Gravity Can't Do This!

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by -PLB-

 

I will repeat it again (I wrote this 3 times or so by now), first the south perimeter wall failed.

I know you have SAID it, but "can you demonstrate it" is the real question.

Why do OS'ers consistently think that simply saying something constitutes proof? That is what causes the whole problem to begin with.

Prove it or don't bother saying it.

It is not my theory, it is NIST's theory. I trust they did their work correctly. If you don't prove them wrong.

reply to post by ANOK


The last post you ignored was my request to demonstrate that the majority of the trusses ejected as you are claiming. You ignored that request. But there is a whole long list of post you ignored.

now as you all know this man.....but hey another truther Nutjob right....



I put this here as a mention of respect to a brave man...R.I.P.

it is getting tedious as more and more people who speak out die of circumstances that make no sense....

also i shall mention with kinds regards...Bill Cooper.



now i will leave it up to people to figure out what is wrong with this picture in so many ways......


please check out his full interview for those on the sideline watching this thread.......also as things progress...and the victims of 9/11 keep on mounting including those killed in a false war....take the time to always ask yourselves what do you stand for in this short life of yours....I mean really what is worth dying for....

Well to me....the truth is definately worth dying for as who wants to bring their children up in a world full of lies.

reply to post by -PLB-


i guess you just decided to blow right past all the failings in the NIST report that i posted just up there.....look up...

anyways....i think after the GEN stuff you might have thought i would just disappear...well i think i have more integrity than that.

When people post, one person posts...and then another person will post and it corroborates what is being stated....now if you want you can read the article that i put a link to which will show some of the mistakes made by NIST...oh by the way they published works from both sides of the story...all open to peer review too.

I might even quote GEN on the i love this site...but you know i tend to come up with my own analogy and do not just depend on a single source of information....and i do click on the links which OSer' put forward...as it does help to look at all sides of an debate with an open mind.....but so far....the OS does not provide adaquate data to justify the actual failings in the three steel structures of the day.

Also as much as you did try to point out...what was a valid possibility as to tilting and the illusion of the Antenna[(see spelling) i know it was not mentioned by you] dropping i think it has been reasonably shown not to be the case....yet i am still wrong in that according to you.....so how about this PLB....you come back and show us again how all the tests that NIST undertook were of the utmost highly regarded standards....And let us try to show you the errors of the report again.

Originally posted by plube
yet i am still wrong in that according to you

You are wrong about a lot of things. But since you are either not reading or understanding my posts, you have no clue what I think you are wrong about. You are full of assumptions, and are completely missing what is going on. You live in your own reality and it is extremely hard to to get through to you. You have not even made a point about the mast moving first. I am not going to read all your other posts, I have better things to do.

Originally posted by samkent
If a landing gear can go through all those brick walls at the Pentagon, I imagine one could do severe damage to the core at WTC.

Imagination does not equal proof, samkent.

Please, prove how much core damage that you allege the planes caused to WTC 1 and 2.

reply to post by plube


Yeah.. actually I know. I accounted for the chamfered in my picture you did not. Although I admit my line lost quality in the save and you can't see it well. It's why my purple line goes down slightly to signify following the building and then goes along the side.


The buildings shape is more akin to this :


I drew the purple line to show you were off with your yellow line. You drew your as if there was a corner, I followed the actual shape of the building. The whole point was that you can't use that kind of inaccuracy and still expect to be taken seriously over such a tiny degree of movement that could be accounted for by tilting.. I was just helping your P.R. but you still came off snotty to me.
So, I know you like to shout WRONG, but in this instance you were in fact wrong.
I won't wait for an apology though.

reply to post by -PLB-


ok we understand you now though...It would seem that when stuck in a hole....you tend to go off and just say how wrong someone is....yet i have not tleft the point of tilting...i even accepted it had validity....but in my opinion you cannot render the even the slightest acknowledgment that in this case the tilt was not occuring at the time...and now because you are backed into a corner on this one....you will not look any further....ok i do understand.

so i will place a few things in here about the nist report that are wrong.....once again not necessarily for you but for others on the fence yet again.....

Contrary to their own interpretation of events, in section 6.10.4 of the Final Report, the NIST
authors note that
“….. At any given location, the duration of temperatures near 1,000 ºC was about 15 min
to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 ºC or below.”
(NCSTAR 1, 129)
The problem then is how could an entire floor truss section get to 700 ºC when “at any given
location” temperatures were only briefly very hot? Also bear in mind that multiple trusses would
have to fail simultaneously before any significant effect on the perimeter columns could be
expected. This is because the trusses are tied together by the floor structure and the external
columns are strongly interlocked by the spandrels.
Moreover, the simulation predicted other component failures at particular temperatures:
“At 566 ºC, the interior truss seat bolts sheared off, without loss of vertical support. At
670 ºC, the gusset plate at the exterior truss seat fractured, followed by shearing of the
exterior seat bolt. At 730 ºC, the truss walked off the exterior truss seat.” (NCSTAR 1-
6C, 81)
Once again, if these temperatures were sufficient to cause such destruction, why did the floor
truss tests exhibit none of these failure modes given laboratory steel temperatures and exposure
times exceeded those in the simulations? The finding in the simulation that the truss endconnections
failed is strikingly inconsistent with the claim NIST relied upon that the sagging
floor pulled the perimeter columns inward. Despite the contradiction of their simulation by the
tests, the NIST investigators made no attempt to adjust their conclusion.

but you know what not commenting is a good thing....but i do value your comments as it does make me work harder

I can name four truthers who have always stuck to the questioning of the NIST report and the physics and the structural components of the towers....we do not go for some lame theories of what the truthers get blamed for...and frankly....i am not so certain truthers have been the sole perpetrators of these strange theories....

“The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the
middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a
preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would
likely remain standing. The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and
Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower.” (NCSTAR 1, 144)

strange that they just for no reason choose the most severe model when their own real world tests do not replicate the model.

also this is the point that the NIST report stops.....Nist only gos up to point point of initiation.....but goes no further and then relies on Bazant to proceed through the progressive collapse senario.

Lets look at Bazant and Zhou

Bazant says that crush up would only occur after crush down.....well then they realized after video analysis this was not the case...and lo and behold they came up with something else to qualify the error they had made...

see go here for a copy....i look at all things as best i am able.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis1
Zdeneˇk P. Bazˇant, F.ASCE,2 and Yong Zhou3

now if one would care to look....but unlikely that some will....

Gordon Ross

now please go ahead and take a look at the full analysis....what harm can it do to become informed.....

lets keep it up....we may not succeed in changing things...but we just might succeed in helping proplr to question what they are being told.....then we do fail in how so many people are being mysteriously taken away from us for speaking out......As the sign says....STOP THE MADNESS

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


once again...it was not inaccurate to project the line out to the 90 degree mark....AT ALL.

heck when the building was on the drawing board i would almost guarantee you it was drawn up as a rectangle then chamfers put it as it progressed in the planning and mach up stages.(remember no autocad back then)

it you project the corner out it doesn't change it.....but heck if it makes you feel better good job m8.

also as i had said the line was put there as indication that the side of the building...was no matter how little was visible......

now if one would want to take the road and argue semantics....be my guest....but will it show that at the time of the antenna dropping was the structure tilting to support PLB' theory...no it doesn't...now as stated what was necessary to show the building was not tilting at the time was that back right edge of the tower...which was shown,,,and PLB would not even acknowledge there was a side to the building showing...then he stated all he could see was smoke...but guess where the smoke was coming from....the side of the building.

Yet when dark showed a different view...which was showing no tilt at the same time...NOTE: same day same time same building...there was no tilting occuring.

so i ask yet again....trying to do so as politely as possible

Where was the tilting that would validate PLB' claim...please show me...don't just say there was tilting...and not show it.

now if you extrapolate the chamfers out to the 90degree...i ask you....does it make a one insy tinsy little bit of difference to the question being ask...or in the dynamics of what was being presented.

I will give an answers in my honest opinion......NO.

reply to post by tezzajw

Imagination does not equal proof, samkent.

Please, prove how much core damage that you allege the planes caused to WTC 1 and 2.

There is never any traction with reality with these guys.

They will never try to prove anything because they are pseudo-scientific proof seekers. They will flit from one they are sure of to the next without ever recognizing that the overarching argument is logically deficient and has no basis in reality.

Case in point: PLB "proving" NIST's hypothesis on damage progression by, wait for it, citing NIST's damage progression.

reply to post by Darkwing01


You missed the point why I posted the explanation by NIST. I didn't post that to prove anything, I posted it so show that the mast moving first is in no way in conflict with the explanation given by NIST.

reply to post by plube


You are so weird and so totally of this world. I have written about 4 times already that I abandoned the tilting theory, but you keep rambling on about it. What do you want me to do, put it in a contract and have it signed by the president? Why don't you stop with all this nonsense and start reading what I write.

reply to post by -PLB-

You missed the point why I posted the explanation by NIST. I didn't post that to prove anything, I posted it so show that the mast moving first is in no way in conflict with the explanation given by NIST.

You SAID it, but you didn't SHOW it.

The only way to get the mast to move is to have the core move first, and if the core moves first NIST's whole initiation theory is blown right out the water.

It is as simple as that.

reply to post by Darkwing01


Simply put, you are wrong. The south wall can fail without any movement in the top section. In fact, when only the south wall fails, you expect there to be no movement, as the core and the 3 other walls are still holding everything in place.

I guess no one listens to your responses

I will repeat it again (I wrote this 3 times or so by now), first the south perimeter wall failed. That load got redistributed to the core and other perimeter walls. It is not specified which support structure failed next exactly. So the scenario is:

Floor sagging (not expansion) -> South perimeter failure -> Core failure/Other perimeter failure -> Global failure

Simply put, you are wrong. The south wall can fail without any movement in the top section. In fact, when only the south wall fails, you expect there to be no movement, as the core and the 3 other walls are still holding everything in place.

Just qualifying...here...It seems your not going to be talking to anyone pretty soon...as aparently no one listens to you....

I know I know i am on about tilting...but not once have you answered an easy question with a yes or no....was the building tipping at the time the antenna was dropping....yes/no

simple question.....

now your statment saying the south wall could collapse and the core with the remaing three walls holds up....

Now lets see...we are assuming that is not the case as "WE MUST FOLLOW THE OS"

Is that what your actually saying or is this another senario....I am not sure here.....if it is a senario then you don't believe in the OS either as a part faliure is not in the reports....It had to be a global failure...ANY of the models to work....the NIST initiation through the sagging floors or Bazants theory of progessive collapse as the top section had to act asone unit falling at near freefall in order to impart enough force upon the lower section to initiate crush down on the lower section....Now if one keeps quoting NIST then one i think should believe in it...would you not agree....

the reason i separate the two is because NIST only took the report upto point of initiation...and the progressive collapse was put down to Bazant Zhou......

now if the floors were failing then the south wall was failing then the core was failing...as that i am sure in your quote right up there.....then one would say to you perimeters fails...roofline drops...then core drops.

ok so i think this is getting somewhere....as in that senario the appearance would be fo the tower actually rising as roofline drops.....no sure if you see the difference.

then we look at core fails...floors fail...perimeter walls fail....senario....appearance of tower dropping first...dragging trusses in a downward motion...causing pulverisation....and ejection of materials...and causing deformations like this.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/72d0e2b9dd6a.jpg[/atsimg]

but lets look at pancaking...remembering all the lower floors were not weakened....whole floors come down...pancake...pancake...pancake....snapping truss seat after truss seat and snaping the weaker truss dampers.....shall we look at a most famous shot...and analyse....but the challenge here....you analyse...and explain...as i am off this world and wierd so therefore i cannot possibly comprehend it....and i need you to explain...please.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b52972af18c4.jpg[/atsimg]

keeping in mind the dampers are weaker than the seats....and this tremendous downward force

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6b577688c1c4.jpg[/atsimg]

also keeping in mind...the loads being applied as pancaking floors....one ontop of the other....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d53ee2d93f14.jpg[/atsimg]

now also take into acount wtc was a double truss system......as you can see in the dampers.

I need your help here....i am confused by the lack of deformation of the seats and the clean(relativly) edges on the dampers....can you please explain...now this is real world stuff...not simulation...also should we assume this is from the area of impact...or the wheel just landed into this position....either way...the wheel is not relevant is it...

