Video Nullfies Pancake/CD Theory

Originally posted by Another_Nut
You could say that. And I wont fault you . I carried the os line for many years.

There's nothing to fault, my point is that what you posted doesn't support your theory or reject other theories, it's just you reinforcing your own beliefs and those of people who agree with you.

Until I really looked into it. It seemed that both os and conventional demos just dont explain what I saw and see.

The nist just seems like a patchwork of bs especially when you have them come out and say they were lied to. not even they believe it was pancaking.

You're wrong here, the 911 Commission were the ones who were lied to directly and said so. NIST does not believe in pancake initiation. There's no doubt as PLB illustrated that pancaking occurred in the collapse, there are first hand accounts of it.

And the conventional cd just doesnt make sense when u consider that the buildings were turned to dust With no apparent explosions and a man rides a dust cloud 200 feet to safety.

Well sure, we can both agree on that.

and the spires are the cincher for me . The both survived between 15-30 seconds after pulverization of the floors and outer walls.

This indicates they were structurally sound. Had they not been collapse would have been with the rest of the building. There would be no delay and swaying

Agreed, the spires (and in fact the corner sections of some towers) survived very well. Still, the mechanism of collapse put forward by the 'official story' is the only one which explains this in any respect.

The disintegration of the spire is also evident. Most debunkers claim it was just dust being shaken loose as it fell. I dont agree. The spire is obviously swaying the wind . Swaying shakes loose all the dust they want to believe was still attached when the spire 10 seconds later after it stops moving and disintigrates.

There's no way to 'disintegrate' steel. If there was I could literally get you millions if not billions of funding within a week. There's a reason that these theories remain on youtube and not in Science.

The fact that all damage to the towers almost completely stops at ground level.

Well this is just silly, there was plenty of basement damage, including the trains.

eta I have never seen September clues even closely debunked. And his cymbals for planes crashes in the bids are "spot on" and "freaky" according to my very musically inclined friend. The fade to black was also a big flag.
and lastly the nose out footage happened . Me and my friend both watched it live together. And he lost his dad that day.

September Clues is beyond delusional. Go read cluesforum if you want to see where this idiocy ends. (PS: It ends in denying the existence of people I know, and pretending that the ISS and satellites don't exist too and most news events are realtime CGI)

I appreciate that you have some doubts, but really the nose-out idea is the stupidest thing I have heard on 911. Answer me this simple question. If they were going to mask the aircraft, why would they do so at the far edge of the building? Any competent visual effects editor would mask it at the middle to prevent exactly this sort of anomaly.

Anyway this is getting fairly off topic, but I felt you deserved a detailed reply

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Another_Nut
You could say that. And I wont fault you . I carried the os line for many years.

There's nothing to fault, my point is that what you posted doesn't support your theory or reject other theories, it's just you reinforcing your own beliefs and those of people who agree with you.

Until I really looked into it. It seemed that both os and conventional demos just dont explain what I saw and see.

The nist just seems like a patchwork of bs especially when you have them come out and say they were lied to. not even they believe it was pancaking.

You're wrong here, the 911 Commission were the ones who were lied to directly and said so. NIST does not believe in pancake initiation. There's no doubt as PLB illustrated that pancaking occurred in the collapse, there are first hand accounts of it.

And the conventional cd just doesnt make sense when u consider that the buildings were turned to dust With no apparent explosions and a man rides a dust cloud 200 feet to safety.

Well sure, we can both agree on that.

and the spires are the cincher for me . The both survived between 15-30 seconds after pulverization of the floors and outer walls.

This indicates they were structurally sound. Had they not been collapse would have been with the rest of the building. There would be no delay and swaying

Agreed, the spires (and in fact the corner sections of some towers) survived very well. Still, the mechanism of collapse put forward by the 'official story' is the only one which explains this in any respect.

The disintegration of the spire is also evident. Most debunkers claim it was just dust being shaken loose as it fell. I dont agree. The spire is obviously swaying the wind . Swaying shakes loose all the dust they want to believe was still attached when the spire 10 seconds later after it stops moving and disintigrates.

There's no way to 'disintegrate' steel. If there was I could literally get you millions if not billions of funding within a week. There's a reason that these theories remain on youtube and not in Science.

The fact that all damage to the towers almost completely stops at ground level.

Well this is just silly, there was plenty of basement damage, including the trains.

eta I have never seen September clues even closely debunked. And his cymbals for planes crashes in the bids are "spot on" and "freaky" according to my very musically inclined friend. The fade to black was also a big flag.
and lastly the nose out footage happened . Me and my friend both watched it live together. And he lost his dad that day.

September Clues is beyond delusional. Go read cluesforum if you want to see where this idiocy ends. (PS: It ends in denying the existence of people I know, and pretending that the ISS and satellites don't exist too and most news events are realtime CGI)

I appreciate that you have some doubts, but really the nose-out idea is the stupidest thing I have heard on 911. Answer me this simple question. If they were going to mask the aircraft, why would they do so at the far edge of the building? Any competent visual effects editor would mask it at the middle to prevent exactly this sort of anomaly.

Anyway this is getting fairly off topic, but I felt you deserved a detailed reply

No way are we off topic this is about no pancake or cd .

I think there was no pancake but that there was an unconventional cd..

Pancaking did not occur. Otherwise that man we both agree existed would have been flattened instead of floating.

Damage to trains but not the bathtub. Convenient . and you believe this?

Just because you know if no tech doesn't mean it doesn't exist.this is one of those silly argue.ents used to discredit .

the year is 2900 bce and a man appears with a colt .45 in the Egyptian capitol . Shoots a man,fataly wounding him, departs.

Now

Does that man stay alive because no one believes the tech used to shoot him is possible?

Or

Does he die of his gunshot even though noone can prove that gum tech exists?

See how its just a matter of looking up the scale or down it?

And im sure the tech already has billions in funding. But do you think the government would tell us?

And laslty the nose out footage is fact . You can say it's not but it is . I watched it with my friend. We both couldn't believe what we had just seen . Period.

For the sake of this discussion, I will not claim anymore that diagonals and stabilizing triangles and horizontal bracings have been used in the WTC construction.

you see complete section of perimeter columns just fall over. They don't even buckle, just fall over like a tree. The video of the spire in the OP also supports this idea.

Okay, I'm getting your point. I like your analogy, because trees fall over when they're chopped or rotten to the core. You seem to have completely different ideas of what a building should be built like than I have. Maybe I should start making money with my vision of buildings that don't act like mechanical implosives...?

I don't see how in your design you prevent your "light-weight floors, barely consisting of much more than steel rod lattice" from collapsing all the way down once one of the floors get overloaded and fails.

Just like my Jenga towers and card houses prevent progressive collapse :-)

Remember the ice palace thought experiment you put me through in my "layman's open letter to bazant" thread? Yeah, I can imagine something heavy and solid punching through all the floors, reaching terminal speed, straight down into the basement like a bullet.

It seems to me that at most your core would still be standing after collapse, and at worst it would topple over and cause even more damage to the surroundings.

Imagine me saying this in a quiet and hypnotic voice: a standard FoS > 3 means you would have to think of some really mad stuff to bring my tower down. This does not include the bee sting an Antonov An-225 at full speed would amount to; and if you turn off the sprinklers, scratch all of the fireproofing off with a scraper and set the office furniture on fire, be sure to bring some giant marshmallows because grills are made of steel, too.

You'll have to make it lean and fall to the side like in a bad CD. Or you will have to sneak in tons of cutter charges like in a good CD. Or you'll have to sneak the equivalent mass of another 2 towers to the roof top, run downstairs and give the center column some King Kong mighty round-house kick.

I know of one other trick, I use it to break tree trunks or furniture sometimes. Shake it up in its own frequency. All you have to do basically is to give it a small push. It will move only a little at first and bounce back, so when it is all the way back (at the peak of the amplidude), push again. Repeat. Slowly, the amplitude rises, the whole thing looks like a very slow guitar string now. In the end, all it needs is one last push and the thing comes crumbling down.

I think this is the method Another_Nut refers to with "black tech"... only he is thinking about raising the electromagnetic frequency a few octaves and use the overtones to shake up the metallic bonds... am I right?

However, in each of these cases, I don't care what the failure mode is, because to prevent these events, we'd be safer - and cheaper - putting up a few tents instead.

You say the towers were as good as a tower could get, you better get everyone out of the vicinity of any skyscraper and CD them right now. You say the towers were just a little flawed, please explain why this flaw has not been examined and explained in-depth so this mistake can never be made again. You say there was no reason and no opportunity to bring the towers down intentionally, read up a few threads on ATS.

You say all skyscrapers in all big cities have a fail-safe mode or self-destruct button so they don't domino the whole neighbourhood to crumbles in case of an accident, I say that conspiracy theory is even weirder than hollow earth and reptile aliens from planet X combined.

And on another note...

They can't bury the IRS scandal.
They can't smother Bengazi.
They can't secretly review the AP phone records.

"They" can hide the fact that compound interest is a ponzi scheme designed to accumulate wealth and starve the poor. "They" can talk their way out of the fact that education is a system of imposed ignorance (Chomsky, Feynman) and brainwashing on an industrial scale. "They" led us to believe the terror against civilians we call "war" is just human nature. "They" have outlawed seeding and consuming certain plants and gave us their synthetic poison cocktails instead. "They" make us outcompete each other at school and at work at the cost of pushing the weakest down the cliff in a huge social darwinistic experiment. "They" have divided us into armies of young against old, rich against poor, believers against skeptics, battling against each other instead of uniting against tyranny, sharing knowledge and trading goods for a common, greater good.

"They" gave Zdenek Pavel Bazant a voice and gagged Sibel Edmonds.

It's hard to overestimate "them", I think.

reply to post by exponent

I'm talking about things hitting other things in an unbalanced, uneven way. others are talking about the larger masses' resistance to being crushed as if there is a crane lowering the upper mass down on it. that's why they build buildings level and square, once these vertical/horizontal beams and columns are hit from different angles quantifying the resistive forces in an ideal way flies out the window.

Originally posted by Another_Nut
No way are we off topic this is about no pancake or cd .

Sure, but we ended up talking about video faking.

I think there was no pancake but that there was an unconventional cd..

Pancaking did not occur. Otherwise that man we both agree existed would have been flattened instead of floating.

If pancaking did not occur, why do people who worked the site talk about multiple floors compressed together? Relying on inference about what happened to a man who was knocked unconscious and doesn't know himself seems pretty far fetched to counter first hand accounts?

Damage to trains but not the bathtub. Convenient . and you believe this?

I don't see any evidence to suggest otherwise. The bathtub was at the perimeter of the site and a vertical wall buried underground. That seems like the thing most likely to remain intact vs basements directly underneath the structure and with only a mechanical floor to protect them. Why is it so suspicious to you?

Just because you know if no tech doesn't mean it doesn't exist.this is one of those silly argue.ents used to discredit .

the year is 2900 bce and a man appears with a colt .45 in the Egyptian capitol . Shoots a man,fataly wounding him, departs.

Now

Does that man stay alive because no one believes the tech used to shoot him is possible?

Or

Does he die of his gunshot even though noone can prove that gum tech exists?

The problem with this argument is that it's not the technology that is being disputed. It is the mechanism. A man being fatally wounded because a hole was poked through him is a mechanism known since before humans could talk. That wouldn't be in dispute. What is actually in dispute is the mechanism by which steel can be disintegrated. There's no way known to do this without having to input the same amount of energy as you would heating steel to boiling point. We can both agree the steel did not boil, and so what you are proposing needs a mechanism of action.

Without this it doesn't matter what sort of technology would be used, the only person who's relied upon for this mechanism is Hutchison, who's previous fakery has been exposed. He even produces videos where a supposed steel bar reduces in volume while only releasing a little smoke. This would violate some of the most fundamental laws we are aware of. His only evidence for this is youtube videos. Why does this convince you?

And im sure the tech already has billions in funding. But do you think the government would tell us?

The government doesn't really develop technology like this. The private sector has a lot more money and resources and believe me if materials could be boiled without having to input the energy needed to break those bonds it would be probably the greatest discovery since Relativity. It would change everything.

And laslty the nose out footage is fact . You can say it's not but it is . I watched it with my friend. We both couldn't believe what we had just seen . Period.

Grab the original video from the Cumulus dataset. Compare the nose to the 'nose out'. Not only are they not along the same line, they aren't even the same shape.

Originally posted by exponent
If pancaking did not occur, why do people who worked the site talk about multiple floors compressed together

So you have written to NIST to explain to them why they are wrong. Funny how you lot keep claiming things that NIST rejected. I guess they were not right after all then, eh?

Nobody is making this up, from NIST's FAQ...

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

www.nist.gov...

So are NIST wrong after all? Everybody is wrong except you?

Originally posted by Akareyon
For the sake of this discussion, I will not claim anymore that diagonals and stabilizing triangles and horizontal bracings have been used in the WTC construction.

Horizontal bracing is legitimate, as that is essentially the function of the floor trusses and membrane. There was also a hat truss which used some large diagonal elements and further bracing on mechanical floors and some post-construction work. As with most large buildings, it's quite complex.

I like your analogy, because trees fall over when they're chopped or rotten to the core. You seem to have completely different ideas of what a building should be built like than I have. Maybe I should start making money with my vision of buildings that don't act like mechanical implosives...?

You're a bit late to the game I'm afraid. Adding design requirements for resisting progressive collapse has been a hot topic in the structural world since before the NIST report was released. The collapse of the WTC towers changed the way buildings were built the world over.

Imagine me saying this in a quiet and hypnotic voice: a standard FoS > 3 means you would have to think of some really mad stuff to bring my tower down

I haven't read your previous discussions on the topic, but you do realise that a FoS > 3 would probably make your bid for the contract so expensive it would never be accepted? How could you justify it?

I know of one other trick, I use it to break tree trunks or furniture sometimes. Shake it up in its own frequency. All you have to do basically is to give it a small push. It will move only a little at first and bounce back

This works with fairly homogeneous structures sure, but the WTC was made of tens of thousands of parts interconnecting. Every single joint in that system (and all of the viscoelastic dampeners) attenuates and reflects this vibration. Forming a good resonance is very hard unless you have overwhelming force on your side, wind for example.

You say the towers were as good as a tower could get, you better get everyone out of the vicinity of any skyscraper and CD them right now

For what it's worth, as an amateur and also a 'debunker'. I don't think the towers were as good as a tower could get. If it were designed these days there are already specific improvements that could have saved large numbers of lives. Primarily a concrete armoured core to hold standpipes and stairwells. If sprinkler systems had worked the towers might even have survived.

"They" gave Zdenek Pavel Bazant a voice and gagged Sibel Edmonds.

Bazant's work predates 911 by a long time. He's had a distinguished career and you can't really indict him because he disagrees with someone.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
I'm talking about things hitting other things in an unbalanced, uneven way. others are talking about the larger masses' resistance to being crushed as if there is a crane lowering the upper mass down on it. that's why they build buildings level and square, once these vertical/horizontal beams and columns are hit from different angles quantifying the resistive forces in an ideal way flies out the window.

The mass of an object effects collision at any speed. An increase in speed increases the forces on BOTH colliding objects, Newtons 3rd law.

Things hitting at angles doesn't change that fact. A small mass will not destroy a larger mass, no matter what angle it falls at, or how fast it falls. You can't talk you way around Newtonian physics, it applies in ALL situations.

Originally posted by ANOK
So you have written to NIST to explain to them why they are wrong. Funny how you lot keep claiming things that NIST rejected. I guess they were not right after all then, eh?

Once again, this has been explained to you innumerable times but I guess you still refuse to read it.

NIST rejects pancake collapse initiation. The fact that after initiation floors would come into contact is as self evident a fact as I can imagine. Furthermore there are first hand accounts and there used to even be a video of it back in 2005/6.

So are NIST wrong after all? Everybody is wrong except you?

Isn't that your exact position? That even though peer reviewed papers in noted journals disagree with you, 'common sense' says you're right? I really wouldn't be so quick to try and attack me when you're using your own position as a negative.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Another_Nut
No way are we off topic this is about no pancake or cd .

Sure, but we ended up talking about video faking.

I think there was no pancake but that there was an unconventional cd..

Pancaking did not occur. Otherwise that man we both agree existed would have been flattened instead of floating.

If pancaking did not occur, why do people who worked the site talk about multiple floors compressed together? Relying on inference about what happened to a man who was knocked unconscious and doesn't know himself seems pretty far fetched to counter first hand accounts?

Damage to trains but not the bathtub. Convenient . and you believe this?

I don't see any evidence to suggest otherwise. The bathtub was at the perimeter of the site and a vertical wall buried underground. That seems like the thing most likely to remain intact vs basements directly underneath the structure and with only a mechanical floor to protect them. Why is it so suspicious to you?

Just because you know if no tech doesn't mean it doesn't exist.this is one of those silly argue.ents used to discredit .

the year is 2900 bce and a man appears with a colt .45 in the Egyptian capitol . Shoots a man,fataly wounding him, departs.

Now

Does that man stay alive because no one believes the tech used to shoot him is possible?

Or

Does he die of his gunshot even though noone can prove that gum tech exists?

The problem with this argument is that it's not the technology that is being disputed. It is the mechanism. A man being fatally wounded because a hole was poked through him is a mechanism known since before humans could talk. That wouldn't be in dispute. What is actually in dispute is the mechanism by which steel can be disintegrated. There's no way known to do this without having to input the same amount of energy as you would heating steel to boiling point. We can both agree the steel did not boil, and so what you are proposing needs a mechanism of action.

Without this it doesn't matter what sort of technology would be used, the only person who's relied upon for this mechanism is Hutchison, who's previous fakery has been exposed. He even produces videos where a supposed steel bar reduces in volume while only releasing a little smoke. This would violate some of the most fundamental laws we are aware of. His only evidence for this is youtube videos. Why does this convince you?

And im sure the tech already has billions in funding. But do you think the government would tell us?

The government doesn't really develop technology like this. The private sector has a lot more money and resources and believe me if materials could be boiled without having to input the energy needed to break those bonds it would be probably the greatest discovery since Relativity. It would change everything.

And laslty the nose out footage is fact . You can say it's not but it is . I watched it with my friend. We both couldn't believe what we had just seen . Period.

Grab the original video from the Cumulus dataset. Compare the nose to the 'nose out'. Not only are they not along the same line, they aren't even the same shape.

Fine replace gun with radiation.

See mechanism to the Egyptian is unknown . But the tech used no less real (nor the mechanism) .

You are simply stating that because you don't know ,it doesn't exist.

That is flawed logic.

And how they keep us going in circles.

Originally posted by exponent
Once again, this has been explained to you innumerable times but I guess you still refuse to read it.

Quite accusing me of not reading things. You are not reading what I supply obviously. You are refusing to accept what it says in the PDF that PLB supplied. How am I ignoring anything?

NIST rejects pancake collapse initiation. The fact that after initiation floors would come into contact is as self evident a fact as I can imagine. Furthermore there are first hand accounts and there used to even be a video of it back in 2005/6.

Once again pancake collapse is not a type of collapse initiation. Pancake collapse is what happens AFTER collapse initiation. How many more times does this have to be explained before it sinks in?

A building undergoes progressive collapse when a primary structural element fails [collapse initiation], resulting in the failure of adjoining structural elements, which in turn causes further structural failure, similar to a house of cards.

Progressive collapse

Sorry but your excuses for the NIST report fail.

Isn't that your exact position? That even though peer reviewed papers in noted journals disagree with you, 'common sense' says you're right? I really wouldn't be so quick to try and attack me when you're using your own position as a negative.

No you are simply being intellectually dishonest. You post stuff claiming it says something it doesn't. Either you are too stupid to know that, or you are doing it purposely. Your peer review papers don't say ANYTHING about sagging trusses being able to pull in columns.

If they do then please quote the exact text that says that.

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Fine replace gun with radiation.

See mechanism to the Egyptian is unknown . But the tech used no less real (nor the mechanism) .

You are simply stating that because you don't know ,it doesn't exist.

That is flawed logic.

And how they keep us going in circles.

But what you are stating is that you believe something exists, but you cannot explain the mechanism, nor can it be reproduced by anyone apparently even the discoverer himself since 1991. He was even caught faking it. This is really your case?

Belief in something with no evidence for it is called faith. Disbelieving something with no evidence for it is called science.

Originally posted by ANOK
Quite accusing me of not reading things. You are not reading what I supply obviously. You are refusing to accept what it says in the PDF that PLB supplied. How am I ignoring anything?

"I know you are but what am I" is really a bit beyond the pale here. I'm accusing you of not reading because you repeat the same things over and over and over again. It's like a moon hoax believer asking 'where are the stars' when the answers exist in a thousand places.

Once again pancake collapse is not a type of collapse initiation. Pancake collapse is what happens AFTER collapse initiation. How many more times does this after be explained before it sinks in?

Read the NIST report. Learn. They are discussing collapse initiation, it really can't be spelled out in any more detail.

Sorry but your excuses for the NIST report fail.

How would it even be an 'excuse'? Literally that word has no meaning here.

No you are simply being intellectually dishonest. You post stuff claiming it says something it doesn't. Either you are too stupid to know that, or you are doing it purposely. Your peer reviews papers don't say ANYTHING about sagging trusses being able to pull in columns.

Yes they do. I've even posted two graphs showing forces and displacement. Please please don't accuse me or insult me when the images are clearly visible.

If they do then please quote the text that says that.

Certainly. Here's a few excerpts that are within copyright law:

The top chord and slab are fully in tension after 14 min
and, once this condition occurs, the bending moment resistance
of the model, generated by the lever arm between top and
bottom chords, effectively reduces to zero. The load-bearing
mechanism of the composite truss therefore becomes catenary
action, with horizontal reaction being provided by the columns.

Performance in fire of long-span composite truss systems
Published in Engineering Structures 2007

3.1.3.1. Effect on lateral restraint due to temperature. In a
multi-storey building loss of several floors worth of lateral
restraint may lead to progressive collapse of the building above
the fire floors as the column buckles over a greater length than
was initially designed for. Geometrical changes caused by the
heating of the floor will lead to a reduction in the level of
restraint to the column. However it is not initially clear at which
point restraint will be lost completely.

However, assuming that all connections remain intact, failure of
a building constructed using this type of flooring system does
not appear to be linked to a sudden local failure in a particular
truss but is rather linked to a global failure mechanism involving
columns over multiple floors.

Effect of fire on composite long span truss floor systems
Published in the Journal Of Constructional Steel Research 2005

There's more, but really you're just going to skip over these, not read the paper and then misunderstand the quotes, so I don't know why I bothered.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Fine replace gun with radiation.

See mechanism to the Egyptian is unknown . But the tech used no less real (nor the mechanism) .

You are simply stating that because you don't know ,it doesn't exist.

That is flawed logic.

And how they keep us going in circles.

But what you are stating is that you believe something exists, but you cannot explain the mechanism, nor can it be reproduced by anyone apparently even the discoverer himself since 1991. He was even caught faking it. This is really your case?

Belief in something with no evidence for it is called faith. Disbelieving something with no evidence for it is called science.

Now you are equating what neither you or i know

With something that (you brought up) i never mentioned.

You did thins because now that you have something you know (Hutchinson effect) you can ridicule and dismiss it .

Instead of saying you dont know.

I know i don't. Could be harmonic. Who knows?

Not me . And not you.

But i have no problem admitting that. (eta .aka that im a stupid Egyptian circa 2000bc in the grand scheme of things,if not stone age. But you are the Egyptian that thinks his achievements unassailable in grandness for all time, and that Egyptian turned out to be wrong)

Now please stop equating my arguments with Hutchinson (whom i know very little about in the first place)

reply to post by exponent


Do you have a link please, so I can read the whole thing in context?

I very much doubt that will contradict what the other article says.

Originally posted by exponent
Belief in something with no evidence for it is called faith. Disbelieving something with no evidence for it is called science.

You mean like you believing the NIST report that is an hypothesis that can not be repeated in a lab?

Unless of course you can demonstrate sagging trusses pulling in columns? Can you do that exponent? Because that is only thing you can do to convince me it can happen.

Every time you post evidence, and I prove it's not, you simply drop it and move on to something else.

So when are you going to demonstrate this hypothesis you cling to? Not hard to do mate, make two columns that can't fall over, connect a lighter beam between the two, and heat it up till it expands and deflects down, see if it pulls in your columns. I can guarantee you it won't.

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Now you are equating what neither you or i know
With something that (you brought up) i never mentioned.
You did thins because now that you have something you know (Hutchinson effect) you can ridicule and dismiss it
Instead of saying you dont know.
I know i don't. Could be harmonic. Who knows?
Not me . And not you.

Wait, you're now telling me that your theory for how the towers collapsed is that through some unknown method, using unknown technology, some unknown effect occurred causing an unknown result and all you can say is that it means steel disintegrates into dust?

I uh, can't tell if this is Poe's law or what, but I really don't have an answer to that. It's akin to me trying to convince you that the Sun is actually a really friendly guy called Bob but that I don't know how he talks to me, probably by 'harmonics' or something.

Really man, this is just nonsense. You have to rely on reality, and reality way way before 'magical dustification of steel'.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by exponent

 

Do you have a link please, so I can read the whole thing in context?

I very much doubt that will contradict what the other article says.

A link to what exactly? I cited two different papers and gave you their titles. One I have linked to you 6 or 7 times total, one is freely available as a PDF. Google is a beneficial tool.

You mean like you believing the NIST report that is an hypothesis that can not be repeated in a lab?

Unless of course you can demonstrate sagging trusses pulling in columns? Can you do that exponent? Because that is only thing you can do to convince me it can happen.

Certainly. You say you have experience or education or knowledge in this sector. What FEA software do you use? Lets face it the obvious choice here is just to set up an agreed upon experiment. Unless you expect me to build a 45ft long wall of trusses and set it on fire for your amusement. What exactly would you like me to demonstrate? I can provide you with a number of trivial physical experiments and SE calculations on the effects in the tower as well as NISTs work.

Every time you post evidence, and I prove it's not, you simply drop it and move on to something else.

If that occurred, that would be the rational position. That's how rational people behave, if something is disproven then I don't keep trying to repeat it over and over again. This is what you are doing with your truss theory. Last time I was posting here it was that trusses couldn't possibly exert tensile forces against columns. Now it's that those tensile forces are insufficient. I wonder if I come back next year will you be arguing that ok they can pull in columns but now it's not enough?

So when are you going to demonstrate this hypothesis you cling to? Not hard to do mate, make two columns that can't fall over, connect a lighter beam between the two, and heat it up till it expands and deflects down, see if it pulls in your columns. I can guarantee you it won't.

Here's an easier and simpler experiment. Strap two force gauges to two posts with the gauges oriented horizontally towards each other.

Hang a chain between them. Report results. Want me to do it? I have a few small force gauges in my basement I think.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Now you are equating what neither you or i know
With something that (you brought up) i never mentioned.
You did thins because now that you have something you know (Hutchinson effect) you can ridicule and dismiss it
Instead of saying you dont know.
I know i don't. Could be harmonic. Who knows?
Not me . And not you.

Wait, you're now telling me that your theory for how the towers collapsed is that through some unknown method, using unknown technology, some unknown effect occurred causing an unknown result and all you can say is that it means steel disintegrates into dust?

I uh, can't tell if this is Poe's law or what, but I really don't have an answer to that. It's akin to me trying to convince you that the Sun is actually a really friendly guy called Bob but that I don't know how he talks to me, probably by 'harmonics' or something.

Really man, this is just nonsense. You have to rely on reality, and reality way way before 'magical dustification of steel'.

Again. I don't have to know how it was done to see the effects.

If you see the effects but choose to ignore them because you cant explain them

Well that's your problem.

The steel falls apart.

I've been told its dust and fireproofing so far . And both times I have shown why it can be neither.

So what made it happen? Idont know. But that doesn't mean it didn't.

And just because you dont know doesn't mean it didn't happen either.

Again that Egyptian didn't need to have any clue about the mechanism or tech

All he had to do was see the gunshot to know whatever happened was way over his head

So what is your explanation for the "dust falling off" /dustiflying steel beams?

Eta. And this is a big one

Just because I DONT KNOW does not equate to UNKNOWN.

see how your logic falls down again

Eeta and this is another big one

Just because YOU DONT KNOW doesn't mean it DOES NOT EXIST.

.

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Again. I don't have to know how it was done to see the effects.

If you see the effects but choose to ignore them because you cant explain them

But I can explain them. What we see is steel vanishing behind a cloud of dust.

When the options are

• Unknown mystical technology violating fundamental laws
  
• Dust

I know which one I would pick. Your explanation for 'debunking' dust is that it 'would have all fallen off already'. Yet this doesn't seem to be the case anywhere but in your head and you've presented nothing but your opinion to back it up.

Just because I DONT KNOW does not equate to UNKNOWN.

see how your logic falls down again.

edit on 18-5-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

Yeeaaaahh those actually do mean the same thing. You don't know and there's no knowledge of any similar effect anywhere. Pretty much both match nicely.