Towers Of Lies

reply to post by pshea38


So I've posted photos of artwork that behave in a similar manner to tall office buildings, appearing as semi-transparaent because of holes that allow light to move straight through towards the viewer's eye. I've linked to a long discussion of the effect on a website.

I've explained that the effect should be effect is partly dependent upon the viewer's point of view- more distant viewers will see more light come through, and on more floors. The effect should be limited to floors that are immediately above and below the viewer.

All photographs are consistent with what I've said. Others have posted many photographs of the towers from ground level, or the towers under construction that prove beyond any doubt that floors were installed.

But somehow that isn't good enough for you.

The motto up in here is supposed to be 'deny ignorance' not 'deny all evidence'.

reply to post by NuminousCosmos


LOL. Have you read how ridiculous how some those names sound!
How easy is it to generate 3,000 names?
And that post of yours is supposed to prove the existence of real people behind the letters?

You are obviously not familiar with the Vicsim Report-Simulated victims of 9/11.
Google it! You might find it interesting!

Otherwise cast an eye over this research:
www.cluesforum.info

I expect to hear from you in about a week. Otherwise you are not genuine.
(which I don't believe you are anyway. You joined after another like worded and minded
poster last posted.)

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Where can these 2x110 floors be found in photos of the WTC rubble DR.?
No wriggling please.

Originally posted by pshea38
reply to post by NuminousCosmos

 

LOL. Have you read how ridiculous how some those names sound!
How easy is it to generate 3,000 names?
And that post of yours is supposed to prove the existence of real people behind the letters?

You are obviously not familiar with the Vicsim Report-Simulated victims of 9/11.
Google it! You might find it interesting!

Otherwise cast an eye over this research:
www.cluesforum.info

I expect to hear from you in about a week. Otherwise you are not genuine.
(which I don't believe you are anyway. You joined after another like worded and minded
poster last posted.)

You could try and show some respect. However "ridiculous" you think someone's name is not relevant to anything.

And you are just incapable of thinking things through . It is not a question of dreaming up nearly 3000 names but of faking whole lives with family, friends, colleagues, jobs, education etc. Scores of people would be required to support each fake name and they would still have an impossible task. How do you fake contemporary records of say school, sporting achievement, class photos, to insert your fake person.

I just did a quick google of the first name on the list, Gordon M Aamoth jr, and came up with this :-

www.legacy.com...

Something you have obviously not attempted to do. There are a wealth of details there. The man had parents, siblings, aunts and uncles. He attended Blake School where they are naming a football field after him. He graduated from Babson College. Was a member of a golf club, Creek Club. Employed from 1993 by Sandler O'Neil & Ptnrs.

If you are serious about what you say, which is very hard to believe, why don't you actually check someone like Mr Aamoth out ? Contact Blake School and find out why they are naming a football field after someone who never existed. Contact the golf club and see if they have records of him as a member.

Until you actually come up with something you are just posting obnoxious drivel.

reply to post by pshea38


I can't believe the incredible stupidity of the link you posted. VICSIMs? A whole thread trying to make the case that a photo of one woman was used to fake the pictures of ALL of the other women? You mean to tell me that, GASP, Caucasian women have similar facial features?

You realize that in order to create these weird mosaics of combined features it requires that the idiot doing the comparisons needs to MORPH the features to fit? That is not forensic science. You do not alter the evidence to fit your conceptions.



The same picture in higher resolution:

law2.umkc.edu...

All of these people are fake? Never existed? Everyone of their families liars? All of their friends brainwashed? Do you have any idea the number of people that would be related to them? Brothers and sisters? Aunts, uncles, cousins, their in-laws and exes? They all are fake?

I don't know what your game is, but its cruel and counterproductive.

reply to post by pshea38

Originally posted by pshea38
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

 

Where can these 2x110 floors be found in photos of the WTC rubble DR.?
No wriggling please.

At present they should mostly be in fresh kills landfill, or the steel components have been recycled into many other steel products.

The vast bulk of the floor slabs, trusses, carpet pad and carpet would have fallen down: in, or near the towers footprint. They were mangled and crushed on the way down.

There is simply no mystery about this. They fell down with the other components of the towers, along with furniture, equipment, and people.

What's the big deal?

Originally posted by pshea38

 

Where can these 2x110 floors be found in photos of the WTC rubble DR.?
No wriggling please.

I've asked this before and you've never given a satisfactory answer, so I'll ask again- which conspiracy web site was it that put this whole "the buildings were fake" idea into your head, Pshea? Noone, but noone, watched what was happening on 9/11 and spontaneously wondered whether the towers were fake buildings. Someone had to have come along after the fact and thrown a bunch of propaganda at you for you to ever believe such an absurd thing.

I saw the trade centers go up in 1973, one about ten floors higher than the other. Those calling others stupid or lacking in research are blowing gas, the fact is the floors are necessary to link the outer shell construction method (never done anywhere near this scale then, before, or after), with the core. The outer shell prefab sections were about two stories tall, fact is the construction couldn't rise outside of the core with the floors more than a story below the outer shell. Core would rise 3 to maybe 10 stories higher than the floors.

The construction is similar to the concept of the floors acting as 'suspension bridges' to link the combined strength of the outer shell and core. Fact is the towers couldn't support their weight with the core alone, or outer shell alone, and the floors are the critical link, take out enough of any one of those three components and you set the building in motion. Buildings are designed to hold stagnant vertical mass, not mass in motion, or imbalanced.

This design afforded the towers to have the largest unobstructed rentable floor space than any other skyscraper ever built. Jeez! this was discussed over ten years ago.

Thats what research will reveal.

reply to post by Illustronic


Everything Illustronic wrote is absolutely correct. Excellent summation.

Anyone with any interest in architecture or building design should visit skyscraperpage.com. I have been a member for 10 years and have learned more about structural engineering and design than I ever learned in school.

People like the OP probably don't want that kind of knowledge, as it might deflate the bubble of their wacko world view...however, anyone wanting free info should check out some of the archived threads on the WTC complex.

Originally posted by Illustronic
I saw the trade centers go up in 1973, one about ten floors higher than the other. Those calling others stupid or lacking in research are blowing gas, the fact is the floors are necessary to link the outer shell construction method (never done anywhere near this scale then, before, or after), with the core. The outer shell prefab sections were about two stories tall, fact is the construction couldn't rise outside of the core with the floors more than a story below the outer shell. Core would rise 3 to maybe 10 stories higher than the floors.

The construction is similar to the concept of the floors acting as 'suspension bridges' to link the combined strength of the outer shell and core. Fact is the towers couldn't support their weight with the core alone, or outer shell alone, and the floors are the critical link, take out enough of any one of those three components and you set the building in motion. Buildings are designed to hold stagnant vertical mass, not mass in motion, or imbalanced.

This design afforded the towers to have the largest unobstructed rentable floor space than any other skyscraper ever built. Jeez! this was discussed over ten years ago.

Thats what research will reveal.

Admittedly I never saw the twin towers. The perimeter wall panels were THREE stories tall, 36 feet. There were three columns and three spandrels per panel. An engineering magazine from 1970 said the heaviest panels were 22 tons.

But because each of the four perimeter arrays were two dimensional they would sway in and out without the support of the floors. The core was a three dimensional array with horizontal beams and that is what provided the buildings' rigidity. The core could have stood by itself. The NIST says the core supported 53% of the total weight and the perimeter 47%.

The core could have stood by itself. It would have had less weight to hold without the floors outside the core and it would have presented a smaller cross section to the wind. But all of those floors were the reason for its existence so it would never be built alone. The core held the cranes that lifted all of the components. The WTC was a brilliant construction feat.

Yeah it is ridiculous that this has not been resolved. We can't even get the tons of steel on each level in the core.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Only one thing you say is wrong: That the core provided the resistance to lateral forces. The opposite is true and any engineering/ physics textbook should tell you why.

There is a concept called moment of inertia, which describes the resistance to bending of a given geometric arrangement of material about a defined axis. It tells us for example that a solid steel rod is in fact less able to resist bending than, for example a hollow pipe made of the exact same quantity of steel (a larger overall diameter is implied). It also describes the difference between bending a ruler across its flat is easier than bending it across its narrow edge. Here is a video where an engineer or physicist demonstrat
es @ 3m10s.



Short story: Skyscrapers work the same way. Structure located at the perimeter of a building is more efficient in resisting lateral loads such as wind and earthquake. You can even read about this on truther sites Or give Wikipedia a try.

In any case, the vast bulk of lateral loads were resisted by the perimeter columns, rather than the core.

And this means, of course, that the core could not have stood up all by itself, as designed. I would expect it to destablize quite fast on a breezy day.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


I meant the core alone couldn't support the entire structure of the towers, not themselves. In fact the core stood for several seconds after the collapse before they underwent destruction from being battered by the collapse.

reply to post by NuminousCosmos


Thanks, I also frequent skyscraperpage.com, (among others) almost joined around 2004. I've been an architectural buff my whole life before employment largely intrigued a deep interest of space exploration for me. I am also on occasion asked to traditionally render or digitally 3d construct laboratory buildings from plans or general descriptions.

Originally posted by pshea38

Where can these 2x110 floors be found in photos of the WTC rubble DR.?
No wriggling please.

Considering that about 95% of the twin towers was air by volume by some estimates and the towers had 7 levels below ground quick math would suggest a pile no higher than a few floors compressed. But that is not good simple math, lets give the building the maximum structural and content mass of estimates I have read and pile all that up sans air. (Parens by me for clarity, corrections and comments)

Volume of one tower: 1.65 million cubic meters (Dimensions: 415 and 417 meters high by 63 meters square).
Steel in one tower: 100,000 tons = 12,700 cubic meters
Concrete in one tower: 390,000 tons = 163,000 cubic meters
The concrete in the towers weighed about four times as much as the steel and occupied over twelve times as much volume.

Actually, a lot of the concrete in the World Trade Center was in the base. (In the) floors were about 8 cm thick and supported by steel sheets and a truss system, so the actual amount in the towers was quite a bit less.

Mass of one tower: most people use 500,000 tons, a few use 600,000. The mass of concrete and steel above (ground) comes to 490,000 tons and doesn't count elevators, plumbing, utilities, windows and so on. 600,000 is probably closer to the mark, especially if we count internal walls and furnishings.

Bulk density of a tower: If we assume 500,000 tons, 303 kg/cubic meter. If we assume 600,000, 363 kg/cubic meter. The bulk density is about one third that of water. Seal the holes and put them in water, and they would float.

(Ever wonder how loaded barges float?)

Volume of building materials in a tower: 163,000 cubic meters of concrete, plus 12,700 cubic meters of steel = 175,700 cubic meters. Add windows, elevators, and interior fittings and it's probably around 200,000 cubic meters per tower.

If the volume of building materials was 200,000 cubic meters and the total volume of a tower was 1.65 million cubic meters, then building materials occupied 12% of the volume of the tower. 88% of the tower was air. That's what buildings are for - to enclose the largest open space with the least material.

So even at these estimates 12% of 110 stories is 13.2 floors minus the 7 below ground we get my few stories high rubble pile (if it wasn't for all that air between the floors), if all of the rubble landed in the footprint of the building which we know did not.

University of Wisconsin.

reply to post by pshea38


Thanks for posting this...mind posting a link?, where is the link for the missing stuff you just listed?, or did you come up with that list your self?.

If the falling of the towers wasn't controlled by any means, is it weird that each floor from the impact zone & down collapsed in perfect unison? I'm not an engineer, never claimed to be, but a majority of the damage was on the top of the towers, whatever damage was done to the supports, most of it occurred at the impact zone. The fires within the WTC exhibited clear signs of being oxygen starved, firefighters who reached the impact zone confirmed that they could contain them. Does this mean the fire was pretty much contained to the upper portion of the towers? (mostly the impact zone?) When I watch the "collapse" videos I noticed the floors from the impact zone and above started collapsing within themselves before the rest of the building began falling. To me (if the conspiracy was true), it looks like from the impact zone and up could have been a separate demolition, once the top portion began falling, the bottom floors were blown out in perfect unison one by one to assure it falls mostly into it's footprints, and not crashing through nearby buildings. I look at the South Tower collapse, and the top of the building starts tilting foward really fast but manages to stop and fall straight down, just doesn't seem right. This is me using non-engineer thinking lol no one attack me please

reply to post by homervb


What about the WTC 7? it collapsed in 5 seconds there were controllable flames that brought down the tower?

Originally posted by PedoBear
reply to post by homervb

 

What about the WTC 7? it collapsed in 5 seconds there were controllable flames that brought down the tower?

So now we have WTC 7 collapsing faster than freefall. Were there rockets on the roof pointing downwards ?

Originally posted by PedoBear
reply to post by homervb

 

it collapsed in 5 seconds there were controllable flames that brought down the tower?

I have no idea what you mean by this, did you mean to say "What about the WTC 7, it collapsed in 5 seconds. Were there controllable flame that brought down the tower?"

reply to post by PedoBear

What about the WTC 7? it collapsed in 5 seconds there were controllable flames that brought down the tower?

They would have been controllable except for one minor detail. The collapse of the first WTC severed all the underground water pipes.