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

Discussion in '9/11' started by Vlad Ivx, Dec 20, 2013.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In fact the buildings survived the planes but not the resulting conflagration which says a lot about the design initially. The weak point in the building were the thin and long floor trusses. The whole building was a marvel of interconnection and when those interconnections started failing nothing could keep them up. In some of the videos you can see the outside skeleton starting to bow inward from the pull of the floors just before the collapse. Once the bending moment started and the floors started separating from the structure, all of the buildings inherent strength disappeared.
     
  2. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You didn't watch the films did you?

    The FEMA camps have been documented. Stop lying (if is isn't impossible for you).

    - - - Updated - - -

    You are an engineer too I presume as are your side kicks, Heckle and Jeckle or should I say Larry and Curly?
     
  3. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    There wasn't enough fire and damage combined to cause the complete and total collapse of any of those buildings, let alone THREE of them in a row, least of all in the manner of controlled demolitions.

    The fact that the event elicited so many comments at the time it happened to that effect and that it sparked so much controversy attests to the fact.
     
  4. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    They were designed to withsatnd the impacts of 707, not 767 so you are wrong in that respect. They DID withstand the impacts as I stated.

    Did the designers say they would withstand the resultant fires in addition to the already damaged/severed structural components? Care to share that analysis with us? You don't have it? Hmmmm...

    You're all over the place holston. You can't keep changing the scenario. You can't make general claims using "towering infernos" or "steel framed high rises" as characteristics and then say that the buildings were unique in design to prove another claim.

    The point is, truthers use the historical "no steel frame high rise has ever globally collapsed due to fire". I ask them to find me similar buildings designed like WTC1, WTC2, or WTC7 that had suffered impacts from planes AND/OR resultant unfought fires that remained standing. They can't.

    You've already failed in the first couple of sentences. My "thinking" does not go as you stated.

    Your first mistake is that first floor below the descending section is not being impacted by one falling falling floor. It is being impacted by the weight of the entire descending section, which is increased to to it's downward velocity. Also, that mass of the upper section does not disappear. The first floor below that was destroyed is now ADDED to the descending mass. Have you thought of that? Tell you what. Why don't you tell us what each floor was designed to withstand and then tell us how much of a load the descending upper section was. Let's compare the numbers and then you tell me the floor should have resisted.

    Second, you obviously have no clue how loads propagate through a structure. Explain to us how the impact load of the upper structure is handled by the first floor it impacts. How does the load "travel" through the connected component structural system. I'll make this easy for you. Here is just one example of how loads propogate through a structural system.
    [​IMG]

    Based on that diagram above, are you telling me that the floor truss connections (circled in red in the following photo) to the perimeter columns and core columns, designed to support that single floor's weight PLUS any calculated live loads placed upon THAT floor alone:
    [​IMG]

    Were designed to support withstand the descending upper section shown here?:
    [​IMG]

    You've got to be kidding me!

    Again, explain how YOU think the load created by the descending upper section was supposed to be withstood by the floor and it's connections below it. What basis do you have as proof to tell me that floor truss connections should NOT have sheared due to the load of the descending upper section.

    You haven't got a leg to stand on unless you think each individual floor was DESIGNED for that descending load. The rest of the structure has no play in making the floor truss connections stronger. It's localized failure of the weakest components. THAT"S why I can break the fornt door down of a house. The hinges, hing screws, or door jamb fail because THEY are the weakest points and cannot handle the impact load as it tries to propagate to the rest of the structure.
     
  5. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The 'fema camps' have NOT been 'documented' truthers see fences keeping them out of a place and knee jerk them into 'fema camps'

    And I'm not lying.
     
  6. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Among other things. I am also not gullible or stupid.
     
  7. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    So what happened to the buildings? Do you think that the original engineers meant by "withstand" that the buildings would "stand" for a little while and THEN fall down just like a controlled demolition?
    If THAT's what they meant, then OK. I just don't think that's what they meant.


    Do you think that those engineers who claimed to have designed them to withstand the impact of an airliner would have neglected the fuel it would have been carrying?
    Really now?
    I don't think so.

    No, not at all. It's YOU who are "all over the place". The fact was stated "No steel framed high rise had collapsed prior to 9/11". You admitted you could not produce an example where one did. You were shown numerous examples of high risers which WERE engulfed with flames for much longer periods of time (towering infernos) and did NOT collapse.

    If YOU could not produce such an example, because there wasn't one, how do you expect that I could, since I was taking the position there never had been in the first place?

    Towers 1 and 2 WERE designed uniquely for that time. So we have been told. But the claim at the time was that this design was very strong if not stronger than previous buildings of that stature.

    Do you believe that those claims were mistaken or that the original engineers were making false claims?

    If you know that the towers were NOT in fact as strong as they were purported to be, then can you state your reasons for believing so?
    Understand that it's hard for me to imagine that the designers and other engineers commenting on the "redundancy" of the buildings would boast so heavily on a building which was in fact so obviously weak to one such as yourself.
    Perhaps they should have consulted you before building them that way.






    To be fair, there is the example of the bomber crashing into the Empire State building. But there again youskys will say there's no comparison ie, that the Empire State building was a sturdier structure.

    If we accept your premise then we are forced to conclude that the WTC tower designers either did not know what they were talking about or deliberately lied about the safety of the towers knowing full well that a collapse of any single floor would inevitably lead to the total collapse of the entire structure.

    What amazes me about these statements is that these highly educated men could make such claims without realizing that there statements were false. This can only mean that they lied to the public in the first place, ie that the buildings could NOT withstand a crashing airliner and the INEVITABLE fires which would follow. Or they were so preoccupied that they simply couldn't imagine that a tank full of kerosene could possibly catch fire after such an impact.

    While we are at it, the argument that you give to explain the lack of critical damage to the Empire State building structure is that there were more internal supports. At least that it the one I have been given before. They also assert that the poorly designed WTC towers did not possess these internal supports and were therefore susceptible to internal collapse. After all, the floors themselves were hanging by a thread according to your reckoning and for a few of these connections to give way would inevitably lead to the 'unzipping' of the rest of them all way 'round, once having occurred, this would cause the floor to collapse, and that floor would cause the collapse of the next floor and thus the whole building would INEVITABLY deconstruct itself.

    A similar argument is made about building 7 wherein the stability of the entire structure depended on the integrity of one central column. Once this column was compromised , that would also lead inevitably to the rest of the structure unraveling. After all, if you can pop one weld or rivet, what's preventing the thing which popped the first one to pop all the rest.

    That indeed is practically what happened according to your account. Some of the rivets and welds on a floor or two were popped lose and from that point there was no way that all the other rivets in any of the towers could possibly remain intact. Indeed they didn't. We just disagree as to what could have caused all this popping, unzipping, and unraveling, not only in the case of towers 1 and 2, but in the case of building 7 which was NOT designed according to the towers 1 and 2 plan!

    It's at this point in your hypothesis that we have to ask ourselves, if the towers 1 and 2 fell because they were poorly designed, (nothing but a giant hollowed out tube with floors hanging precariously from a few nuts and bolts in between) , then we can understand why THEY would collapse, as in a row of falling dominoes as I described earlier, then HOW does that explain building 7 likewise falling down in collapse, suddenly, all at once in the manner of controlled demolitions if IT was NOT designed in the same way as the towers?

    Are you saying that not only were towers 1 and 2 designed in such a way as an airplane crash would lead to the inevitable collapse of both of them, according to their flimsy construction, but that building 7 was likewise built with a similar lack of foresight? For had the builders seen that the entire structure of 7 was resting upon a single central column, surely they would have added a few more.
    Since building 7 was not constructed according to the plans of towers 1 and 2, who would have thought that the collapse of a central column would lead to the demise of the entire building just as the loss of floor connections would cause the rest of the building to unravel, just like a row of dominoes.

    Do you think it would be helpful if I posted my previous analysis of the "domino" theory as contrasted to the collapse of the building.

    If you will recall, I asserted that such a comparison was a false analogy to make because it is based on false assumptions. If you don't remember what I said I could post it again, or I could post it for those who may not have read it, are aware that I already addressed the problem, or wouldn't know where to find it.

    We wouldn't want to leave them with the impression that I was unable to would we?






    Perhaps not. It is difficult for me to know for sure just what it is that you ARE thinking other than the idea that controlled demolitions were not possible in the case of the towers. I personally see no reason to think that, ie that that is was impossible for them to be rigged to fall in such a way as to disguise the fact. Evidently you do, otherwise you would not protest so vehemently that they couldn't have.

