47 vertical support columns in core of each Twin Tower from bedrock to top floor

Even if vertical columns did happen to fail here is a simple, comprehensive way to show how it would go if many explosives aren't involved.



Here is a simple, comprehensive way to show how the vertical core columns should have stood even if the floor trusses at the outside happened to give way.

It really is quite disturbing how the NIST Report and the so called debunking videos intentionally ignore the vertical core columns that run from bedrock to the top floor....

creativedreams said:

Here is a simple, comprehensive way to show how the vertical core columns should have stood even if the floor trusses at the outside happened to give way.

It really is quite disturbing how the NIST Report and the so called debunking videos intentionally ignore the vertical core columns that run from bedrock to the top floor...

Click to expand...

Got a link where this came from? In the future, if you paste something from a website please provide the link so I can read supporting info myself.

Thanx!

****** If you lined up 47 Truthers at Ground Zero and hooked them up to some huge chain and had them start walking to New Rochelle - with the provision that those quitting this BS get cut loose from the line before it gets to 100th Street - well I think all would opt out and reconsider before it hit Union Square.

***** Hopefully most are familiar with NYC.

BmanMcfly said:

The main reason being that they were not most damaged in the center, but 'off center'... if the center of gravity is too far to one side, then the building would topple over... much like if you sit on a three legged chair you'll fall to the side of the missing leg.

Click to expand...

While I'm eating, got a link where you got these ideas? Thnx!

ADK_Forever said:

While I'm eating, got a link where you got these ideas? Thnx!

Click to expand...

*Applause* your skill at dodging quesions is beyond reproach.

That you pretend like I'm going to show you something that you are not already abundantly aware of, when you completely dodged my question previously, and now you're asking for sources on something unrelated...





... Now, I've gone and answered your questions while you still haven't touched mine. Note: this is only 1 source of the exact same information.

bman said:

"How do you explain how this pressure turned into such a focused JET of pressure as to knock out 1 window some 20-30 floors below the collapse wave, as a pressure 'relief', so how come other areas HIGHER in between the relief of pressure and the source of that pressure (the collapse wave) was there OTHER pressure buildups (from the same stairs and elevators) when there was already a 'path of least resistance' further away for that air buildup to exit through???"

Click to expand...

Good luck. You made your point, now show how that belief stands to scrutiny.

Zinc Route said:

****** If you lined up 47 Truthers at Ground Zero and hooked them up to some huge chain and had them start walking to New Rochelle - with the provision that those quitting this BS get cut loose from the line before it gets to 100th Street - well I think all would opt out and reconsider before it hit Union Square.

***** Hopefully most are familiar with NYC.

Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:

Please stay on topic.

BmanMcfly said:

*Applause* your skill at dodging quesions is beyond reproach.

That you pretend like I'm going to show you something that you are not already abundantly aware of, when you completely dodged my question previously, and now you're asking for sources on something unrelated...

... Now, I've gone and answered your questions while you still haven't touched mine. Note: this is only 1 source of the exact same information.



Good luck. You made your point, now show how that belief stands to scrutiny.

Click to expand...

Lets just say the jet, cut completely through all of the vertical support columns, all of them. And every other support structure in the process.Then tell me how that would negatively affect the levels below that impact sight. If any thing, it would lesson the load. It would Not make everything below dissolve, and leave molten iron in the basement for 8 weeks. that is --"Eight weeks". does that make you Kerosene supporters question anything at all?? Kerosene will not melt steel, period.

BmanMcfly said:

*Applause* your skill at dodging quesions is beyond reproach.

That you pretend like I'm going to show you something that you are not already abundantly aware of, when you completely dodged my question previously, and now you're asking for sources on something unrelated...

... Now, I've gone and answered your questions while you still haven't touched mine. Note: this is only 1 source of the exact same information.

Good luck. You made your point, now show how that belief stands to scrutiny.

Click to expand...

Relax Bman. I'm not going to be at my pc for awhile so, while I was away I wanted to know where you got your ideas so I could read up on them for myself. Not everything is a conspiracy. I'd like to know where your info came from. If you're afraid to post it, I'll come up with my own assumptions as to why. Don't assume I've already seen what you have. If you want to convince me you won't hand feed me intel. A graphic with no explanation says nothing. I've posted tons of links here for you and others. Whether you discuss this honestly is up to you.

I'll reply to your post later.

ADK_Forever said:

Relax Bman. I'm not going to be at my pc for awhile so, while I was away I wanted to know where you got your ideas so I could read up on them for myself.

Click to expand...

Now, if this was an isolated incident of 'escape and evade', 'dodging', 'excessive demands to ressource', attacking the messenger, among other tactics, then you're asking me to relax would be warranted.

This is not an isolated incident (though it may be from your perspective), but the TREND of how discussions with those that believe the official story of events. That being the trend, and the focus on such small area's being quoted tells me that it will be dismissed, untill it can be forgotten, then can be asked to be re-sourced again, and the circle caries on again.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

Click to expand...

Of course not.

I'd like to know where your info came from. If you're afraid to post it, I'll come up with my own assumptions as to why. Don't assume I've already seen what you have.

Click to expand...

Except for that if I dug around enough I could probably show conclusively that you have been shown the same information... since I know this isn't the first that you've discussed this before.

If you want to convince me you won't hand feed me intel. A graphic with no explanation says nothing. I've posted tons of links here for you and others. Whether you discuss this honestly is up to you.

I'll reply to your post later.

Click to expand...

In terms of the actual damage done to the columns, you could even take it from the NIST reports themselves, and it will say the same thing.

You'll notice that I make every effort to thoroughly address each point that gets raised, I'm doing the best I can to be honest and factual, and when properly shown that I'm wrong, I'll be happy to admit it and move on (the main reason I avoid discussion on the pentagon, since the evidence is at best inconclusive, and overall irrellevant in making the case showing government implication).

Right OK Bman, now this sentence of yours was, to you, an explanation of why the debris did not fall symmetrically, as was clearly seen in those few photographs.

"That would be about the point where gravities energy had dissipated from the loss of downward momentum to the point where it was no longer destroying the core structure..."

Click to expand...

Now I have bolded the parts that shows you have a complete and utter misunderstanding of science ...

... gravities energy had dissipated ... loss of downward momentum ...

Now Bman, there are laws and theories in science that are ABSOLUTES ... they are immutable ... they are inviolate.

Gravity is one of them ...

Gravity is a CONSTANT !!!

Since Galileo it has been accepted (for Earth in case someone wants to get pedantic, although I suspect none will) as a CONSTANT unvarying, unrelenting 9.8 m/s² or just over 32 ft per second squared !!!

Gravity cannot "dissipate" ... that is a physical IMPOSSIBILITY ... yet demonstrates a lack of understanding of the BASICS of science.

If gravity somehow dissipated and vanished, things would just hang in mid-air or go floating off out into space !!!

There is ALSO the point that conservation of momentum is ALSO a fundamental constant ... embodied in Newtons First.

It states that momentum is constant if there is no external force acting on it ... so if something, any object, a chair, Newtons apple, is FALLING the ONLY force acting on it is GRAVITY ... fact.

(Throwing an object adds velocity (your external force) ... but let's not go into that again, like I tried to explain using a bullet analogy).

Yet that constant force of gravity pulling the buildings down ... was added to by WEIGHT ... which ACCELERATED the speed of the fall, in other words the collapse speeded up because you have gravity AND weight.

There is again, a physical impossibility for it to slow down or dissipate either ... once that building starts falling it is going no-where but down at a known and wholly predictable rate ...

What do you think the term SQUARED means in the equation 9.8 m/s² ???

But I think you may be getting misled by some of the titles such as "conservation of momentum" ... which you may have misinterpreted to mean loss of momentum.

Momentum Conservation Principle

The Acceleration of Gravity

BmanMcfly said:

maybe I used the wrong words for your satisfaction... but if you care to correct me.

Click to expand...

Bman ... it is not for MY satisfaction that you need to use the correct and established terminology ... it is for your own !!!

If you cannot communicate in a way that is universally recognised as the standard form of language within the topic, then how can people know that you truly do understand the science ???

Now your area of expertise, if I remember right, was in a computing field, and if you were in conversation with someone whom used the WRONG terminology you would easily see that they had no real idea of what they were talking about ... well, same here ...

For example, you also keep using this phrase ... in relation to the falling debris ...

"paths of LEAST resistance"

Click to expand...

Which again is scientific word salad, in that there is no such thing as paths of least resistance for falling objects.

"Paths of least resistance" in an ELECTRICAL concept ... please try and find any other scientific or engineering text, not to do with electricity, where that term is used ... I guarantee you will NOT find it ???

Truly Bman, if you have no concept of how wrong your perception of this, the easy stuff of science is ... then truly what hope for the rest ???

Now, I am not expecting yourself and others here to have the learned knowledge to enable you to de-construct Bazants' calculations or the FEA's of Purdue and Tsukuba ... BUT I DO expect you to have a good grasp of the BASICS !!!

Which leads nicely onto my next point ...

You keep stating that the experts are not to be trusted ... but please, you need to understand that these experts, by dint of extremely rigourous work and study for years, have EARNED the right to speak about these issues.

So, what RIGHT do YOU have by way of equally hard work and effort that gives you a genuine enough understanding of the topic to be able to, in all truth and honesty, be able to refute their data and earned mastery ???

BmanMcfly said:

When I addressed all your various university reports that 'confirmed' your viewpoint... and I went through and confirmed that while the science may be good it's based on flawed assumptions, the same flawed assumptions that came from the source (NIST). That I was using some secret code that meant 'they are part of the conspiracy'.

I'll repeat again how to get me to shut up about 9-11 permanently :
Show me that the information is wrong / flawed and HOW the INFORMATION is wrong / flawed, not stating what amounts to 'trust the experts'. I've repeatedly stated that I don't accept an experts opinions simply because of their expertise, anymore then I won't bring my car into a mechanic without having an idea of exactly what's wrong in the first place, because the mechanic has his own agenda, maximizing the per vehicle profits in his garage.

Some people have no qualms about taking their cars and repairing everything as per the experts opinion, even if it costs them many times more then they needed.

Click to expand...

And sometimes Bman a little knowledge is a DANGEROUS thing ... this is a kinda weak analogy really, firstly what is wrong with the mechanic having his own "agenda" ... whatever that is ???

Is that mechanic "supposed" to provide his services for nothing ... how can he purchase the essential tools needed to work on your vehicle, are they supposed to be free too, does he not have bills to pay and food, clothing, home to provide for a family ... what about the time and effort he PUT INTO learning his topic ... does that not grant his some right of "authority" ???

Would that analogy work for a medical problem too ???

What gives you the RIGHT to deny these people the time, effort and study they put, for YEARS, into PROPERLY learning their field ... for you to then deny them that ???

How can you truthfully tell that you are genuinely able to pick flaws in their case ...

Seriously, by what RIGHT of education, ability or intimacy of the field do you have to question them ... what University or Institute of learning matriculated you, that gives you the ability to tell if their data and information is either flawed or wrong ???

How can you tell ... does it never occur to you ... that it may, in fact, be YOUR understanding that is flawed and wrong ???

How do you know that YOU have found mistakes and flaws that people whom have worked in the field for many, many, many years cannot see ... and yet you did with nothing more than a few YooToob vids and sites that tell you ???

Look deep within yourself and you will know this to be true ...

Where do you get this level of mistrust of anyone smacking of even a hint of authority in the real world, against those self-proclamed ones on conspiracy sites ???

EXACTLY what makes their unturtored opinions more right than those respected worldwide real experts ???

I get the distinct impression that resentment is a big factor ... and if you look deep within yourself ... in that part of yourself you do not wish to acknowledge exists ... you will see this to be true too !!!

Bman at the end of the day ... it is up to YOU to educate yourself.

If there is something that you, genuinely do not understand, then the VERY best thing to do is to place yourself in the path of enlightenment and gain that understanding.

Please I implore you, I beg of you, if need be, go back to school, open a textbook, attend an evening course of study ... for until you have gained a true and full grasp of this ... you will simply never understand where you are wrong !!!

If your goal is to find the truth and you don't believe the engineers who call your ideas total rubbish ... then you have to go and then GET an education in engineering, to even begin to have the right to legitimately deny them ... also, if only so you can stop asking questions and start answering them for yourselves.

It takes REAL knowledge to understand that 9/11 truth is total crud.

9/11 truth is an OXYMORON !!!

Bman, Skateguy, hell even creative ... knowledge is the key ...

Please, please, please get some !!!

~~~~~~~~~~

Please, at least have the honesty to look at this link ... and READ it ... he is a faculty member at Wisconsin and a Professor of Earth Studies, and explains very well WHY he has the right to be acknowledged and respected for his expertise ... will you do it ???

"Self-Appointed Experts"

Nutty 9-11 Physics

Resume

Skateguy said:

Seems ironic to me, that the doubters to the official report are looking for facts and evidence, while those that support the gubment view, seem to think they have all the answers. Where did those answers come from, other than the same information we all have to look at? Did somebody give you a secret note or something? Why are you so sure your right, if we are all gathering information from the same sources?--I sure don't feel that certain in my stance. I still am looking for information, where those on the opposing side seem to feel they already have it all..

Click to expand...

Then WHY are you looking at conspiracy sites and YooToob ???

If you have genuine questions regarding a topic ... let's say gardening, then surely it makes complete and utter common sense to go to a gardening expert or book for relevant information !!!

You have been given the means, many times, by many people to seek those anwers yourself.

Skateguy ... you are questioning what is essentially an engineering failure, so WHY have you not taken up my simple little challenge and gone and spoken to an actual engineering expert ... like a Professor at your local university ???

You claim this is a search for truth ... so WHY do you not appear to have the courage of your convictions, to search for those answers amongst those who do, in the real world, know intimately those engineering or demolition topics ???

Why have you not had the gumption to get educated in yourself in these topics, for THAT is where you will find the answers ???

You HAVE the means to find understanding at your disposal ... all it takes is some hard study and effort on your part ... surely that is not too high a price to pay for REAL knowledge !!!

Arguing against a point of science is easy if you do not have detailed knowledge ... it is harder to argue against when you do ... therefore GET that detailed knowledge that can ONLY come from much further education, get immersed in it !!!

Educating yourself is YOUR burden if you are genuinely questioning.

And you have the means to unburden yourself of questions ... it is called going back to school and LEARNING about the topic ... in this case, engineering.

Get a qualification and then you will have the right and ability to question others ...

Therin' lies the way to salvation !!!

ADK_Forever said:

Got a link where this came from? In the future, if you paste something from a website please provide the link so I can read supporting info myself.

Thanx!

Click to expand...

creative won't be able to tell you !!!

BmanMcfly said:

I'm sorry, but that's not entirely accurate... It's more like the inner core of the building supported the structural load (for the ENTIRE building), while the outer skin provided the structural stability (for the ENTIRE building).

Click to expand...

(italics mine)

Bman ... your getting there !!!

And if you think about it, by taking on each others loads ... it shows that the two elements were tied together ... they INTERACTED with one another ... they DEPENDED on one another.

Compromise one you stress the other and vice versa !!!

Now I understand that when people see a frickin' HUGE building like the Towers, it is easy to see why they think they were incredibly strong too ... after all most people think big = strong !!!

When, in fact, the strength to mass ratio is NEVER exponential equal !!!

(Like I tried to explain about people who grind their teeth do not "need" to be ten times bigger to exert ten times normal bite pressure)

Now I do hope that you have awareness of what "exponential" means, for if you don't then you will never be able to get why the Towers were actually LIGHT structures !!!

The Towers achieved that great height, not from super-strong materials and over-engineering (as you think of it) ... but rather through a DISTRIBUTION of LOADS.

Very strong masonary buildings are usually triangular in shape ... like a pyramid ... WHY is that ???

There is a reason why they have to be that shape ... can you work it out ???

BmanMcfly said:

Right... Now, with that OPEN HOLE say 20 floors away, WHAT PROCESS could form pressure IN BETWEEN the open hole blown out by pressure, to blow out another window IN BETWEEN the first window blowing out and the collapse wave that you claim was 'building up pressure in the stairwells' (without bringing up the fact that the stairwells were in the center of the building, not the outer walls)

Click to expand...

You do know that the elevators and stairwells were staggered !!!

There were TRANSFER lobbies ... where you had to cross over, if people had to do it then so did the air ... and it is impossible to tell HOW many doors of either stairs or lifts were open and how many were closed.

So that explains the staggered over-pressure ... that you like to call "squibs"








Btw, did your read up on Boyle's Law ... it would help in your understanding of how gases (like air) behave under pressure ???

BmanMcfly said:

Strawman.
YouTube- 9/11 Smoking Guns: The Squibs
(I'm specifically referring to the part between 0:53-1:05 of the video)

Click to expand...

So how come there were people coming down stairs covered in dust ???



The aircraft impacted and damaged SEVERAL floors, not just one of each Tower.

There's your dust and debris !!!

Besides ... I have no reason to believe the AMATEUR opinion of someone who is not intelligent enough to spell the word ACCORDION correctly.

If someone is too lazy and/or ignorant to DOUBLE-CHECK their presentation ... then I sure as Hades have no need to accept it as credible.

Making SIMPLE, childishly simple spelling mistakes is indicative of poor research ... period !!!

The rest of it is just someone puting together a bunch of sciency-sounding words without knowing what they mean ... most of it plagiarized anyway.

And didn't I just know it ... citizensfor911truth is a 19 year old !!!

He would have been just around 10 years old when 9/11 happened and he is obviously still in that youthful rebellious stage ... in my day it was "Ban the Bomb" ... and I cringe at how niave and unsophisticated my understanding of the world was ... fortuantely, I grew out of it.

Yup, a teenagers understanding and amateur video is more credible only to some !!!

Do you believe in chemtrails too ???

It states that momentum is constant if there is no external force acting on it ... so if something, any object, a chair, Newtons apple, is FALLING the ONLY force acting on it is GRAVITY ... fact.-----depending on it's shape, wind resistance comes into play. ---Careful talking about absolutes

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue said:

Then WHY are you looking at conspiracy sites and YooToob ???

If you have genuine questions regarding a topic ... let's say gardening, then surely it makes complete and utter common sense to go to a gardening expert or book for relevant information !!!

You have been given the means, many times, by many people to seek those anwers yourself.

Skateguy ... you are questioning what is essentially an engineering failure, so WHY have you not taken up my simple little challenge and gone and spoken to an actual engineering expert ... like a Professor at your local university ???

You claim this is a search for truth ... so WHY do you not appear to have the courage of your convictions, to search for those answers amongst those who do, in the real world, know intimately those engineering or demolition topics ???

Why have you not had the gumption to get educated in yourself in these topics, for THAT is where you will find the answers ???

You HAVE the means to find understanding at your disposal ... all it takes is some hard study and effort on your part ... surely that is not too high a price to pay for REAL knowledge !!!

Arguing against a point of science is easy if you do not have detailed knowledge ... it is harder to argue against when you do ... therefore GET that detailed knowledge that can ONLY come from much further education, get immersed in it !!!

Educating yourself is YOUR burden if you are genuinely questioning.

And you have the means to unburden yourself of questions ... it is called going back to school and LEARNING about the topic ... in this case, engineering.

Get a qualification and then you will have the right and ability to question others ...

Therin' lies the way to salvation !!!

Click to expand...

I guess I could just ask you for the facts, since no one elses seem to hold water in your estimation. . ---You assume the people writing the official reports are trying to tell the truth. Have you not considered they are being told what to say??? If the gubment were behind this, then why would their official report do anything but try to cover their trail?? --trust no one. works for me.

Skateguy said:

It states that momentum is constant if there is no external force acting on it ... so if something, any object, a chair, Newtons apple, is FALLING the ONLY force acting on it is GRAVITY ... fact.-----depending on it's shape, wind resistance comes into play. ---Careful talking about absolutes

Click to expand...

Are you trying to now tie wind resistance as a factor of an object weighing 500.000 tons ???

Somehow I think any object weighing that much can pretty much overcome "wind resistance" ...

Skateguy said:

I guess I could just ask you for the facts, since no one elses seem to hold water in your estimation. . ---You assume the people writing the official reports are trying to tell the truth. Have you not considered they are being told what to say??? If the gubment were behind this, then why would their official report do anything but try to cover their trail?? --trust no one. works for me.

Click to expand...

You assume too much ... Skateguy, like yourself I am not a structural engineer, but I have had and education and career in a scientific field.

So that is why I am asking you to contact people whom are considered knowledgable in these fields by right of education ... as I have.

Have you ever visited JREF ... they do have a few engineers of these topics on board and are extremely helpful if you come with and open-mind and politeness.

I HAVE however given you many "facts", and pointed you in the direction of further comformation and education of those topics.

If you choose not to look it is your right, but the method of proving those facts has been presented ... it is up to you though whether or not you wish to follow it up !!!

Skateguy, I did not spend years gaining my degrees for no other purpose but to spread falshoods and misinformation to random Internet conspiracy theorists at some mythical point in the future... but to be competent enough to treat patients !!!

I also do NOT have any political agenda or bias ... your politicians, and legislature have no power over me ... OR any of the other professionals all over the world who have looked into 9/11 and concur with what you call the "official report".

THE REST OF THIS PLANETS SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING COMMUNITIES AGREE WITH THE REPORTS BY NIST AND ASCE ...

THAT ... MAKES IT A CONSENSUS !!!

Other nations changed building codes as a DIRECT result of those reports ... do you really think they would just do that to satisfy American vanity or pressure ???

Especially in the Middle East where the US is definately not up for any popularity contest !!!

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue said:

Are you trying to now tie wind resistance as a factor of an object weighing 500.000 tons ???

Somehow I think any object weighing that much can pretty much overcome "wind resistance" ...

Click to expand...

No, in this instance I'm not. But wind resistance does factor into to falling objects, not just gravity alone, which is not a constant. Which is why they give a range of speeds for objects in free fall. As with Skydivers. their speed of fall varies, as their altitude changes and with wind resistance.

Skateguy said:

No, in this instance I'm not. But wind resistance does factor into to falling objects, not just gravity alone, which is not a constant. Which is why they give a range of speeds for objects in free fall. As with Skydivers. their speed of fall varies, as their altitude changes and with wind resistance.

Click to expand...

Skateguy I am in no way discounting the reality of wind resistance ... however my explanation of gravity was for Bman in that he somehow thought gravity "dissipated" ... I was merely trying to correct that mistaken assumtion.

I tried to not include too many of the variables as it would only add confusion, it was strictly just to explain that gravity is a constant within itself !!!

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue said:

Skateguy I am in no way discounting the reality of wind resistance ... however my explanation of gravity was for Bman in that he somehow thought gravity "dissipated" ... I was merely trying to correct that mistaken assumtion.

I tried to not include too many of the variables as it would only add confusion, it was strictly just to explain that gravity is a constant within itself !!!

Click to expand...

I see--do carry on, and have a great day.

Skateguy said:

I see--do carry on, and have a great day.

Click to expand...

You mean evening surely ... it's after 19:30 here and I am away to get ready to go to the village pub ... game of darts and few beers ... :drink ... followed by dominoes.

How rock-and-roll is that ... :rock

:cheers: to you, or more appropriately Slainte mhath !!!

Have a good one too ...

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue said:

You mean evening surely ... it's after 19:30 here and I am away to get ready to go to the village pub ... game of darts and few beers ... :drink ... followed by dominoes.

How rock-and-roll is that ... :rock

:cheers: to you, or more appropriately Slainte mhath !!!

Have a good one too ...

Click to expand...

Do you like these Ladies?? I love them. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wzMfSiOkMQ"]YouTube- Celtic Woman - A New Journey - Granuaile's Dance[/ame]