Message from a Truther

[FineWine]

Hi all, I've been trying to encourage this gentleman to visit Gravy's website and do some research regarding the tipping tower top mystery, but he doesn't seem very interested.

Here's what he says about himself and the main ideas he presents:

'I have a degree in Civil/Structural engineering with advanced qualifications in structural analysis, stress analysis & structural steel design.

More so than that, I have a deep understanding of applied physics. To be honest, it's not as complicated as you might think.

An already-toppled weight (sideways) cannot exert an even force (downwards).

This is very very simple physics. Please watch "9/11 - blueprint for truth". Or 9/11 revisited. (by an MIT engineer)'

And the message he sent to me:


'You seem like an intelligent man, so I have taken the time to send you a personal message.

Firstly, Im not a nut, kook or conspiracy theorist. Im not mad, mental or insane. Or indeed any of the derogatory terms that are so lovingly given to anyone who questions the official theory of 9/11.

I am a Civil/Structural engineer with advanced qualifications in Structural analysis, stress analysis & structural steel design. I have 6 years of experience in building high-rise structures . My most recent project (completed just 2 days ago) was building 4 concrete bridge replacements.
I am not prone to outbursts of conspiratorial chatter, I do not hate americans (I have many American friends in fact). I dont know you, but I can say honestly that I respect you & your current beliefs.

Until 4 months ago, like you (and millions of others) I has swallowed the official theory of 9/11 perpetuated by the US government & the mainstream media. I had seen the footage of the planes crashing into the towers & their subsequent total destruction into steel shards & concrete dust and assumed that the planes had caused this damage why wouldnt I?

I had heard of a conspiracy theory before that the hole in the pentagon wasnt big enough for a plane but instantly dismissed it as impossible that somehow these conspiracy theorists were wrong because no government would ever be so evil etc etc.
4 months ago, a lady gave me a DVD to watch it was a mix of a few different 9/11 documentaries. I grudgingly agreed to watch it after arguing with her that no matter what she said it was IMPOSSIBLE to have been an inside job on the grounds of sheer implausibility. too many people would have to be in on it it would have been on the TV if it was an inside job etc etc.
I started watching & pretty soon my jaw hit the floor. Watching the complete destruction of towers 1&2 and the freefall of building 7 I soon realized (through years of physics & engineering classes) that the observed events on September 11th were absolutely, 100% impossible due to planes/fire & gravity alone.
This created a huge dilemma for me, but I continued watching. After that, I spent every evening watching footage of the collapses, along with detailed analysis from Engineers/Physics professors & other such highly qualified individuals.
I did not want it to be true, such were the moral ramifications of it being so I visited the debunking videos & websites. Desperately seeking some validation that the truthers were wrong that somehow planes/fire & gravity DID do it that Bin Laden really WAS the bad guy but I could not find it.
Unfortunately, years & years of studying Newtons laws were getting in the way. No matter how hard I looked, and how much I WANTED the official theory to be true it isnt (unless you suspend the laws of physics that is).

To cut a long story short, the absolute proof (aside from the mountain of supporting evidence) is in the physics. You might cry thats an argument of incredulity but it really isnt. Certain things are, and indeed are not possible within the physical world.
As previously mentioned. The upper floors above the impact zones on towers 1&2, when falling toppled significantly to a side, yet the wave of destruction under these significantly imbalanced weights remained symmetrical. I know you may say theres really clever people that have already explained this but youd be wrong. It is 100% impossible for an imbalanced force to create a balanced force.
Take a second to actually mentally imagine this the TOPPLED weight (sideways) somehow creating a BALANCED force (downwards) impossible, a contradiction in terms.
Also, the OBSERVED events show that as the upper floors fell, the debris is visibly seen being propelled UPWARDS and outwards. This is 100% impossible due to gravity alone as you mentioned, gravity acts DOWNWARDS. There is literally no force to expel tones of structural steel UPWARDS (anything above the horizontal). Gravity acts downwards always without exception. There is no mechanism in a gravitational collapse to hurl debris UPWARDS. This video will show you the observed events & analysis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVqNouxDcfY
WTC7 is even more obvious. The freefall acceleration downwards of this building (that was NOT hit by a plane) is very very telling to anyone with any knowledge of physics.
Freefall is defined scientifically as a body that is falling with zero resistance to the fall. It is doing exactly that falling freely. If it encounters resistance, it is no longer free falling because the fall is not free. It has RESISTANCE. NIST were reluctant to include in their report on WTC7 that freefall occurred at all. They only added it as a side-note in the final report due to mounting pressure. What they did was take the start of collapse as when the penthouse collapsed and stopped the clock when the collapse was over.

To many (who like to let others think for them) this was conclusive proof that freefall did NOT occur. Because they took the total distance fallen & the total time to fall and worked out that it was twice the time of freefall
This is nothing more than bad science its the same as me being pulled over by the cops going 100mph and saying to the cop Im sorry sir but I cannot possibly have been going 100mph because I set off from my house one hour ago which is 60 miles away therefore my speed was 60mph
It makes sense if you dont like to think too much but we both know that average speed and point speed are two completely different things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC44L0-2zL8
Please watch this video now to truly understand WTC7.

The problem with freefall, (as admitted by NIST 2.25 seconds of PURE freefall & the rest very near to it) is that by very definition the FREEfall due to fire is 100% impossible. When a body is FREEfalling, 100% of the energy held in the body as gravitational potential energy is being converted into kinetic energy (the energy of motion). There is literally zero energy left over to do any work (the work required to bend/buckle/snap the 1000s of tones of structural steel).
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have FREEfall AND have the building bend/buckle/snap everything in its path. Again, not incredulous, just pure scientifically impossible.
If right now youre thinking Well I dont care, because I dont believe it was an inside job because loads of really clever people have said it wasnt then stop reading, go watch FOX news & go back to sleep.
If youre curious, please visit www.ae911truth.org. Theres over 650 professional engineers & architects. Their names & qualifications listed and an independent description of the 9/11 destruction. Please visit the member profiles. Look at their faces, read their words.
Then I challenge you to find me just 10% of that number of people, by name, that support the OT. Even 5% will do. And dont just say everyone at NIST, because NIST is a government controlled organization. Its circular thinking to believe theres any truth there if indeed it was an inside job.

I understand why you think the way you do. I dont want it to be true either. The truth is so massive & so horrible.. to be honest part of me wishes I didnt know it.

However, this does not change the hard facts that are NOT up for debate.
The rest of the evidence put forward by 1000s of whistleblowers & experts supports the physical evidence Nanothermite found in the WTC dust. I know its just paint right? The editor of the Open Physics journal resigned Ive heard it all. But what you must remember is that this paper has been OPEN PEER REVIEWED. Which means it is OPEN for any debunker to peer review it and fault the science involved. So far, no-one has. All theyve done is thrown **** at it tried to attack the institution, marr the reputation of those involved. But if you have any kind of a brain, ask yourself if its NOT nanothermite that they found why hasnt anyone attacked the SCIENCE involved by peer-reviewing the paper? the answer is simple because theres nothing wrong with the science & they know it.

You also mentioned that aluminium planes can slice through steel if going fast enough (or something similar) I agree the observed events at towers 1&2 show this however please look at this photograph taken from a debunking site
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/PentWingHole.jpg/PentWingHole-full.jpg
This shows the plane hole in the pentagon. Notice the column thats been sprayed with white foam it is crisp, clean & undamaged except for maybe a crack near the top. By your logic, the aluminium planes that can slice through structural steel would it not be fair to say that this MASSIVE steel-slicing force would at least chip the concrete in a column when hitting directly? Think about it an aluminium wing that can slice through structural steel hitting a concrete column and not even taking chunk from it? How? Please tell me how this is possible
What you see in this picture is a crisp, undamaged column that does not appear to have suffered the steel-slicing force of an aluminium wing. To my eye, it looks like a crisp undamaged column with sharp, undamaged edges (with a box around it saying Hole made by right wing.

I urge you to consider these things, to watch all of the analysis available. To put your beliefs on hold for just a minute and to actually THINK. Youre a clever man and I know youre capable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7U22m9xLrQ
Ill leave you with these videos. They are in jest, but the subject matter & message is accurate.

Yours,

A concerned friend.'


I'm not suggesting flaming this guy, I simply thought some of you might like to read and/or address a few of the points he's making, and hopefully he'll read the thread....

He may even post if he feels so inclined. A dialogue would be good, I think.

cheers, have a good weekend

AE

The comments about NIST being "government-controlled" and FOX News give away this fraud's game. Another day, another stupid, lying "truther."

 

[bill smith]

bill, bill, bill, you know what a 2X4 is right?

Take one and stand it upright on a second one. You will of course have to hold them there. Now, while holding the lower one steady allow the top one to tip over. Is it moving sideways along the top of the lower one? No, it is not. It is pivoting along the edge towards its lean. That is not what is shown in the graphics in the youtube vid. That graphic shows a top section that is sliding.

Next align the lumber again and now , just as the upper one begins to rotate (i.e. its top is not completely out of line with the lower 2X4) quickly kick the lower 2X4 out and note where the upper one falls. Directly on the spot where the other one was! gravity acts downward and once allowed to fall that stick of lumber fell straight down even if it was not completely vertical as it did so. The small amount of rotational momentum it had obtained as it tilted on top of the other one would have instantly converted to rotating it about its center of mass but even that rotation would be slow and it therefore barely rotates any more before it hits the ground.

Same goes for the upper tower section. It had tilted and had some rotational momentum but as soon as the columns that made up its pivot failed (some under compression, some under tension) it no longer could rotate by pivoting on its base. It could only rotate about its center of mass. That center of mass and indeed the great bulk of the mass and volume of the upper section was still over the lower part of the tower and gravity sent that straight down. It cannot send it sideways. The mass was impacting the floors space of the lower section, not the columns which are designed to take huge vertical loads, thus the floors fail, after this occurs over 4 or 5 floors the columns have lost so much lateral bracing and are being buffeted by the falling debris and they too cannot remain standing.

The interior of the structure fails as debris collapsed floor after floor some of this debris outpacing the destruction of the perimeter column system. The collapse zone probably widened and encompassed a dozen floors with very large dense objects like elevator motors, transformers, and air conditioning units punching through floors ahead of the exterior collapse.

A small portion of the interior core survived the collapse but it was far too unstable to remain standing on its own and it buckled and fell.

Clear now?

Not really.

I don't particularly want to get into arguing this- I am basically a WTC1 person. But just a few general obcervations on what you said

' The graphics show an upper section that is rotating AND sliding sideways '

'Sliding sidways ' ? Was it disconnected from the lower block ?


'....quickly kick the lower 2X4 out and note where the upper one falls! gravity acts downward and once allowed to fall that stick of lumber fell straight down even if it was not completely vertical as it did so.'

This didn't happen as can be seen by the massive remaining core that was still in the way as seen in the videos. (even though I had formerly asumed that the lower pertion had been removed by controlled demolition in order to stop the upper block falling off the side and giving the game away)


'...mass was impacting the floors space of the lower section, not the columns which are designed to take huge vertical loads '

Really ?


'A small portion of the interior core survived the collapse but it was far too unstable to remain standing on its own and it buckled and fell.'

Small portion ? You may be mistaken.Look at the video again (attached below)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 Short version

 

[ComsatAngel2017]

Also, the "WOW! I was a pillar of the Establishment/NWO shill/American patriot who was all-aboard the OCT until I saw this amazing Youtube clip that totally turned my life around!" meme is all too typically Twoofer.

I may be wrong on this, but I ain't taking bets.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Wow. What a pile of classic trutherism. This guy may have taken some physics classes, but he wasn't awake.

As previously mentioned. The upper floors above the impact zones on towers 1&2, when falling toppled significantly to a side, yet the wave of destruction under these significantly imbalanced weights remained symmetrical.

Simply not true.

I know you may say theres really clever people that have already explained this but youd be wrong. It is 100% impossible for an imbalanced force to create a balanced force.
Take a second to actually mentally imagine this the TOPPLED weight (sideways) somehow creating a BALANCED force (downwards) impossible, a contradiction in terms.

There's no physics to see here. The concept of a "toppled weight" has no meaning.

Also, the OBSERVED events show that as the upper floors fell, the debris is visibly seen being propelled UPWARDS and outwards.

Not true. If you only look at stills, it appears as if debris is being thrown upwards because it's higher than the roofline at that moment; but from videos, it's clear that nothing is moving upwards. Rather, the roofline is falling faster than the dust, which is exactly what you'd expect; the viscous drag of the air on dust particles is significant compared with the force due to gravity, so they fall more slowly. So:

This is 100% impossible due to gravity alone as you mentioned, gravity acts DOWNWARDS. There is literally no force to expel tones of structural steel UPWARDS (anything above the horizontal). Gravity acts downwards always without exception. There is no mechanism in a gravitational collapse to hurl debris UPWARDS.

is an attempt to explain something that never happened.

WTC7 is even more obvious. The freefall acceleration downwards of this building (that was NOT hit by a plane) is very very telling to anyone with any knowledge of physics.
Freefall is defined scientifically as a body that is falling with zero resistance to the fall. It is doing exactly that falling freely. If it encounters resistance, it is no longer free falling because the fall is not free. It has RESISTANCE. NIST were reluctant to include in their report on WTC7 that freefall occurred at all. They only added it as a side-note in the final report due to mounting pressure. What they did was take the start of collapse as when the penthouse collapsed and stopped the clock when the collapse was over.

"Reluctant" is just speculation here; NIST didn't originally comment that part of the collapse was at near freefall acceleration, but agreed with the observation when it was pointed out to them. So:

To many (who like to let others think for them) this was conclusive proof that freefall did NOT occur. Because they took the total distance fallen & the total time to fall and worked out that it was twice the time of freefall
This is nothing more than bad science its the same as me being pulled over by the cops going 100mph and saying to the cop Im sorry sir but I cannot possibly have been going 100mph because I set off from my house one hour ago which is 60 miles away therefore my speed was 60mph
It makes sense if you dont like to think too much but we both know that average speed and point speed are two completely different things.

is, again, trying to explain fiction.

The problem with freefall, (as admitted by NIST 2.25 seconds of PURE freefall & the rest very near to it) is that by very definition the FREEfall due to fire is 100% impossible.

Freefall due to fire? Dude, what? At this point I can almost see the spittle forming around the corners of the mouth. Rational thought is seriously inhibited from here on in the rant. May be best not to pass that bit on to him.

When a body is FREEfalling, 100% of the energy held in the body as gravitational potential energy is being converted into kinetic energy (the energy of motion). There is literally zero energy left over to do any work (the work required to bend/buckle/snap the 1000s of tones of structural steel).
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have FREEfall AND have the building bend/buckle/snap everything in its path. Again, not incredulous, just pure scientifically impossible.

This is a fatally flawed analysis. It assumes that breakage of structural members must be taking place at all times during the collapse, and that gravity is the only force acting at any time on any individual part of the structure. If a large section of the building collapses, removing support over a significant height, the section above will fall at freefall ecceleration until it contacts the next intact part of the structure. If part of the falling structure is struck by, or experiences a force through a structural member connecting it to, a faster-falling part, then it may accelerate faster than freefall over a limited part of the collapse, because gravity is now not the only force acting on it.

If right now youre thinking Well I dont care, because I dont believe it was an inside job because loads of really clever people have said it wasnt then stop reading, go watch FOX news & go back to sleep.
If youre curious, please visit www.ae911truth.org. Theres over 650 professional engineers & architects. Their names & qualifications listed and an independent description of the 9/11 destruction. Please visit the member profiles. Look at their faces,

OK so far, but...

read their words.

And at that point this whole line of argument falls apart, because they all say different things, all of them demonstrably wrong.

Then I challenge you to find me just 10% of that number of people, by name, that support the OT. Even 5% will do. And dont just say everyone at NIST, because NIST is a government controlled organization. Its circular thinking to believe theres any truth there if indeed it was an inside job.

And this is a classic conspiracy theorist's fallacy: there is no objective way to assess the truth value of a proposition, therefore appeal to authority is the only argument, and authorities disagreeing with the conspiracy theory are unreliable because they may be part of the conspiracy. As a result, only evidence for the conspiracy may be used to determine whether there was a conspiracy. Classic confirmation bias.

I understand why you think the way you do. I dont want it to be true either. The truth is so massive & so horrible.. to be honest part of me wishes I didnt know it.

BS. Deep down, he thinks it's really cool that he's the one who knows The Truth[tm], although he's never actually going to do anything about it.

However, this does not change the hard facts that are NOT up for debate.

What a strange comment. If the facts can't be debated, then we're talking about thought control. As usual, the truthers actually want to suppress all dissent, just like their imaginary conspirators. Classic truther projection.

The rest of the evidence put forward by 1000s of whistleblowers & experts supports the physical evidence Nanothermite found in the WTC dust. I know its just paint right? The editor of the Open Physics journal resigned Ive heard it all. But what you must remember is that this paper has been OPEN PEER REVIEWED. Which means it is OPEN for any debunker to peer review it and fault the science involved. So far, no-one has. All theyve done is thrown **** at it tried to attack the institution, marr the reputation of those involved. But if you have any kind of a brain, ask yourself if its NOT nanothermite that they found why hasnt anyone attacked the SCIENCE involved by peer-reviewing the paper? the answer is simple because theres nothing wrong with the science & they know it.

Sunstealer, are you reading this? Apparently your thorough and rigorous dissection and demolition of Harrit et al on this forum never happened. Sorry, but apparently you don't exist. And nor do quite a few others among us who've pointed out the many fatal flaws of Harrit et al.

You also mentioned that aluminium planes can slice through steel if going fast enough (or something similar) I agree the observed events at towers 1&2 show this however please look at this photograph taken from a debunking site
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Pent...gHole-full.jpg
This shows the plane hole in the pentagon. Notice the column thats been sprayed with white foam it is crisp, clean & undamaged except for maybe a crack near the top. By your logic, the aluminium planes that can slice through structural steel would it not be fair to say that this MASSIVE steel-slicing force would at least chip the concrete in a column when hitting directly? Think about it an aluminium wing that can slice through structural steel hitting a concrete column and not even taking chunk from it? How? Please tell me how this is possible
What you see in this picture is a crisp, undamaged column that does not appear to have suffered the steel-slicing force of an aluminium wing. To my eye, it looks like a crisp undamaged column with sharp, undamaged edges (with a box around it saying Hole made by right wing.

And he can tell all that from a distant feature on a digital photo, despite the fact that the white foam on the column could do a very good job of hiding any damage to it. This is another classic case of a truther making something up, then demanding an explanation for it.

Alienentity, I don't see much hope for this one in the short term; he's a long way from even being able to see the evidence, let alone assess it objectively. He may join the forum, but I suspect he'll find himself so idealogically blinded to reason that he'll either run away or commit suicide by mod. I'd like to think I was wrong, but... well, you guys all know as well as I do.

Dave

 

[eromitlab]

Also, the "WOW! I was a pillar of the Establishment/NWO shill/American patriot who was all-aboard the OCT until I saw this amazing Youtube clip that totally turned my life around!" meme is all too typically Twoofer.

I may be wrong on this, but I ain't taking bets.

It so neatly feeds in to the truther fantasy that their current "efforts" (making youtube videos, proselytizing on the internet, burning DVD copies of their pseudodocumentaries, leaving said DVD copies lying around like so many religious tracts, and so on) are all that's needed to "wake the sheeple up", "get the word out", effect their change in their world and also like such as. Truthers don't want to go to the effort of doing anything more than that, so they like a story that proves to themselves and others that they don't need to step up their efforts... being a Keyboard Warrior For 9/11 Truth is sufficient to yield great rewards once all the sheeple turn against the OCT and venerate those brave patriots who were getting the word out before it was widely believed.

 

[bill smith]

It so neatly feeds in to the truther fantasy that their current "efforts" (making youtube videos, proselytizing on the internet, burning DVD copies of their pseudodocumentaries, leaving said DVD copies lying around like so many religious tracts, and so on) are all that's needed to "wake the sheeple up", "get the word out", effect their change in their world and also like such as. Truthers don't want to go to the effort of doing anything more than that, so they like a story that proves to themselves and others that they don't need to step up their efforts... being a Keyboard Warrior For 9/11 Truth is sufficient to yield great rewards once all the sheeple turn against the OCT and venerate those brave patriots who were getting the word out before it was widely believed.

On that note this seems apt.

'In the beginning a patriot is a scarce man, hated and feared and scorned. But in time when his cause succeeds, the timid join him, because then it costs nothing to be a patriot '.
---Mark Twain

 

[jaydeehess]

Not really.

I don't particularly want to get into arguing this- I am basically a WTC1 person.

I don't know what that means bill. You only know much on anything about tower 1? Ok fine

But just a few general obcervations on what you said

' The graphics show an upper section that is rotating AND sliding sideways '

'Sliding sidways ' ? Was it disconnected from the lower block ?

Yes it shows an graphic(ie. a diagram bill) of the towers in which the upper section has not only tilted but also moved sideways such that the bottom of the upper section is beyond the sides of the tower. This means that it had to have moved sideways. Nice diagram but it has no bearing or resembelance to what was observed to have occured with the WTC tower.

'....quickly kick the lower 2X4 out and note where the upper one falls! gravity acts downward and once allowed to fall that stick of lumber fell straight down even if it was not completely vertical as it did so.'
This didn't happen as can be seen by the massive remaining core that was still in the way as seen in the videos. (even though I had formerly asumed that the lower pertion had been removed by controlled demolition in order to stop the upper block falling off the side and giving the game away)

The point is bill that the upper section was allowed to fall, in the direction gravity would take it, once the coluimns failed. I was using the lumber to illustrate that once falling a mass will fall straight down and that when the upper section of the tower began its fal it would be falling straight down, again bill that is the direction gravity works its magic everytime all the time.

I was not attempting to say that part of the lower columns suddenly disappeared. They did howver fail and buckle allowing the upper section to drop.

'...mass was impacting the floors space of the lower section, not the columns which are designed to take huge vertical loads '

Really ?

Yes really. Just how could it be doing anything other than that bill?

'A small portion of the interior core survived the collapse but it was far too unstable to remain standing on its own and it buckled and fell.'

Small portion ? You may be mistaken.Look at the video again (attached below)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 Short version

too bad the video stops at "this suggested a particular method of collapse that the video helped confirm......."

However I was refering to the so called spire that remained at the end of the total collapse whereas the reference you cite refers to part of the core remaining as initial collapse begins. The two instances being separated by about 12 seconds and 1000 vertical feet. You would not happen to have a link to that entire docuementary would you?

 

[Thunder]

Truthers and their ideas have become very boring.

 

[Stellafane]

This may be an observation ultimately destined for AAH, but...I believe the Truther presence in this forum has just about reached rock bottom. Granted, even in its heyday it was never exactly Einsteinian level. But at least it was interesting enough once in a while to provoke a little response -- humor, irritation, maybe even a quick Google or two to check out a point.

But now it's not even that, just content free posts that either (1) repeats some long-debunked Truther claim that's already been picked over more than a chicken bone at a crow convention, (2) offers hyperventilating support when some equally mundane Truther posts some tired piece of idiocy, or (3) makes some smug, smart-alecky remark that anyone beyond the age of 6 should be ashamed of. Really, if this is the boldest and brightest of what the Truthers have to offer, their curious little cult must be absolutely brain dead.

I think a creative programmer with an afternoon to kill could probably create a Trutherbot that's more original and interesting than these guys.

 

[bill smith]

I don't know what that means bill. You only know much on anything about tower 1? Ok fine



Yes it shows an graphic(ie. a diagram bill) of the towers in which the upper section has not only tilted but also moved sideways such that the bottom of the upper section is beyond the sides of the tower. This means that it had to have moved sideways. Nice diagram but it has no bearing or resembelance to what was observed to have occured with the WTC tower.



The point is bill that the upper section was allowed to fall, in the direction gravity would take it, once the coluimns failed. I was using the lumber to illustrate that once falling a mass will fall straight down and that when the upper section of the tower began its fal it would be falling straight down, again bill that is the direction gravity works its magic everytime all the time.

I was not attempting to say that part of the lower columns suddenly disappeared. They did howver fail and buckle allowing the upper section to drop.





Yes really. Just how could it be doing anything other than that bill?




too bad the video stops at "this suggested a particular method of collapse that the video helped confirm......."

However I was refering to the so called spire that remained at the end of the total collapse whereas the reference you cite refers to part of the core remaining as initial collapse begins. The two instances being separated by about 12 seconds and 1000 vertical feet. You would not happen to have a link to that entire docuementary would you?

I think I do have the video actually. (I just include a post I made when I posted it ast week.)

The second you get an image onscreen freeze the video. Then click it through until the plane magically appears coming from behind the building.

Did they know this when they put the video into circulation ? Of course they did.Nothing like a missing plane to set the conspiracy hounds running. lol
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6402347900887643799


You are implying that 47 massive core colums and the best part of 236 perimeter columns had been severed for the top porton to 'slide'. Do you wnt to explain how that could be ?


You said the following:-

'...mass was impacting the floors space of the lower section, not the columns which are designed to take huge vertical loads '

I replied:-

'Really ? '

You replied'-

' Yes really. Just how could it be doing anything other than that bill?'

Well easily actually. The upstanding 47 core clumns and their lateral bracing formed a massive lattice or grid anchored 70 feet deep in the grpund which would have minced the falling block. That takes a LOT of impact.


At this point in time just after the global collapse we are not interested in the 'spire'- we are only nterested in the massive remaining largely intact core.

 

[dudalb]

On that note this seems apt.

'In the beginning a patriot is a scarce man, hated and feared and scorned. But in time when his cause succeeds, the timid join him, because then it costs nothing to be a patriot '.
---Mark Twain

Great FSM, a variation on the "Galileo was ridiculed. I am Ridiculed.Therefore I am another Galileo" fallacy.

 

[dudalb]

This may be an observation ultimately destined for AAH, but...I believe the Truther presence in this forum has just about reached rock bottom. Granted, even in its heyday it was never exactly Einsteinian level. But at least it was interesting enough once in a while to provoke a little response -- humor, irritation, maybe even a quick Google or two to check out a point.

But now it's not even that, just content free posts that either (1) repeats some long-debunked Truther claim that's already been picked over more than a chicken bone at a crow convention, (2) offers hyperventilating support when some equally mundane Truther posts some tired piece of idiocy, or (3) makes some smug, smart-alecky remark that anyone beyond the age of 6 should be ashamed of. Really, if this is the boldest and brightest of what the Truthers have to offer, their curious little cult must be absolutely brain dead.

I think a creative programmer with an afternoon to kill could probably create a Trutherbot that's more original and interesting than these guys.

At times I really wonder if that has happened.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Until 4 months ago, like you (and millions of others) I has swallowed the official theory of 9/11 perpetuated by the US government & the mainstream media. I had seen the footage of the planes crashing into the towers & their subsequent total destruction into steel shards & concrete dust and assumed that the planes had caused this damage why wouldnt I?

.
This is the stuff I find hilarious.

I never took a structural engineering course in my life. I spent two weeks thinking about the destruction of those buildings. I decided there was no way NORMAL AIRLINERS could do all of that in less than two hours.

How can the 14 lightest stories crush 95 heavier stories and accelerate in the process? Why weren't EXPERTS all over this crap within a few months after the event? I can possibly understand architects not seeing through it. At IIT the standard joke was that "architects took funny physics and funny math." But even though physics majors may not study skyscrapers they should have been wondering about the distribution of mass after seeing the videos of 9/11.

This just needs to be kept complicated and mysterious so the LAYMEN can't figure out the obvious.

psik

 

[BigAl]

.
This is the stuff I find hilarious.

I never took a structural engineering course in my life. I spent two weeks thinking about the destruction of those buildings. I decided there was no way NORMAL AIRLINERS could do all of that in less than two hours.

How can the 14 lightest stories crush 95 heavier stories and accelerate in the process? Why weren't EXPERTS all over this crap within a few months after the event?

They were;

Henry Guthard, 70, one of Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

Report From Ground Zero, page 188
http://snurl.com/j54gc
​

 

[bill smith]

I as just checking out that PBS video again. What a laugh. Is this real video or manipulated video?

First the late arrival f the plane at the very beginning of the video.Then at about 4 seconds when the plane is about to enter the building freeze it. Then click it thrugh a few times until you get the image of the plane superimposed on the outside wall of the building before there is ny fire. Then watch as the eggshell nose of the plane crashes through the opposite wall apparently intact. Git them conspiracy hounds a-runnin' boy. lol

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6402347900887643799 PBS 2002

http://nomoregames.net/presentations/Madison_No_Planes_Final_August_07.ppt_files/slide0045_image034 Nose Cone

 

[beachnut]

.
This is the stuff I find hilarious.

I never took a structural engineering course in my life. I spent two weeks thinking about the destruction of those buildings. I decided there was no way NORMAL AIRLINERS could do all of that in less than two hours.

How can the 14 lightest stories crush 95 heavier stories and accelerate in the process? Why weren't EXPERTS all over this crap within a few months after the event? I can possibly understand architects not seeing through it. At IIT the standard joke was that "architects took funny physics and funny math." But even though physics majors may not study skyscrapers they should have been wondering about the distribution of mass after seeing the videos of 9/11.

This just needs to be kept complicated and mysterious so the LAYMEN can't figure out the obvious.

psik

SPAM whining! You are unable to figure out the mass due to your own lack of knowledge and skills. Stop whining! You have been shown work by other people to help you make a very good estimate of the mass distribution. 7 years and all you can do is whine about an event you don't understand.

 

[BigAl]

I as just checking out that PBS video again. What a laugh. Is this real video or manipulated video?

First the late arrival f the plane at the very beginning of the video.Then at about 4 seconds when the pane is about to enter the building freeze it. Then click it thrugh a few times until you get the image of the plane superimposed on the outside wall of the building before there is ny fire. Then watch as the eggshell nose of the plane crashes through the opposite wall apparently intact.

So what?

 

[jaydeehess]

I think I do have the video actually. (I just include a post I made when I posted it ast week.)

The second you get an image onscreen freeze the video. Then click it through until the plane magically appears coming from behind the building.

Did they know this when they put the video into circulation ? Of course they did.Nothing like a missing plane to set the conspiracy hounds running. lol
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6402347900887643799

haven't watched and don't have time right now, but I fail to see how anything to do with the aircraft will adress the question I asked about the method of collapse.

You are implying that 47 massive core colums and the best part of 236 perimeter columns had been severed for the top porton to 'slide'. Do you wnt to explain how that could be ?

Actually I have never said that the top section slid bill. I said that the TM video it shows a top section that had slid. It did not do so.

I said that the columns failed and the upper section then began its downward movement.
When the aircraft hit it damaged and in some cases severed columns both on the perimeter and in the core. The impact also removed much of the fire insulation from structural members, crushed floor pans in local areas and sent fuel throughout several floors which then ignited and started large area office fires on multiple floors. The heat built up and weakened other columns of this already badly damaged structure. The combination of the isults to the structure caused an almost continuous redistribution of loads aided by the hat truss which held the upper section together as well. If not for the hat truss it is quite possible that the section of the upper floors above the impact hole might have sheared off. It remained though.
As more columns crept down as they sagged under the load this redistribution continued. We have the photos of the inward bowing perimeter columns that illustrates that the structure was sagging down. Obviously this cannot occur without the core being involved. At a point in time just prior to initial collapse the redistribution sends more load to a column(s) that are already at their absolute limit, they then buckle causeing another redistribution that also simply cannot be handled and this quickly progresses and the upper section moves in the way gravity acts - downward.

You said the following:-

'...mass was impacting the floors space of the lower section, not the columns which are designed to take huge vertical loads '

I replied:-

'Really ? '

You replied'-

' Yes really. Just how could it be doing anything other than that bill?'

Well easily actually. The upstanding 47 core clumns and their lateral bracing formed a massive lattice or grid anchored 70 feet deep in the grpund which would have minced the falling block. That takes a LOT of impact.

Their lateral bracing IS the floor trusses which are simply not designed to handle the load of the mass impacting them. They fail. No lateral bracing to those 47 columns and it matter not how good a foundation a long column has, if it exceeds a certain length to width ratio it cannot support itself against buckling much less do so while being banged about by tons of falling steel and concrete.

The falling upper section is NOt impinging its load on those columns when it starts falling bill. That's what happens when a column fails.

At this point in time just after the global collapse we are mot interested in the 'spire'- we are only nterested in the masive remaining largely intact core.

That doc did not refer to a massive largely remaing core bill. At least not the part you linked to.
However I do note that the roofline is seen to move downward and the core is not seen spearing up through it so we do know that the core did fail.

 

[BasqueArch]

I have a degree in Civil/Structural engineering ... I am a Civil/Structural engineer with advanced qualifications in Structural analysis, stress analysis & structural steel design. I have 6 years of experience in building high-rise structures . My most recent project (completed just 2 days ago) was building 4 concrete bridge replacements.
I am not prone to outbursts of conspiratorial chatter, I do not hate americans (I have many American friends in fact).

1. He no talk structural engineering like engineers I know,
high smarmy/empathic (> 2:1) to engineering lingo language ratio. "The truth is so massive & so horrible.. to be honest part of me wishes I didnt know it."
2. From another country,some sort of technical degree, ex-British colony, misspells tonnes as tones
3. Engineers design not building bridges.
4. Licensed engineers don't need to say I have a degree in Civil/Structural engineering; it's required and understood.
5. He's a young engineering technical college
CAD draftsman from another country, without a US engineer license.


or Gage's secretary.​

 

[jaydeehess]

So what?

I suspect bill is setting us up for a no-plane silliness.