much like so many other ordinary citizens--a man who loves his country, and who uses his skills to seek the truth. What the hell is wrong with that?
Eleuthra, How about you quote me where I said he was getting rich. All I said is that he collects his money and travels around, eats dinner, and doesn't want that to stop. Then you should be able to explain that then right? That it's impossible for fires to weaken an already weakened structure and cause them to lose enough strength to not support the weight above right? And where in the fire code does it explain that building's structure shall not fail from jet impact and resultant fires? Please point that particular section out. Please show me an example of a tube in tube, 1300 foot high skyscraper that was struck by a jet in the upper third. Then we'll talk about comparisons. Skills? What skills did he use? Did he use skills when he tried to replicate the collapses using cardboard boxes? Apply that model to example two in my post above and tell me why I wouldn't get the same results. Rudimentary physics right?
I have already built an example better than those: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo Your falling portion has a different structure than the impacted portion. You can ask about why AE911Truth hasn't done something but not why engineering schools haven't done the same thing as though silence explains something. It is a physics problem and should just be solved without going off into all of the conspiracy psychology rubbish. psik
Even if true that would only explain collapse initiation, not the progression down 90 stories that had to get stronger and heavier all of the way down. psik
The main reason I discount the "false flag" theory is because the US Govt didn't need to fake it in order to get an excuse to invade the mideast, because they already HAD a valid excuse! Namely, the WTC had been truck-bombed several years before, plus there were anti-American terror incidents happening around the world, and satellites had detected terror training camps..
You didn't address my questions psikey. Truthers use Newton's laws to explain why the towers couldn't have collapsed like the "OCT" says it did. Fire and gravity. They say that an upper, smaller section, cannot destroy a lower, larger section per Newton's laws. They also state that the smaller section's decent should have been arrested. Explain to me why this doesn't apply to example number two above. How does the smaller, upper section go through the larger, lower section? Does this defy physics? Let's do this psikey. Let's use example number two. Remove the one ton block and replace it with one level made up of of the same two concrete columns and the glass plates used in the lower section. Let's position that one level, upper section over the lower section so that the columns are not aligned. Let's drop it. Are you say that the lower structure will stop the upper section from reaching the ground and everything will stay intact and upright? Show me where Newton's laws take into account "different structures" or objects composed of many components and how those different structures affect the outcome of those law's applications.
What got stronger psikey? Did the floor trusses sizes, concrete floor thickness, and those floor truss connections to the columns increase in size and strength the closer to the ground you got? Or was it the columns and beams. Did the columns and beams need the floors and trusses to stay erect? Did the combination of floors, trusses, columns, and beams make the structure strong as a whole? Does not removing parts of the substructure weaken a structure as a whole? If the upper section turned debris front tore the upper first concrete floor and truss substructure of the lower section's core and perimeter columns, what makes you think that debris front wouldn't do that to each subsequent, lower floor? Are you saying the concrete floors and their trusses were designed to withstand a stress load created by a falling section consisting of multiple floors?
Excellent. Now draw a diagram showing how Newton's laws apply to your model. Should be easy right? Mass of the upper section versus the mass of the lower section. After that, show how Newton's laws mention anything about the "structure" of each mass and how that effects the applications of those laws.
The Core was a Grid Skyscraper in its own right and did not need the floors outside the core to stay up. Even the NIST says the Core supported 53% of the buildings' weight. The average distance between columns was 17 feet while it is 30 feet in a normal grid skyscraper. Do you object to the experiment either physical or virtual? Or do you just want talk forever? I admit to not being impressed with Richard Gage and I talked to him in 2008. AE911Truth should have done a model by now, but when do they ever talk about it? psik
There are so many things wrong with that question, I'm going to list just some key fallacious logic. 1. Given that NIST never investigated the collapse of the twin towers ("the collapse was inevitable" does not qualify as an investigation), why is it that you don't question NIST and question those who are NOT responsible for investigating 9/11 but do it voluntarily? 2. The investigation of the destruction of the towers is NOT a "great conspiracy", it's a fact that it requires an official investigation which again, was never done. If anything, that gross inexcusable failure is conspiratorial. 3. AE911T did put money together to fund an FEA into the "collapse" of WTC7 to show the impossibility of that particular OCT claim, although it isn't their jurisdiction to do so. That jurisdiction belongs to the US government, no one else. All independent investigations are voluntary. Once it is scientifically and conclusively proven without the shadow of a doubt that NIST's published theory on WTC7 is impossible, it's inevitable that the focus then moves on to NIST's "inevitable collapse" theory on the twin towers. And what is wrong with that when it has been proven the US government did NOT perform its mandated duty, not even close? See above fallacies (re: responsibility and jurisdiction). And why should anyone do that when Hulsey (as commissioned by AE911T) is doing what NIST should have done? Are you saying he should not be doing that? Are you terrified of the results? NIST took 7 years to come up with their absurd and impossible theory. Hulsey has been working on his project for less than 1 year and has reached a general conclusion that he publicly announced. He also announced that it will be another 6 months or so before he can publish his detailed PEER REVIEWED analysis. I personally don't doubt his conclusion is correct and not because I have absolute faith in Hulsey, but because there are an incredible number of KNOWN factors that I'm fully aware of that make NIST's theory IMPOSSIBLE even without Hulsey. (not going to bother with the rest of the BS, it's the same issue)
None of that explains why the US government failed to legitimately (forensically and scientifically) investigate 9/11, deliberately destroyed evidence and otherwise obstructed every pretend investigation and covered up tons of evidence/documents. It also doesn't explain why the US government failed to do anything significant to prevent or stop 9/11 despite being warned in detail multiple times. You can discount anything you want but the facts are not discountable.