Originally posted by plube
I know I know i am on about tilting...but not once have you answered an easy question with a yes or no....was the building tipping at the time the antenna was dropping....yes/no

simple question.....

Damn, you still don't get it. Lets review what I said in the last few posts:

Still, it doesn't look like the complete top was tilting before full floor failure.

You can see on Darkwings video that tilt of the full top section very likely did not happen before full floor failure. You can not see this on your video. After concluding this, tilt is no longer an issue of debate. That means the conversation moves on. I abandoned the argument.

I agreed that it did not look like tilting happened before all support columns failed.

I have written about 4 times already that I abandoned the tilting theory

Now what would my answer to your yes/no question be. How about this: lets talk an additional couple of pages about tilting with me saying that I do not think tilting happened before full floor failure. Maybe if I repeat it another 10 times, you will be able to answer the question yourself? Let me help you out a bit. I do not think tilting of the complete top section happened before full floor failure.

The only thing I can think of that confuses you is the term "floor failure". With that I mean that all columns on the initial floor fail. But I think the main reason you do not get it is because you are very bad at reading my posts and not always in full touch with reality.

long text with images cut out

From what I understand of your writings you want me to explain to you why the truss seats were not bend. That isn't very hard to explain. The perimeter columns were pushed outward by the falling mass inside the perimeter. So the connection did not fail because the mass on the floors became too big, but because the outward force on the perimeter column became to big. This is also explains why columns ejected.

between the damper pictures.....what do you notice....are all forces acting in one direction...as in the first photo...damper is angled downwards....would you agree...and in the famous photo...the dampers are angled somewhat up towards the truss seat....i value you opinion so please can you tell me why....

i have been wrong all along and i value your opinion....and i would like to know what you honestly think about such things.

I mean to me if floors are pancaking down...i would assume the the loads are so great to cause progressive collapse...then this force is strong enough to cause trusses for the most part to act in a relatively consistant way being that the only force involved at the point of collapse is gravity acting downward by floor after floor crushing down...therefore causing buckling of the perimeter walls...and all this occuring at once as we know the time of the collapse...and it must have been global....as that is the only way for it to collapse in such a manner.

one because NIST AND BAZANT says so...and also any kind of partial failure would take to much time and the collapse would not have happened so fast....or i am wrong here....

reply to post by -PLB-


ok so lets address the outward force here then...IF there is a outward force...and you agree no fires were occuring in the lower structure below the crash zone....then one would conclude the bolts were in tact...then when we look at the truss seats....where is the tearing of the bolts holes from said force.

dont worry i use the term IF lightly....we both know there had to be outward force you can see it..right.

but let me get this straight are you saying the lateral forces come from ummm....let me think...where...again.

I mean these are very great forces involved here....you have said in other posts how great the force was....so great in fact it accounts for the pulverization.

reply to post by plube


2 things:

Firstly, the collapse is very chaotic, so don't expect damage to be consistent with a single failure type. There are many ways a column of floor can fail, bend, be crushed etc. Also, debris that is laying on the ground fell there. Upon impact it may have suffered additional damage.

Secondly, Bazant is model is not a model that describes reality. It describes a so called limiting case. A scenario were for some freak reason the columns of the top fell exactly on the columns below. This did not happen in reality. In fact, it is an impossibility. It is however the scenario where the resistance offered by the lower section is highest. When the columns of the top section hit the lower section anywhere else than on the columns of the lower section, the resistance is lower. Bazant proved that even in this impossible scenario, where resistance is estimated unreasonably high, the collapse would progress.

Take your time to read the second section a couple of times, as it describes an important difference between a model and reality. A model is very often idealized in order to simplify it. It may no longer resemble reality, but it can still give us valuable information about reality. In my field (electrical engineering) I use this type of modeling often. I can create whole systems in Matlab, which is kind of an advanced calculator. I can use ideal resistors and capacitors etc in my simulation, but if I require a more realistic model I can also add non-idealities to it. Without adding non-idealities a system can behave completely different from how it would behave in reality. Still it can give me useful information for my design.