Common Sense

JimBenArm said:
Well, JonnyFive wanted to see if we dropped a brick from 10 feet, what would happen, so we went out back to the shed, and...
Click to expand...

I brained my damage, but now I know all about the WTC concrete/C4 core, how Bush did everything relating to 9/11, and how Osama Bin Laden is just a fun guy who loves puppies, kittens, and large quantities of uncut cocaine.
 
I've got to say, I'm fascinated by 28's thoughts (or lack thereof) of how the upper mass was supposed to have fallen outside of the lower mass.

Now, I can't animate, but I wanted to help 28 with a graphical representation of what the official line is versus what he seems to be thinking.

First of all, all of these examples are showing what would happen after the fulcrum (outer columns) fail. Someone earlier stated that that would occur with as little as a 3% bend. The fulcrum breaks, and the upper mass smashes straight downward, with all the resultant damage:

WTC1.jpg



But 28 believes the tilt of the upper mass would continue rotating, forcing the upper mass clear of the lower mass. How would this happen? Perhaps it would slide off:

WTC2.jpg



That not crazy enough for you? Perhaps it would flip off:

WTC3.jpg


What everyone is trying to tell you, 28, is that there are no forces which would force the upper mass to go totally outside the lower mass. The entire force of the moving upper mass is brought to bear on the next floor below the damaged impact zone. That would fail, and so would all the other floors, hence a global collapse.

Here you go: pictures. Does that help in some small way?
 
JonnyFive said:
Yes, we in the insurance business don't like to lose money very much. It's a very bad business model.

Of course, you can always lie about the value of something, but that is a crime, and we will do our damndest to run you into the ground for it.

On a claim the size of the towers, you better freaking believe that Zurich and the others had their best men and women on it.

Of course, if you assume that everyone is part of a monolithic conspiracy, anything is possible.
Click to expand...

Of course, if the insurance company is in on the deal, why not just have them hand you the three billion, and not go to all the trouble and expense of blowing up your own buildings, while losing all recurring revenue?

I spose I'm not devious enough.
 
juryjone said:
I've got to say, I'm fascinated by 28's thoughts (or lack thereof) of how the upper mass was supposed to have fallen outside of the lower mass.

Now, I can't animate, but I wanted to help 28 with a graphical representation of what the official line is versus what he seems to be thinking.

First of all, all of these examples are showing what would happen after the fulcrum (outer columns) fail. Someone earlier stated that that would occur with as little as a 3% bend. The fulcrum breaks, and the upper mass smashes straight downward, with all the resultant damage:

[qimg]http://home.comcast.net/~jerry.jobe/WTC1.jpg[/qimg]


But 28 believes the tilt of the upper mass would continue rotating, forcing the upper mass clear of the lower mass. How would this happen? Perhaps it would slide off:

[qimg]http://home.comcast.net/~jerry.jobe/WTC2.jpg[/qimg]


That not crazy enough for you? Perhaps it would flip off:

[qimg]http://home.comcast.net/~jerry.jobe/WTC3.jpg[/qimg]

What everyone is trying to tell you, 28, is that there are no forces which would force the upper mass to go totally outside the lower mass. The entire force of the moving upper mass is brought to bear on the next floor below the damaged impact zone. That would fail, and so would all the other floors, hence a global collapse.

Here you go: pictures. Does that help in some small way?
Click to expand...

Nominated.
 
juryjone said:
I've got to say, I'm fascinated by 28's thoughts (or lack thereof) of how the upper mass was supposed to have fallen outside of the lower mass.

Now, I can't animate, but I wanted to help 28 with a graphical representation of what the official line is versus what he seems to be thinking.

First of all, all of these examples are showing what would happen after the fulcrum (outer columns) fail. Someone earlier stated that that would occur with as little as a 3% bend. The fulcrum breaks, and the upper mass smashes straight downward, with all the resultant damage:

http://home.comcast.net/~jerry.jobe/WTC1.jpg


But 28 believes the tilt of the upper mass would continue rotating, forcing the upper mass clear of the lower mass. How would this happen? Perhaps it would slide off:

http://home.comcast.net/~jerry.jobe/WTC2.jpg


That not crazy enough for you? Perhaps it would flip off:

http://home.comcast.net/~jerry.jobe/WTC3.jpg

What everyone is trying to tell you, 28, is that there are no forces which would force the upper mass to go totally outside the lower mass. The entire force of the moving upper mass is brought to bear on the next floor below the damaged impact zone. That would fail, and so would all the other floors, hence a global collapse.

Here you go: pictures. Does that help in some small way?
Click to expand...

Now do an episode of southpark :D

(Oh and brilliant post. No doubt 28th Kingdom will Lie and say that he didn't see it. Did I mention that 28th Kingdom is a LIAR?)
 
juryjone said:
Here you go: pictures. Does that help in some small way?
Click to expand...


Excellent post.

An experiment one might perform to demonstrate the point would be to try and tip a refrigerator over. You've got to tilt it pretty far in order for it to tip over. If you don't tip it far enough and let it go its just going to fall back into the upright position.
 
Bell said:
Nominated.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much, but the pictures are what tell the story here, not the language.

Something tells me that even a TLA winner would not be able to convince 28. (Right, uk_dave?)
 
Skibum said:
Excellent post.

An experiment one might perform to demonstrate the point would be to try and tip a refrigerator over. You've got to tilt it pretty far in order for it to tip over. If you don't tip it far enough and let it go its just going to fall back into the upright position.
Click to expand...

And tipping a refrigerator - which is still mostly empty space - still takes a lot of effort. Which again emphasizes - where would that force come from? What could lift one side of the building up enough to "tip over"?

Nothing!




Okay, maybe Superman, but that's it!


And Super Dog.


And Mighty Mouse. But I'm sure that's it.


Except for Hercules.
 
delete - duplicate



(or was it?)
 
Last edited:
defaultdotxbe said:
ive proven a conspiracy!

<image omitted and sent to the NWO HQ for alteration and eventual destruction>

ITS SO OBVIOUS!
Click to expand...

Ruh Roh. Now you've gone and done it, defaultdotxbe! No more NWO paycheques for you!

(and you're off the official winter solstice card mailing list, too)
 
Horatius said:
And tipping a refrigerator - which is still mostly empty space - still takes a lot of effort. Which again emphasizes - where would that force come from? What could lift one side of the building up enough to "tip over"?

Nothing!




Okay, maybe Superman, but that's it!


And Super Dog.


And Mighty Mouse. But I'm sure that's it.


Except for Hercules.
Click to expand...

Um.... Krypto. Left brainer:rolleyes:
 
Ooh, wait, I forgot this one:

28th Kingdom said:
I guessed you missed my video that showed the towers completely fell in approx. 11 seconds, 14 at the most...but I'm pretty sure that impact at 14 seconds was the upper mass hitting about 3 seconds after the lower floors reached the ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAKzhlOdB-I
Click to expand...

So is this video a Looney Tunes cartoon? Because I imagine the lower floors falling away, followed 3 seconds later by the upper floors. This gives the upper floors plenty of time to do a double take and extend a small sign reading "OH NO!".
 
Jury Jone...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_of_least_resistance

Don't you think that the upper mass' momentum coupled with inertia and the fact that below it is a rock solid 70+ floors of undamaged building with 47 core columns, floors and steel outer columns... would propel it off to the side of the building (where there is no resistance) instead of down and through a structure which had the ability to support (massive resistance) the weight of the upper mass?

It's not the weight of the upper mass that crushed the lower floors all the way to the ground... it was the energy released by the 50 foot? fall that generated so much force that it smashed through almost 10 floors per second all the way to the ground. Note: And why were all four sides of the build exploding so symmetrically... in such a chaotic event i.e. tilting upper mass, scattered rubble... would the energy be so perfectly distributed throughout the entire collapse?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAKzhlOdB-I

Also, if you tried to visualize this growing upper mass, whose increasing size supposedly increased the speed of collapse... you wouldn't come up with a single object i.e. the upper floors melded together with the collapsing lowers floors... wouldn't it be more like the upper mass, and then millions of pieces of individual rubble caused by the collision between the upper mass and the lower floors? You all talk like this increasing mass was the upper floors literally fusing together with the lower floors as the collapse progressed. See: this is why it's important to visualize things... as it helps you understand the relation between your theories and a real world environment.

Also, your illustrations...omit one key component... and that is the 37 non-severed core columns that were still running from the base of the building through the impact floors (that big white gap - BTW did you borrow these pics from the 9/11 commission report) and up to the roof.

How did all of these columns manage to simultaneously break in a split second? How can three (sides) outer columns significantly affect the balance of the core columns in such a short span of time? I can see if the building was hollow... if that were the case, than obviously the three sides failing would of caused the imbalance required for the upper floors to tilt over... but, it all comes back to those core columns... and how they actually failed. This is an event that still doesn't have any logical explanation.

If you are gonna reply... please don't interject some really abstract term like, transferring of loads... which is so broad... that you could use it to explain away almost any event and/or phenomenon.

Yea, the WTC 1 & 2 fell because of the way the upper mass' latent energy penetrated the towers' terminal resistance threshold. Are you that dumb... please go read a book and learn something.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't you think that the upper mass' momentum coupled with inertia and the fact that below it is a rock solid 70+ floors of undamaged building with 47 core columns, floors and steel outer columns... propel it off to the side of the building (where there is no resistance) instead of down and through a structure which had the ability to support (massive resistance) the weight of the upper mass?
Click to expand...
so what lateral force would be propelling it off the side of the building? did god decide to reach down and give it a whack?
 
essentially the towers WERE hollow. The connection between the core and the perimeter was just bar joists and the slab. A very economical and lightweight structure that was very unique. if you were to separate a single bar joist and set it aside a pair of 210LB construction workers could just about dead lift it one at each end. The lighter and more efficient you make the structure the less dead load you have to support, hence less steel again.

you might recall that the Joists were described as "Composite" Do you know what that means?

what it means is the concrete slab poured into and around the knuckles and top chord of the truss acted as a compression member for the truss lessening the requirement for a compression resistant and heavier cross section of steel in the top chord of the truss
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom