The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[beachnut]

Of course. That's what I meant in my last post.

Btw, UA175 didn't steer anyhow. Without the last maneuver it would have crashed into Giulianis office. That's the direction it was steering.
Hanjour reached 1° just 5ft above the ground. Of course, he had no landing gear down. Both planes "landed" in the building. ...a bit too fast, I guess.

Go to minute 4:05

Terrorist pilot hits WTC, in a bank angle. No wonder some of the terrorist pilots were not allowed to rent planes, you don't land in that big of a bank angle on a calm day like 911.
The first time I drove a car it was perfect on centerline, no bank angle, but my tires were not rated for 500 mph. Flying is not like driving at 500 mph in a car on ice. Moronic analogy. Did you get that one from Balsamo?

At 7:31 the video makes up a lie, implies the planes used on 911 last flights before 911 were in December 2000. A moronic lie. The video failed to prove anything useful. The planes were seen flying (an added note in the video does not correct the lie), they did fly, and the next conspiracy will be made up nonsense about the FOIA information.

Was the flying on 911 too precise for 911 truth? 911 truth, crashes were precise. Really?

Planes land on centerline each day, is that too precise?

What it too precise? This is sad, the video shows a pilot may of had poor planning, or practiced in a simulator how to hit the WTC.

Precise, hitting in bank angle? Would more precise be zero bank angle?

The video reveals no math was used to do the transformation made up in the video. No math means the video is nonsense. Pure garbage with lies added, implying who knows what? What was the point?

 

[Jackanory]

Asking Tri to clarify his comments since his presence at a SC fire appears possibly specious is not a hidden agenda, it's an explicit agenda.

You talk like the impeccable debunkers don't ask questions with an agenda, hidden or otherwise.

Do Tri's comments become invalid if he wasn't there?

Do my comments become invalid because I wasn't there?

Do we now have to be somewhere to know something?

If only!

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

A furniture conspiracy? A cabal of couches? I guess that would make as much sense as everything else you post.

Hey Red... WTC7 was the largest office building fire in history.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Downloads/SC_Baltimore.pdf

Ten second to find. Granted, not my own, but very similar.

This time you brought something to the table. This was a new find for me but I didn't learn much more about the 17 minutes that I am concerned with. However, this paper does have some illuminating graphs I would like to refer you to:

THE UNRESTRAINED COMPOSITE TRUSS

(I changed the deflection units to feet. Deflection is the creep or "sag" that I am concerned about)

THE COMPOSITE TRUSS WITH A SUPPORTING COLUMN

------------------------

Basically, after 17 minutes there is 3.5 ft of "sag" in the unprotected case. Let's duly note that 3.5 ft does not equal the 9ft necessary to explain the 55 inches of inward bowing on the south wall between 9:06 and 9:23 am.

Perhaps we are expected to believe that there was a sudden 5 - 5.5 ft drop after the 2nd compression diagonal buckled in the supporting column/unprotected composite truss case.

The unprotected case: "Due to the airplane impact and blast, very little of the extremely fragile sprayed insulation material would have remained intact on the surface of many trusses. Hence, an unprotected composite truss was considered as a reasonable lower-bound case." Burgess and Plank
I haven't researched this so I don't know if we can assume that the "sagging" trusses were unprotected.

Conclusion: This paper is little to no help in explaining how there was 9 ft of "sag" in 17 minutes. This paper is only helping me prove my point.

I'd like to mention this important line from that paper: "The analyses showed that the performance of the protected and unprotected composite trusses was not very sensitive to the load level, in terms of either deflection or resistance period." Burgess and Plank

 

[dc1971]

No, you are completely wrong. Holocaust denial is comparable to defending someone who used the Reichstagsbrand as a pretext for war. It's comparable to a doctrine that says "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." It's comparable to the creation of an "axis of evil". It's comarable to downplay torture. It's comparable to blame someone without evidence. It's comparable to an inquiry controlled by the Executive. It's comparable to downplaying the PNAC plans.
It's typical that the same try to stigmatize any critiques by comparison to a completely unrelated tabu. It's typical that debunkers use the suffering of the victims to oppress critiques. It shows the vulgar spirit of 9/11 debunkery.

Actually, NO, YOU. ARE. COMPLETELY. WRONG.

There is no vulgar spirit involved with presenting facts and evidence. Showing spirit for something usually involves believing in something. I'm not taking sides on this issue, what I am doing is looking at what has been presented to me and then taking the time to understand instead of hand-waving the way you Twoofies like to do. This is the same type of tactic holocaust deniers use. They will either A) Deny that the holocaust ever happened or B) Not accept the evidence that there was a holocaust at face value!

 

[triforcharity]

A furniture conspiracy? A cabal of couches? I guess that would make as much sense as everything else you post.

I take it from this post thatyou cannot refute the absolute conclusive evidence that I have posted about steel trusses falling faster than 97 minutes eh there sport?

 

[Patriots4Truth]

I take it from this post thatyou cannot refute the absolute conclusive evidence that I have posted about steel trusses falling faster than 97 minutes eh there sport?

are you going to reply to my post or not?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

are you going to reply to my post or not?

I take it from this post that you cannot refute Triforcharity's absolute conclusive evidence that he posted about steel trusses failing faster than 97 minutes either?

 

[triforcharity]

This time you brought something to the table. This was a new find for me but I didn't learn much more about the 17 minutes that I am concerned with. However, this paper does have some illuminating graphs I would like to refer you to:

THE UNRESTRAINED COMPOSITE TRUSS
[qimg]http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/6186/deflection.png[/qimg]
(I changed the deflection units to feet. Deflection is the creep or "sag" that I am concerned about)

THE COMPOSITE TRUSS WITH A SUPPORTING COLUMN
[qimg]http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/5333/deflection2.png[/qimg]

------------------------

Basically, after 17 minutes there is 3.5 ft of "sag" in the unprotected case. Let's duly note that 3.5 ft does not equal the 9ft necessary to explain the 55 inches of inward bowing on the south wall between 9:06 and 9:23 am.

Perhaps we are expected to believe that there was a sudden 5 - 5.5 ft drop after the 2nd compression diagonal buckled in the supporting column/unprotected composite truss case.
[qimg]http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/9853/buckle.png[/qimg]

The unprotected case: "Due to the airplane impact and blast, very little of the extremely fragile sprayed insulation material would have remained intact on the surface of many trusses. Hence, an unprotected composite truss was considered as a reasonable lower-bound case." Burgess and Plank
I haven't researched this so I don't know if we can assume that the "sagging" trusses were unprotected.

Conclusion: This paper is little to no help in explaining how there was 9 ft of "sag" in 17 minutes. This paper is only helping me prove my point.

I'd like to mention this important line from that paper: "The analyses showed that the performance of the protected and unprotected composite trusses was not very sensitive to the load level, in terms of either deflection or resistance period." Burgess and Plank

You do realize that they only modeled half the truss, right?

"For this study, one half of the composite truss was numerically modelled with and without a supporting column."

From Fig 1.

 

[DGM]

sorry try p. 378

"Bowing of South Wall

The exterior columns on the south wall bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures, pull-in forces from the floors beginning at 80 min, and additional gravity loads redistributed from the core. Figure 5–6 shows the observed and the estimated inward bowing of the south wall at 97 min after impact (10:23 a.m.). Since no bowing was observed on the south wall at 69 min (9:55 a.m.), as shown in Table 5–2, it is estimated that the south wall began to bow inward at around 80 min when the floors on the south side began to substantially sag. The inward bowing of the south wall increased with time due to continuing floor sagging and increased temperatures on the south wall as shown in Figs. 4–42 and 5–7. At 97 min (10:23 a.m.), the maximum bowing observed was about 55 in. (see Fig. 5–6)."

and 97 min - 80 min = 17 min

Conclusion: This paper is little to no help in explaining how there was 9 ft of "sag" in 17 minutes. This paper is only helping me prove my point.

I believe you answered your own question. The important part is in bold.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

You do realize that they only modeled half the truss, right?

"For this study, one half of the composite truss was numerically modelled with and without a supporting column."

From Fig 1.

and.......? your point is? lol

 

[Patriots4Truth]

I believe you answered your own question. The important part is in bold.

as I've already mentioned:
"The analyses showed that the performance of the protected and unprotected composite trusses was not very sensitive to the load level, in terms of either deflection or resistance period." Burgess and Plank

 

[DGM]

as I've already mentioned:
"The analyses showed that the performance of the protected and unprotected composite trusses was not very sensitive to the load level, in terms of either deflection or resistance period." Burgess and Plank

Again bold. What does this have to do with the explanation NIST presented for the towers?

 

[WildCat]

as I've already mentioned:
"The analyses showed that the performance of the protected and unprotected composite trusses was not very sensitive to the load level, in terms of either deflection or resistance period." Burgess and Plank

What do you think this sentence means? Can you paraphrase it in your own words?

 

[Patriots4Truth]

What do you think this sentence means? Can you paraphrase it in your own words?

to paraphrase: you are going to have to come up with a reasonable explanation for the 9 ft of "sag" because Nist's story ain't cutting it. if you got a real question refer to the hefty post I have upthread.

 

[DGM]

to paraphrase: you are going to have to come up with a reasonable explanation for the 9 ft of "sag" because Nist's story ain't cutting it. if you got a real question refer to the hefty post I have upthread.

How is it "not cutting it"? I think you just don't understand what they said (and you posted). Your ignoring the shifting loads (not loads in your quote above) compressive loads over the truss length that they are not designed to deal with. Think pushing in on a bow to change (or release) the string.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

How is it "not cutting it"? I think you just don't understand what they said (and you posted). Your ignoring the shifting loads (not loads in your quote above) compressive loads over the truss length that they are not designed to deal with. Think pushing in on a bow to change (or release) the string.

then give me a scientific paper that takes this into account

 

[DGM]

then give me a scientific paper that takes this into account

Takes what into account? Load paths, buckling, elastic or inelastic hinges? The NIST report you quoted explains all this in excruciating detail.

Are you just un-happy that they did not explain it in layman's terms?

 

[Patriots4Truth]

Takes what into account? Load paths, buckling, elastic or inelastic hinges? The NIST report you quoted explains all this in excruciating detail.

Are you just un-happy that they did not explain it in layman's terms?

it didn't explain the additional 5-6 feet of "sag"

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[DGM]

it didn't explain the additional 5-6 feet of "sag" [edit]

What part of "and additional gravity loads redistributed from the core" (from the section you quoted) did you not get? The "trusses" were being "squeezed".

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for response to moderated post.