Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
bill smith said:
Patience my lad.
Click to expand...

lol. Dont flatter your ego Bill. I asked in jest. Nothing you post is taken seriously. You know that already.

Your a proven photograph fraudster Bill. Fact! A proven liar who tried to fraudulently post misleading photographs to 'prove an inside jobby job'.

You wouldnt know the truth if it bit you on the arse Bill.
 
Jackanory said:
lol. Dont flatter your ego Bill. I asked in jest. Nothing you post is taken seriously. You know that already.

Your a proven photograph fraudster Bill. Fact! A proven liar who tried to fraudulently post misleading photographs to 'prove an inside jobby job'.

You wouldnt know the truth if it bit you on the arse Bill.
Click to expand...
Calm down. Take some deep breaths.
 
Jackanory said:
lol. Dont flatter your ego Bill. I asked in jest. Nothing you post is taken seriously. You know that already.

Your a proven photograph fraudster Bill. Fact! A proven liar who tried to fraudulently post misleading photographs to 'prove an inside jobby job'.

You wouldnt know the truth if it bit you on the arse Bill.
Click to expand...

busted?
when and where did he do that
id love to see it lol
 
bill smith said:
Me too.
Click to expand...

Still peddling your fraud Bill. You where seen as a fraud by all reading the thread. Quite a few posters also raised it. Proven Fraudster and peddler of BS.

Reminder :

In the '9/11 CT Subforum General Discussion Thread' - Post 3393 (also given spoiler:show). You openly discuss it.


The following day


In the 'The Heiwa Challenge' post 855 and post 858 plus ongoing discussions.


Are you in denial Bill? Didnt i just prove you to be a fraud who posts BS to prove an inside job?

Fraudster Bill peddling his BS with fraudulent and misleading BS.

Your not very good at the games you play Bill.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Last time I checked, cables are tension members, not compression. And since when does history dictate whether or not something can happen in architecture... or better yet... anything?
Click to expand...
.
The difference between tension & compression members is lost on the truthers.

That's why they take seriously Mr. DiMartini's statement about a plane hitting the external walls of the towers being comparable to "a pencil poking thru screen netting".

That would be "structural" screen netting, of course.

tom
 
Hum, I have another question. Just to check... What's the scientific value of the Journal of 911 studies? If it's near zero, what is their most valuable stuNdie then :D ?
 
Jackanory said:
Still peddling your fraud Bill. You where seen as a fraud by all reading the thread. Quite a few posters also raised it. Proven Fraudster and peddler of BS.

Reminder :

In the '9/11 CT Subforum General Discussion Thread' - Post 3393 (also given spoiler:show). You openly discuss it.


The following day


In the 'The Heiwa Challenge' post 855 and post 858 plus ongoing discussions.


Are you in denial Bill? Didnt i just prove you to be a fraud who posts BS to prove an inside job?

Fraudster Bill peddling his BS with fraudulent and misleading BS.

Your not very good at the games you play Bill.
Click to expand...

Neither are you apparently:-

#3393 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126817&page=85
''Good pic. Thanks. How do you think it was attached to the hat truss right below it ? Bolted on. welded on or a steel post going down hrough the hat truss and up nto the antenna ? It still looks a little light on cables to me.'
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v213/ghost_haunter/WTC1AB_3.jpg

#855 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138715&page=22
''Look at thiis photo and the lack of support cables and then look at the blue structure and imagine how the support for the giant 30-storey mast worked without being attached to the core columns.''
http://www.city-data.com/cpic/ufiles516.jpg antenna hi-res

#858 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138715&page=22
Shows the cables perfectly clearly. (not my post)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4755482#post4755482

Tut tut jack. Back to Strawman school you go .
 
tfk said:
.
The difference between tension & compression members is lost on the truthers.

That's why they take seriously Mr. DiMartini's statement about a plane hitting the external walls of the towers being comparable to "a pencil poking thru screen netting".

That would be "structural" screen netting, of course.

tom
Click to expand...

I've pointed this out too to troofers.

A better comparison would be breaking out the windows vs poking holes in the screen.

If one wanted to do a proper comparison of what effects plane strikes would have, you would compare it to shooting holes in the screen door's frame.
 
Dave Rogers said:
..... and the primary role of the hat truss was to provide a support for the antenna that spread the load between the core columns and the perimeter columns.
Dave
Click to expand...

I don't think that support for the antenna was its primary role.

It was designed to spread loads around in high wind events and/or in case of local failures - like it did after the plane strikes.

In addition, it was also designed to support the antenna. Perhaps what your sources were saying is that the hat truss was the primary support for the antenna?

NIST gives a great deal of discussion about how the hat truss distributed loads after the impacts, and how they also distributed loads around as the fires had thermal effects on the core and ext columns.
 
bill smith said:
We had a good discussion yesterday both here and on the Heiwa Challenge thread, We established that the top three floors of WTC1 incorporated the 'hat truss' which was a massive latticework of steel stretching over the whole three floors and tying the core columns to the outer walls as well as supporting the gigantic 30-storey antenna.
Click to expand...

No, Bill, we didn't establish anything. We told you something we already knew and had known for years, you decided to refuse to believe it, then you finally gave in when even Heiwa didn't buy into your fantasy-du-jour. Don't fool yourself into thinking that everyone was as ignorant last week as you were.

bill smith said:
So how do we explain that the antenna started to collapse into the building before any other movement of the structure became visible. Before the onset of ccollapse in other words ?
Click to expand...

Rotation of the top of the building. However, since you've already had this explained to you and demonstrated by reference to a video, and you simply decided to ignore the video and pretend that there was no rotation, there is therefore no explanation you'll accept. What, therefore, is the point in you asking this question?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, Bill, we didn't establish anything. We told you something we already knew and had known for years, you decided to refuse to believe it, then you finally gave in when even Heiwa didn't buy into your fantasy-du-jour. Don't fool yourself into thinking that everyone was as ignorant last week as you were.



Rotation of the top of the building. However, since you've already had this explained to you and demonstrated by reference to a video, and you simply decided to ignore the video and pretend that there was no rotation, there is therefore no explanation you'll accept. What, therefore, is the point in you asking this question?

Dave
Click to expand...

Whatever...it is established. So of course I have to ask you to prove the rotation at the top of the building (I will offer stronger counter-proof naturally) and then I have to ask how how this rotation caused the antenna to fall through the hat truss ? Why not answer the second question first ?
 
Last edited:
Seymour Butz said:
I don't think that support for the antenna was its primary role.

It was designed to spread loads around in high wind events and/or in case of local failures - like it did after the plane strikes.

In addition, it was also designed to support the antenna. Perhaps what your sources were saying is that the hat truss was the primary support for the antenna?
Click to expand...

The source is NIST NCSTAR1-1 page 12, which states that:

NIST NCSTAR1-1 said:
The hat truss was designed primarily to provide a base for antennae atop both towers, although only the WTC1 antenna was actually built. The hat truss also controlled the expansion and contraction of the tower due to unequal column temperatures, although not specifically designed for this purpose.
Click to expand...
It's fairly clear that this source is claiming that the primary design function was to support the antenna. I haven't tried to check back any further to see whether NIST was correct in this claim.

Dave
 
bill smith said:
Whatever...it is established. So of course I have to ask you to prove the rotation at the top of the building (I will offer stronger counter-proof naturally) and then I have to ask how how this rotation caused the antenna to fall through the hat truss ? Why not answer the second question first ?
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. Use the search function with your own name as poster, and you'll find where it was answered, as you read all the relevant posts and replied to them.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Asked and answered. Use the search function with your own name as poster, and you'll find where it was answered, as you read all the relevant posts and replied to them.

Dave
Click to expand...

I doubt that anybody will think that you don't want to answer the questions Dave.
 
bill smith said:
I doubt that anybody will think that you don't want to answer the questions Dave.
Click to expand...

You don't think that a poster on an anonymous internet forum refusing to repost a load of answers that have been posted many times before will be the last straw that finally forces the US Government to recant and initiate a new and truly independent investigation of 9/11, then?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
You don't think that a poster on an anonymous internet forum refusing to repost a load of answers that have been posted many times before will be the last straw that finally forces the US Government to recant and initiate a new and truly independent investigation of 9/11, then?

Dave
Click to expand...

By now they will be quite certain that it's not because you don't want to nswer the questions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom