What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
But in this case it is well documented that the buildings were closed from the 50th floor up for the weekend prior to 911 for "cabling upgrades" and the security people said that there were an army of engineers going in and out of the building for 36 hours.

care to show a valid source for that silly claim....

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
But in this case it is well documented that the buildings were closed from the 50th floor up for the weekend prior to 911 for "cabling upgrades" and the security people said that there were an army of engineers going in and out of the building for 36 hours.

care to show a valid source for that silly claim....

web.archive.org...://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html

world911truth.org...

groups.google.com...

FORBES, Scott
Senior Database Administrator, Fiduciary Trust.
He has details on how the twin towers were rigged:

Did the World Trade Center towers undergo a deliberate „power-down” on the weekend prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks? According to Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc. – a high-net investment bank which was later acquired by Franklin Templeton – this is precisely what took place. Forbes, who was hired by Fiduciary in 1999 and is now stationed at a U.K. branch office, was working on the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, and said that his company was given three weeks advance notice that New York’s Port Authority would take out power in the South Tower from the 48th floor up. The reason: the Port Authority was performing a cabling upgrade to increase the WTC’s computer bandwidth.

Forbes stated that Fiduciary Trust was one of the WTC’s first occupants after it was erected, and that a „power-down” had never been initiated prior to this occasion. He also stated that his company put forth a huge investment in time and resources to take down their computer systems due to the deliberate power outage. This process, Forbes recalled, began early Saturday morning (September 8th) and continued until mid-Sunday afternoon (September 9th) – approximately 30 hours. As a result of having its electricity cut, the WTC’s security cameras were rendered inoperative, as were its I.D. systems, and elevators to the upper floors.

Forbes did stress, though, that there was power to the WTC’s lower floors, and that there were plenty of engineers going in-and-out of the WTC who had free access throughout the building due to its security system being knocked out. In an e-mail to journalist John Kaminski, author of The Day America Died (Sisyphus Press) and America’s Autopsy Report (Dandelion Books), Forbes wrote: „Without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors, and many, many ‘engineers’ coming in and out of the tower.”

Forbes didn’t think much of these occurrences at the time, and said that he worked until Monday morning (September 10th) to get all the computer systems back online. Due to his IT-related duties on Saturday & Sunday, Forbes had Tuesday, September 11th off, and thus watched the World Trade Center towers collapse from his apartment. While doing so, he recalled, „I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work.”

In addition, Forbes says there were other peculiarities revolving around this unreported event, including:

1) Fiduciary employees trapped between the 90-97th floors of the South Tower told family members (via cell-phone calls) that they were hearing „bomb-like explosions” throughout the towers.

2) Video cameras positioned atop the World Trade Center which were used to feed daily images to local television stations were inexplicably inoperative that morning.

3) A Fiduciary employee who was on one of the lower floors and escaped immediately after the first (North) tower was struck, reported that he was amazed by the large number of FBI agents that were already on the streets surrounding the WTC complex only minutes after the initial strike.

4) Last but not least, Ann Tatlock, CEO of Fiduciary Trust and now a board member of Franklin Templeton, had just arrived at a conference hosted by Warren Buffet at the Offutt Air Force Base (home of the U.S. Strategic Command Headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska) when the 9-11 attacks took place. Coincidentally, later that day President George W. Bush flew into this very same base on Air Force One for „security reasons.” Even more chilling are the Offutt AFB ties to the CIA’s MK ULTRA experiments, Project Monarch, the Franklin Cover-Up, and the diabolical practices of Michael Aquino. (Type any of these words into a search engine for more information.)

In the end, Forbes says that even though these disclosures could jeopardize his current employment, he has stepped forward because, „I have mailed this information to many people, including the 9/11 Commission, but no one seems to be registering these facts.”

reply to post by psikeyhackr



YET again you avoid the question psikeyhackr why WONT you look at a possible dynamic load calculation I mean you admit your model is not an exact representation of what happened but you went out your way to promote that.

