What is a 9/11 "truther"? Our Truth, and Theirs

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

NIST rejects the pancake theory as initiation. After initiation it is always floors hitting floor. To think anything else is even possible, you require a mindset that has little to do with reality.

For me it is just so surreal that after all these years, and after it being explained so many times, it just does not get through, and the same nonsense is repeated over and over by the same people. Oh well, I don't care that much, it just keeps amazing me.

The NIST says nothing beyond that. It's inevitable according to them. VERY SCIENTIFIC!

Like not even specifying the total for the concrete. Just claim things and everyone is supposed to BELIEVE.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


YET again YOU keep ignoring thet fact that with the falling mass of the towers a very large proportion must hit the 42,000 sq feet of floor slab which floor 10 has the same connections holding it in place as floor 23 , as floor 63 as floor 93 those connections DON'T get stronger the further down you go.

Also when you look at the videos you can see mass is falling internally fast than the walls which peel away as the support structure is removed during the collapse.

Now if we use YOUR logic this could never happen

In March 1973, a dramatic multistory building collapse involving premature removal of shoring occurred at Bailey's Crossroads in Fairfax County, Va. The construction pace for the 26-story project was quite rapid; one floor slab completed per week. At the time of the collapse, concrete was being placed on the 24th floor, and shoring was simultaneously being removed from concrete at the 22nd floor. The sudden, progressive collapse carried the weight of the failed concrete of the 22nd, 23rd and 24th floors all the way to the ground level. The failure killed 14 construction workers and injured 35.

Please explain!

Originally posted by -PLB-
NIST rejects the pancake theory as initiation. After initiation it is always floors hitting floor. To think anything else is even possible, you require a mindset that has little to do with reality.

I got a strange sense of déjà vu reading that. Where are you getting that from?

It's wrong. Pancake collapse is not a collapse initiation, it is the result of something else initiating the collapse.

Floors dropping on floors, as you describe, is a pancake collapse.

Collapses are not always floors dropping on floors. In fact neither tower was floors dropping on floors as is obvious if you watch them. Both towers had two separate collapses the tops and then the bottoms. That is why WTC 2 tilted, the bottom was resisting the collapse, until itself started to collapse.

NIST rejected the pancake collapse hypothesis because they new it would not stand up to scrutiny, so they decided not to explain it at all. They only offered a hypothesis for collapse initiation based on a physical impossibility.

reply to post by wmd_2008


So how do you explain the collapse of the core, the part that does get heavier towards the bottom?

It was the strongest part of the structure, which also collapsed vertically.

How do trusses sagging from heat pull in those massive columns? Can you understand why sagging trusses would not pull on anything? And IF they did, why the weak part would be the trusses themselves and the connections, not the massive core columns?

It's a huge contradiction that just simply fails.

I shouldn't have to explain the point of this vid to anyone?...

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

YET again YOU keep ignoring thet fact that with the falling mass of the towers a very large proportion must hit the 42,000 sq feet of floor slab which floor 10 has the same connections holding it in place as floor 23 , as floor 63 as floor 93 those connections DON'T get stronger the further down you go.

ROFLMAO

Multiply 206 times 206.

The only way you can come up with 42,000 square feet is by ignoring the core. And that is the point of your entire argument. Pretend the core does not exist and then pretend to do physics. But the NIST admits it supported 53% of the building's weight. But even breaking loose the connections from the core would require energy and therefore slow any collapse so the building could not have come down in less than 26 seconds due to a top down collapse.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The NIST says nothing beyond that. It's inevitable according to them. VERY SCIENTIFIC!

So you simultaneously believe that NIST says nothing about what happens after initiation and believe that NIST says that floors didn't hit floors after collapse initiation like you are suggesting here? Or was that post of your on the previous page just flat out nonsense?

Like not even specifying the total for the concrete. Just claim things and everyone is supposed to BELIEVE.

psik

So we are back at the original point. The floors did not get stronger or heavier further down, and floors hitting floors was the primary mode of collapse. We have now established that NIST does not disagree with that which is a very big leap forward.

reply to post by ANOK


You are free to believe for whatever reason that NIST does not think floors hit floor after collapse initiation. It has very little to do with reality, and for the record, I do believe that is what happened, irregardless of what you believe that NIST thinks.

Question, what do you believe that NIST thinks happened after collapse initiation?

Originally posted by -PLB-
So you simultaneously believe that NIST says nothing about what happens after initiation and believe that NIST says that floors didn't hit floors after collapse initiation like you are suggesting here? Or was that post of your on the previous page just flat out nonsense?

What is stopping you from providing a quote and the link to where the NIST explains what happens after collapse initiation.

It is so curious that the NIST provides a computer model for WTC 7 but not for 1 and 2.

You are implying that floors had to pancake after initiation but you do not actually have any support for that. But you pancakers never specify the total number of truss connections and how much energy was required to break all of those connections. So how could all of those connections break fast enough to come down in less than 26 seconds.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

What is stopping you from providing a quote and the link to where the NIST explains what happens after collapse initiation.

I nowhere claim that NIST has explained what happens after initiation, and as far as I know they didn't. that is what is stopping me from posting quotes and links.

It is so curious that the NIST provides a computer model for WTC 7 but not for 1 and 2.

No its not. The collapse mechanism of the towers was wel understood, that of WTC7 not.

You are implying that floors had to pancake after initiation but you do not actually have any support for that.

I am not just implying that, I say its the only reasonable position. Anything else requires an imagination that has little to do with physics or the real world.

Explain: how could floors not hit eachother after initiation.

But you pancakers never specify the total number of truss connections and how much energy was required to break all of those connections. So how could all of those connections break fast enough to come down in less than 26 seconds.

If you don't know the numbers (which are readily available if you look for them) it would be very unscientific to dismiss this theory. For no reason whatsoever you dismiss by far the most obvious collapse mode.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by -PLB-
NIST rejects the pancake theory as initiation. After initiation it is always floors hitting floor. To think anything else is even possible, you require a mindset that has little to do with reality.

Collapses are not always floors dropping on floors. In fact neither tower was floors dropping on floors as is obvious if you watch them. Both towers had two separate collapses the tops and then the bottoms. That is why WTC 2 tilted, the bottom was resisting the collapse, until itself started to collapse.

NO WTC 2 tilted due to the impact position ffs that's OBVIOUS





North tower mid elevation impact falls straight , South tower off center impact, falls in that direction and with more than twice the mass above the impact point it collapses quicker

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

So how do you explain the collapse of the core, the part that does get heavier towards the bottom?

It was the strongest part of the structure, which also collapsed vertically.

How do trusses sagging from heat pull in those massive columns? Can you understand why sagging trusses would not pull on anything? And IF they did, why the weak part would be the trusses themselves and the connections, not the massive core columns?

It's a huge contradiction that just simply fails.

I shouldn't have to explain the point of this vid to anyone?...

Again YOU ignore tens of thousand of tons of mass falling YOUR video as explained to you many times by many people is not in any way similar to the WTC tower construction or collapses, you seem to think progressive collapse cant happen although many have!!!

Here is the WALL bowing !!!!



Another point re your video floor design different and internal columns under the floor slab UNLIKE the towers!!!

Originally posted by -PLB-
If you don't know the numbers (which are readily available if you look for them) it would be very unscientific to dismiss this theory. For no reason whatsoever you dismiss by far the most obvious collapse mode.

If it is so obvious then shouldn't it be easy to build a physical model to duplicate the phenomenon.

But no, experimentation is so UNSCIENTIFIC.

www.youtube.com...

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by -PLB-
If you don't know the numbers (which are readily available if you look for them) it would be very unscientific to dismiss this theory. For no reason whatsoever you dismiss by far the most obvious collapse mode.

If it is so obvious then shouldn't it be easy to build a physical model to duplicate the phenomenon.

But no, experimentation is so UNSCIENTIFIC.

www.youtube.com...

psik

Wouldn't be that hard. But people just don't care enough that you don't understand it in order to put so much effort in it.

You are nicely avoiding my question by the way how floors could not be hitting floors after initiation. So what happened according to you? Did the floors magically disappear before they
hit each other? Was there a magical force field preventing them to hit each other? Were they blown outside the building by some magic force? What do you believe in exactly?

reply to post by psikeyhackr


So me stating the fact that nobody cares to build a model for you may have been a bit blunt. I am however very much willing to give you instructions, and without a doubt, many other people will too. So here is a challenge for you. Open a new thread were you ask debunkers how to build a model that callopses similar to the towers and after enough input and consenus of how to do it, you build the model. Is that a fair proposal?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Again YOU ignore tens of thousand of tons of mass falling YOUR video as explained to you many times by many people is not in any way similar to the WTC tower construction or collapses, you seem to think progressive collapse cant happen although many have!!!

No I don't, you fail to understand the point I'm making. No weight was falling to cause the floors to sag. The floors had to sag first, something I am trying to point out is impossible.

That video is to demonstrate sagging trusses. The FACT that it is a different structure, concrete with load bearing columns, makes it even better. Because concrete has a lower weight to strength ratio, it would not do as well as steel would. On top of that in the video the load bearing columns were removed, extra weight was added to the floors, and the floors were not sagging from heat thus maintained their rigidity. Yet the floors forced to sag from the loss of load bearing columns and the weight still did not pull in the columns they were attached to. If it wouldn't happen in that situation it is much less likely to happen to a steel truss that has no extra weight added, it sagging so is not longer a rigid beam, and there were no load bearing columns removed.

If you can't see how that works then you know nothing about physics and construction.

Here is the WALL bowing !!!!

So what?

Another point re your video floor design different and internal columns under the floor slab UNLIKE the towers!!!

Again those columns were removed, weakening the floors, no columns were removed when the floors supposedly sagged in the towers.

So unless you can prove once and for all that trusses sagging from heat can put a pulling force on the columns, and not break the connections or the trusses themselves first, I will keep pointing out how it is nonsense.