yup ... indeed ..

reply to post by Another_Nut

100lbs will not crush my 215 lbs @ss to dust
period

Are we back to that again?

What about 100 pounds traveling at 60 mph? That's over 12,000 foot pounds of energy.
Lest we forget. 15 stories crushed one floor at a time.

reply to post by ANOK


1. If you understood basic architectural engineering you would not ask these questions.
2. NIST is an organization that is called in to investigate to make sure it does not happen again.

Again, nothing was pummeled to dust except drywall. Steel does not turn into dust but that is what you are implying. Implied and fact are two different things in the real world.

reply to post by esdad71


But aren't there over a thousand Architects and Engineers
that do know how they are built, that agree something was very wrong
with how WTC 7 fell?

Originally posted by ANOK
OK, so if the floors easily became detached from the columns, then how the hell did they stay attached when they pulled in the columns?

Easily? Dropping 15 floors + Columns + hat truss + mast on it is easy? Ok, agreed, I predict just 2 or 3 floors would do the trick too.

What can withstand the most force, weak connections, or vertical box columns. Think about that PLB, you are the one who just informed us of how weak those connections were.

Even though you are confused who you talk to, and completely ignored my previous post, I will give you an analogy.

How can you ever pull a car with a rope when you can cut it with a knife? A car is much stronger and much more massive than a knife. And a rope is much weaker than a car. Same kind of illogical nonsenes

Hmmm?

Crush is just a generic term, I think most people understand what is meant by that. Using big words like "shear" does not improve your argument.

For some reason you don't like it when people use exact terms. You rather throw all definitions on one pile, and call it newtons 3rd law. Different effects in physics have different names, and for a reason.

So now you no longer have that PDF to throw up as "proof" of catenary action, what is your new excuse for the sagging trusses having enough force to pull in columns? Without breaking those weak connections you just told us all about?

You just completely ignored my post where I smack your head with 5 other publications. And then you have the nerve to post that I no longer have my PDF. No, I have dozens of PDF all telling the same. Ignoring it does not make it go away.

Hmmm?

And where is the pile of floors from this pancake collapse? An argument even NIST dismisses. You are just making this up PLB, seriously.

The pile of floors would be on the ground. Or do you think they disappeared in thin air? Even when explosives were used there would be a pile of floors on the ground. Have you changed your belief to space beam weapons?

Did you guys just not read that part? They did not explain how the collapses were complete, so don't pretend you know.

Already reacted to, and yes, ignored by you. ANOKs next best tactic beside denial: Ignoring

Nope, the only thing they did is offer an hypothesis for collapse initiation. Something that cannot be demonstrated because it just couldn't happen, all tests and literature concerning centenary action show this, including ironically the PDf you PLB posted as proof of NIST's claim.

Maybe PDF's concerning centenary action contradicts NIST hypothesis. But all the PDF's about catenary action support it. ANOK, what happens when the lines cross the x-axis in figure 5b in that PDF? Yup, question will be ignored.

So how is that electrical engineering job going there PLB?

Making rather good money while working on cool projects and traveling around the world. Thanks for asking.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by DeeKlassified

 

Its not just a guess. There is photo and video evidence of inward bowing, so we know it happened.

Where is the photo and video evidence of the explosives? Why do you need explosives anyhow if we can observe that the inward bowing resulted in structural failure?

Deary dear, another amateur 'debunker' who tries to 'debunk' something without actually reading up on it first!

NIST say in their report, and on video during questioning that their report is a 'hypothesis' and if you understood what that meant you would realise that one of the definitions of hypothesis is: "a mere assumption or guess"[/]

Need I say any more?

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

Originally posted by -PLB-
Wreply to post by ANOK

 

The NIST report is just a hypothesis, you take their 'guess' at what happened all too seriously.

Why do debunkers like yourself rely so heavily on a report that is massively flawed due to lack of evidence collected, and very bad calculations? Maybe you do not understand the report so well?

Maybe this will make it clear enough to see.

What exactly are you trying to say with that gif picture?

That the top section broke away from the 100 floors below?

We know this, that is why the 100 floors below this piece that 'broke off' could not have been crushed by this top section.

This just highlights even more how absurd your theory is.

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by DeeKlassified

 

Its not just a guess. There is photo and video evidence of inward bowing, so we know it happened.

Where is the photo and video evidence of the explosives? Why do you need explosives anyhow if we can observe that the inward bowing resulted in structural failure?

Deary dear, another amateur 'debunker' who tries to 'debunk' something without actually reading up on it first!

NIST say in their report, and on video during questioning that their report is a 'hypothesis' and if you understood what that meant you would realise that one of the definitions of hypothesis is: "a mere assumption or guess"

Need I say any more?

Better not say more, because when you look at the other definitions of a hypothesis, then you would show yourself wrong. Like:

a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

dictionary.reference.com...

Yours is on #4, but you probably already knew that but choose it just because you didn't like #1

reply to post by -PLB-


But a hypothesis is not FACT.

For it to become FACT, it has to be testable and repeatable.

So unless someone can demonstrate that sagging trusses can pull in columns, without breaking the connections, then it will remain an hypothesis.

In science an hypothesis is a work in progress, not the final result.

In science you have to do more than just offer lip service. So it is up to you to move the NIST report from a hypothesis to a theory, you have had 10 years to do that. You can't even come close to testing the hypothesis, let alone prove it's repeatable.

It's not even a scientific hypothesis really....

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

en.wikipedia.org...

Can you test it PLB? Genradik? WMD2008, esdad, and whoever else claims the NIST report is fact?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK

 

1. If you understood basic architectural engineering you would not ask these questions.

I don't ask these questions because I don't know the answer.

I ask to understand what your level of understanding is, and not answering those questions tells me a lot about you.

2. NIST is an organization that is called in to investigate to make sure it does not happen again.

Rubbish it was nothing of the sort. Nothing has changed in basic building design because of 911, other than improving some safety issues, tall building will still be of tube design.

Again, nothing was pummeled to dust except drywall. Steel does not turn into dust but that is what you are implying. Implied and fact are two different things in the real world.

When did I say steel turned to dust? Not really interested in things turning to dust. The steel core columns were broken apart, and bent like pretzels, showing no signs of cracking, meaning they were extremely hot when they bent. The outer mesh was broken apart in large pieces.

But having said that where did the steel floors pans go?

reply to post by ANOK


Rubbish you say....my goodness this shows your level of ignorance on this topic.

Link

Future buildings—especially tall structures—should be increasingly resistant to fire, more easily evacuated in emergencies, and safer overall thanks to 23 major and far-reaching building and fire code changes approved recently by the International Code Council (ICC) based on recommendations from the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology

Even the 911 For Truth has this on their page.

The first reply was for you, the other was a general statement to his thread.

FOR ALL THE OTHER WANNA BE DEBUNKERS

1. As far as NIST, it is not a hypothesis as they have implemented their findings. It is backed up with real world examples and implementation.

2. 9 out of 10 dentists also agree with a certain toothpaste helps fight plaque but it is an opinion, like the guys in 911 AE Truth and the rest. They have opinions on what happened but there are all hypothesis because all of the arguments point towards an outside force..like explosives. How many of your architects for truth have Nobel prizes in Physics...NIST does...plenty...in fact one just last year and 4 in the last 15. Pretty impressive staff. Look up Dave Wineland for one.

3. So, where are the explosives? the triggers...anything.

4. The 'gif' shows the initiating event. It is not what caused the collapse, it is the result of the fires and redistribution of weight.. What 'caused' the collapse were the planes slamming into it. The effect was the collapse.

If you want a real 9/11 Conspiracy look into 93 and Rockaway's 587.

Originally posted by ANOK
But a hypothesis is not FACT.

For it to become FACT, it has to be testable and repeatable.

So unless someone can demonstrate that sagging trusses can pull in columns, without breaking the connections, then it will remain an hypothesis.

You will never see me claim that NIST's hypothesis is fact. I am open for other explanations. I just refute the notion that it is not based on evidence, which is complete nonsense. NIST comes with reports full of evidence for their hypothesis. Photos, videos, experiments, models.

In science an hypothesis is a work in progress, not the final result.

A scientific hypothesis is another beast altogether. It is to explain (repeatable) phenomena, not to explain a single event.

In science you have to do more than just offer lip service. So it is up to you to move the NIST report from a hypothesis to a theory, you have had 10 years to do that. You can't even come close to testing the hypothesis, let alone prove it's repeatable.

It's not even a scientific hypothesis really....

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

en.wikipedia.org...

Can you test it PLB? Genradik? WMD2008, esdad, and whoever else claims the NIST report is fact?

edit on 5/14/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

The collapse of the WTC can never be a scientific theory. Thats just nonsense. The exact conditions of the collapses can never ever be replicated. It isn't a general physical event that can be repeated over and over, it is a particular event.

By the way, this is just the regular semantic bull#. As if naming it differently makes the contents of the reports different. Call it a hypothesis, call it a theory, call it an explanation. Whatever. It is a deceptive tactic to divert from the facts.

And of course you ignored another of my posts.

reply to post by esdad71


Where in there does it say tube design is not used anymore? We have been over this before.

23 changes in safety issues does mean not using tube design.

What are they using? The old style of columns doesn't work for the new super tall structures being made. Too much weight, and would cost too much to build.

NIST implementing new safety rules does NOT mean their hypothesis for collapse initiation is no longer an hypothesis. Are you kidding mate? Safety changes does not mean their hypothesis was tested and could be re-tested in a lab.

So what now esdad? Do you have anything new, or will you just keep re-circulating old debunked claims again?

I dont buy the fire theory and I dont buy the thermite theory by Jones.

I do however buy the DEW theory for the 2 towers. No controlled demolition company could bring 110 stories down using placed charges....one expert even said the towers are so huge they would have to be dismantled

reply to post by superluminal11


It really doesn't matter how it was done imo, we can only speculate.

The main thing is, physics proves it wasn't trusses sagging from heat.

Our point has been made, it's up to the OS crowd to prove their claims, which they haven't even come close to doing in 12 years. I don't know why they still bother, I don't think they realise how much they are keeping this debate alive. They put in more effort than the "truthers" around here anymore, bless 'em.

reply to post by ANOK


Address the fact you were wrong. It is not the same old and there is nothing to prove. There is no OS. That is a fallacy you like to hide behind. Telling other to 'go do something' when it is up to you to show everyone else your theory.

There is no room for speculation when you say 'something ' happened. You have also made no points. "We" bother because there are those who still 'star' your comments. Why?

To you it does not matter how it was done but you delcare others should show you how.
I showed your contradiction in your comments and you are speaking of tune design? Why, You said nothing has changed in the basic design of buildings. I showed you why and how NIST provided this. You are talking our of you ass here.

What are they using? Read the link. It is very, very simple.

Now, you say...'physics proves it was not trusses sagging from heat'. How? Real simple. Tell us all how????

Originally posted by esdad71
Address the fact you were wrong. It is not the same old and there is nothing to prove. There is no OS. That is a fallacy you like to hide behind. Telling other to 'go do something' when it is up to you to show everyone else your theory.

Wrong about what?

Stop playing games, you know the OS is the NIST report.

There is no room for speculation when you say 'something ' happened. You have also made no points. "We" bother because there are those who still 'star' your comments. Why?

You do this because people star my posts? Seriously? Why would you do that?

To you it does not matter how it was done but you delcare others should show you how.

Hmmm, no I just want someone to demonstrate what NIST said happened, nothing more, nothing less. Why is that such a problem if it has all been proven and settled already. I really fail to see your motivation for being here.

I showed your contradiction in your comments and you are speaking of tune design?

Why, You said nothing has changed in the basic design of buildings. I showed you why and how NIST provided this. You are talking our of you ass here.

No you didn't. You, or someone said tube design is no longer used, evidence of that was asked for by more than just me and none was forthcoming other than your claim that 23 changes meant tube design was no longer used, and it somehow proved NIST was right, both claims are completely bogus, and you were showed that they were.

What are they using? Read the link. It is very, very simple.

Now, you say...'physics proves it was not trusses sagging from heat'. How? Real simple. Tell us all how????

I read the link, and then I asked you to point out where it says tube design is no longer used, and you replied with this. How hard is it to just quote what you claim because I can't find it, because it ain't there is it?

It's you who needs to be honest mate.

Physics proves SAGGING trusses cannot put a pulling force on the columns large enough to cause them to be pulled in, without breaking the connections first, because there is not enough force in the trusses to do that.

Not only would that not happen with a rigid floor assembly, you seem to keep missing the fact that the floor was supposed to be SAGGING from heat, yet you always fail to take that fact into consideration, and so did NIST.

Sagging means the steel would have to have been hot enough to expand. A steel assembly braced between columns cannot expand, so it SAGS. If the expansion doesn't push the columns out, it didn't obviously because it sagged, it will also not pull them in either. If you don't understand that then sorry, I just think you'd be lying. I think a five year old could understand that.

The sagging is not putting more force on the columns, it will only put a force on the connection if the ends of the trusses are force at angle due to the sagging. The PFD that PLB offered as proof of centenary action shows that quite clearly, and so does the other PDF that I linked to pages ago, that no one read, let alone understood.

And IF they did the connections would have failed first. That is not debatable, massive carbon steel columns will not fail before 1" and 5/8" stainless steel bolts.

Also answer me this, why is the hypothesis of the trusses pulling in columns necessary, when they could have just claimed the connections to the floors failed and collapsed, which is what you are all saying, when it suits your argument? Why is it I have never heard you argue that was what caused the core to collapse when I have asked many times? All I hear is the core needed the floors for stability, because columns always collapse down on themselves when they have no floors to hold them up.

Originally posted by ANOK
Physics proves SAGGING trusses cannot put a pulling force on the columns [blarge enough to cause them to be pulled in, without breaking the connections first, because there is not enough force in the trusses to do

Do I read this correctly? Are you finally acknowledging there is a pull in force? Although you will now of course deny you ever denied it. Congratulations on finally understanding this, rather simple, concept.

You next step would be to understand what unsupported length means to column buckling. Then add the two phenomena, and you may get a clue. But you are not there yet.

Originally posted by SpearMint
It would appear to make no sense (although it apparently does to architecture experts), but then demolishing the building doesn't either. There's no way they could have put the insane amount of charges needed to bring down the tower in place without being noticed. You need to consider this before dismissing the official story.

edit on 9-4-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

You in turn need to re-consider your false evaluation of the WTC7 scenario before jumping to conclusions. Your arguments are long out of date.

First of all, you assume that demolition charges were planted during the day. This need not have been the case. They could have been secretly installed months before the big day. The building was one of the most closely guarded buildings in the USA. Some of the people involved in carrying out 9/11 belonged to the intelligence community. They were "insiders" who could work the security at WTC7 to their own agenda.
Secondly, you assume that WTC7 was meant to be blown up by controlled demolition that day. Many 9/11 researchers have suggested that Flight 93 was intended to be flown into WTC7 in order to provide the reason for its collapse. But its late departure created a hitch in the plans, and the conspirators decided to "pull it" but had to wait until the late afternoon, allowing the fires to burn as long as possible before demolishing the building. They had not intended to do this because it would have looked too obvious, given that WTC7 had not suffered enough damage from the collapse of the North Tower to explain its own collapse.
The unplanned controlled demolition of WTC7 was one of the faux pas of 9/11 committed by the conspirators. If this building could be demolished so quickly, then so could WTC1 and WTC2. And they were. The demolition charged were likely brought into these buildings in the weekend before 9/11 during the power down for computer cable upgrades reported by Scott Forbes (see here). As Paul Laffoley, who worked on the design of the South Tower, has reported (see here and here), the buildings were designed to be demolished quickly and did not need weeks of wiring that would have attracted suspicion. The necessary wiring had long been installed in all three towers. The detonations were done remotely with computer-controlled radio signals.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by ANOK
Physics proves SAGGING trusses cannot put a pulling force on the columns [blarge enough to cause them to be pulled in, without breaking the connections first, because there is not enough force in the trusses to do

Do I read this correctly? Are you finally acknowledging there is a pull in force? Although you will now of course deny you ever denied it. Congratulations on finally understanding this, rather simple, concept.

You next step would be to understand what unsupported length means to column buckling. Then add the two phenomena, and you may get a clue. But you are not there yet.

Whether such forces operated or not is an irrelevant issue because the two towers did not collapse under gravity into piles of debris. Instead, floors were blown to smithereens in rapid succession to simulate the illusion that they were falling on top of each other. However, there was NO pancaking of floors - virtually everything had been turned to fine dust (where are the buckled columns?). Try watching videos of the so-called "collapse" of the towers in slow motion and then perhaps you will spot the premature demolition squibs from windows dozens of floors below the level of destruction. Perhaps you will notice the flashes of light from demolition charges as debris is blown out of the shattered windows.
Pursuing red herrings in order to maintain a state of denial about 9/11 is no longer an effective strategy. It's stale and long-ago discredited.