• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Building demolished from the top down.

Java Man said:
Because it would be in the generally believed theory otherwise.
Click to expand...

Let's see if I follow your logic here:

1. Assume that there was something going on during the collapse that contradicted the generally accepted narrative.
2. From this we can conclude that the generally accepted narrative is wrong.
3. Because what was reported is different from what actually happened, there was deception involved in the reporting.
4. If there was deception, then the actual cause of the collapse can be traced to a deliberate act.

Is this correct?
 
jaydeehess said:
No, it did begin at the perimeter. Please read NCSTAR1-6. The collapse sequence is related there.

Short story, (again,,, read the damned report instead of only reading the FAQ);
Perimeter failure unloaded the perimeter subsystem thus meaning that all that load was now on the already weakened core and the core then fails very quickly and the upper section as a whole begins its descent.
Click to expand...

Ok, so we are in agreement so far.

Now I understand you're claiming that ten stories up and hardly a half second after we see any movement the core is being pushed upwards thus moving the floor up. But we also see the roof falling with the the upper block. So you can't have the core going up while the antenna is going down at the same time. Your theory contradicts itself at the most basic level. Now I know the burden of proof isn't on you, but don't expose yourself so openly to other's opinions of your credibility.
 
jaydeehess said:
You assume that it is more difficult to raise a floor pan off its truss seat than to fail the seat downwards?:confused:
Click to expand...

Yes, because raising the floor pan requires the energy to actually lift all that weight. Failing the seat downwards just requires the breaking of the 5/8" bolt and letting gravity do the rest. Unless of course you're from the camp of those who believe in secret space ships in orbit with gravity tractor beams.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Let's see if I follow your logic here:

1. Assume that there was something going on during the collapse that contradicted the generally accepted narrative.
2. From this we can conclude that the generally accepted narrative is wrong.
3. Because what was reported is different from what actually happened, there was deception involved in the reporting.
4. If there was deception, then the actual cause of the collapse can be traced to a deliberate act.

Is this correct?
Click to expand...

Correct. At one point you have to agree that there is just too much missing from the official report.
 
Java Man said:
Correct. At one point you have to agree that there is just too much missing from the official report.
Click to expand...
Please post the official report, and list what is missing with supporting evidence. List the much missing stuff, and reference the official report.

911 truth failure, shooting for 10 years of evidence free paranoid claims. Like your closing statement.
 
Java Man said:
Ok, so we are in agreement so far.

Now I understand you're claiming that ten stories up and hardly a half second after we see any movement the core is being pushed upwards thus moving the floor up.
Click to expand...

No, not "the core", the entire floor space of the level involved. The perimeter columns fail putting that much greater load on the already weakened core columns which in turn fail. Now the upper block moves downward together. This includes the next level up's floor space which impacts the floorspace of the first lower block. The lower floor is failed at impact and the upper floor is lifted off the truss seats.(see below)

But we also see the roof falling with the the upper block. So you can't have the core going up while the antenna is going down at the same time. Your theory contradicts itself at the most basic level. Now I know the burden of proof isn't on you, but don't expose yourself so openly to other's opinions of your credibility.
Click to expand...
Once again not 'the core' the floor pans.


Java Man said:
Yes, because raising the floor pan requires the energy to actually lift all that weight. Failing the seat downwards just requires the breaking of the 5/8" bolt and letting gravity do the rest. Unless of course you're from the camp of those who believe in secret space ships in orbit with gravity tractor beams.
Click to expand...

No, the floor is moving downward with the upper block. "lifting' it against gravity is not required, only make it fall slower than the rest of the upper section.
Furthermore please see page 68 of NCSTAR1-6 (figure 4-8)for a diagram of the interior and exterior truss seats. They are essentially "L" brackets that the top chord of the truss sits on. The trusses are bolted to the "L". Downward one must fail the "L" itself by either bending it downward or by fracturing it. But a force that is upward (with respect to the frame of reference of the truss and seat, all of which is now moving downward) requires only the failure of the 5/8" bolts..
 
Last edited:
The "official report" should have mentioned how many toilets were in the building and why some people saw the Devil in the smoke that day. Until they do, I declare the NIST report null and void
 
ozeco41 said:
List three of the things which are missing - make it the three which are the most important in your opinion.

Then tell us why they should be addressed in the report.
Click to expand...

He is taking minutia and blowing it up in importance and demanding that it be explained.

For instance this bit about the puffs that occur above the initial collapse. there are in fact similar puffs that occur well before initial collapse especially on the upwid side(where the ones he is taking issue with are).

The interior fires are blazes and will have chaotic and turbulent convection currents that push the smoke around. This is visible in many a house or office fire. Air gets sucked it causing greater burning locally causing an outward gas pressure causing a puff of smoke, causing a lower gas pressure inside drawing air in causing greater burning. This is similar to the mechanism involved in the phenomenea known as 'backdraft'. Add to this a slight wind that waxes and wanes and if a puff occurs at the same time that the wind changes strength or direction and the puff will exit farther out.

Add to that the fact that the upper floors are indeed being forced upwards wrt to the upper block which is moving downward and compressing air within the upper block and you have , as explained above, another mechanism by which upper block smoke may get expelled.

NONE OF WHICH is particularily relevent to determing the mechansim of initial collapse.
Sure, I suppose it could have been another mechanism but given that there are perfectly ordinary ones by which this can occur it is stretching things to invoke unknown and unseen devices to fail floors which requires that the entire sequence of events be a manufactured one from setting up the hijackings to planting a myriad of devices(be they explosives, incindiaries, mechanical devices and remote control and timing devices) in order to ensure a loss of life exceeding that of the population of the aircrafts and the impacted floors.(about 200-300)
 
I Believe another explanation for the "puffs" were the localized elevators crashing down to the bottom of their shafts and ejecting that air out the floors they ended on.

wtc-elevators.gif
 
jaydeehess said:
He is taking minutia and blowing it up in importance and demanding that it be explained.

For instance this bit about the puffs that occur above the initial collapse. there are in fact similar puffs that occur well before initial collapse especially on the upwid side(where the ones he is taking issue with are).

The interior fires are blazes and will have chaotic and turbulent convection currents that push the smoke around. This is visible in many a house or office fire. Air gets sucked it causing greater burning locally causing an outward gas pressure causing a puff of smoke, causing a lower gas pressure inside drawing air in causing greater burning. This is similar to the mechanism involved in the phenomenea known as 'backdraft'. Add to this a slight wind that waxes and wanes and if a puff occurs at the same time that the wind changes strength or direction and the puff will exit farther out.

Add to that the fact that the upper floors are indeed being forced upwards wrt to the upper block which is moving downward and compressing air within the upper block and you have , as explained above, another mechanism by which upper block smoke may get expelled.

NONE OF WHICH is particularily relevent to determing the mechansim of initial collapse.
Sure, I suppose it could have been another mechanism but given that there are perfectly ordinary ones by which this can occur it is stretching things to invoke unknown and unseen devices to fail floors which requires that the entire sequence of events be a manufactured one from setting up the hijackings to planting a myriad of devices(be they explosives, incindiaries, mechanical devices and remote control and timing devices) in order to ensure a loss of life exceeding that of the population of the aircrafts and the impacted floors.(about 200-300)
Click to expand...
don't forget backdraft and flashover
 
Java Man said:
Because one second is not enough to crush 5 floors and thus seal up the whole to achieve any hopes of pressurizing the upper block.
Click to expand...

Neither of the former two conditions is required to produce ejecta from upper storey windows. Five floors need not be crushed, because the crushing of the first will produce an overpressure, and a pressure wave; and sealing is not necessary, particularly aganst a pressure wave.

Dave
 
Java Man said:
aggle-rithm said:
In fact, why MUST it be the result of any deliberate act?
Click to expand...
Because it would be in the generally believed theory otherwise.
Click to expand...

Oh, dear. End of story, right there.

Java Man has finally admitted that his is a "God of the Gaps" argument; that anything that actually happened on 9/11 and is not "generally believed" to have happened MUST be the result of a deliberate act. Now, what exactly that means - since, of course, 9/11 was the result of a deliberate act by nineteen members of al-Qaeda - it's not exactly clear, but I would interpret it thus: Java Man is saying that anything that is unknown or misunderstood about any aspect of the events of 9/11 is positive proof of an inside job. He is therefore taking a highly complex structural collapse, the details of which are almost by definition unknowable, and saying that if we do not know those unknowable details then this is proof of wrongdoing by the US Government.

At this point, I think we've come to Java Man's Irreducible Delusion: that everything is either perfectly understood, or proof of an evil conspiracy. And with that, I don't think there's any more to be said.

Dave
 
Java Man said:
Correct. At one point you have to agree that there is just too much missing from the official report.
Click to expand...

All right, let's review:

aggle-rithm said:
1. Assume that there was something going on during the collapse that contradicted the generally accepted narrative.
2. From this we can conclude that the generally accepted narrative is wrong.
3. Because what was reported is different from what actually happened, there was deception involved in the reporting.
4. If there was deception, then the actual cause of the collapse can be traced to a deliberate act.
Click to expand...

If (1) is correct (it isn't, but let's assume that it is), then (2) is also correct.

However, (3) does not follow from (1) and (2), and (4) does not follow from (3).

It is possible to be wrong without lying. For instance, you are wrong about many, many things, but I don't think you're lying.

Also, even if someone lied about an event, it does not mean that the event was a deliberate act of sabotage. In most cases, when people lie about some disaster or other, they are trying to cover their own incompetence, not their complicity in a conspiracy.


This is how people with a conspiracy-theory mindset get so out of whack with reality.
 
twinstead said:
The "official report" should have mentioned how many toilets were in the building and why some people saw the Devil in the smoke that day. Until they do, I declare the NIST report null and void
Click to expand...

That's what caused the squibs! Someone flushed all the toilets at the same time!

Those jokers.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Neither of the former two conditions is required to produce ejecta from upper storey windows. Five floors need not be crushed, because the crushing of the first will produce an overpressure, and a pressure wave; and sealing is not necessary, particularly aganst a pressure wave.

Dave
Click to expand...

A pressure wave from explosives? C'mon your statements can only stand because the burden of proof isn't against you. Otherwise you know perfectly well that the huge holes on the perimeter would be a limiting factor.
 
Java Man said:
A pressure wave from explosives? C'mon your statements can only stand because the burden of proof isn't against you. Otherwise you know perfectly well that the huge holes on the perimeter would be a limiting factor.
Click to expand...

It's already clear that you regard every unexplained detail as proof of a conspiracy, including this one. There is therefore no further need to discuss it with you, because, since you want there to be proof of a conspiracy, you're actively seeking not to understand the replies. Therefore, please feel free to retain your comfortable ignorance. You've already demonstrated that you don't have the courage of your convictions, so no harm will come of it.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom