Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Varemia

 

Steel framed buildings collapsing completely from fire is extraordinary, period.

Explosives is a more logical explanation.

That is my opinion based on the evidence.

I respectfully disagree. Steel framed buildings which have sustained significant damage in critical areas AND then have uncontrolled fire are very likely to collapse, as evidenced by the unique events of 9/11.

That's my opinion based on the evidence.

Originally posted by ANOK


It's not up to me to prove anything to anyone.

Then you have lost the argument.

As I have pointed out already, the "OS", as your ilk like to call it, is the generally accpeted explanation of what happened on 9/11.

There are zero generally accpeted explanations other than planes > fire> collapse.

If I do ZERO, I win, cuz this side, the side of reason and rationality, has already won.

So go ahead and prove nothing. You can't anyways....

Originally posted by ANOK


That is my opinion based on the evidence.

Obviously uninformed opinions mean nothing to the rational.

Keep trying.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by ANOK


It's not up to me to prove anything to anyone.

Then you have lost the argument.

As I have pointed out already, the "OS", as your ilk like to call it, is the generally accpeted explanation of what happened on 9/11.

By who? Generally accepted does not it's mean true. It's generally accepted in the US that socialism means big government, which it is not.

There are zero generally accpeted explanations other than planes > fire> collapse.

If I do ZERO, I win, cuz this side, the side of reason and rationality, has already won.

So go ahead and prove nothing. You can't anyways....

Yes official story, the official explanation offered by the government. Are you Dave in another life?

No one can explain how sagging trusses can pull in columns, can you? NIST did not even cover the collapse. It is nothing but a hypotheses for collapse initiation, it is WIDE OPEN for questioning, nothing has been proven.

Again it is not up to me to prove anything to you, it is up to the government to prove their hypotheses, which they have not done. All I am doing is pointing out the obvious flaws in their hypothesis.

I'm also not here to 'win', what is the prize?

All you are doing is blindly supporting something you don't understand.

Originally posted by ANOK

By who? Generally accepted does not it's mean true

But it is accepted as true until shown otherwise. This is what matters. No new investigation, etc will ever happen until that needle is moved. No truther has managed to do that.

Yes official story, the official explanation offered by the government.

Another lie.The guv is not the only ones saying that planes>fire>collapse is the best explanation. ASCE, CTBUH, etc are not connected to any guv agency.There are more, from other countries too, that agree. You cannot deny this.

No one can explain how sagging trusses can pull in columns, can you?

Strawman. The pull in - which is proven by simple physics - is not the only reason the ext columns got pulled in. NIST explains it. You ignore the full context of the explanation. Either that or you are uninformed of the physics involved in caternary action and the NIST report. This is not my problem.

NIST did not even cover the collapse. It is nothing but a hypotheses for collapse initiation, it is WIDE OPEN for questioning, nothing has been proven

truther questioning has so far been ignored. For 10 years....

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. .

Again it is not up to me to prove anything to you, it is up to the government to prove their hypotheses

Nope. It is the best explanation. Nothing else has been offered to challenge it to the rational.

All I am doing is pointing out the obvious flaws in their hypothesis.

HAHAHA... no you're not. Quotemining and strawman arguements are nothing of consequence. They are nothing but trolling, lol....

I'm also not here to 'win', what is the prize?

the much lauded and asked for by truthers - new investigation. you forget that?

All you are doing is blindly supporting something you don't understand.

Your quotemining and strawman questions .... backed by your insistence that they are legit... backed by your obvious trouble with physics regarding caternary action of the sagging trusses proves this to be projection.

You have lost. And you continue losing, even though your opponent has left the field, hoisted the trophy, and is at the party......

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
But it is accepted as true until shown otherwise. This is what matters. No new investigation, etc will ever happen until that needle is moved. No truther has managed to do that.

So what's your point? I should stop posting my feelings because of what you claim matters?

Another lie.The guv is not the only ones saying that planes>fire>collapse is the best explanation. ASCE, CTBUH, etc are not connected to any guv agency.There are more, from other countries too, that agree. You cannot deny this.

Please stop accusing me of lying. Those agencies did not do the official investigation, they are simply repeating the official investigation conducted by NIST. Do you really expect those agencies to come out against the government?

But not ONE agency has proven anything, that is the problem you fail to understand in your appeal to authority. I don't need you, or an agency, to question my intelligence.

Strawman. The pull in - which is proven by simple physics - is not the only reason the ext columns got pulled in. NIST explains it. You ignore the full context of the explanation. Either that or you are uninformed of the physics involved in caternary action and the NIST report. This is not my problem.

Then explain the simple physics, because I can explain the simple physics that makes the sagging truss hypothesis nonsense. Want to go head to head on that debate mate?

NIST does not explain it, if you think they do then that just shows the extent of your education. I'd like to hear YOU explain it and not just parrot what NIST says.

truther questioning has so far been ignored. For 10 years....

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. .

Hmmm you must be using the debunker manual, the amount of time I've heard that same comment from OSers.

I believe it is you who keeps repeating the OS nonsense over and over.

You're not ignoring it though are you? Why are you hear if no one is paying attention? What is the point of you wasting your time trying to prop up the official story when everyone, according to you, believes it?

Nope. It is the best explanation. Nothing else has been offered to challenge it to the rational.

It's the best explanation if you ignore the obvious. We are challenging it everyday, and you are failing.

HAHAHA... no you're not. Quotemining and strawman arguements are nothing of consequence. They are nothing but trolling, lol....

I have quoted nothing and made no strawmen, you must be confusing me with someone else.

the much lauded and asked for by truthers - new investigation. you forget that?

I'm not a truther. I am under no illusion that there will be another investigation. You generic assumptions are wrong.

Your quotemining and strawman questions .... backed by your insistence that they are legit... backed by your obvious trouble with physics regarding caternary action of the sagging trusses proves this to be projection.

You have lost. And you continue losing, even though your opponent has left the field, hoisted the trophy, and is at the party......

Catenary (you can't even spell it right) action does not effect SAGGING trusses. There is a completely different set of physics working on a SAGGING truss, than a chain or other rigid object that sags because of its design. A chain can pull on columns because added weight will put its force at the connections. A truss that is sagging because of heat will simply sag more from the weight, it can not transfer that force to the connection. If it could don't you think the 5/8" and 1" bolts would break before the massive columns? Were the connections not a weak point according to you, that allowed the floors to pancake and not be effected by the resistance of those connections?

This is a lie, one of the agencies you appeal to...

The single-bolt connections in the framework of the World Trade Center popped and fell apart during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, causing the floors to collapse on top of each other, according to a new study. The analysis, conducted by a team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, concludes the bolts did not properly secure the Twin Towers' steel floor trusses, The New York Post reported Sunday.

www.cbsnews.com...

Single bolt connection?



You are the one helping to spread lies mate.

You all come here claiming to understand physics because you appeal to authority that is lying to you, and you don't have the education to realise it.

Originally posted by ANOK

Please stop accusing me of lying.

I will when you stop lying.

Those agencies did not do the official investigation, they are simply repeating the official investigation conducted by NIST.

No they aren't. They even disputed some of the fine details contained within the NIST report while still agreeing that planes>fire>collapse is correct.

Do you really expect those agencies to come out against the government?

Well since they kinda did, yeah. SO did James Quintere.

But not ONE agency has proven anything that is the problem you fail to understand in your appeal to authority. I don't need you, or an agency, to question my intelligence.

Nobody is, since you and your beliefs are of no consequence.

A chain can pull on columns because added weight will put its force at the connections

a chain does not gain weight because of its sag.

A truss that is sagging because of heat will simply sag more from the weight, it can not transfer that force to the connection.

It doesn't add weight either. It creates a pull in force since it is hot and no longer rigid.

If it could don't you think the 5/8" and 1" bolts would break before the massive columns?

Perhaps.. But the pull in force was not the only reason for the columns buckling.

