NIST says no pancake

Originally posted by LaBTop
I also do understand that scaring potentially any valuable members away is not the intend of this site.

I don't think this is the intent of the moderators, but I have seen many "debunkers" try and come in and cause trouble enough that we get pissed, say some thing, and get banned. Yet, the "debunker" that started the whole thing doesn't even get warned.

I've seen it happen plenty of enough times here that I know I'm not making this up.

I'm going to start a tally. I'm going to write down anytime someone (from both sides) goes overboard and if a moderator has stepped in. I can garantee it will be very much lopsided. This very point has been brought up at least 4 or 5 times in this forum in the last year alone. When will this be addressed?

I am not trying to pick on you Intrepid because I respect you and your posts. Also, in Intrepid's defense, I believe he thought that Pootie's quote about the million other things wrong with the picture was talking about esdad's picture. I believe pootie wasn't and was talking about the picture of the tilting cap. So, basically a misunderstanding. But, what I have also seen is other members on the official side come in here and start calling everyone who questions dumb, pathetic, ignorant (pick anyother demeaning word you want) etc. and no one get's a public warning as you did to pootie.

Sorry to go off topic, but, please mods, let's moderate this forum equally among the members. The "debunkers" get away with so much more around here it is getting quite pathetic and may be the ultimate reason that I leave.

Originally posted by esdad71
I am not asking you to discuss Physics nor am I bieng misleading in any way. This is a discusstion about NIST and pancaking. I agree that it did not 'pancake', but at the same time I believe the NOVA explanation. NIST has some great information but not very good conclusions in some cases.

The picture shows the top tilting to me, not rotating. THere was slight rotation from buckling if any.

[edit on 4-5-2007 by esdad71]

IF we ignore physics there is nothing to talk about. Nice out.

How does something TILT without ROTATING? Good lord.

ROTATE: To turn around on an axis or center.
TILT: To depart or cause to depart from true vertical or horizontal

This block CANNOT TILT WITH OUT ROTATION. The only thing that can caus it to depart from true vertical is...

ROTATION. DING DING DING

Originally posted by esdad71
The picture shows the top tilting to me, not rotating. THere was slight rotation from buckling if any.

How does a building tilt without rotating? One liner, sorry.

Edit: Pootie, you beat me to it.

[edit on 5/4/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
But, what I have also seen is other members on the official side come in here and start calling everyone who questions dumb, pathetic, ignorant (pick anyother demeaning word you want) etc.

FWIW and at the risk of banning... this was explained to me via. PM. It is OK to insult "CTers" as a group as you state above (I am assuming the same will hold true if I cal all "debunkers" uneducated, ill-informed sheep that have not read or understood anything on this site or it's associated links above a third grade level). I was told that if I could not take that kind of insult I should probably reconsider posting on the Internet.

It is not OK to insult an individual's drawing.

Here is the PM...

Here is a single instance of what is happening here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Insults EVERYONE... nothing happens.

OK, LAST time, you're making me work here. Who did he call out? No one. He referenced "CTers". Not a member. See the difference? If you're going to take offense at something like that maybe the internet is not a good avenue for you to persue this topic.

So that is the FINAL ruling as far as I am concerned... Intrepid would not like the topic brought up again so those are the rules I will play by.

Originally posted by Pootie
So that is the FINAL ruling as far as I am concerned... Intrepid would not like the topic brought up again so those are the rules I will play by.

Fair enough and I do see his point. But, if we are going to play by those rules, why was pointing out the fallacy of a drawing not allowable? It's not like you said anything insulting about esdad, just his picture. It works both ways.

Edit: By that logic also, it would be ok for me, everytime someone posts something that is illogical, to come in and say "you debunkers are so stupid and this is why"? I don't get it. That still sounds like an insult to me. But, I'm not a mod...so.

[edit on 5/4/2007 by Griff]

Dear esdad71:

I’m going to repost your drawing here so we can discuss it (again).


Really there are only two things I want to mention.

1. Each floor in the towers was designed to carry ALL the weight of the floors above it. So say floor #77 was strong enough to support the remaining 33 floors on top. Why would it suddenly not be able to hold that mass on 9-11? I know, you’re saying because the upper portion of the towers suddenly dropped down and sheared the columns — core and outer — into failure.

