• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
walkyrie said:
The george bush regime officials are Running Scared trying to help with coverup about the 911 World Trade Center Controlled Demolition Explosives ,the george bush Attempt to cover up and hide the Controlled Demolition Disintegration Explosives of the WTC with a Faked collapse , was just a poor attempt , and was not enough to hide the WTC Controlled Demolition Disintegration Explosives , only stupid people are swallowing the george bush regime official theory Lies about 9/11, the Truthers are Chasing the goorge bush regime officials
Click to expand...

I think that I just bust a rib! Hilarious.
 
bill smith said:
So you think that the order of collapse began on the South Side which went down dragging the rest with it more or less simultaneously ? Correct me if I'm wrong please.

I'm sure that triforcharity would kill to know what you mean by the part I have bolded.

My explanation is controlled demolition.

I thank you for your candid answer.
Click to expand...


Nope, not really. I don't agree 100% of the time with NIST. Nor with NFPA. But, on this, I do agree, as I have read the report, and done my research.
 
bill smith said:
Don't you understand how crazy it would be for NIST to be rejecting the notion of pancaking floors collapsing BEFORE the general callapse ? Pancaking floors are collapse.


As was said in a previous post..
Click to expand...
And, as was said in my previous post:

No, bill, it would not be crazy, because collapse of a single floor (a.k.a. pancaking of that floor) is a possible cause of general collapse. Indeed there were partial collapses of floors in the WTC. Read again and this time try to actually understand the words:

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.
​
(Yet again, that quote is from http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm, just in case someone missed it.)

Hilited the key words for you. What is crazy instead, however, is to claim that...

bill smith said:
Well they may have dropped it because NIST themselves had aleady said that there had been NO pancaking of floors. ZERO pancaking according to NIST therefore he had to have heard the true demolition explosions he and his 118 colleages so clearly describe in post #2694 just above.( In the hyperlinks).
Click to expand...

merely based on NIST's use of ellipsisWP on the word "initiation" after "collapse" because it was (for the normal reader) assumed by the context.



bill smith said:
'' So would I be right in saying that what NIST really meant was in fact not what it actually appeared to be...to wit:-

' NIST's data does not support the "pancake theory" of collapse.''

But actually:-

'' NIST's data does not support the "pancake theory" of pre-collapse. ''

Thank you..
Click to expand...

Doh, I hate to be right:

pgimeno said:
But I'd bet that when quoting NIST in future, you will no doubt highlight ONLY the part where they say "collapse" and NOT the part where later they say "collapse initiation", just to mislead the public, and deliberately omit quotes such as this one:

Exterior panels from WTC 1 were analyzed to determine if different failure mechanisms were observed for those panels above the impact region and those located below. There were 63 observations from the 12 panels at or below the 95th floor and 74 from the remaining 11 panels above the 95th floor. Figure 3-51 spatially displays this information for WTC 1 near the impact region of the north face. Both pictorially and statistically, below the impact zone, the majority of floor truss connectors were observed to be either bent down or completely missing. Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking." Again, the data for Type B and Type D floor truss connectors was too limited to define any sort of pattern.
​
(NCSTAR 1-3C Damage and Failure Modes, p.117, 167 in PDF)

Feel free to go ahead: misleading the public is a truther's specialty and nobody would expect them to seek for other than their truth, right?
Click to expand...

Did I earn Randi's challenge with my clairvoyance?

Bill, read NIST's sentence like this:

NIST's data does not support the "pancake theory" of collapse [initiation].​

With the word in brackets omitted just because it's implied by the context. An schoolbook example of ellipsis.
 
triforcharity said:
Nope, not really. I don't agree 100% of the time with NIST. Nor with NFPA. But, on this, I do agree, as I have read the report, and done my research.
Click to expand...


For one example, many of the firefighters I know think that building codes (for which NIST is the main national authority) are too accepting of various forms of truss construction, such as wood trusses in multi-floor residences. Prefab wood trusses are very economical, efficient, and strong with regard to most kinds of structural insult such as overloading or high winds, but they can fail quickly in fires and thus are hazardous to firefighters.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
For one example, many of the firefighters I know think that building codes (for which NIST is the main national authority) are too accepting of various forms of truss construction, such as wood trusses in multi-floor residences. Prefab wood trusses are very economical, efficient, and strong with regard to most kinds of structural insult such as overloading or high winds, but they can fail quickly in fires and thus are hazardous to firefighters.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Damn straight! I hate to pull up to an apartment complex, as 99% of the floors in the upper apartments have wood truss assemblies.

An wise man once told me, "Never trust a truss." It's very true.
 
Myriad said:
For one example, many of the firefighters I know think that building codes (for which NIST is the main national authority) are too accepting of various forms of truss construction, such as wood trusses in multi-floor residences. Prefab wood trusses are very economical, efficient, and strong with regard to most kinds of structural insult such as overloading or high winds, but they can fail quickly in fires and thus are hazardous to firefighters.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Just curious here.
Do you mean vulnerable to fire, compared to concrete, due to grid construction giving high surface ratio, or is it due to assembly with those metal sheets with nail-like perforations?
 
Last edited:
The impact zone, and those floors affected by fires, spanned many floors (about 7 to 10 in total I believe).

What NIST was referring to, and what they discussed, was the mechanisms of collapse initiation within those floors that were or were not supported by their data.

What was NOT supported - A single floor collapse, forcing the next floor to it to collapse, causing the next floor to collapse, in a PROGRESSIVE or Pancake fashion...THROUGH THE IMPACT ZONE.

What WAS supported - Heat generated buckling of the floor trusses, sagging, with inward bowing, cause the support system to fail, which initiated collapse.

WHERE, in the FAQ do they even address the collapse BEYOND initiation?

You know what Bill, don't even bother addressing the above. Clearly you will believe only what supports your skewed view of what happened, regardless of the evidence.

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
Is it really just Bill and Red left arguing on here for the truther side? I mean, according to every truther, the "truth" is getting out there and people are joining the movement exponentially!

So where are they?
 
Last edited:
cantonear1968 said:
Is it really just Bill and Red left arguing on here for the truther side? I mean, according to every truther, the "truth" is getting out there and people are joining the movement exponentially!

So where are they?
Click to expand...

If we need more we will send for more. But so far no problem .
 
Toke said:
Just curious here.
Do you mean vulnerable to fire, compared to concrete, due to grid construction giving high surface ratio, or is it due to assembly with those metal sheets with nail-like perforations?
Click to expand...

Its the metal "Plate" that is the key to their failure.

Here is a great resource that I use often when teaching.
http://www.carbeck.org/availablemodules.php

Withdraw Resistance failure Mode is an intersting topic.

But, in short, the charring of the wood underneath the plate causes the plate (which is under pressure) to loosen, leading to failure. A large truss that looses sometimes as little as 2 plates can fail.

PM me if you want more info.
 
triforcharity said:
Its the metal "Plate" that is the key to their failure.

Here is a great resource that I use often when teaching.
http://www.carbeck.org/availablemodules.php

Withdraw Resistance failure Mode is an intersting topic.

But, in short, the charring of the wood underneath the plate causes the plate (which is under pressure) to loosen, leading to failure. A large truss that looses sometimes as little as 2 plates can fail.

PM me if you want more info.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, I haven't seen that one.
Just an aside, not trying to get off topic, I have seen these gusset plates fail when not even in direct contact with the fire. Scary indeed, and people wonder why we don't like lightweight truss construction.
 
fess said:
Thanks for the link, I haven't seen that one.
Just an aside, not trying to get off topic, I have seen these gusset plates fail when not even in direct contact with the fire. Scary indeed, and people wonder why we don't like lightweight truss construction.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. I imagine it was due to another part of the truss failing, causing a complete different part to fail due to the increased stress?
 
bill smith said:
That's for the Readers to decide but pretty good I think.
Click to expand...

Well, as a (Bill Hicks Voice) READER, I disagree. Don't feel bad, though, because I'm laughing my ass off while doing it! Even though I knew your answer in advance, it always tickles me!




Do try harder next time!
 
Dog Town said:
Well, as a (Bill Hicks Voice) READER, I disagree. Don't feel bad, though, because I'm laughing my ass off while doing it! Even though I knew your answer in advance, it always tickles me!


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif[/qimg]

Do try harder next time!
Click to expand...

What?....Tickling you mean ? lol
 
triforcharity said:
Its the metal "Plate" that is the key to their failure.

Here is a great resource that I use often when teaching.
http://www.carbeck.org/availablemodules.php

Withdraw Resistance failure Mode is an intersting topic.

But, in short, the charring of the wood underneath the plate causes the plate (which is under pressure) to loosen, leading to failure. A large truss that looses sometimes as little as 2 plates can fail.

PM me if you want more info.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
Putting the E in JREF. :)
(Ok, I can't get the actual courses, but the headlines are quite educational too.)
 
Last edited:
John Hutchison's anti-gravity lab on e-bay.



344914c45dd19784ea.jpg



Surprisingly it didn't attract any offers. I wonder why? Maybe it was the shipping costs. I mean if it's anti-gravity you'd think the shipping would be free huh?

Compus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom