Events similar to 9/11: Pirelli Tower, Empire State Building

You want the "real deal" yet post incorrect models that are not even close to what the tower's design was at the levels of impacts.

Why are you using models and photos of the very lower section of the towers to try and prove your points? Are you assuming the entire structure of the towers remained the same all the way up?!

Big mistake!

The impact area of the south tower was between floors 77 and 85. At floor 77 of the south tower there were about 17 I-beams in the center of the core, not the heavy box columns you try and mislead people into thinking were there at those levels. At the 85th floor of the south tower there were even more I-beams. The "exoskeleton" you show was BEFORE the perimeter columns branched out into three perimeter columns.

The impact area of the north tower was between floors 93 and 99. At those floor levels, the core consisted of mainly I-beams.

You do realize that the perimeter columns consisted of 1/4" plate right? Much thinner than what was used toward the bottom.

So the question is Koko, why are you trying to use models and photos of the very bottom of the towers instead of what actually existed at the levels of the impacts to TRY and prove your claims?

Not looking good for you. See, this is what happens when you try and post things you know nothing about. I understand why you continually evade "teaching" us. Because if you expound upon your "knowledge", you'll show everyone here that you know nothing at all. It all makes sense.

 

So much incorrect information!!!

Are you getting sucked into Koko's garbage?

First of all, there were 47 columns, not 48. Second of all, those huge box columns you show above did not exist throughout the entire structure as you try and make people believe. At the levels of impacts the were I-beams and some smaller box columns as I posted above.

 

Back this claim up with a picture or set of drawings. Give us something more than just talk. Here is where I am getting my information.

The Core Structures

 

Your link doesn't work.

Here is a viewer showing many of the blueprints for the towers.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html


Use the "drawing" drop down box on the top left top select what you want to look at. You can use the "resolution" drop down box to the right to change the size.

Use the "drawing" drop down to select the "SubLevel1CorePlan". Count the columns. Notice the I-beam around FE 50 (Freight Elevevator 50) in the middle.

Now you can select the core plans for floors 77 through 85 and 93 through 99. Tell me you see massive rectangular box columns like the ones you claim top be up there.

Why was Koko using the models and picture of the lower sections of the towers when that is NOT what was at the impact levels of each tower? Who is he trying to mislead here?

 

I count 48 core columns. Tell us how all 48 core columns as well as 236 perimeter columns gave way simultaneously.

- - - Updated - - -

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html

 

From the website you quoted. Misinformation

Maintaining the Official Story in the Face of Glaring Contradictions

It is time to stop promoting the official lie about 9/11.

 

Really? You "count" 48? Let's check your counting skills.


Let's see. 6 rows by 8 rows of columns equals 48 columns.

BUT WAIT!!!

There is no column inside the red circle above. That makes 47 BJ. How did you miss that? Or did you not even bother to look at the drawings. Do you even know how to read blueprints?

So you never answered my question. Why did Koko use false model and photographic representations for what actually existed higher in the towers at the levels of impact?

Why did you claim that those massive rectangular box columns ran all the way up the towers when in fact they didn't?

There weren't 236 perimeter columns and 48 core columns after the impact. There were many severed/weakened perimeter columns after the impacts and some severed core columns with the remaining core columns being damaged/weakened by fire.

Why do you think the damaged sections of the tower should have held up the load above? You have calculations somewhere to support this?

 

sure but do you understand the difference between a model and ZERO?

 

Are you saying Koko's models and photographs correctly represent the structure at the levels of impact?

 

Stop promoting the official lies about 9/11.

- - - Updated - - -

I am saying stop promoting the official lie about 9/11. The WTC towers did not fall down from an airplane and office fires. We know this to be true.

 

How'd you miss that missing column BJ?

Do you think Koko's models and photographs represent what was structurally there at the impact zones?

 

OMG no!

so let me see if we understand you?

you are just a grammar nazi

Thats your point right!

you want calculations for wtc loading when after 500 posts you still didnt understand something as elementary as freefall?

Usually the first thing to do is get an education so the material can be understood



yep there is an incredible amount of math in there.

help me I'm standing and I cant fall down!

 

All that is irrelevant to the facts.

You are even linking to the same website that I am.
The World Trade Center Demolition

Exposing the fraud of the government's story

 

Yet another debate failure. Keep it up Koko, you're showing your "knowledge" of things wonderfully...

 

Kokomojojo is exactly right. You are not here to promote the discussion. You are a waste of time.

 

Riiigghhhhtttt....

You and Koko BOTH get the reality of the towers construction fatally wrong, I post FACTS proving you both wrong, and you accuse ME of not promoting the discussion. How delicious!

You guys are basing your beliefs and claims on INCORRECT information. Like they say, "garbage in, garbage out".

So again, why did Koko use incorrect models and photos to FALSELY represent what was actually there structurally at the impact zones? Why did you try and claim that the rectangular box columns ran the entire height of the towers?

 

so you think fang demonstrating how glass breaks is an accurate representation of the crash zone.

 

people who are in over their heads dont understand the difference between what is important and what is

in·sig·nif·i·cant
adjective: insignificant1.
too small or unimportant to be worth consideration.

[TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
[TR]
[TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD]
[TD]unimportant, trivial, trifling, negligible, inconsequential, of no account, inconsiderable; More[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


which is why everyone loves grammar nazis. where would the world be without secretaries to dot the t's and cross the i's for the execs who make the big money.

Hell,

your team hasnt even been able to show us a real plane hit the towers!

 

Is this an admission you realize you are in over your head? It must be. Now you are trying to dot t's and cross i's, sounds like frustration to me. I am curious though as to how a supposed licensed Class A general contractor, with 20 years experience, misread blueprints? Hell, your team hasn't shown that anything other than high speed plane impacts and unfought fires, and gravity is exactly what brought the towers down. Asking for someone to prove a plane hit the towers is nothing more than a childish tactic to change the subject. Pathetic in every sense of the word.

 

theres a 2fer!

how about threezee!

there has to be more grammar nazis in the woodwork somewhere around here.

oh and by the way if you promise not to tell, gravity is what brings everything down.

 

Congratulations!!!! You finally realize that gravity played a role in the collapses, I'm proud of you! Now, you are on your way back to sanity.

 

I can never quite figure out the truther mindset.

Each and every time their global belief system smashes into a wall they blame the wall, forget that they smashed into it, and run in a different direction into a different wall they forgot they smashed into previously.

Brother, you're wrong. The only way to discover truth is to admit when you're wrong.

Every time you ignore the places where your perception diverges from reality you're only fostering a delusion.

1. 48 columns did not collapse simultaneously to initiate the global collapse. This is your fiction.

 

so then the only way a truther can discover the truth is to listen to you quote the governments official story and pretend glass responds like steel. got it! Just made a believer out of me!

you dont seem me running red herrings like those who quote dablunder sites. lol Dont need to.

again certain words have certian meanings and you seem to fail to understand that simultaneous does not mean all within a picosecond.

OSHuggers fail to grasp the substance of these matters because they cut, paste, then spend their remaining intelligence investing in ignorance for the need for illusion is deep, and to make the governments story believable that illusion it really deep!

 

Yes, and there's also a force that resists gravity. Truthers think that force is called "columns" but none of them can explain to me the magnitude and direction of "columns"

pssst:

The force I've been asking for is called the normal force. It should have been part of the high school physics stuff that the truthers slept through. The normal force can be defined as the force that prevents matter from passing through other matter. The normal force can be split into different fundamental forces, but in mechanics it's typically referred to as a stress. It's an internal force that act on the particles that make up the matter within the structural component.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Physics_Study_Guide/Normal_force_and_friction

(another example of a skeptic proving knowledge rather than vaguely asserting it)

I asked this question because many many pages ago Quantumhead stated:

So clearly the truthers think they studied this stuff in school, but they can't remember what the force is called, or how it works, or what it means. They also seem to think that the only way this stress can exceed the capacity of the material is through explosives. They can never seem to explain why, however. All they can do is indicate their own incredulity by stating how thick they think things are, how long they've existed, or explain what they think things look like.

A truther will tell you that the buildings stood for 40 years, but they can't show you how much force it takes to destroy them. They can only claim it takes explosives to provide that force. They have no idea how much strength the building has. They only know that steel is pretty strong. They have no idea how much of the building's capacity was diminished by the crash, or by the fire. They couldn't even begin to calculate the load distribution in the building, let alone how that distribution was changed after the impact. They can only promise you they are sure that the building still had enough capacity to stand forever. They couldn't begin to explain the forces involved in the failure of structures, but they're confident that they took some physics in grade school so that should be good enough for them to support their conclusion that they only way for a building to fail is if it's blown up.

Hey truthers, what if it's your "experts" that are lying to you? Why don't you question them in the same way that you question the "official story" as you call it?

 

Come back when you decide to act like an adult