    What's puzzling about this position and those of your supporters is that you object so violently to anyone else entertaining any other idea than those of your own, namely that we should all just take your word and that of NIST as the gospel and otherwise not speak of the matter hence.

    As to what you believe about the collapse, there are only three ways possible that I can see that you could have.

    Either the fire caused the collapses.

    The damage caused the collapses.

    Or a combination of fire and damage caused the collapses.


    Is there something I missed? I believe I ask you this earlier and you consented that I hadn't.

    So if we attribute the collapses as being one or a combination of the above, then it only remains to explain how these initial causes could have occurred in such a way as to produce the effects which were observed, namely that ALL THREE buildings collapsed in a manner which was strikingly similar to controlled demolitions enough so as to elicit many comments to that effect and to spark an endless debate, and that TWO of the three were constructed DIFFERENTLY than the THIRD, yet the THIRD ALSO bore the resemblance of a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

    Surely you can see why some people might wonder about this. And in light of PNAC and the events which unfolded in the middle east that it might occur to some people that perhaps this attack was part of an orchestrated event designed to achieve certain political and financial objectives which perhaps went beyond the apprehension of those who were suspected of being responsible.

    What say YOU?

    After all, it is YOUR opinion which is most important here. All others should pay deference to it and we should all just shut up and go home if that be your desire, or risk incurring a rash of further insults and diminutive comments.





    So you are telling me that the first floor in no way bears the weight of all those floors about it?

    Hmmm, if this be true, then why bother building a first floor? Or why not remove them once they are built, say up to the third floor or so? That would leave more parking space below and room for cars to drive around.

    If that sounds too much like "building your castles in the air" then we have to conceded that the lower floors have always safely born the weight of all those floors about them.

    Am I correct then in assuming that you are saying that if you allow enough stories above to fall AT ONCE, then the impact should be sufficient to crush the remainder all the way to the ground?

    If so, then what we are talking about is a collapse due to gravity, which is the principle means by which a Verinage demolition is based. To wit, that if you remove enough supports from one or two floors at the same time , that sufficient momentum can be gained to result in a complete collapse with the "crushing up" disposing of the upper floors also resulting from the impact of their own momentum on the floors below.

    IF THIS is what you are saying, then I will accept THAT argument, provided you can explain how all the supports were removed AT THE SAME TIME so as to ENSURE that the upper portions should FALL STRAIGHT DOWN, and NOT TOPPLE and that this is phenomenon is easily explainable as being due to the effects of RANDOM (uncontrolled damage) AND the UNCONTROLLED paths of FIRE........... IN ALL THREE CASES.

    Then there are the arguments which have been put forth by others who say that according to what is being observed on films of one of the collapses, that the upper section you are referring to was being demolished BEFORE the impact of it on the lower portions caused any observable motion in the portions below.

    Surely you must admit that this observation is inconsistent with what one would expect to see if the principle of "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" was being obeyed.

    No. Surely, you will never admit to anything.



    There again, it seems to me that without those bottom floors, the upper floors could not remain suspended in mid air. Does that make sense to you?

    If you agree with me that the bottom floors of a building are needed to hold the upper portions in the air as they are seen to do, you may easily surmise that the weight of those upper portions are being transmitted ( in some mysterious way) to the ones below which appear to be holding them up.

    I will concede that the upper most floor of a skyscraper does NOT make direct contact with that of the lower most.

    In other words, to get to the first floor of a forty story building, one would have to traverse the intervening floors which would include ALL of floors 39 though 2. That's unless you want to allow for parachutes or something like that.
    But I might imagine a giant walking up to this building and placing an additional weight on top of the building and still believe that for it to remain in the air with the upper floor itself, that the all the lower floors including the ground level one, would have to bear this additional weight...... baring parachutes or something.

    But what if a bunch of people were to climb to the top of this building and all begin to do the Watusi at the same time? What would happen to their combined weight as they jumped up and down?
    When they all landed, wouldn't that constitute a "dynamic load"?
    If we agree that their weight does not just magically disappear then I suppose so.

    But how does the weight of an impact differ from that of a static load if not for the amount of time required for one body to resist the impact of another?

    When two bodies collide, there is a surface at which they make contact. Does that mean that none of the matter beneath the point of contact is impacted? OR would it mean that according to how fast the two surfaces collide, the ability of the surface material to resist deformation would have an influence on how quickly this IMPULSE would be felt at the rear most part of the impacted body?

    If you run into a bale of hay or cotton, there will be a lot of "giving way" at the surface due to the properties [/U ] of the material. One might conceivably measure this delay by taking the difference between the movement of the impacted surface , to the first movement of the portion of the body which is further most removed from the point of contact.
    Maybe this would be easier to see if you imagine the object being stuck as being made out of a form of rubber which is extremely pliable yet maintains it's resiliency. If so, then all you need to do is imagine the spectrum of hardness ranging from the most extreme malleability to the utmost rigidity and then see where the composition of steel falls along this gradation.

    Wouldn't you agree that it falls somewhere between that of butter or silly putty and diamond or carborundum?

    Everyone knows that sound travels more quickly in dense and solid (rigid) matter. Now sound is merely the result of a wave being propagated through matter by virtue of motion.
    If you tape on a rail road tie with a hammer , will not the sound of this be transmitted down the line?
    If you agree that it does , then you must ask yourself whether this action requires a finite amount of time or whether it occurs INSTANTLY. By "instantly" I do not mean below the limits of perceptibility but without any expiration of time whatsoever.

    We all know that for anything to get from point a to point b, that a finite amount of time must elapse for it to arrive from the point of it's departure. Correct?

    So one may ask, HOW LONG would it take, say for example, the tapping of a hammer on a steal column at a distance of 110 stories to reach ground level? Would it be the same for the speed of sound traveling through air? Through water?

    A static load is one in which the all the intervening matter between the upper and lower floor is at rest.

    Does simultaneity with respect to geographical coordinates dispose of the fact that there yet remains a MASS of matter which JOINS the two TOGETHER?

    We may conclude that where matter is joined into a contiguous whole, one may treat the entire mass as a single body so long as the rigidity, hardness, or internal structure of that matter is taken into account. Some objects. like a super ball, can be deformed without causing permanent deformation. Others cannot. This is due to the internal properties of the matter which the object consists of.

    Therefore we may conclude that insofar as a body of matter is joined as one, that any force operating on it externally so as to displace it will act to displace the entire body according to the rigidity of the material. Think of the lattices of a crystal verses the composition of an amorphous structure.
     
  8. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    So what happened to the buildings? Do you think that the original engineers meant by "withstand" that the buildings would "stand" for a little while and THEN fall down just like a controlled demolition?
    If THAT's what they meant, then OK. I just don't think that's what they meant.


    Do you think that those engineers who claimed to have designed them to withstand the impact of an airliner would have neglected the fuel it would have been carrying?
    Really now?
    I don't think so.

    No, not at all. It's YOU who are "all over the place". The fact was stated "No steel framed high rise had collapsed prior to 9/11". You admitted you could not produce an example where one did. You were shown numerous examples of high risers which WERE engulfed with flames for much longer periods of time (towering infernos) and did NOT collapse.

    If YOU could not produce such an example, because there wasn't one, how do you expect that I could, since I was taking the position there never had been in the first place?

    Towers 1 and 2 WERE designed uniquely for that time. So we have been told. But the claim at the time was that this design was very strong if not stronger than previous buildings of that stature.

    Do you believe that those claims were mistaken or that the original engineers were making false claims?

    If you know that the towers were NOT in fact as strong as they were purported to be, then can you state your reasons for believing so?
    Understand that it's hard for me to imagine that the designers and other engineers commenting on the "redundancy" of the buildings would boast so heavily on a building which was in fact so obviously weak to one such as yourself.
    Perhaps they should have consulted you before building them that way.






    To be fair, there is the example of the bomber crashing into the Empire State building. But there again youskys will say there's no comparison ie, that the Empire State building was a sturdier structure.

    If we accept your premise then we are forced to conclude that the WTC tower designers either did not know what they were talking about or deliberately lied about the safety of the towers knowing full well that a collapse of any single floor would inevitably lead to the total collapse of the entire structure.

    What amazes me about these statements is that these highly educated men could make such claims without realizing that there statements were false. This can only mean that they lied to the public in the first place, ie that the buildings could NOT withstand a crashing airliner and the INEVITABLE fires which would follow. Or they were so preoccupied that they simply couldn't imagine that a tank full of kerosene could possibly catch fire after such an impact.

