Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad

[Gamolon]

Look at the NIST report, and THEY say that they fell "at essentially free fall speeds"
The 9-11 commission excepts a 10 sec. collapse...So that is what we go with. Do you say different, and go against NIST and the commission?

From the NIST site here:

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

So no, the towers didn't totally collapse in 9 or 11 seconds.

 

[Mr. Jones]

You aren't wrong. But the conspiracy loons are. They list people who claim the government was wrong but they hide what these people say is wrong.

Wrong Ollie, try to keep and quit avoiding thread responses,
The answer to your response is here, in the links are what "these people say is wrong"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3781201-post1248.html

Just like saying that the writers of the 911CR claim that they don't believe what they wrote was true. They don't tell you that what they believe is that different agencies lied a little about what they did or didn't do that morning because it was either classified or they were playing CYA because they screwed up.

So if the 9-11 commission panel, say these things in red, what the hell makes you think that they DON'T think they were mislead, therefore the report turns out to be less then accurate??
It's common sense Ollie! They themselves say they were lied to, and we probably do not know what we should, (for whatever reason it may be), they still said these things about their investigation!
So despite this revelation, do you expect rational thinking Americans, to have confidence of its accuracy, or truthfulness? When they themselves allude it is NOT?

They claim there was active thermitic material found in the WTC dust. But don't mention that a pack of matches is active thermitic material. And they pretend that there couldn't be rust and aluminum present (rust + aluminum = thermite)

Once again you fail to comprehend, either out of ignorance, or willful denial of what the 9 scientists actually found! It was a NANO THERMITIC chemical compound.. Nano...very small, AND A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE! That could only be made in a sophisticated laboratory. Try reading about the facts of something and its truthfulness before you go around making asinine claims they only found what amounts to matches!
It is an incendiary and an explosive,

"Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos."
Military Reloads with Nanotech - Technology Review

So these scientists didn't find ORDINARY matches
"Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale." Do you think Al Qaeda has the sophisticated technology to make this stuff?

"Now the question is are these "new types of bombs" only "being researched," or were they actually used on 9-11? Well to begin to answer that question let's compare a few excerpts of the article with excerpts from the peer-reviewed nano-thermite paper entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe."
Nano-thermite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
VS
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. Home Page

The article (Wiki) begins with a super citation:
"Nano-thermite, also called 'super-thermite',[1] is the common name for a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition."

The article also informs us that:

"Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives."[3]

The Wikipedia quotes are in RED and the Jones paper in BLUE

The products of a thermite reaction, resulting from ignition of the thermitic mixture, are usually metal oxides and elemental metals...
Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale.
What separates MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminum are not a fine powder, but rather nanoparticles.

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. The red material is most interesting...
It is composed of intimately mixed aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, barium, lead and copper.
Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nanometers across whereas the aluminum appears in plate-like structures approximately 40 nanometers thick.

These are all features of a nano-engineered material. It is not possible that such a material was formed as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers...
Although these elements -- aluminum, iron, oxygen, and silicon -- were all abundant in building materials used in the Twin Towers, it is not possible that such materials milled themselves into fine powder and assembled themselves into a chemically optimized aluminothermic composite as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Nope, these materials certainly didn't mill themselves, so who did mill them? The Wikipedia article states that-
A method for producing nanoscale, or ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum powders, a key component of most nano-thermitic materials, is the dynamic gas-phase condensation method, pioneered by Wayne Danen and Steve Son at Los Alamos National Laboratory. A variant of the method is being used at the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center

Funny thing about the Naval Surface Warfare Center-
The Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, (a branch of the Naval Sea Systems Command or NAVSEA), described in 1999 as the "national center for energetics"[1], "the only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the United States"[2] and in 2008 as "probably the most prominent US center for nano-thermite technology"[3], alleges via Freedom of Information Act replies that records "regarding research and development of nano-sized or Ultra Fine Grained (UFG) aluminum powders, nano-sized or Ultra Fine Grained (UFG) iron oxide powders or other metal oxide powders and Metastable Intermolecular Composites prior to 2002" do not exist. According to Indian Head, "research may have been conducted by Indian Head Division personnel but not submitted."- Source: 10:00am Diane Rehm show | 911Blogger.com

AND-
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At the temperatures prevailing during the reaction, the products can be solid, liquid or gaseous, depending on the components of the mixture.[12] Super-thermite electric matches developed by LANL can create simple sparks, hot slag, droplet, or flames as thermal-initiating outputs to ignite other incendiaries or explosives.[1]

After igniting several red/gray chips in a differential scanning calorimeter run to 700ºC, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high-temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.
"Super-thermite electric matches" have been developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory for which “applications include triggering explosives for ... demolition”
It is indeed possible that such matches, which are designed to be ignited by a simple electric pulse, could contain material similar to the red material we have found in the WTC dust

Nothing suspicious there, I'm sure bin Laden made the materials.
So as anyone who takes the time to read this, should quickly learn that what you are spreading here is utter BS, because you belittle and try to tell people these intelligent scientists found only what amounts to regular chemicals found in ordinary matches, when in reality, what they found was a sophisticated chemical compound, that only the military labs could make in a controlled environment, AND at the time , were the only RELIABLE source of "aluminum nanopowders in the United States"!!

There are much more interesting FACTS about this technology, and its uses relating to thermobaric weaponry.
""Thermobaric weapons are considered to be a promising application of nanoenergetic materials."
Considering what these people have found in their studies, and how it can be applied to the explanation of the WTC, it is more plausible then the 'fire" explanations given by NIST that have all been mostly rebuked, and debunked.

Debunking the Debunkers: Super-Duper Thermite: A Year in Review

So they dream about what they want to be true, we don't know why.

This is NO dream Ollie, these are facts that have been found, and written about, that verify what these scientists said is true. The problem with folks like yourself, is that you continue to follow what the so called 'debunker" sites peddle, in which the hide, or distort, and severely misinform you.
Do you really think that if there was an easy explanation for the findings of these sophisticated substances, these people would put their reputations on the line in front of their peers in the scientific community?

Me I've volunteered to be one of the readers at a 10 year remembrance ceremony this September. We'll be reading a list of those who died that day.

And as you do I hope in the back of your mind, you realize that those people were victims of a criminal conspiracy and cover up, that demand justice with an honest re-investigation of the REAL facts, and not some hogwash, BS story.
After you re-educate yourself on the facts, of what dedicated independent researchers are saying and have found, hopefully you will have a better understanding of just why there are so many dedicated Americans trying so hard to liberate our country from the lies and deceit, of the liberty stealing bastards.
You are going to put yourself up on a pedestal and read the names in memory of the victims, yet you have no understanding of the justice that the truth movement and millions worldwide truly seek for those very same victims!
Reading names in front of a crowd isn't doing jack shit for them or their memory, getting informed and involved in seeking REAL justice for them IS.

I can do that and point out the stupidity on these boards. But mostly they ignore the facts. But hey, it keeps them happy and off the streets......

Your stupidity and ignorance, hidden behind misplaced "patriotism" has been duly pointed out in this post.

 

[Patriot911]

Anyone else find it hilarious that Jones can question anyone else when he refuses to supply one real piece of evidence his bullshit fantasies are true? Come on. All we're asking for is one real piece of evidence there was controlled demolition. There should literally be tons of it if your paranoid delusions were true.

Until you can produce this evidence or admit to everyone you were lying your ass off about the evidence you claimed to have, you really don't have the right to call others names or question their claims.

 

[Rationalist1016]

Mr Jones, you might find these articles interesting.

More Bad Science Surrounding the “Nano-Thermite” Red Herring « American Everyman

Thermite myth debunked repeatedly...thruther ignore science and facts

 

[SFC Ollie]

Ah yes I remember reading one of the articles about the so called nano thermite.

They claimed that this unburnt nano thermite made up .01% of the dust they tested. And they found this in four different samples taken from 4 different places.

So at .01% there was tons of this stuff that didn't ignite?




I don't believe it for a minute.... I've used thermite, once it starts it burns, all of it.....

 

[Mr. Jones]

Look at the NIST report, and THEY say that they fell "at essentially free fall speeds"
The 9-11 commission excepts a 10 sec. collapse...So that is what we go with. Do you say different, and go against NIST and the commission?

From the NIST site here:

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

So no, the towers didn't totally collapse in 9 or 11 seconds.

Oh then what are the NIST collapse estimate times for both towers? They seem to estimate 11 and 9 secs, and even try to explain away these fast times with BS about minimal resistance from the lower parts, but offer no calculations or evidence to suggest this would be normal. You are doing a fine job of pointing out the obvious arguments that the researchers have with the NIST theory, but that is all you are doing. Repeating what NIST reported isn't addressing the counter claims.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Look at the NIST report, and THEY say that they fell "at essentially free fall speeds"
The 9-11 commission excepts a 10 sec. collapse...So that is what we go with. Do you say different, and go against NIST and the commission?

From the NIST site here:

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

So no, the towers didn't totally collapse in 9 or 11 seconds.

Oh then what are the NIST collapse estimate times for both towers? They seem to estimate 11 and 9 secs, and even try to explain away these fast times with BS about minimal resistance from the lower parts, but offer no calculations or evidence to suggest this would be normal. You are doing a fine job of pointing out the obvious arguments that the researchers have with the NIST theory, but that is all you are doing. Repeating what NIST reported isn't addressing the counter claims.

What part of first external panels is so hard to understand? You can see them in the videos way ahead of the collapse.

 

[Mr. Jones]

And this?

You must have missed this-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3780309-post1244.html

And you seem to have missed one of my questions above. What do YOU think Skilling meant by 2000% of the live load?

Funny, but in your link above I see nothing mentioned about the fact that the MAIN purpose of the perimeter walls was to handle the WIND LOADS, which are LATERAL forces against the tower, not vertical.

So, when Skiliing said "2000%", was he referring to the actual LATERAL WIND LIVE LOAD for which the perimeter walls were designed for or the live GRAVITY load?

Please explain.

So you are implying that the perimeter columns had no trusses connected to them to support the floors??
Therefore were not important to holding up the buildings loads??
The 47 core columns held up approximately 60% of the vertical load, and the 244 perimeter columns distributed the remaining 40% across the four walls, 10% per wall.

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. 7 Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns. (at the same time by fire temps, to allow a no resistance scenario, and collapse sequentially in 9-11 secs)

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 8 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 9
9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters

What are live loads??
LIVE LOADS
Live Loads are not permanent and can change in magnitude. They include items found within a building such as furniture, pianos, safes, people, books, cars, computers, machinery, or stored materials, as well as environmental effects such as loads due to the sun, earth or weather. Wind and earthquakes loads are put into the special category of lateral live loads due to the severity of their action upon a building and their potential to cause failure.
Lecture 17: Primary Loads


Here is more on what a live load is and what it is not-
http://www.aij.or.jp/jpn/symposium/2006/loads/Chapter4_com.pdf

Can you imagine someone building the tower for a 2000% wind load?? Above its already designed 200mph rating? Get real man, he isn't talking about the ******* wind! 1000s of mph winds? Pft

So the argument goes like this...The NIST did not provide any calculation in which safety factors, and material strength and composition was taken into account. Namely tensile strength, and the 2 forces colliding against each other, and the subsequent resistance the falling part would have met.
They simply state the lower portions only provided minimal resistance, so they fell "essentially at free fall speeds", and estimating 11 and 9 seconds..And walk away.
You again have provided no proof that NIST was at all accurate, or had any strong indisputable evidence or proof that they are correct, in their assumptions.
I have provided a list of rebuttals and articles that provide evidence
of credible counter points by researchers, not only about NIST but about other parts of the 9-11 attacks. Proof and evidence, in those links what more do you need, and what points are you trying to make??
You only continue to point out the obvious deficiencies in their report?

 

[Mr. Jones]

From the NIST site here:


So no, the towers didn't totally collapse in 9 or 11 seconds.

Oh then what are the NIST collapse estimate times for both towers? They seem to estimate 11 and 9 secs, and even try to explain away these fast times with BS about minimal resistance from the lower parts, but offer no calculations or evidence to suggest this would be normal. You are doing a fine job of pointing out the obvious arguments that the researchers have with the NIST theory, but that is all you are doing. Repeating what NIST reported isn't addressing the counter claims.

What part of first external panels is so hard to understand? You can see them in the videos way ahead of the collapse.

Save yourself the trouble Ollie and please go to reading the thermite links I took the time to provide for you, or you can post what NIST should have estimated for collapse times instead, and explain for them why only minimal resistance should have been expected without taking other considerations into account.

 

[Gamolon]

Look at the NIST report, and THEY say that they fell "at essentially free fall speeds"
The 9-11 commission excepts a 10 sec. collapse...So that is what we go with. Do you say different, and go against NIST and the commission?

From the NIST site here:

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

So no, the towers didn't totally collapse in 9 or 11 seconds.

Oh then what are the NIST collapse estimate times for both towers? They seem to estimate 11 and 9 secs, and even try to explain away these fast times with BS about minimal resistance from the lower parts, but offer no calculations or evidence to suggest this would be normal. You are doing a fine job of pointing out the obvious arguments that the researchers have with the NIST theory, but that is all you are doing. Repeating what NIST reported isn't addressing the counter claims.

What part of "NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." didn't you understand?

Were you using 9 and 11 seconds as the time it took the towers to be completely gone from the time of collapse initiation????

 

[Rationalist1016]

Oh then what are the NIST collapse estimate times for both towers? They seem to estimate 11 and 9 secs, and even try to explain away these fast times with BS about minimal resistance from the lower parts, but offer no calculations or evidence to suggest this would be normal. You are doing a fine job of pointing out the obvious arguments that the researchers have with the NIST theory, but that is all you are doing. Repeating what NIST reported isn't addressing the counter claims.

What part of first external panels is so hard to understand? You can see them in the videos way ahead of the collapse.

Save yourself the trouble Ollie and please go to reading the thermite links I took the time to provide for you, or you can post what NIST should have estimated for collapse times instead, and explain for them why only minimal resistance should have been expected without taking other considerations into account.

Mr. Jones, you haven't commented on the links that I posted for you.

 

[Gamolon]

(at the same time by fire temps, to allow a no resistance scenario, and collapse sequentially in 9-11 secs)

Thanks for answering my question.

So you DO think the towers completely collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds. This is COMPLETELY wrong.

 

[Gamolon]

You must have missed this-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3780309-post1244.html

And you seem to have missed one of my questions above. What do YOU think Skilling meant by 2000% of the live load?

Funny, but in your link above I see nothing mentioned about the fact that the MAIN purpose of the perimeter walls was to handle the WIND LOADS, which are LATERAL forces against the tower, not vertical.

So, when Skiliing said "2000%", was he referring to the actual LATERAL WIND LIVE LOAD for which the perimeter walls were designed for or the live GRAVITY load?

Please explain.

So you are implying that the perimeter columns had no trusses connected to them to support the floors??
Therefore were not important to holding up the buildings loads??
The 47 core columns held up approximately 60% of the vertical load, and the 244 perimeter columns distributed the remaining 40% across the four walls, 10% per wall.

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. 7 Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns. (at the same time by fire temps, to allow a no resistance scenario, and collapse sequentially in 9-11 secs)

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 8 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 9
9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters

What are live loads??
LIVE LOADS
Live Loads are not permanent and can change in magnitude. They include items found within a building such as furniture, pianos, safes, people, books, cars, computers, machinery, or stored materials, as well as environmental effects such as loads due to the sun, earth or weather. Wind and earthquakes loads are put into the special category of lateral live loads due to the severity of their action upon a building and their potential to cause failure.
Lecture 17: Primary Loads


Here is more on what a live load is and what it is not-
http://www.aij.or.jp/jpn/symposium/2006/loads/Chapter4_com.pdf

Can you imagine someone building the tower for a 2000% wind load?? Above its already designed 200mph rating? Get real man, he isn't talking about the ******* wind! 1000s of mph winds? Pft

So the argument goes like this...The NIST did not provide any calculation in which safety factors, and material strength and composition was taken into account. Namely tensile strength, and the 2 forces colliding against each other, and the subsequent resistance the falling part would have met.
They simply state the lower portions only provided minimal resistance, so they fell "essentially at free fall speeds", and estimating 11 and 9 seconds..And walk away.
You again have provided no proof that NIST was at all accurate, or had any strong indisputable evidence or proof that they are correct, in their assumptions.
I have provided a list of rebuttals and articles that provide evidence
of credible counter points by researchers, not only about NIST but about other parts of the 9-11 attacks. Proof and evidence, in those links what more do you need, and what points are you trying to make??
You only continue to point out the obvious deficiencies in their report?

So you think that these:

Should have resisted this:

I get it now.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Mr Jones, you might find these articles interesting.

More Bad Science Surrounding the “Nano-Thermite” Red Herring « American Everyman

Thermite myth debunked repeatedly...thruther ignore science and facts

Yes of course there are deniers of Jones and co, they are addressed here.
Debunking the Debunkers: Super-Duper Thermite: A Year in Review

Debunking the Debunkers: Thermite Denial - A Year in Review

As far as I know there have been no peer reviewed published rebuttals concerning the Jones paper. This is one of many things I would like to see debated in a new investigation.
But lets remember, this is only one part of the whole concerning 9-11, there are many other parts of it that the OCT does not add up, make sense, or even been acknowledged. The people that are against a new investigation befuddle me, as I don't understand what the hell they have against possibly finding out what really happened, or how the political connections and imperialistic military aspirations and policies played a role in the deaths of the victims, and the subsequent deaths of many of our military personnel whose lives were cut short because of lies.
Not to mention the innocent civilians who were murdered, many for sport.
Why not stand up for your country and freedoms, instead of taking on faith, the words of known proven liars, whose policies are destroying our way of life and what America is supposed to be for all of us? The lies in the OCT are shown to exist thanks to the many whistle blowers and researchers, and witnesses whose findings make sense, and add up.

 

[Mr. Jones]

(at the same time by fire temps, to allow a no resistance scenario, and collapse sequentially in 9-11 secs)

Thanks for answering my question.

So you DO think the towers completely collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds. This is COMPLETELY wrong.

So lets see, NIST gives an estimate, you don't agree with NIST, but don't bother to post your estimated times of collapse?
What first panels fell off the building first, and arrived on the ground, before the rest of the building then?
You think the collapse took more time then NIST estimated...what are your times then...easy enough..right?

 

[Mr. Jones]

And you seem to have missed one of my questions above. What do YOU think Skilling meant by 2000% of the live load?

Funny, but in your link above I see nothing mentioned about the fact that the MAIN purpose of the perimeter walls was to handle the WIND LOADS, which are LATERAL forces against the tower, not vertical.

So, when Skiliing said "2000%", was he referring to the actual LATERAL WIND LIVE LOAD for which the perimeter walls were designed for or the live GRAVITY load?

Please explain.

So you are implying that the perimeter columns had no trusses connected to them to support the floors??
Therefore were not important to holding up the buildings loads??
The 47 core columns held up approximately 60% of the vertical load, and the 244 perimeter columns distributed the remaining 40% across the four walls, 10% per wall.

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. 7 Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns. (at the same time by fire temps, to allow a no resistance scenario, and collapse sequentially in 9-11 secs)

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 8 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 9
9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters

What are live loads??
LIVE LOADS
Live Loads are not permanent and can change in magnitude. They include items found within a building such as furniture, pianos, safes, people, books, cars, computers, machinery, or stored materials, as well as environmental effects such as loads due to the sun, earth or weather. Wind and earthquakes loads are put into the special category of lateral live loads due to the severity of their action upon a building and their potential to cause failure.
Lecture 17: Primary Loads


Here is more on what a live load is and what it is not-
http://www.aij.or.jp/jpn/symposium/2006/loads/Chapter4_com.pdf

Can you imagine someone building the tower for a 2000% wind load?? Above its already designed 200mph rating? Get real man, he isn't talking about the ******* wind! 1000s of mph winds? Pft

So the argument goes like this...The NIST did not provide any calculation in which safety factors, and material strength and composition was taken into account. Namely tensile strength, and the 2 forces colliding against each other, and the subsequent resistance the falling part would have met.
They simply state the lower portions only provided minimal resistance, so they fell "essentially at free fall speeds", and estimating 11 and 9 seconds..And walk away.
You again have provided no proof that NIST was at all accurate, or had any strong indisputable evidence or proof that they are correct, in their assumptions.
I have provided a list of rebuttals and articles that provide evidence
of credible counter points by researchers, not only about NIST but about other parts of the 9-11 attacks. Proof and evidence, in those links what more do you need, and what points are you trying to make??
You only continue to point out the obvious deficiencies in their report?

So you think that these:

Should have resisted this:

I get it now.

Lol, it's not as simple as that, though you try to make it seem as though it is. You have done nothing to prove your point Gamolon.
You have still not posted anything that NIST said, that is indisputable. You haven't shown us why those many trusses all failed at the same time other then just a picture...no explanation as to how the NIST is correct in determining "minimal resistance, leading to essentially free fall speeds"

 

[Patriot911]

So when are you going to stop whining about the NIST and produce the evidence you claim to have that proves the NIST is wrong and that you are right? Come on. How hard can it be to produce just ONE piece out of the tons of evidence you claim to have? Well, it is REALLY damn hard when you're lying your ass off about the evidence, but other than that it should have been a piece of cake.

 

[Rationalist1016]

Mr Jones, you might find these articles interesting.

More Bad Science Surrounding the “Nano-Thermite” Red Herring « American Everyman

Thermite myth debunked repeatedly...thruther ignore science and facts

Yes of course there are deniers of Jones and co, they are addressed here.
Debunking the Debunkers: Super-Duper Thermite: A Year in Review

Debunking the Debunkers: Thermite Denial - A Year in Review

As far as I know there have been no peer reviewed published rebuttals concerning the Jones paper. This is one of many things I would like to see debated in a new investigation.
But lets remember, this is only one part of the whole concerning 9-11, there are many other parts of it that the OCT does not add up, make sense, or even been acknowledged. The people that are against a new investigation befuddle me, as I don't understand what the hell they have against possibly finding out what really happened, or how the political connections and imperialistic military aspirations and policies played a role in the deaths of the victims, and the subsequent deaths of many of our military personnel whose lives were cut short because of lies.
Not to mention the innocent civilians who were murdered, many for sport.
Why not stand up for your country and freedoms, instead of taking on faith, the words of known proven liars, whose policies are destroying our way of life and what America is supposed to be for all of us? The lies in the OCT are shown to exist thanks to the many whistle blowers and researchers, and witnesses whose findings make sense, and add up.

Well, I think we can play this "debunker" game all day. Nothing in the links you posted convinced me of anything. Nothing in the links that I posted for you convinced you of anything. It all boils down to who we find to be credible.
Every claim has been debunked. Then that debunked claim gets debunked. At some level, facts have to be seen as facts. Neither of us, apparently, are going to concede the others "facts".

 

[SFC Ollie]

Oh then what are the NIST collapse estimate times for both towers? They seem to estimate 11 and 9 secs, and even try to explain away these fast times with BS about minimal resistance from the lower parts, but offer no calculations or evidence to suggest this would be normal. You are doing a fine job of pointing out the obvious arguments that the researchers have with the NIST theory, but that is all you are doing. Repeating what NIST reported isn't addressing the counter claims.

What part of first external panels is so hard to understand? You can see them in the videos way ahead of the collapse.

Save yourself the trouble Ollie and please go to reading the thermite links I took the time to provide for you, or you can post what NIST should have estimated for collapse times instead, and explain for them why only minimal resistance should have been expected without taking other considerations into account.

Nope, if you are so ignorant that you refuse to accept what everyone in the world can see, then there is no hope for you. Not one of us can help you, you will remain ignorant and in fear for eternity. So sad.......

 

[SFC Ollie]

Mr Jones, you might find these articles interesting.

More Bad Science Surrounding the “Nano-Thermite” Red Herring « American Everyman

Thermite myth debunked repeatedly...thruther ignore science and facts

Yes of course there are deniers of Jones and co, they are addressed here.
Debunking the Debunkers: Super-Duper Thermite: A Year in Review

Debunking the Debunkers: Thermite Denial - A Year in Review

As far as I know there have been no peer reviewed published rebuttals concerning the Jones paper. This is one of many things I would like to see debated in a new investigation.
But lets remember, this is only one part of the whole concerning 9-11, there are many other parts of it that the OCT does not add up, make sense, or even been acknowledged. The people that are against a new investigation befuddle me, as I don't understand what the hell they have against possibly finding out what really happened, or how the political connections and imperialistic military aspirations and policies played a role in the deaths of the victims, and the subsequent deaths of many of our military personnel whose lives were cut short because of lies.
Not to mention the innocent civilians who were murdered, many for sport.
Why not stand up for your country and freedoms, instead of taking on faith, the words of known proven liars, whose policies are destroying our way of life and what America is supposed to be for all of us? The lies in the OCT are shown to exist thanks to the many whistle blowers and researchers, and witnesses whose findings make sense, and add up.

Well, I think we can play this "debunker" game all day. Nothing in the links you posted convinced me of anything. Nothing in the links that I posted for you convinced you of anything. It all boils down to who we find to be credible.
Every claim has been debunked. Then that debunked claim gets debunked. At some level, facts have to be seen as facts. Neither of us, apparently, are going to concede the others "facts".

Are you kidding, they will even tell you that those were not the right planes that we all saw hit the towers, that those planes landed safely in Cleveland......... God only knows where the people are today.....