You always come up with the excuse we dont know this or we dont know that well change the variables we are not sure about lets see if a few thousand tons falling could bring the North Tower down

We dont know at what point the floorslab below would fail at but we have seen sheared angle cleats and bolts So lets look at a hypothetical situation were a 10KG mas falls 12 ft the height of a WTC floor, for the first calc the bolts shear 5/8 th of an inch dia so thats 16mm or 0.016mtrs the angle cleats were about an 1" thick iirc so 25mm or 0.025 mm now we know the floors fell so they didn't stop the falling load lets assume they could over the sizes mentioned.

Use the calculator here

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Lets put the info in mass 10 kg drop height 3.66mtrs value for d 0.016 then 0.025

So for the first value of d The kinetic energy just before impact is equal to
K.E. = 358.68J. for d = to 0.016 Average impact force F =22417.5 N or 2285kg YES 2.285 tons
For the second value d = 0.025 final answer is 1463kg or 1.463 tons.

THATS if it was stopped we know they weren't so the forces are most likely far greater THIS IS THE REASON YOU AVOID THIS AT ALL COSTS!!!!!

A little video for others that think like you.



So again you can see FALLING mass generates VAST LOADS

If the calcs above are for a 10 kg mass what does 600 -700 tons or 600-700,000kg of concrete floorslab generate and that is just the concrete from one floor without the steelwork

So do the others think they would have withstood that impact

reply to post by SimontheMagus


A "VALID" source was reqested. A hearsay e-mail and truther forums are not proof. Do you understand why?

Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

A "VALID" source was reqested. A hearsay e-mail and truther forums are not proof. Do you understand why?

Is this better?

Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

A "VALID" source was reqested. A hearsay e-mail and truther forums are not proof. Do you understand why?

Yeah, the same reason the papers you post, and links to OSer sites are not proof either.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


Is this better?

Oh, yeah... a Loose Change Video... LMFAOOO

Originally posted by ANOK


Yeah, the same reason the papers you post, and links to OSer sites are not proof either.

ANOK,

Do you believe there was a power down on the 48th floor up at one of the towers? Make an attempt at thinking before you answer that.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

YET again you avoid the question psikeyhackr why WONT you look at a possible dynamic load calculation I mean you admit your model is not an exact representation of what happened but you went out your way to promote that.

Are you saying the dynamic load IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE RATE OF DECELERATION?

I have admitted many times that my model is not a tube-in-tube structure. That is obvious from the video and my description. Therefore it cannot be an exact representation. But then skyscraper are not built to be as weak as possible either. So you accuse me of claiming what I never claimed.

How am I promoting anything if I am telling everyone how to duplicate it for themselves. That means they don't have to trust me or believe anything I say. They can see it for themselves and test for themselves and think for themselves. Do you have a problem with that?

How can anyone build an exact representation of what happened if they don't have exact data on the buildings?

And what you are saying ASSUMES that airliners could cause all of that destruction and that is what you are promoting. Why don't you insist on having complete and accurate data if you are in favor of OBJECTIVITY?

In the case of the north tower it was 14 stories coming down on more than 90 stories. So there was not just one impact. There would be multiple impacts in sequence. I built a model. But it indicates a conclusion that you don't like.

So build a model that does what you expect. What is stopping you?

So why don't you compute how much energy it took to collapse one level of the WTC? You don't even have the data on the amount of steel on each level of the WTC. It takes 0.118 joules to flatten one of my paper loops. The Potential Energy created by the amount I raised the four washers was enough to flatten 8 loops. ( loops were damaged bringing that mass to a stop. Some were flattened and some were partially crushed. That is the trouble with reality. It does not correspond to the perfection of mathematics. But the damage to the loops progressively slowed the falling mass so the kinetic energy at the first impact can't tell the whole story.

psik

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Do you believe there was a power down on the 48th floor up at one of the towers? Make an attempt at thinking before you answer that.

I have no idea if there was or not, it's irrelevant to me. I was just making a general comment on how you guys always post links and expect us to accept it as fact, or proof of something. It works both ways is all.

Originally posted by ANOK

Yes. But heated core columns underwent thermal creep - iow, shortened - and transferred some of their loads onto those ext columns. plus, the ext columns were heated, making them weaker. Plus, the bowing wasover several stories - which, when we do some research about buckling lengths and how they get exponentially weaker as the buckling length increases, we put this all together and learn that:

How do you know the core columns were heated to anywhere near failure? That is just an assumption. I know for a fact that one hour of hydrocarbon fire would not cause the massive core box columns to fail. That is just nonsense, but of course you need to believe that don't you?

How would the columns shorten when heated? Heating causes expansion mate. Thermal creep? Citation needed. Please explain thermal creep.

It has been how many years since the NIST reports, how many times mentioned here, and you still have not heard about thermal creep? ANOK, where have you been man? Seems to me you have not even bothered to even glance at the NIST reports for either structures. Cause if you have, then you sure as hell wouldnt be asking about what role creep played in the WTC structures.
fire.nist.gov...

It is even mentioned for building 5.
www.wpi.edu...

reply to post by psikeyhackr


What do you see in the video with the rice bag which represents LOOSE material falling DO you think a floor slab could absorb the load of 32x14 floors or 448 floors.

If the dynamic load was of that magnitude to you honestly think the buildings would take that

ANSWER this honestly do you think a floor slab could hold 32 times it's mass if placed gently on it

LETS see if you actually have the GUTS to give that an honest answer I DOUBT IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

A "VALID" source was reqested. A hearsay e-mail and truther forums are not proof. Do you understand why?

Yeah, the same reason the papers you post, and links to OSer sites are not proof either.

I will also post this again as you have ignored it THREE times already (we all KNOW why)

www.stevespak.com...

Pictures 2 and 3

Why no comment ANOK after all you said no pancaked floors?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Where did that 71 * 10^9 nt/m come from?

Are they saying that was the stiffness on every level of the WTC?

How did they adjust for the upper portion being crushed due to Newton's 3rd Law?

There is no physics happening in that video that is not happening in my video.



He can talk about stiffness but he does not have supports strong enough to hold his mass that are damaged by the fall. My model has 3 different degrees of stiffness and one of my washers is heavier than that bag of rice. How much does the moving portion of that scale weigh? That will affect the result also because the falling mass must accelerate that stationary mass. If you taped weights to that scale it would move less due to the dropped rice because of the conservation of momentum.

What he is saying is correct but it is incomplete in relation to the problem we are dealing with.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Where did that 71 * 10^9 nt/m come from?

Are they saying that was the stiffness on every level of the WTC?

How did they adjust for the upper portion being crushed due to Newton's 3rd Law?

psik

How much does it need to be adjusted for? Have you calculated that the resistance of a floor is more than the energy of the falling mass? It won't perceivably slow it down unless the resistance is a large percentage of the falling mass's energy, assuming that the distance between the collapsed floor and the next floor is not enough to generate enough energy to make back any lost energy.

You keep using crushed, but I think you don't know what you're talking about when you say it.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Where did that 71 * 10^9 nt/m come from?

Are they saying that was the stiffness on every level of the WTC?

How did they adjust for the upper portion being crushed due to Newton's 3rd Law?

psik

How much does it need to be adjusted for? Have you calculated that the resistance of a floor is more than the energy of the falling mass?

What is the difference between a FLOOR and a LEVEL?

I have never seen a specification of the amount of energy required to break a truss connection. So doing calculations on the basis of grossly inadequate data is stupid. People just select numbers to justify what they have decided to believe and ignore factors that do not support their position.

Drop some rice on one scale. Whoopee! Get 5 scales and stack them. Drop the rice on the top scale and see how much it affects each scale.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
What is the difference between a FLOOR and a LEVEL?

I have never seen a specification of the amount of energy required to break a truss connection. So doing calculations on the basis of grossly inadequate data is stupid. People just select numbers to justify what they have decided to believe and ignore factors that do not support their position.

Drop some rice on one scale. Whoopee! Get 5 scales and stack them. Drop the rice on the top scale and see how much it affects each scale.

psik

So you're talking out of your ass then. Your assertion that the collapse should have arrested is based on your imagination alone, not data or science. Stop making stuff up, psikey.

Edit: And just so we're clear, your scale analogy is just plain dumb. There was SPACE in-between each floor in the towers. That means that after each bit of truss resistance is overcome, there is 12 feet of space for the debris to accelerate more and impact the next floor. Your analogy allows for ZERO acceleration after impact, thus it is stupid and wrong.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
What is the difference between a FLOOR and a LEVEL?

I have never seen a specification of the amount of energy required to break a truss connection. So doing calculations on the basis of grossly inadequate data is stupid. People just select numbers to justify what they have decided to believe and ignore factors that do not support their position.

Drop some rice on one scale. Whoopee! Get 5 scales and stack them. Drop the rice on the top scale and see how much it affects each scale.

psik

So you're talking out of your ass then. Your assertion that the collapse should have arrested is based on your imagination alone, not data or science. Stop making stuff up, psikey.

Edit: And just so we're clear, your scale analogy is just plain dumb. There was SPACE in-between each floor in the towers. That means that after each bit of truss resistance is overcome, there is 12 feet of space for the debris to accelerate more and impact the next floor. Your analogy allows for ZERO acceleration after impact, thus it is stupid and wrong.

I notice you said nothing about FLOOR versus LEVEL.

You said nothing about the energy required to break a truss connections.

The distance was 12 feet from the surface of one FLOOR to the surface of the next FLOOR.

The trusses were almost 2 feet tall so there was only 10 feet of empty space between the floors when they were UNOCCUPIED. Occupied floors would have had walls and cubicles and furniture. That would add weight but it would also absorb energy in any supposed collapse.

The CORE was not just empty space. The columns extended the entire height.

And even with empty space and no breakage required my Python model takes 12 seconds. Breaking connections at each FLOOR would absorb energy and slow things down. So how could the north tower come down in less than 26 seconds?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I notice you said nothing about FLOOR versus LEVEL.

You said nothing about the energy required to break a truss connections.

The distance was 12 feet from the surface of one FLOOR to the surface of the next FLOOR.

The trusses were almost 2 feet tall so there was only 10 feet of empty space between the floors when they were UNOCCUPIED. Occupied floors would have had walls and cubicles and furniture. That would add weight but it would also absorb energy in any supposed collapse.

The CORE was not just empty space. The columns extended the entire height.

And even with empty space and no breakage required my Python model takes 12 seconds. Breaking connections at each FLOOR would absorb energy and slow things down. So how could the north tower come down in less than 26 seconds?

psik

Floor vs level is irrelevant. I'll agree about the 10 feet, but again, that's 10 feet of acceleration. Cubicles really do not add hardly any resistance, and even if they added a ton, it's still five feet or so of constant acceleration. That's added kinetic energy no matter what you try to say. Since the floor connection clearly broke instantly, as seen from the videos, I'm inclined to say that there was still extra energy from the initial fall, meaning that after the first floor broke, the falling mass had MORE energy than it had to break the first floor. What could possibly slow it down?

Originally posted by Varemia
Floor vs level is irrelevant. I'll agree about the 10 feet, but again, that's 10 feet of acceleration. Cubicles really do not add hardly any resistance, and even if they added a ton, it's still five feet or so of constant acceleration. That's added kinetic energy no matter what you try to say. Since the floor connection clearly broke instantly, as seen from the videos, I'm inclined to say that there was still extra energy from the initial fall, meaning that after the first floor broke, the falling mass had MORE energy than it had to break the first floor. What could possibly slow it down?

Yeah, holding up skyscrapers is irrelevant.

dismiss information that does not support your position.

Where is a video that shows these connections breaking? How can they be seen from outside of the building?

psik