Once again you are constructing a strawman arguement by this line of questioning. NIST outlines why the columns pulled in and then buckled:
1- they were heated
2- they had extra load transferred to them via the hat truss from the core columns as they heated and encountered mod temp, high load creep.
3- the buckle was over several stories, which decreases the amount of force needed to make them buckle.

Try factoring that into your rebuttal or be proven a fraud.

Were the connections not a weak point according to you, that allowed the floors to pancake and not be effected by the resistance of those connections?

No you're getting somewhere. Welcome to reality.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Varemia

 

Steel framed buildings collapsing completely from fire is extraordinary, period.

Explosives is a more logical explanation.

That is my opinion based on the evidence.

I respectfully disagree. Steel framed buildings which have sustained significant damage in critical areas AND then have uncontrolled fire are very likely to collapse, as evidenced by the unique events of 9/11.

That's my opinion based on the evidence.

Are very likely to collapse? Based on one unique incident, which was a precedent?!

What other steel framed buildings have collapsed due to uncontrolled fire?

The building was built to take a plane crash, and the impact zone/fire did not affect all the floors well below it.

So it was not likey to collapse at all, this is a fallacy.

Originally posted by Varemia
I respectfully disagree. Steel framed buildings which have sustained significant damage in critical areas AND then have uncontrolled fire are very likely to collapse, as evidenced by the unique events of 9/11.

That's my opinion based on the evidence.

I love the logic you have going there.

So based on the questionable 'unique' events of 911 you believe it's possible, against all known physics, that a steel framed building can completely collapse from fire?

So under unique circumstances physics can change, is that what you're saying?

Steel trusses can sag and pull in columns much more massive than themselves, while not breaking the apparently weak fasteners, whenever a plane crashes into a building? That unique event lead to a physics phenomena?

You really need to check the argument you are putting forward because it is full of contradictions.

The single-bolt connections in the framework of the World Trade Center popped and fell apart during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, causing the floors to collapse on top of each other, according to a new study. The analysis, conducted by a team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, concludes the bolts did not properly secure the Twin Towers' steel floor trusses, The New York Post reported Sunday.

www.cbsnews.com...

Single bolt connection? Actually there were two 1" and two 5/8" bolts per plate. They were not a weak point, but sagging trusses can not put a force on the columns. If they did, and the connections didn't fail, they would also not have failed from a floor dropping on them. It would take more force to pull in columns, than the force of a dropping floor.

Originally posted by ANOK
So based on the questionable 'unique' events of 911 you believe it's possible, against all known physics, that a steel framed building can completely collapse from fire?

So under unique circumstances physics can change, is that what you're saying?

No, you keep getting this wrong, over and over and over again. Are you dense? I said DAMAGE. Let's be clear about this, DAMAGE and fire. DAMAGE and fire. DAMAGE and fire. Does the addition of damage into the equation mean anything? The physics never change. The variables that physics are applied to change. With DAMAGE, the building becomes more susceptible to failure by fire.

Steel trusses can sag and pull in columns much more massive than themselves, while not breaking the apparently weak fasteners, whenever a plane crashes into a building? That unique event lead to a physics phenomena?

The towers are the ONLY example of the tube-in-tube truss system. It's not a physics phenomena, it's a physics example.

Single bolt connection? Actually there were two 1" and two 5/8" bolts per plate. They were not a weak point, but sagging trusses can not put a force on the columns. If they did, and the connections didn't fail, they would also not have failed from a floor dropping on them. It would take more force to pull in columns, than the force of a dropping floor.

It never said anything about the sagging trusses applying force. The sagging trusses caused the distribution of weight to be put on the rest of the floor, causing failures in the connections. As the maximum strength was reached on some of the supports, they began "pulling" in. How many times does this have to be explained for you to even understand what the actual official story is?

It's like you read the reports and the evidence, and then within your brain, you fabricate what you think you're reading, and then try to debunk it from your imagination. It wasn't just fire, you dingbat. It was fire plus DAMAGE. DAMAGE. DAMAGE. DAMAGE is the key word. Get it through your intensely deep skull.