Yes, but it and 3 pages with one mention per page of plans saw no mention of plan sheets. One mentioned "plan books ". That does not qualify. NIST did not have plans and plan books are jumbles of details that need the plans to be implemented. Since no steel framed structure competent to be a "core structure" is seen anywhere ever at GZ nor on. 9/11, it is very safe to assume the plan books were made up for the scam. Clearly making a report on collapse with no info whatsoever is impossible . Notice there are no published " plan books" for us to examine . The concrete is coming apart in front of cameras. The same instant from two perspectives .
Yeah, everybody is stupid if they don't get anal retentive about the jargon. But 15 years can go by without the correct mass distribution to account for the Conservation of Momentum affecting the collapse time. As far as I can tell the way they use pinned only applies to the mathematics they use for model columns in presses to test the theory and make students show how smart they are with the math. So how is it the experts who do all the math can't make physical or virtual models that explain the collapse time in over a decade? psik
Is each connection of those horizontal beams designed to withstand the load of something from above dropping onto them? You need to think about this psikey. You are explaining how a structure works when all the components are undamaged and working TOGETHER AS A WHOLE to resist STATIC gravity loads. You go right ahead. And this is why you fail to understand how structures work. You HAVE to get granular when considering steel structures and how they fail which is why they do FEAs. You seem to think that ALL components within a structural are all the same when loads are applied. Especially a dynamic load. Individual connections have different load/design capacities than vertical columns when considering static gravity loads. Again, do you think that the connections for each horizontal beam between the columns has the same load resistance as column? The impact of the upper section was not one single object impacting another. COMPONENTS of the upper section impacted COMPONENTS of the lower section. That's why the total collapse time, from the initiation to the final piece of the towers coming to rest, was not in the same timeframe as freefall. You have numbers to back up this claim, that physics would not allow the building to come down in less than 30 seconds? I would love to see it. Please back up this claim. It seems you think that this model (just the blocks, not the numbers) is a good representation of what happened with the towers. And that's what your applying the conservation of momentum to. Two solid blocks. One smaller and one larger. You're using those two pieces of information to formulate a conclusion that the collpase should have been arrested because a smaller block cannot destroy a larger block. Please, by all means psikey, take that model and the conservation of momentum and explain why this happened... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCjEi4z2KZA ...and why this happened... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flo62pdaIMI Both had smaller and larger blocks. In both instances, the smaller upper block destroyed the lower larger block. According to you and others, that shouldn't happen. Using you understand of smaller blocks not being able to destroy larger blocks and the conservation of momentum, explain why we get the results we did. Total destruction of the entire structure. This ought to be good.
Good. Now show everyone here of an example of that difference. Show us an example of connections for elevator guide rail support steel and connections for column/support steel and how it relates to what we see in pictures of the WTC structure. My bet is you can't.
Fastened or bolted are the terms, but then the motif of each joint is defined along with size of bolt. An example has been sent by PM to you. No point in teaching gam how to lie better in his support for secret methods of as murder.
Hallway through your fantasy concrete core?! That's where a piece of the gypsum planking came loose! Here is a photo from the other side of your photo above: That piece in the red rectangle of my photo is gypsum planking! Below is a partial plan of the section shown in both photos! The gypsum planking boards were erected around the elevator shafts and the stairwells. I even see the stairwell towrds the left edge of my photo that matches the plan view I posted. The two red arrows show more gypsum planking. 6" diameter rebar!!!! WAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!! OMG!!!!
That's only the tip of the iceberg with regard to NIST's scam. There's so much more. Like I said, I listed many of the details in the thread you don't want to read. I've always found it eye opening that the twins were virtually turned to fine powder. I'm not the only one, you could tell from the statements and body language of credible eyewitnesses that they are shocked by it. And I find it even more jaw dropping that many still believe they "collapsed" into powder. The "spire" also seemed to turned to dust. This had to be one hell of a unique CD. A naturally occurring "collapse" from planes/damage/fire? That's a fairy tale for ignorant fools. [video=youtube;QnnXTrw88P4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnnXTrw88P4[/video] [video=youtube;JjyQk941tXQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjyQk941tXQ[/video]
How come not one of the 2,716 architects or engineers have come up with a detailed model or explanation on how the supposed demolitions worked? Complete with placement and amount? Not one person in over a decade. All they say is "It looks like a demolition"... Pathetic. Then we have people like you trying to create a model using paper and washers to show how the physics of a collapse is supposed to work, but then say that the model you used isn't supposed to represent the WTC towers in any way.
do you know how many types of mixes and aggregates of concrete that are used in the construction business? ... do you know what "lightweight" is? ... "self-leveling" ? ... "high compression"? ... what exactly do you personally know about hi-rise construction? ...
Hah, describing the reason for misrepresenting the core structure exposes you. The demo seen and heard cannot happen with a steel framed core so no explanation for demo is possible using that structure.
why did I bother going to school for 6 years? ... where was YouTube back in the 80s? ... I could have saved so much money on my education and just watched videos ...
I know not one of the 3 towers naturally collapsed (and turned into fine particles, including the people inside those towers) as a result of planes/damage/fire or a combination of these factors. I also know this is an impossible OCT story. I also know the FEMA "investigation", 9/11 Commission "investigation", NIST "investigation", FBI PENTTBOM "investigation" and official claims about what happened on 9/11 were all scams (not one legitimate investigation) and pretexts used to commit genocide and other human rights atrocities. Whether I know about any of the above or not is irrelevant (as is your question) and has nothing to do with what happened before, on 9/11 or afterward. It also has nothing to do with what I posted. I didn't create the videos or put words into any eyewitness or experts' mouth. Questioning me about what I know or don't know (which has nothing to do with 9/11 in the first place) is your way of trying to avoid discussing the facts about 9/11 itself, it always is.
How is anyone supposed to figure out the placement if there is no data on the horizontal beams in the core. And who said it is a NORMAL controlled demolition? In a normal controlled demolition the objective is to minimize collateral damage. Is that what happened with the Twin Towers? How critical is placement if you use ten times as much explosives as necessary. I think Richard Gage is an idiotic (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) so I am not going to try to defend him. But controlled just means it does what the designer wants. Most CD are not designed to kill people. psik
I would say: How come you're not asking how come not one of the official reports on 9/11 includes a legitimate detailed model or explanation on the nature of the supposed "collapses"? That's ALL they say? They've published reams of detailed scientific papers and videos and you claim that's ALL they say? But even if that's "all they say", perhaps they say it because that's exactly what it looks like? Perhaps they say that because they and I know that the only known way to completely demolish a steel frame high rise in seconds is by controlled demolition? And perhaps they say that because they know and I know that 3 steel frame high rises were perfectly demolished on the same day just like any perfectly planned and executed CD? And that there is no history of any such complete demolition by planes/damage/fire/earthquake/poorly planned CD/missiles (in one known case) or any combination? Yeah I wonder why they would say that. So is your claim that that's all they say. NIST claimed they have computer models of the WTC tower "collapse" but refuse to release them under FOIA request. They also say that they didn't bother to investigate the collapses at all in a footnote and just claimed the "collapses" were "inevitable". So we have people like NIST scamming the planet but you expect mostly anonymous/unknown posters in a discussion forum to do NIST's job. Talk about pathetic.
And it did. So it wasn't a "normal" CD, just a controlled one because it did what the designer wants, completely destroy the buildings and kill people in the process.
and we have a winner for the best post on this thread. thats just counting the first two pages I have read so far.
Indeed,this site many of them on this page posting defending the lies of the governments version are paid shills on the governments payroll.they got them here and on every message board trolling everyday.
as someone else said beforfe welcome to the forum.nice to have you here. to add on to the great posts that Bob and Scott have posted that are very objective and non biased facts that prove beyond a doubt 9/11 was an indeed an inside job,have you ever read this book? https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1...t_0?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=71HFE002DKBEDNGBQ9GK if not,you need to.Nobody has ever been able to debunk it. His book proves all the lies that NIST came up with and he exposes them. he has even given congress a public challenge to debate him in public,they wont do it.WHY? because they know they cant stand toe to toe with him in a debate and he will show them as the liars they indeed are. so HAVE you read this MUST READ book? IF not,what are you waiting for charlie?
The book by Popular Mechanics? Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts? I believe you have the wrong link.
But that is the cool thing about this pinned business. When they are pinned the ends of the column can pivot as though on a hinge. That makes it possible to mathematically analyze the buckling of the column. But in reality the column must bend in at least three places to buckle in almost any real application. That would make for way more complicated mathematics and does not even bring up the issue of variations in the columns because no two are perfectly identical. So this 9/11 issue is presented as though people must know enough to design a building in order to understand whether or not an airliner impact and fire could make the buildings collapse in less than 30 seconds after less than two hours of fire. But we can't be told the steel and concrete mass distributions so eight graders could think about the Conservation of Momentum. psik
ROFLMAO I wish someone had told me about a book like this: Teach Yourself Electricity and Electronics by Stan Gibilisco https://www.amazon.com/Teach-Yourself-Electricity-Electronics-McGraw-Hill/dp/1259585530 before I went to college for electrical engineering. School was partially a scam way back when and it has just been getting worse. It is amazing how unimportant stuff can be made unnecessarily complicated and really interesting and useful material can be relatively simple and not get mentioned. Ever wonder what would happen to school if we just compiled a really great recommended reading list? So many mediocre teachers using mediocre books might be out of work. psik
I am saying my model demonstrates physical principles that apply to the physics of the Twin Tower collapse but it is still too simple to claim to be a model of the real event. But what other physical model used for this was made stronger toward the bottom and has parts that sustain damage and must be replaced to repeat the experiment? People using dominoes and Jinga blocks just have parts that bounce off each other. My model does not have a core and is so weak it would fall over without the dowel in the center. The only way I can think of to make a good model that would be easily repeatable would be to make levels with a 3D printer. But that would still require accurate data on the distribution of mass. My model is based on testing the paper loops to be as weak as possible relative to the weight they had to support. So I ended up with triple loops at the bottom and single loops at the top. The NIST won't even tell us the amount of steel on each level. So people's attempts to ridicule my paper loops while our educational institutions do nothing for 15 years are quite amusing. Purdue supposedly did a "scientific simulation" but they only did the top 20 stories of the north tower and the behavior of their simulation contradicts what the NIST says happened to the south tower. psik
I have a problem with that claim. I have sent two emails to him about the mass distributions in the Twin Towers. No Response! He is talking about WTC7. The towers were twice as tall. Does anyone believe that a duplicate of WTC7 could be set on top of the original WTC7 and that the weight could be supported? Could the lower half of the North Tower have the same steel distribution as the upper half? I say no way in hell! Structural engineers and physicists should have been mind boggled by what aircraft impact and fires supposedly did to the Twin Towers. But how can they yell about it making no sense after FIFTEEN YEARS? This should have been resolved by January 2004. psik