2. Which brings me to my second point. Steel is stronger on sheer than on tension. Hitting/banging on steel vertically from the top will not cause it to fail. This is why we use nails in construction. Or, on a larger scale, steel channel for large concrete forms, say in bridge construction. These huge (but tiny compared to the WTC columns) steel C-channels or similar shaped members are pounded many feet into the ground — a little by little — with huge hydraulic ramming machines exerting enormous forces. Since it’s likely you live near some major metropolitan area, there is a good possibility you can watch this process in person.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 5/4/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

HOW does something tilt without rotating? If I tilt something, it does not have to rotate to tilt so I am not sure where you are coming from there.

Slaps, give an interpretation of what happened then, if there was no pancake. I agree that there is no pancake. We can see in the picture it is tilting, so please explain to me since I have no understanding how it happened. You can use physics, numbers or cave drawings, jsut please for once explain your view instead of tearing apart the 'words' someone uses like you are in court.

I am asking for an explanation please?

Wizard, i would agree with you but in point 2 this would be the case if this building was constructed like every other skyscraper with a steel frame, like in Madrid. I beleive teh unique structure of the WTC lent to its demise. Thanks for the comment.

Originally posted by Griff
it would be ok for me, everytime someone posts something that is illogical, to come in and say "you debunkers are so stupid and this is why"?

This is how I have interpreted the ruling.

I have been considering a cut and paste, general insult to all debunkers , but I feel that I have been above that especially given all of the generalized abuse "CTers" take here.

Originally posted by esdad71
HOW does something tilt without rotating? If I tilt something, it does not have to rotate to tilt so I am not sure where you are coming from there.

The act of tilting something gives it rotation. Any clearer? I don't know how to explain it any clearer than that.

Unless you are thinking about rotation along the y axis as oppossed to rotation along the x axis. We are talking about the rotation (tilt) along the x-axis, not the y-axis.

Originally posted by esdad71
HOW does something tilt without rotating? If I tilt something, it does not have to rotate to tilt so I am not sure where you are coming from there.

Every time you tilt something it is rotating around an axis... EVERY TIME.

The Debunkers here do not even grasp the most SIMPLE of definitions. They are supposed to learn about simple machines in elementary school... levers, etc. It seems like they do not even have a third grade education.

Originally posted by esdad71
Wizard, i would agree with you but in point 2 this would be the case if this building was constructed like every other skyscraper with a steel frame, like in Madrid. I beleive teh unique structure of the WTC lent to its demise. Thanks for the comment.

Can you account for WTC 7 then? Since it wasn't a unique design? And don't give me transfer trusses et. al.

Originally posted by Griff
The act of tilting something gives it rotation. Any clearer? I don't know how to explain it any clearer than that.

Unless you are thinking about rotation along the y axis as oppossed to rotation along the x axis. We are talking about the rotation (tilt) along the x-axis, not the y-axis.

This time you beat me... He is making it so easy that the axis is inconsequential. Any "tilt" of an object, in any direction, is caused by rotating the object.

Originally posted by esdad71
HOW does something tilt without rotating? If I tilt something, it does not have to rotate to tilt so I am not sure where you are coming from there.

Even though you got some definitions confused, surely all you need is a pair of eyes to see that your drawing was way off, right? The top was falling over at an angle, not crawling to the left.

It is a sketch. I am not proud of the picture nor do I think it solves anything. My god folks. I was trying to make a simple point that it was not pancaked, but if it does rotate/pivot/sway/tilt, does that not to you immediately tell you that the integrity of the building is gone? Once that is established, you do not need advanced physics, just the law of gravity. The load is no longer supported properly and the upper floors fall.

Man, I really thought my sketch was to scale

Like I asked before, do you have any original ideas, I mean, at least I am trying without blaming it on anything but natural occurance.

You would be correct esdad if the pivot point is the right side of that photo. The facade that is facing away from the direction of the tilt. If the pivot is the center or the left facade, then it changes. We need someone to definatively prove where the pivot was.

Originally posted by esdad71
It is a sketch. I am not proud of the picture nor do I think it solves anything.

My god folks. I was trying to make a simple point that it was not pancaked, but if it does rotate/pivot/sway/tilt, does that not to you immediately tell you that the integrity of the building is gone? Once that is established, you do not need advanced physics, just the law of gravity. The load is no longer supported properly and the upper floors fall.

This is so typical of the uneducated, non-scientific debunkers here...

What is said here makes NO sense, is not accurate and has ZERO grounding in science.

"The integrity of the building is gone?" What does that even mean? Was it's ethical code thrown out?

What are you trying to even say?

Can you PLEASE use terms correctly... Swaying = "integrity" is gone? Did you ever go into WTYC 1 or 2 dad? THEY WERE ALWAYS SWAYING, you could tell by the toilet water.

Since when does pivot = rotate = sway?

This kind of drivel would get you a ZERO point in any college class... Phys., English, Logic... any.

The upper floors DO NOT JUST FALL... THEY CONTINUE TO ROTATE.

And you need FAR more than the law of gravity but you win. I give up.

[edit on 4-5-2007 by Pootie]

THanks forthe explanation Griff. The x/y explanation was good also. Perception when 2 people are looking at something or trying to explain something can alter what they are trying to get across.

Slaps/Poot, whatever you want to call yourself these days. I am tired of the uneducated remarks, OK? We can all get a little emotional but when someone does it every post it tends to start to wear on you, like a boil on your ass. You my friend are that boil. Annoying, short lived and filled with nastiness... and you always come back.

I do not need explanations of the laws of physics from you anymore, but sometimes an explanation of a point of view is helpful. You realize you actually thought I was trying to solve 9/11 with a paint bmp file I drew in 30 seconds to try to visually show something instead of writing it. YOu stated I was giving false information. If more of us did that it may help us all come to a conclusion on how the towers, all 3 of them, collapsed.

From all of the posts I have participated in, it seems that there are a few others here who may be starting to see a light at the end of this tunnel.

Also, did you have to look up integrity? If you did, that is why do did not understand the context it was used in. INtegrity is also part of the scientific method, which you should have learned in any of those college courses you took.

[edit on 4-5-2007 by esdad71]

Originally posted by esdad71
Slaps/Poot, whatever you want to call yourself these days. I am tired of the uneducated remarks, OK? We can all get a little emotional but when someone does it every post it tends to start to wear on you, like a boil on your ass. You my friend are that boil. Annoying, short lived and filled with nastiness... and you always come back.

The feeling is 100% mutual. I was referencing all debunkers... not just you.

Originally posted by esdad71
I do not need explanations of the laws of physics from you

Yes, you do as you are MISLEADING everyone who reads your posts with scientifically inaccurate information. I believe you are doing it on purpose, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Originally posted by esdad71You realize you actually thought I was trying to solve 9/11 with a paint bmp file I drew in 30 seconds to try to visually show something instead of writing it.

No, I think you were being VERY misleading and that your diagram defied physics and photographic evidence. Again, I believe on purpose, but I give you the benefit of the doubt.

Originally posted by esdad71
YOu stated I was giving false information.

you are. Almost all of your posts are scientifically inaccurate.

Originally posted by esdad71
From all of the posts I have participated in, it seems that there are a few others here who may be starting to see a light at the end of this tunnel.

what is this supposed to mean? you are convincing the "people" here of anything other than you know little or nothing about the physical sciences?

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, did you have to look up integrity? If you did, that is why do did not understand the context it was used in. INtegrity is also part of the scientific method, which you should have learned in any of those college courses you took.

No... It makes no sense in the context in which you used it. a single column can "lose integrity"... a WHOLE BUILDING does not simultaneously "lose integrity" as your statement implys.

You used the word incorrectly in an attempt to make some point with no basis.

[edit on 4-5-2007 by Pootie]

Structural integrity? Data integrity? Do you have any idea what those mean. As an architect or a systems engineer.

Again man, I am trying to post ideas to resolve an issue and all you can do is attempt to state that my wording is scientifically inaccurate, the wrong choice of word based on you wiki definition and that I am attempting to mislead.

Can you give us some insight as to why you feel it was not a pancake collapse?