eots
no fly list
people ? what people ?...the people I know think you are a disgusting troll that has zero evidence to support your theories
Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad
- Thread starter Mr. Jones
- Start date
people ? what people ?...the people I know think you are a disgusting troll that has zero evidence to support your theories
Rationalist1016
Senior Member
- Jun 14, 2011
- 288
- 20
- 51
Well, that's true. That is one of those subjects that is beyond debate. But, Mr. Jones hasn't made that claim, at least not as far as I know.
I HOPE that we all agree that commercial planes where used on that day and that the people on them actually died in those crashes. I know there is still debate about the Pentagon and Pennsylvania. But, I've heard all the evidence I need to convince me of those crashes.
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"
Three things.
1. I have proved my point. The perimeter column floor truss connections are in no way designed to handle the downward force of that upper assembly (better than using "block" yes?) coming down on them. The mass of the upper assembly came down on the floor which transferred the load to the truss connections which sheared/bent them. That is a fact that you can't deny.
That's why, at :11 sec of this next video, you see the perimeter columns peel away from the tower proper. It's that simple. That's what happened. Video evidence to prove it.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkpOPA45M4c]YouTube - ‪WTC2 Perimeter Peel‬‏[/ame]
2. So your saying that the 61 perimeter column truss connections are supposed to resist the assembly coming down on them??? You're nuts. Take that to a structural engineer and have them explain it to you. THEY'LL tell you your nuts.
3. As has been explained to you, 9 and 11 seconds was the time it took the first panel assemble to hit the ground NOT the elapsed time for the towers to be completely destroyed. Get it straight.
eots
no fly list
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"
Three things.
1. I have proved my point. The perimeter column floor truss connections are in no way designed to handle the downward force of that upper assembly (better than using "block" yes?) coming down on them. The mass of the upper assembly came down on the floor which transferred the load to the truss connections which sheared/bent them. That is a fact that you can't deny.
That's why, at :11 sec of this next video, you see the perimeter columns peel away from the tower proper. It's that simple. That's what happened. Video evidence to prove it.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkpOPA45M4c]YouTube - ‪WTC2 Perimeter Peel‬‏[/ame]
LOL...
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #1,285
The point in all of this is, that there IS credible proof, and evidence that reputable intellectuals provide, from scientists, engineers, military, whistle blowers, and more, from all walks of life, that counter the theories of NIST and others, with respect to 9-11.
They clearly prove that what they have uncovered in their research, that the events of 9-11 as told by the government and its agencies are incorrect, and that a new investigation is warranted.
No one on here, has been able to provide any evidence that shows NIST has made an indisputable finding as to what, or how the buildings collapsed.
I have posted links to various people who have countered the OCT, have provided witnesses, and calculations in those links.
If people are stubborn and want to say there is no evidence or proof they are wrong, as I have shown that there is.
- Thread starter
- #1,286
Your appeal is a fallacy
Ad populum
Definition: The Latin name of this fallacy means "to the people." There are several versions of the ad populum fallacy, but what they all have in common is that in them, the arguer takes advantage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his or her argument. One of the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does.
You people have a desire to run with the crowd, thus your comment is a common one used to avoid the facts that have been presented to you.
You have shown a willful ignorance to anything that has been presented, and have provided no reasonable opinions other then your appeal to authority and the "bandwagon' mentality.
- Thread starter
- #1,287
This is a guess that leaves out many variables, and has been shown and proven by calculations from expert engineers to be false, and not likely to happen in the amount of time NIST estimated. But Gamolon seems to not want to take those calculations and facts and use them in any debate. He thinks that the weight on a few truss supports, and the deceiving pictures explains everything
He still hasn't even said by how much NIST was wrong in their estimation of the collapse times, if he ever does, perhaps he can notify NIST and have them make corrections, like Mr. Chandler did in regards to the free fall time of WTC 7.
Until then the NIST theory remains debunked and rebuked, with serious flaws, and he has proven nothing, only what we already knew.
eots
no fly list
This is a guess that leaves out many variables, and has been shown and proven by calculations from expert engineers to be false, and not likely to happen in the amount of time NIST estimated. But Gamolon seems to not want to take those calculations and facts and use them in any debate. He thinks that the weight on a few truss supports, and the deceiving pictures explains everything
He still hasn't even said by how much NIST was wrong in their estimation of the collapse times, if he ever does, perhaps he can notify NIST and have them make corrections, like Mr. Chandler did in regards to the free fall time of WTC 7.
Until then the NIST theory remains debunked and rebuked, with serious flaws, and he has proven nothing, only what we already knew.
AWESOME
- Thread starter
- #1,289
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"
Three things.
1. I have proved my point. The perimeter column floor truss connections are in no way designed to handle the downward force of that upper assembly (better than using "block" yes?) coming down on them. The mass of the upper assembly came down on the floor which transferred the load to the truss connections which sheared/bent them. That is a fact that you can't deny.
That's why, at :11 sec of this next video, you see the perimeter columns peel away from the tower proper. It's that simple. That's what happened. Video evidence to prove it.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkpOPA45M4c]YouTube - ‪WTC2 Perimeter Peel‬‏[/ame]
2. So your saying that the 61 perimeter column truss connections are supposed to resist the assembly coming down on them??? You're nuts. Take that to a structural engineer and have them explain it to you. THEY'LL tell you your nuts.
3. As has been explained to you, 9 and 11 seconds was the time it took the first panel assemble to hit the ground NOT the elapsed time for the towers to be completely destroyed. Get it straight.
You still haven't shown us why all the trusses failed in such a short amount of time, nor taken into consideration anything I have said, in all the prior postings!
You simply post a picture, of a few truss supports and the top half of one of the towers and want us to assume that is what happened, when there is a lot more to it then that.
No consideration of the mass that fell over the sides and was pulverized, therefore can't be used to calculate, weight/mass/kinetic energy properly in your failed explanation.
Also no real proof that can't be disputed is provided, to even begin to explain what initiated the collapses.
Sorry dude you failed, and only repeated what has been rebuked already.
"Condemnation without investigation is the highest form of ignorance."
Rationalist1016
Senior Member
- Jun 14, 2011
- 288
- 20
- 51
Well, there's where we differ. You are calling all the "other" claims proof. While you call NIST claims theory. NIST is the one that compiled their report from people that were on that site. Touched those beams & saw the scattering of those buildings. They didn't sit in a conference room and "guess" what happened. They did the best they could with the evidence that they had. There were mistakes, there were things they left out. NOBODY knows or can know every single detail that took place while those buildings were failing. Especially not people that are doing all their work on what they think buildings SHOULD look like when they fail.
You say that nobody can prove that NISTs claims are indisputable. Again, we are back to who we find credible!
Last edited:
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
Actually he does allude to that theory in a manner of speaking in this post:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3781201-post1248.html
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
Oh horse shit. You want to believe that NIST says the towers fell in 9 to 11 seconds, you go right on believing that. The only person who looks like an idiot is you. If you cannot see the parts of the building falling ahead of the collapse then you truly are in need of professional help.
- Thread starter
- #1,293
Now Ollie is resorting to strawman fallacy arguments, and generalizing because he has lost the ability to say anything intelligent.
I for one have never made such a crazy claim, I have shown you all the links to the sources that have disputes with the OCT, I have shown you proof of the evidence that exists that counters NIST and the governments version.
I believed the OS when it first happened, but I'll be damned if I will sit around and not speak out when I am clearly being lied to, and if anybody thinks the OCT is the undisputed truth, post your damned evidence, and I can guarantee you there will be a problem with it.
Do you people seriously think, that after all the flaws have been found in the OCT from all the many different, credible sources, that it can possibly be true and stand up to scrutiny?
If so, then it is you people that live in a fantasy world and subscribe to the most outrageous conspiracy theory ever foisted on the American public, and you should have your asses debrainwashed.
I can understand the denial process, I really can as I myself experienced it, but when these MFKERS continue to try to use their positions of power and authority to make us look like total ******* clueless imbeciles, that's it man, I call it for what it is and that is BS!
Look around, read your history, and witness how bad Americans ( and the rest of the world) have been fucked over for decades, If you insist on not wanting to believe what has been done, STFU, and at least let people who are aware of the atrocities use their rights to speak out, and try to hold the lying ***** accountable.
- Thread starter
- #1,294
Why don't you be a man and quote me directly Ollie? You are embarrassing yourself by reaching in your ass and pulling pure shit out now.
- Thread starter
- #1,295
I believe NIST is wrong and flat out lied in many instances about the collapses. NIST has an estimate for collapse times, that you all posted, and they claim that those times occurred because the towers "provided minimal resistance" without even explaining why.
So why don't you tell us what NIST should have estimated those times to be?? Instead of making up lies about me, and begging for us to believe you about anything because in your opinion" the whole world believes NIST" and the OCT.
eots
no fly list
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
Why don't you be a man and quote me directly Ollie? You are embarrassing yourself by reaching in your ass and pulling pure shit out now.
Do you deny that you posted this as part of your argument?
Don't doubt me numb nuts...... I certainly didn't make it up....
Trojan
Member
Curious, say you get a new investigation -- who should perform the investigation? I'd like to know who you think is qualified.
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
I believe NIST is wrong and flat out lied in many instances about the collapses. NIST has an estimate for collapse times, that you all posted, and they claim that those times occurred because the towers "provided minimal resistance" without even explaining why.
So why don't you tell us what NIST should have estimated those times to be?? Instead of making up lies about me, and begging for us to believe you about anything because in your opinion" the whole world believes NIST" and the OCT.
NIST did that for you, if you only read a little bit more than what your handlers want you to.
NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions
Now i know you have a hard time understanding all this so I'll tell you again.
The 9 and 11 second time periods were for the first unobstructed pieces of the buildings to hit the ground. The buildings were still collapsing at this time, and didn't finish collapsing for at least another 15 to 25 seconds.....
It's soooo simple.
You can see the pieces that hit the ground first in most videos.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA]YouTube - ‪9/11: South Tower "Collapse" video compilation‬‏[/ame]
Rationalist1016
Senior Member
- Jun 14, 2011
- 288
- 20
- 51
That is a good question. Because, apparently, there is a "vast power that the government has over the researchers who have contrary theories"(quote from Mr. Jones). So, using that premise, who could possibly do this investigation? If a committee WAS established, that had no government ties, & where all independent researchers, scientists, & engineers, would that be good enough? I don't believe it would. As soon as the committee submitted a report that didn't align with their claims, all we would hear is "the government (or some element of) derailed the investigation!!" You can't keep moving the goal post back when you don't like the answer.
I have already had this conversation with Mr. Jones. Although, I don't think he ever addressed this question.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
What if Japan attacked & invaded the Bolshevik empire NOT Pearl Harbor?- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 1
-
-
RFK Jr. turns the tables on Democrats and reveals 1.5M illegal aliens unlawfully received Medicaid- Started by Votto
- Replies: 6