    While we are at it, the argument that you give to explain the lack of critical damage to the Empire State building structure is that there were more internal supports. At least that it the one I have been given before. They also assert that the poorly designed WTC towers did not possess these internal supports and were therefore susceptible to internal collapse. After all, the floors themselves were hanging by a thread according to your reckoning and for a few of these connections to give way would inevitably lead to the 'unzipping' of the rest of them all way 'round, once having occurred, this would cause the floor to collapse, and that floor would cause the collapse of the next floor and thus the whole building would INEVITABLY deconstruct itself.

    A similar argument is made about building 7 wherein the stability of the entire structure depended on the integrity of one central column. Once this column was compromised , that would also lead inevitably to the rest of the structure unraveling. After all, if you can pop one weld or rivet, what's preventing the thing which popped the first one to pop all the rest.

    That indeed is practically what happened according to your account. Some of the rivets and welds on a floor or two were popped lose and from that point there was no way that all the other rivets in any of the towers could possibly remain intact. Indeed they didn't. We just disagree as to what could have caused all this popping, unzipping, and unraveling, not only in the case of towers 1 and 2, but in the case of building 7 which was NOT designed according to the towers 1 and 2 plan!

    It's at this point in your hypothesis that we have to ask ourselves, if the towers 1 and 2 fell because they were poorly designed, (nothing but a giant hollowed out tube with floors hanging precariously from a few nuts and bolts in between) , then we can understand why THEY would collapse, as in a row of falling dominoes as I described earlier, then HOW does that explain building 7 likewise falling down in collapse, suddenly, all at once in the manner of controlled demolitions if IT was NOT designed in the same way as the towers?

    Are you saying that not only were towers 1 and 2 designed in such a way as an airplane crash would lead to the inevitable collapse of both of them, according to their flimsy construction, but that building 7 was likewise built with a similar lack of foresight? For had the builders seen that the entire structure of 7 was resting upon a single central column, surely they would have added a few more.
    Since building 7 was not constructed according to the plans of towers 1 and 2, who would have thought that the collapse of a central column would lead to the demise of the entire building just as the loss of floor connections would cause the rest of the building to unravel, just like a row of dominoes.

    Do you think it would be helpful if I posted my previous analysis of the "domino" theory as contrasted to the collapse of the building.

    If you will recall, I asserted that such a comparison was a false analogy to make because it is based on false assumptions. If you don't remember what I said I could post it again, or I could post it for those who may not have read it, are aware that I already addressed the problem, or wouldn't know where to find it.

    We wouldn't want to leave them with the impression that I was unable to would we?






    Perhaps not. It is difficult for me to know for sure just what it is that you ARE thinking other than the idea that controlled demolitions were not possible in the case of the towers. I personally see no reason to think that, ie that that is was impossible for them to be rigged to fall in such a way as to disguise the fact. Evidently you do, otherwise you would not protest so vehemently that they couldn't have.

    What's puzzling about this position and those of your supporters is that you object so violently to anyone else entertaining any other idea than those of your own, namely that we should all just take your word and that of NIST as the gospel and otherwise not speak of the matter hence.

    As to what you believe about the collapse, there are only three ways possible that I can see that you could have.

    Either the fire caused the collapses.

    The damage caused the collapses.

    Or a combination of fire and damage caused the collapses.


    Is there something I missed? I believe I ask you this earlier and you consented that I hadn't.

    So if we attribute the collapses as being one or a combination of the above, then it only remains to explain how these initial causes could have occurred in such a way as to produce the effects which were observed, namely that ALL THREE buildings collapsed in a manner which was strikingly similar to controlled demolitions enough so as to elicit many comments to that effect and to spark an endless debate, and that TWO of the three were constructed DIFFERENTLY than the THIRD, yet the THIRD ALSO bore the resemblance of a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

    Surely you can see why some people might wonder about this. And in light of PNAC and the events which unfolded in the middle east that it might occur to some people that perhaps this attack was part of an orchestrated event designed to achieve certain political and financial objectives which perhaps went beyond the apprehension of those who were suspected of being responsible.

    What say YOU?

    After all, it is YOUR opinion which is most important here. All others should pay deference to it and we should all just shut up and go home if that be your desire, or risk incurring a rash of further insults and diminutive comments.





    So you are telling me that the first floor in no way bears the weight of all those floors about it?

    Hmmm, if this be true, then why bother building a first floor? Or why not remove them once they are built, say up to the third floor or so? That would leave more parking space below and room for cars to drive around.

    If that sounds too much like "building your castles in the air" then we have to conceded that the lower floors have always safely born the weight of all those floors about them.

    Am I correct then in assuming that you are saying that if you allow enough stories above to fall AT ONCE, then the impact should be sufficient to crush the remainder all the way to the ground?

    If so, then what we are talking about is a collapse due to gravity, which is the principle means by which a Verinage demolition is based. To wit, that if you remove enough supports from one or two floors at the same time , that sufficient momentum can be gained to result in a complete collapse with the "crushing up" disposing of the upper floors also resulting from the impact of their own momentum on the floors below.

    IF THIS is what you are saying, then I will accept THAT argument, provided you can explain how all the supports were removed AT THE SAME TIME so as to ENSURE that the upper portions should FALL STRAIGHT DOWN, and NOT TOPPLE and that this is phenomenon is easily explainable as being due to the effects of RANDOM (uncontrolled damage) AND the UNCONTROLLED paths of FIRE........... IN ALL THREE CASES.

    Then there are the arguments which have been put forth by others who say that according to what is being observed on films of one of the collapses, that the upper section you are referring to was being demolished BEFORE the impact of it on the lower portions caused any observable motion in the portions below.

    Surely you must admit that this observation is inconsistent with what one would expect to see if the principle of "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" was being obeyed.

    No. Surely, you will never admit to anything.



    There again, it seems to me that without those bottom floors, the upper floors could not remain suspended in mid air. Does that make sense to you?

    If you agree with me that the bottom floors of a building are needed to hold the upper portions in the air as they are seen to do, you may easily surmise that the weight of those upper portions are being transmitted ( in some mysterious way) to the ones below which appear to be holding them up.

    I will concede that the upper most floor of a skyscraper does NOT make direct contact with that of the lower most.

    In other words, to get to the first floor of a forty story building, one would have to traverse the intervening floors which would include ALL of floors 39 though 2. That's unless you want to allow for parachutes or something like that.
    But I might imagine a giant walking up to this building and placing an additional weight on top of the building and still believe that for it to remain in the air with the upper floor itself, that the all the lower floors including the ground level one, would have to bear this additional weight...... baring parachutes or something.

    But what if a bunch of people were to climb to the top of this building and all begin to do the Watusi at the same time? What would happen to their combined weight as they jumped up and down?
    When they all landed, wouldn't that constitute a "dynamic load"?
    If we agree that their weight does not just magically disappear then I suppose so.

    But how does the weight of an impact differ from that of a static load if not for the amount of time required for one body to resist the impact of another?

    When two bodies collide, there is a surface at which they make contact. Does that mean that none of the matter beneath the point of contact is impacted? OR would it mean that according to how fast the two surfaces collide, the ability of the surface material to resist deformation would have an influence on how quickly this IMPULSE would be felt at the rear most part of the impacted body?

    If you run into a bale of hay or cotton, there will be a lot of "giving way" at the surface due to the properties [/U ] of the material. One might conceivably measure this delay by taking the difference between the movement of the impacted surface , to the first movement of the portion of the body which is further most removed from the point of contact.
    Maybe this would be easier to see if you imagine the object being stuck as being made out of a form of rubber which is extremely pliable yet maintains it's resiliency. If so, then all you need to do is imagine the spectrum of hardness ranging from the most extreme malleability to the utmost rigidity and then see where the composition of steel falls along this gradation.

    Wouldn't you agree that it falls somewhere between that of butter or silly putty and diamond or carborundum?

    - - - Updated - - -

    cont

    Everyone knows that sound travels more quickly in dense and solid (rigid) matter. Now sound is merely the result of a wave being propagated through matter by virtue of motion.
    If you tape on a rail road tie with a hammer , will not the sound of this be transmitted down the line?
    If you agree that it does , then you must ask yourself whether this action requires a finite amount of time or whether it occurs INSTANTLY. By "instantly" I do not mean below the limits of perceptibility but without any expiration of time whatsoever.

    We all know that for anything to get from point a to point b, that a finite amount of time must elapse for it to arrive from the point of it's departure. Correct?

    So one may ask, HOW LONG would it take, say for example, the tapping of a hammer on a steal column at a distance of 110 stories to reach ground level? Would it be the same for the speed of sound traveling through air? Through water?

    A static load is one in which the all the intervening matter between the upper and lower floor is at rest.

    Does simultaneity with respect to geographical coordinates dispose of the fact that there yet remains a MASS of matter which JOINS the two TOGETHER?

    We may conclude that where matter is joined into a contiguous whole, one may treat the entire mass as a single body so long as the rigidity, hardness, or internal structure of that matter is taken into account. Some objects. like a super ball, can be deformed without causing permanent deformation. Others cannot. This is due to the internal properties of the matter which the object consists of.

    Therefore we may conclude that insofar as a body of matter is joined as one, that any force operating on it externally so as to displace it will act to displace the entire body according to the rigidity of the material. Think of the lattices of a crystal verses the composition of an amorphous structure.

    - - - Updated - - -

    So what happened to the buildings? Do you think that the original engineers meant by "withstand" that the buildings would "stand" for a little while and THEN fall down just like a controlled demolition?
    If THAT's what they meant, then OK. I just don't think that's what they meant.


    Do you think that those engineers who claimed to have designed them to withstand the impact of an airliner would have neglected the fuel it would have been carrying?
    Really now?
    I don't think so.

    No, not at all. It's YOU who are "all over the place". The fact was stated "No steel framed high rise had collapsed prior to 9/11". You admitted you could not produce an example where one did. You were shown numerous examples of high risers which WERE engulfed with flames for much longer periods of time (towering infernos) and did NOT collapse.

    If YOU could not produce such an example, because there wasn't one, how do you expect that I could, since I was taking the position there never had been in the first place?

    Towers 1 and 2 WERE designed uniquely for that time. So we have been told. But the claim at the time was that this design was very strong if not stronger than previous buildings of that stature.

    Do you believe that those claims were mistaken or that the original engineers were making false claims?

    If you know that the towers were NOT in fact as strong as they were purported to be, then can you state your reasons for believing so?
    Understand that it's hard for me to imagine that the designers and other engineers commenting on the "redundancy" of the buildings would boast so heavily on a building which was in fact so obviously weak to one such as yourself.
    Perhaps they should have consulted you before building them that way.






    To be fair, there is the example of the bomber crashing into the Empire State building. But there again youskys will say there's no comparison ie, that the Empire State building was a sturdier structure.

    If we accept your premise then we are forced to conclude that the WTC tower designers either did not know what they were talking about or deliberately lied about the safety of the towers knowing full well that a collapse of any single floor would inevitably lead to the total collapse of the entire structure.

    What amazes me about these statements is that these highly educated men could make such claims without realizing that there statements were false. This can only mean that they lied to the public in the first place, ie that the buildings could NOT withstand a crashing airliner and the INEVITABLE fires which would follow. Or they were so preoccupied that they simply couldn't imagine that a tank full of kerosene could possibly catch fire after such an impact.

    While we are at it, the argument that you give to explain the lack of critical damage to the Empire State building structure is that there were more internal supports. At least that it the one I have been given before. They also assert that the poorly designed WTC towers did not possess these internal supports and were therefore susceptible to internal collapse. After all, the floors themselves were hanging by a thread according to your reckoning and for a few of these connections to give way would inevitably lead to the 'unzipping' of the rest of them all way 'round, once having occurred, this would cause the floor to collapse, and that floor would cause the collapse of the next floor and thus the whole building would INEVITABLY deconstruct itself.

    A similar argument is made about building 7 wherein the stability of the entire structure depended on the integrity of one central column. Once this column was compromised , that would also lead inevitably to the rest of the structure unraveling. After all, if you can pop one weld or rivet, what's preventing the thing which popped the first one to pop all the rest.

    That indeed is practically what happened according to your account. Some of the rivets and welds on a floor or two were popped lose and from that point there was no way that all the other rivets in any of the towers could possibly remain intact. Indeed they didn't. We just disagree as to what could have caused all this popping, unzipping, and unraveling, not only in the case of towers 1 and 2, but in the case of building 7 which was NOT designed according to the towers 1 and 2 plan!

    It's at this point in your hypothesis that we have to ask ourselves, if the towers 1 and 2 fell because they were poorly designed, (nothing but a giant hollowed out tube with floors hanging precariously from a few nuts and bolts in between) , then we can understand why THEY would collapse, as in a row of falling dominoes as I described earlier, then HOW does that explain building 7 likewise falling down in collapse, suddenly, all at once in the manner of controlled demolitions if IT was NOT designed in the same way as the towers?

    Are you saying that not only were towers 1 and 2 designed in such a way as an airplane crash would lead to the inevitable collapse of both of them, according to their flimsy construction, but that building 7 was likewise built with a similar lack of foresight? For had the builders seen that the entire structure of 7 was resting upon a single central column, surely they would have added a few more.
    Since building 7 was not constructed according to the plans of towers 1 and 2, who would have thought that the collapse of a central column would lead to the demise of the entire building just as the loss of floor connections would cause the rest of the building to unravel, just like a row of dominoes.

    Do you think it would be helpful if I posted my previous analysis of the "domino" theory as contrasted to the collapse of the building.

    If you will recall, I asserted that such a comparison was a false analogy to make because it is based on false assumptions. If you don't remember what I said I could post it again, or I could post it for those who may not have read it, are aware that I already addressed the problem, or wouldn't know where to find it.

    We wouldn't want to leave them with the impression that I was unable to would we?






    Perhaps not. It is difficult for me to know for sure just what it is that you ARE thinking other than the idea that controlled demolitions were not possible in the case of the towers. I personally see no reason to think that, ie that that is was impossible for them to be rigged to fall in such a way as to disguise the fact. Evidently you do, otherwise you would not protest so vehemently that they couldn't have.

    What's puzzling about this position and those of your supporters is that you object so violently to anyone else entertaining any other idea than those of your own, namely that we should all just take your word and that of NIST as the gospel and otherwise not speak of the matter hence.

    As to what you believe about the collapse, there are only three ways possible that I can see that you could have.

    Either the fire caused the collapses.

    The damage caused the collapses.

    Or a combination of fire and damage caused the collapses.


    Is there something I missed? I believe I ask you this earlier and you consented that I hadn't.

    So if we attribute the collapses as being one or a combination of the above, then it only remains to explain how these initial causes could have occurred in such a way as to produce the effects which were observed, namely that ALL THREE buildings collapsed in a manner which was strikingly similar to controlled demolitions enough so as to elicit many comments to that effect and to spark an endless debate, and that TWO of the three were constructed DIFFERENTLY than the THIRD, yet the THIRD ALSO bore the resemblance of a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
     
  9. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    cont


    Surely you can see why some people might wonder about this. And in light of PNAC and the events which unfolded in the middle east that it might occur to some people that perhaps this attack was part of an orchestrated event designed to achieve certain political and financial objectives which perhaps went beyond the apprehension of those who were suspected of being responsible.

    What say YOU?

    After all, it is YOUR opinion which is most important here. All others should pay deference to it and we should all just shut up and go home if that be your desire, or risk incurring a rash of further insults and diminutive comments.





    So you are telling me that the first floor in no way bears the weight of all those floors about it?

    Hmmm, if this be true, then why bother building a first floor? Or why not remove them once they are built, say up to the third floor or so? That would leave more parking space below and room for cars to drive around.

    If that sounds too much like "building your castles in the air" then we have to conceded that the lower floors have always safely born the weight of all those floors about them.

    Am I correct then in assuming that you are saying that if you allow enough stories above to fall AT ONCE, then the impact should be sufficient to crush the remainder all the way to the ground?

    If so, then what we are talking about is a collapse due to gravity, which is the principle means by which a Verinage demolition is based. To wit, that if you remove enough supports from one or two floors at the same time , that sufficient momentum can be gained to result in a complete collapse with the "crushing up" disposing of the upper floors also resulting from the impact of their own momentum on the floors below.

    IF THIS is what you are saying, then I will accept THAT argument, provided you can explain how all the supports were removed AT THE SAME TIME so as to ENSURE that the upper portions should FALL STRAIGHT DOWN, and NOT TOPPLE and that this is phenomenon is easily explainable as being due to the effects of RANDOM (uncontrolled damage) AND the UNCONTROLLED paths of FIRE........... IN ALL THREE CASES.

    Then there are the arguments which have been put forth by others who say that according to what is being observed on films of one of the collapses, that the upper section you are referring to was being demolished BEFORE the impact of it on the lower portions caused any observable motion in the portions below.

    Surely you must admit that this observation is inconsistent with what one would expect to see if the principle of "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" was being obeyed.

    No. Surely, you will never admit to anything.
     
  10. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    There again, it seems to me that without those bottom floors, the upper floors could not remain suspended in mid air. Does that make sense to you?

    If you agree with me that the bottom floors of a building are needed to hold the upper portions in the air as they are seen to do, you may easily surmise that the weight of those upper portions are being transmitted ( in some mysterious way) to the ones below which appear to be holding them up.

    I will concede that the upper most floor of a skyscraper does NOT make direct contact with that of the lower most.

    In other words, to get to the first floor of a forty story building, one would have to traverse the intervening floors which would include ALL of floors 39 though 2. That's unless you want to allow for parachutes or something like that.
    But I might imagine a giant walking up to this building and placing an additional weight on top of the building and still believe that for it to remain in the air with the upper floor itself, that the all the lower floors including the ground level one, would have to bear this additional weight...... baring parachutes or something.

    But what if a bunch of people were to climb to the top of this building and all begin to do the Watusi at the same time? What would happen to their combined weight as they jumped up and down?
    When they all landed, wouldn't that constitute a "dynamic load"?
    If we agree that their weight does not just magically disappear then I suppose so.

    But how does the weight of an impact differ from that of a static load if not for the amount of time required for one body to resist the impact of another?

    When two bodies collide, there is a surface at which they make contact. Does that mean that none of the matter beneath the point of contact is impacted? OR would it mean that according to how fast the two surfaces collide, the ability of the surface material to resist deformation would have an influence on how quickly this IMPULSE would be felt at the rear most part of the impacted body?

    If you run into a bale of hay or cotton, there will be a lot of "giving way" at the surface due to the properties [/U ] of the material. One might conceivably measure this delay by taking the difference between the movement of the impacted surface , to the first movement of the portion of the body which is further most removed from the point of contact.
    Maybe this would be easier to see if you imagine the object being stuck as being made out of a form of rubber which is extremely pliable yet maintains it's resiliency. If so, then all you need to do is imagine the spectrum of hardness ranging from the most extreme malleability to the utmost rigidity and then see where the composition of steel falls along this gradation.

    Wouldn't you agree that it falls somewhere between that of butter or silly putty and diamond or carborundum?

    Everyone knows that sound travels more quickly in dense and solid (rigid) matter. Now sound is merely the result of a wave being propagated through matter by virtue of motion.
    If you tape on a rail road tie with a hammer , will not the sound of this be transmitted down the line?
    If you agree that it does , then you must ask yourself whether this action requires a finite amount of time or whether it occurs INSTANTLY. By "instantly" I do not mean below the limits of perceptibility but without any expiration of time whatsoever.

    We all know that for anything to get from point a to point b, that a finite amount of time must elapse for it to arrive from the point of it's departure. Correct?

    So one may ask, HOW LONG would it take, say for example, the tapping of a hammer on a steal column at a distance of 110 stories to reach ground level? Would it be the same for the speed of sound traveling through air? Through water?

    A static load is one in which the all the intervening matter between the upper and lower floor is at rest.

    Does simultaneity with respect to geographical coordinates dispose of the fact that there yet remains a MASS of matter which JOINS the two TOGETHER?

    We may conclude that where matter is joined into a contiguous whole, one may treat the entire mass as a single body so long as the rigidity, hardness, or internal structure of that matter is taken into account. Some objects. like a super ball, can be deformed without causing permanent deformation. Others cannot. This is due to the internal properties of the matter which the object consists of.

    Therefore we may conclude that insofar as a body of matter is joined as one, that any force operating on it externally so as to displace it will act to displace the entire body according to the rigidity of the material. Think of the lattices of a crystal verses the composition of an amorphous structure.

    - - - Updated - - -

    cont

    The difference between a static load and one which is placed there dynamically will manifest itself according to the composition of the matter of which the weight bearing load is made. Believe it or not, a steel beam can be compressed somewhat although this compression is imperceptible to one merely holding the object.

    Therefore the impulse of a dynamic load being placed atop a supporting structure will be transmitted to the lowest portion of the base in a manner which is dependent on the speed of the striking material and the composition of the supporting structure as well as that of the striking object.

    Given two objects of the same composition, the effect which is observed at the surface of contact will be dependent on the speed at which the collision occurs. It would take an object , what, 2 seconds at most to fall approximately 10 feet?

    Upon impact, the inertia of the object being struck will resist being displaced according to the internal consistency of it's composition. The same thing is true with steel, a roughly homogenous substance or mixture throughout.

    Any "denting" at the points of contact are the result of the interaction of the surfaces of the colliding objects according to their composition vs the time that the impulse being delivered. The faster this surface contact is made, the less time that the impulse of the impact has to travel throughout the impacted body. This property of motionless bodies to resist displacement by moving object contacting them is called INERTIA.

    It is the combination of "hardness" at the surface in conjunction with the inertia of the objects remaining mass, which results in "surface damage".
    This also is not an "either, or" phenomenon since the speed, mass, composition, and angle of attack may all vary in gradation.

    The question then is not whether the falling mass above the building will have an effect on the lower portions, it is HOW MUCH effect can it POSSIBLY have given all the specific criteria.

    What I am saying to you, is that this falling body, inasmuch as it may be considered a single mass acting upon another mass, will deliver an amount of kinetic energy which may not be exceeded by it's mass times it's velocity.
    The dynamic load delivered as a result of it's velocity MUST be distributed to the object which it is striking according to the resistance that is opposing that motion. THAT IMPULSE will "travel" , be delivered, received, felt or transmitted (choose one ) according to it's speed and the object's inertia. This interaction occurs in REAL TIME. That is to say that a collision REQUIRES a certain amount of TIME to HAPPEN.

    The more that time is prolonged, the more time the receiving body has to "accept" the weight. The faster the impacting body, the less time the "impulse" has to travel. This is where the "hardness" of the material becomes a factor. The observable damage that ensues is a product of this resistance to motion. It may be seen in the contrast between how well a new car made of thin metal can sustain a collision and one which is made of thick steel. Which is easier to dent?

    Obviously a car made of thin metal can sustain "expensive " damage without being displaced whereas a car made of thick metal may not be so easily dented. Neither of these objects have to be moved by the striking object in order to see the damage that may result.

    If you place these objects on ice or greased skids, you might expect the entire car to be moved and consequently a blow of equal force might not reveal itself in so much surface damage.

    In the event that two cars collide on the highway, you may see them both receiving damage as well as displacement. An object which is "bolted to the ground" is going to have to bear the full brunt of this blow, whereas one which is free to move may show less surface damage.

    Now apply what you have learned here to the standing structure. IF you insist that it is the ENTIRE MASS of the upper falling body which comes to bear on the lower one, THEN you MUST consider the ENTIRE MASS of the lower portion to be receiving the impact, NOT JUST THE SURFACE points of contact, ie one floor in isolation from the rest.
    If you are not allowed to count the ability of the lower portion to act in absorbing the blow beyond one floor or so, that makes as much sense as saying that it was only the floor which made immediate contact with the lower one that did all the damage.

    Simply because the added force of gravity is working in favor of the falling mass, does not mean that you are permitted to deduct the ability of the lower portion to absorb vibrations or pushing, or striking forces from above.

    Granted, the floor below is under the influence of gravity in the opposite sense of the falling floor, but that in no wise adds to the connective strength of the members of the falling floors if you are going to consider it as a single mass, (the lump sum of it)

    Therefore, the force of impact will be distributed to the lower floors in a finite amount of time. They do not act locally in an a way which excludes the transfer of weight. The transfer of weight only acts to "CRUSH" the resisting body according to it's ability to resist crushing, ie, it's composition.

    In the case of the towers, the composition of the falling portions were such that they were LESS rigid because they were of lighter materials and LESS mass. The lower floors were constructed STRONGER THAN the upper ones.


    What I am saying is that once contact was made between the upper floors and the lower floors, the dynamic force of the falling floors would IMMEDIATELY BEGIN to dissipate.

    A successful Verinage demolition therefore depends on the WAY in which the building is constructed, WHICH floor (s) supports are removed and WHERE.

    One MUST ask, would a Verinage demolition work the same way on the WTC towers?
    How would the presence of the INTERNAL core columns effect the symmetry of the collapse?

    What is the likelihood that this would happen given the UNcontrolled circumstances of the 9/11 attacks?

    What are the odds that this would happen THREE TIMES in a ROW due to UNcontrolled damage and fire?

    And WHY is it observed in the case of building 7 that THE ENTIRE BUILDING IS SEEN TO DROP at once???

    In the case building 7 one does not even observe the "CRUSH UP" which is seen in Verinage. Instead it appears as a "dead drop".



    Now combine all the above with the observations of molten metal pouring from the corners, the sounds of NUMEROUS explosions, the appearance of flashes of light, the horizontal ejection of mass including everything from steel weighing tons to small fragments of flesh, high temperatures in excess of what was to be expected, the degraded condition of steel which surprised seasoned inspectors, tiny spheres of iron rich material found in all the dust, and the statements of many PhDs studied in those matters who believe that the evidence is unequivocal.


    Equally important is ALL the rest of the evidence which suggests a planned attack which could not have been carried out by the 19 Arabs alone.

    THIS evidence MAY NOT be dismissed as you would have it NOR can any of it be considered in isolation from all the rest without a great deal of intellectual dishonesty and a suspension of common sense.


    This is what DeBunkers attempt to do repeatedly. They do this because they KNOW that one cannot take a fair and objective look at the ENTIRE matter and still believe that there was no FOREKNOWLEDGE or CONSPIRACY to obstruct justice.

    They realize the very high IMPROBABILITY of ALL these things "just happening" at the same time.

    They understand that the statistically improbable PUT OPTIONS, the warnings in advance given by ODIGO, the comprehensive STAND DOWN of NORAD, the "coincidental" intersection of two of the flights AT THE SAME TIME over Stuart Air Force base with US interceptors being directed OUT TO SEA, the testimonies of US INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS and their SUBSEQUENT suppression including the burning of books and imprisonment without due process, ............................are ALL parts of a MOSAIC which can only be seen at a distance which allows them all to come into view. They can see as well as anyone that the picture that is formed by this mosaic.

    And what picture emerges from it?












    Were designed to support withstand the descending upper section shown here?:
    [​IMG][/QUOTE]

    You speak as though the entire weight of the building is resting on each on of those projections.
    I disagree.
    I don't think that even the entire weight of a single floor would rest upon one of them. You would have to take them all into account, as well as the rest of the building, including the core.
    There is no way that the ENTIRE force of the descending mass you refer to can impinge on any single one of them. That would be to neglect all the remaining structures which were left intact to resist their fall.

    I am not saying that a Verinage collapse could NOT be arranged to happen. I am simply doubting the probability of it in ALL THREE cases.
    In addition, I am not so sure as you seem to be as to how a structure like the WTCs would react to the "pancaking" floors around them, whether they would fall right along with them and at the same speed to boot!

    But then no one has ever conducted a Verinage demolition of buildings the like of the WTCs so neither of us really can say can we?

    How convenient for you.

    - - - Updated - - -

    cont

    Not at all. I think others are able to realize when I'm kidding.

    Mass homicide is nothing to kid about really despite the frequent attempt by DeBunkers to make a joke of it.
    Some of us believe the matter deserves a closer look and may even resent the jeers of those of you who would prefer that the whole matter just die.
    Sometimes I wish they would shut-up about the "Holocaust" since it happened a much longer time ago, but I don't ever expect that to happen. No doubt generations to come will bear the financial responsibility for it.


    Oh I think that shearing and such could occur locally. I just see no reason to believe that they should all "unzip" all the way 'round because I couple here and there did. And if these "weak spots" were so easily broken then how did that manage to exert enough pull on the massive interior core columns to cause them to break along with them as the loose floors fell to the ground?
    Either these connections had to be stout enough to pull down the core columns or not.
    If not, then the floors fall first. If so, then they don't break at all.
    You can't very well pull something down by letting go of it, can you?


    I have two legs to stand on. That's how my head is able to remain aloft as I mover around.

    If I could remove my head and then step on a set of scales, no doubt I would be 10 or 15 lbs lighter.

    I agree with the notion that a chain breaks at it's weakest link.

    If you attached a chain to two opposing horses which could pull 'til it snapped, no doubt that it would break at that point. And it wouldn't make any difference if the chain was 10 blocks long or three blocks removed from the horses. That's because the force of a pull is transmitted through a chain just the same way the force of a push is transmitted through a rod, (or a column if you prefer. Stand it up or lay it length wise I don't care. The principle is the same.)


    Yes yes, and when the hinges break they don't bring the house down with them. In order to do THAT neither the hinges NOR the door would be allowed to break.

    It's peculiar how the unpredictable damage of two planes and the uncontrolled path of a fire could combine forces in such a way as to create the spectacular collapse of THREE steel framed buildings all in the same place on the same day!

    It sort of make you wonder doesn't it?
     
  11. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I tried to answer your question thoroughly but I ran out of space as you can see.

    Since having your minds made up and the task of misleading the public at hand, youskys are not sincerely asking questions, I think it would be better just to watch the film and listen to someone who actually works in the field.

    [video=youtube;ayPHHxkT4gI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayPHHxkT4gI[/video]
    [video=youtube;j9phFJ-uqPs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9phFJ-uqPs[/video]
    [video=youtube;TfPvA7u9oIg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfPvA7u9oIg[/video]
    [video=youtube;QvdU4eKLTjY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvdU4eKLTjY[/video][video=youtube;RUW__kMQ5Tk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUW__kMQ5Tk[/video][video=youtube;cCNXxdU-5CE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCNXxdU-5CE[/video]
     
  12. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Avery has a major mistake in his little film. The collapse started when the top was tilted only 3 degrees, not 22, even NIST got that wrong at 9 degrees. But what would you expect from an Alex Jones show. Lots of incorrect and unsupported speculation from another nut.
     
  13. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    There is a limit to how many words can be put on one page and still be permitted to be posted by the sites algorithm.

    I ran over the allotted space and had a difficult time trying to transfer my reply to several pages. By the time I did, the allowed time to correct typos ran out. What I finally wound up with was having some material copied more than once and other parts not at all. That is besides the fact that they were riddled with typos, some of which were critical to the meaning, eg typing "about" in place of above.

    But don't fault me too much over that in light of the fact that all you people do is type a line or two to the effect that everyone who contradicts the NIST report or your version of it is either a nut or simply mistaken.

    I don't mind too badly because I understand that you are doing the best you can to refute objections to the Kosherized version of the collapses and so are trying to posit objections which you feel will most likely confuse the uninitiated or cause them to doubt their own reasoning.
    It is for their sake that I spend my time trying to put these problems in terms which they will understand, not in formulas which they most likely will not or whose figures can be fudged as much as NISTs computer simulations were.

    To answer your question, the upper part of the falling tower was on it's way over. It carried a certain amount of momentum with it. Stopping this motion required an equal amount amount of force or to have the lower portion removed QUICKLY ENOUGH as to surpass the speed at which the upper portion was falling.

    So how is it then that this momentum was at once in a falling motion and at the same time entirely available to "crush" the lower portion?

    The answer is that the full amount of it could NOT have been. This suggests that the lower portion was being removed QUICKLY ENOUGH, not simply being crushed out of the way. It was GIVING way. Again this implies that the lower portions were BEING REMOVED as though they were falling of their own accord, not requiring the full force of the momentum of the upper part which was being directed in the direction in which it was toppling.


    Therefore in calculating the forces required to crush the lower portion vs the force available to crush them, you must deduct whatever force there was contained in the momentum of the upper portion due to toppling.

    Can you "do the math" on this one?
    If you can, feel free to do so.

    Your buddy wants an explanation as to how the lower extremities of the building can be effected by the upper portions dynamically. I ran out of space trying to make it clear not only HOW this happens but that it MUST.

    I will make another attempt at it in a more condensed form later.

    In the meantime just watch the films.
     
  14. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Watch from about minute 10 to see why the entire floor will not collapse just because a portion of it does:

    [video=youtube;TfPvA7u9oIg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfPvA7u9oIg[/video]


    hint: Trusses run in both directions. A collapse of floor on one side will not necessitate the collapse of the rest of the floor all the way around. The planes could not possibly have penetrated the entire core. This means at a minimum the trusses will remain connected on the opposite side and run in the direction of the opposite side in both directions.
     
  15. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I contradicted both NIST and Avery. Visual study shows the collapse started when the top was only 3 degrees, not 9 like NIST and certainly not what Avery said when the collapse was already well on it's way. The list was on it's way and it's momentum carried it further but is was already well on it's way down when it reached past 20 degrees. Tell me, with hugely damaged floors and the bending moments involved in a highly stressed component that is not designed to take these bending moments but compression, once out of the way strength wise, where does anything go? Down. Once it starts moving, what do you think the force of the top of that building creates? The weak link in the whole building system wasn't the exterior or core columns but the flooring and the flooring is what held the outer skeleton to the core. The building might have stayed up longer if they had been welded but they were bolted. There were three hat trusses in the building and if you study the collapse you can see that they did resist more than the rest of the building because the building collapses away from each hat truss until it's failure. Think of it this way, if you drop one ton for one second, it now has the force approximately 9 times it's own weight. Once the first, or even a couple of floors, started collapsing, nothing would stop the rest of the failure. In one of the collapses even the core, the strongest part, held up the longest with a section up to the first hat truss visible for a short time after the collapse. Avery's concept of the top just falling off the building is not even evident in less disastrous collapses.

    When you have it wrong, you have it wrong, that includes truthers and the NIST but at least the NIST is based on available data and not conspiracy theories that cannot be proven. Much could not be proven due to the amount of damage but truther's flights of fantasy are just that.
     
  16. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    They analyzed the impact only. They DIDN'T do an analysis to show how the impacted/damaged/weakened structure would perform with the resultant fires burning internally. That's why Leslie Robertson makes this statement, taken from this website: http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bri...ecurity/ReflectionsontheWorldTradeCenter.aspx
    So holston, you are wrong in your assimilation that they analyzed the resultant fires.

    None of which were designed like WTC7, WTC1, or WTC2. You're comparisons prove nothing because of this reason alone. The criteria YOU want to work is based upon the ignorant assumption that all high rises will react the same no matter WHAT the design. That is just plain wrong on so many levels. Which is why I asked you (or anyone else) to provide me with a high rise of similar design that was impacted by a jet and/or had unfought fires in them that reamined STANDING. Not you or anyone else has been able to provide that comparison.

    See above.

    Right. It was a unique design. Why would you expect a UNIQUE design to function similarly as every other high rise that caught fire? Hence your comparisons are bogus because none of the buildings you or any other person provides as examples are of the SAME DESIGN.

    No, you just haven't researched what they said. I provided you with a quote from Robertson above that proves you had no clue what was analyzed.

    Pure drivel. You based your claims without looking at all the quotes. Again, I posted one from Robertson above that PROVES they didn't study the affects of the resultant fire on the already damaged structure.

    Completely different circumstances that do not apply.

    They didn't know holston. They didn't do a study on the resultant fires. They used existing jets at the time. How can you say that when things had changed since 1964?!

    At the time they WEREN'T false.

    Let me ask you something holston. Have you ever worked in an engineering firm or been around people while they are designing/calculating/analyzing structure? Answer me this. How, on God's green earth, can you expect an engineer to 100% guarantee that the building they designed is impervious to global collapse resulting from any scenario. Let's take WTC7 for example. How many permutations of weakened/failed components do you think would have to be tested to give this kind of assurance. You can sit there and make crazy statements regarding "why didn't they know", because you're using hindsight. Here's what you're expecting of an engineer...

    Scenario 1 analysis: First floor, column 1 fails ... Does the structure fail?
    Scenario 2 analysis: First floor, column 2 fails ... Does the structure fail?
    Scenario 3 analysis: First floor, column 3 fails ... Does the structure fail?
    ...etc...
    Scenario 100 analysis: First floor, columns 1, 2, 3 fail ...Does the structure fail?
    ...etc...
    Scenario 500 analysis: 10th floor, columns 1, 2, 3 are reduced in strength by 50% due to fire, columns 5 and 6 failed ... does the structure fail?
    it goes on and on and on...

    Is that what you think happens during the design/calcualtion pahse of a structure? Is that what you think should happen? Are you nuts? Do you understand how long that would take?!

    Exactly! Who WOULD have thought. Based on my post directly above, they wouldn't have known because they don't analyze every single possible permutation of component failure.

    Agreed.

    :roflol:

    Are you kidding me!?

    Please, explain how the weight of the structure above is applied to the floor in WTC1 or 2 for example. This should be good. One little hint. If the floors supported the weight of the structure above, then why is the majority of the floor truss connections the same from lower floors to the top floors? According to you, one of the lower floors should be "built up" with heftier connections since it has to support the load of the everything above? Right?

    No. The upper section of WTC1 and WTC2 SHEARED everything apart. There is video proof of this. Are you suggesting that the upper section crushed the remaining lower section like a foot crushing a pop can?!
     
  17. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You mean like these missing floors near the mezzanine level of WTC1 and WTC2?
    [​IMG]

    Tell me holston, how many floors are "missing" in the photo above the mezzanine level that this photo was taken from? What's supporting the structure above? I thought floors were needed to help support the structutre above?
    [​IMG]

    You really don't have any idea about structural design do you?
     
  18. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    So then, how are those floors above remaining suspended in the air?
    Is there anything holding them up?

    If so, how is the weight of them being transferred to the ground at that distance with "nothing" between them and terra firma?

    What about the roof over your head?
    Look up at it and tell me if you see anything between you and the ceiling?
    It's as if that ceiling is just hanging there "magically" isn't it?

    Now if Santa Claus landed on your roof, do you suppose he would be suspended in the air the same way as the floors above the lobby you pictured are?

    Or do you suppose there is some conceivable way in which his weight is actually reaching the ground without you knowing about it?

    But if his weight is reaching the ground in some way that prevents him from falling, then don't you imagine that the dynamic load imposed on the roof by a crashing sled would be transferred to the ground by the same means?

    But that would only be if the crash was not too fast. For IF it was fast enough, the weight of it and it's amount of momentum due to it's velocity might succeed in crashing through the roof, depending on what the roof was made of, wood or steel. You can see that interdependence can't you?

    Do you suppose there any different between the principle expressed here and if the same idea if it was was applied to a platform (roof, ceiling, upper floor. Take your pick. ) way, way up in the air?

    I don't think there would be EXCEPT, for the amount of TIME that it would take for this transfer of weight, OR momentum to be transferred to the ground. The speed at which this transfer is accomplished has everything to do with whether it crashes through or not.


    The point is this. The shock of the impact IS transmitted BEYOND the point of surface contact.
    The amount of it that is absorbed depends upon the materials of the colliding objects AND the speed at which they collide. The more suddenly, the greater the possibility that something will break.

    Therefore you CANNOT disregard the DISSIPATION of this amount of energy upon collision.

    AND,
    It stands to reason that if there is any SLOWING of this process, that eventually it will come to a halt given enough time.

    Since there is some slowing which occurs in the process of transferring momentum, such a fall would eventually become arrested GIVEN ENOUGH TIME.

    That amount of time would depend on HOW MUCH intermediary building the falling portion had to pass through before coming to rest on the ground. IF the initial velocity exceeded the capacity of this mass to resist this encroachment before that allotted time, the mass WILL come to rest once it reaches the ground. It does not stand to reason that because the upper mass could crush the rest of the building which separated it from the ground, which was made of steel, that it should be able to smash through the entire earth beneath it's feet all the way to China.

    In a Verinage demolition, the parameters are chosen so that the upper mass does reach the ground by crushing the lower mass, but only at the expense of being crushed itself.

    You failed to say whether a Verinage demolition of this nature could be performed on a building constructed as the towers were, ie with a massive central core or whether these operations are effective on STEEL frames.


    You also failed to explain how those connections which held the floor trussed to the inner core columns and the outer perimeter could manage to both break lose and pull the core columns down at the same time.


    http://asheepnomore.net/2014/01/19/collapse-world-trade-center-1-madrid-windsor-building-exposes-fundamental-flaw-2/

    The figure of "half" the core columns given represents the MAXIMUM number which could be broken.
    That does not mean that half were broken, only that no more than that many could possibly be.

    This would leave at a minimum half the core columns remaining PLUS the entire perimeter opposite the crash site and at the sides left intact.

    In a Verinage controlled demolition ALL the supports on the same floor or two are removed AT ONCE.

    This can NOT be said of ANY of the WTC buildings, 1, 2, OR 7.

    Am I correct, Your Majesty?

    Therefore, the most we could expect to happen, at least in the case of the North tower, is that it would settle down to a breaking point and topple.

    Why? Because the damage was all on one side. The opposite three sides still remained intact.

    You were right. The buildings DID withstand the impact of an airliner. They just couldn't withstand the force of thermitic cutting and kicker charges combined.
     
  19. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Here is a photo of the floor/truss system used in the towers. The perimeter columns are what you see the floor trusses connecting to. The core columns are off the photo to the left.
    [​IMG]

    The following photo shows a better view of the truss connection to the perimeter columns. Steel angles ("noted as Truss Seat" in the top right picture) are welded to the spandrel and the floor truss connection rests UPON that angle. It is connected with a bolt in a slotted hole. The concrete floor is poured on top of the metal decking.
    [​IMG]

    Here is a detail of the floor truss and it's connections.
    [​IMG]

    I posted an example diagram. Here it is again below. The arrows represent how the load travels. The light purple arrows point down on each floor is the floor weight of itself AND the live loads placed upon it such as desks, people, etc. The load upon the top of each floor is transferred in the direction of the red arrows shown BELOW each floor, via the trusses, to the columns. The columns then transfer the load doan to the foundation/grillages, which sit upon bedrock. The floor of a structure is designed to hold up itself and any calculated live load.
    [​IMG]

    Look at the diagram above. The weight on a roof adds nothing to the floors as it transfers it's load to the vertical columns similar to how the floors do it.

    Are you talking a hole in the roof or the whole roof collapsing. Think about it. The concentrated/localized impact force might be enough to shear the structural components in the general vicinity thus creating a whole. If the impact was more widespread, the damage would be greater. If the impact was spread wide enough and overcame the designed/calculated load of the roof, the whole thing collapses.

    And I asked you simple questions that would solve your failure to understand what happened. How much was a floor in WTC1/WTC2 designed to support? How much of a load was generated from the falling upper section? Compare the two. What do you get? Are you afraid to do this?
     
  20. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nothing but assumption. If I pound a 3" long nail 1/2" into the 2x4 of a house wall and then hit it with a 10lb steel sledgehammer, how much, percentage wise, would the nail slow down the sledghammer? There comes a point when the load is far greater then the design load of an object that the "slowing" is going to be almost nonexistent. I'll ask again. How much was each floor of WTC1 and WTC2 designed to support and how much of a load did the descending upper section create. Compare the two and you'll get your answer.
     
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Who said that? Why couldn't the descending upper section and all it's debris collide with vertical components and shear them from the core columns leaving the core columns unsupported? Do you realize that the core contained how many huge elevator motors? How much did the elevator electrical panels weigh? What about the hat truss at the top coming down? You expect vertical component connections to withstand the force of falling components? That means you think the design engineers calculated for that. [/QUOTE]
     
  22. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    So it never occurred to these otherwise intelligent designers that a plane crash would necessarily involve fire?
    I believe that they always consider the effects of fire. That's why they install sprinkler systems and fire proofing.
    In the case of the towers which were under renovation, some of those floors were supposed to have received a new coat of fire resistant material.



    I think you underestimate some people's power of persuasion and the extent to which social pressures to conform to the status quo can be applied without necessarily doing so directly, especially on someone with a lot to lose.
    In certain situations a person might need to be extra careful not to make any waves, like some of those in the 9/11 Truth movement did. You might ruffle the wrong feathers. Know what I mean?

    There you go again, calling names and putting words into my mouth.
    Ignorance is merely a matter of degree to those of us who do not know everything, unlike you.

    I told you twice already, if you want to compare apples to oranges you need to show specific examples.

    No steel framed building had ever been known to collapse due to fire prior to 9/11. How complicated is that.

    As far as I know, the WTC towers 1 and 2 were the only ones of their kind.

    According to you they were designed less robustly than the Empire State building and all the other examples of high risers which DID manage to withstand RAGING infernos, not isolated patches of fire that "could be put out with a line or two".
    This position contradicts what Leslie Robertson said also, so how can you rely on his word on anything?

    You are asking me to believe him when he said (according to you) that they never considered the possibility of a fire in the towers. If I believe him on that point, why can't I believe him when he said the buildings were designed to withstand MULTIPLE such impacts?

    Is that because one statement was made PRIOR to the Public endorsement of the Official Kosherized version of 9/11 and the other AFTER?




    As I said before, this is a very convenient fact to fall back on for those who wish to ignore all the other circumstantial evidence which has been pointed out to them.

    It would be cost prohibitive to reproduce the towers just so we could fly planes into them to see whether the same thing would happen again.

    Listening to you, one is forced to believe that they would collapse every single time no matter how many times the event was replicated.

    You never did answer my question about how many times in a hundred such trials you think the same thing would happen, ie a total collapse.

    That's the way with Hasbara. THEY'LL do all the interrogation around here. Jews don't have to answer questions because they don't have to answer to anyone anymore than Israel does, PERIOD.

    Right Schmoolie? RIGHT!

    Pardon me. I wasn't aware that you knew him personally.


    [video=youtube;inbnQoQ40RE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inbnQoQ40RE[/video]

    Sort of like the bridge that collapsed from burning gasoline tractor trailer or the one story toy factory youskys are so fond of bringing up to support YOUR story.

    I guess it goes without saying, that only youskys are able to discern which comparisons are legitimate

    I know. You've said that.
    You can try comparing the largest known jets at that time with the ones that crashed into the towers and see how much difference there is.

    Then you can decide whether those differences were substantial enough to make any difference in the outcome.
    But I have a feeling I already know what you would decide.

    How can you be sure about that? Had any planes ever crashed into towers like that before?
    How could they? Before that there were no buildings comparable to the towers.

    If not, then how could they know?


    You assert below that there's no way that they could.
    So you can't say they knew anything with certainty. Read your own explanation why.

    So let's just agree that the designers of the WTC towers never knew what they talking about either BEFORE or AFTER 9/11.
    Everybody knows that ONLY DeBunkers and members of the James Randi society can speak with authority on the subject of 9/11, thousands of architects and engineers not withstanding.


    Well, if I'm "nuts" then I guess your fellow DeBunkers are nuts as well since it is they who are always challenging me to produce the necessary multvariate differential equations and tensor algebra to PROVE with mathematical rigor that the towers could POSSIBLY have been rigged.
    Of course, if I could do this, I'm not sure what Godel would have to say about the certainty of that "proof".

    So it's sort of crazy to expect me to be able to do something that you state that neither you nor the construction engineers nor the entire hoard of DeBunking Hasbarats can possibly do isn't it?

    When I tried earlier to explain to them that mathematical models like this could only be applied generally since the complexities of real things are far more detailed, they accepted THAT as "proof" that none of the rest of the circumstantial evidence surrounding 9/11 could be applied either.

    For example, there is no mathematical formula which states whether PUT OPTIONS were made or that testimonies by eye witnesses such as Lt Col Shaffer and Susan Lindauer and hundreds of others were given.

    Either you accept whether these events occurred or not. Arithmetic can only be applied to them in an allegorical sense, ie when you add all these bits up, they create a definite picture which points to specific conclusions.

    The only math which may be applied to the analysis of them is that which estimates the statistical probability of ALL these events adding up in such a way as to say the same thing.

    But THAT sort of computation is not allowed by the DeBunking forums such as those like Randi's.

    Only OPEN MINDED people are qualified to say when mathematics may participate in the discussion.




    Yes. I was kidding you. The floors of ANY building cannot just be suspended in mid air without support.
    Something has to transfer their weight to the ground. Any additional load added to those floors later will also pass through these supporting structures.


    I believe the confusion here is due to the different ways in which the term "floor" may be used.

    When one refers to a particular "floor", for example, the 39th floor, he is not referring only to the physical platform on which you place your feet and apply a buffer. He may mean, as I did, THE LEVEL at which one is at.
    That would include all the necessary structures involved in creating that space.

    You must admit that in a 10 story building , there are necessarily 8 "floors" which lie between the 1st one and the 10th.

    For the 10th to fall to the ground, it must pass through the 9 which intervene to reach the ground. That would include everything which enabled them to remain aloft in the first place.



    We can all see the amount of matter which is being hurled violently in a horizontal direction, including the heavy columns and the crushed concrete.
    What we cannot see are the pieces of body which have blown to bits no bigger than an inch or two in diameter.
     
  23. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Actually, look at figure 2-6, the trusses were bolted on with two bolts each. It is surmised that the building would have stood longer if they had been welded.
     
  24. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    In order to save time I will give a brief reply to this question rather than try to field them all at the moment.

    For one thing, I have other matters to attend to. For another, someone is attempting to muck with my PC again.
    There are always an abundance of thieves, liars, and voyeurs to deal with. Some people are always trying to gain total control of other people, don't you agree?

    What you are describing there is the "pancake" theory which even NIST itself later disavowed, along with I don't know how many others.

    It certainly appeared to me that they were no more certain as to exactly how the collapses took place than anyone else. In fact, at least one of them later admitted that he couldn't say for sure how 7 came down because he really didn't know.

    This leads me to believe that DeBunkers really don't know any more about it than all the engineers that dispute NIST.
    They are only CERTAIN about ONE THING, ie that the collapse was NOT due to controlled demolitions.

    They maintain that controlled demolitions was IMPOSSIBLE with either towers 1, 2, or 7.

    They assert that it is much more likely that a building totally collapse straight down THREE TIMES IN A ROW due to plane crashes. Any other method by their estimations just wouldn't do the job.
     
  25. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    F=ma, a single floor was not designed to withstand the force associated with a "falling" mass.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page