Page 90 of 108 FirstFirst ... 40808889909192100 ... LastLast
Results 891 to 900 of 1079

Thread: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

  1. #891
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,917

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau72 View Post
    What you believe has never been proved either Michael, so that makes us even!
    Once again you refuse to provide links. I admit what I accept is a theory. Unfortunately for you, the evidence is on my side.
    Back to the OP. No one has provided proof that 9/11 was an inside job. That explanation fails on its lack of evidence.
    "
    If we have data, let's look at the data. if all we have is opinions let's go with mine
    -barksdale
    "

  2. #892
    Guru
    SanderO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    NYC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    2,621

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau72 View Post
    What you believe has never been proved either Michael, so that makes us even!
    What do you mean "proven"? What constitutes a "proof" of an observation?

    I don't find NIST's sequence of events for either the twins or 7wtc compelling. They present a MODEL and they support their model with assorted observations and of course engineering, fire science and physics. There is a lot of wiggle room in their models because there is simply not a full data set of conditions over the course of the event.

    It hardly makes sense to toss the entire thing out for some "detail" which may not be significant.

    Having said the above... I attempted to come up with a sequence for the destruction of the 3 buildings which seems to make more sense to me. Of course I am handicapped by the incomplete data set. Not only that these were very complex 4 D problems almost impossible to solve with "equations".

    I accept that 2 wide body planes hit the towers. Who piloted them is not a factor in how they collapsed. I believe... no I can't prove it... that the collapses of the twins were both cause by failures of the core structure. The cores suffered significant damage from the planes.. obviously not fatal. The structure DID have enough reserve strength to carry the floors above the plane strikes with some destroyed columns (axial load paths). But then the heat from unfought fires changed that. While heat does lower the strength of steel, it was not loss of strength which was the key factor as I see it. Heat also cause steel to expand. And it was the bracing beams between the core columns which began to expand from being heated. The heated beams were framed into columns.. not at the ends but at 3 levels about 3', 15' and 27' from the bottom of each column. The column to column splices were weak and basically kept then aligned on on top of the other during fabrication. The bracing beams basically held them in place laterally.

    So heated beams are pushing laterally against the columns in 3 places. Above and below this "hot zone" the frame pretty much remained "in line" and as built. What likely happened is that the expansion was able to displace a column when the bracing on the opposite side had been destroyed or was not there. Essentially a very small displacement would destroy the column to column connection to perform as the bearing area was driven down by the displacement. Insufficient bearing will allow the column above to drop. This process of expansion, misalignment leading to axial support destruction led to the upper sections losing support and they dropped down delivering a mass of 32 stories in the case of 2wtc and more than 16 in the case of 1 wtc. 2 wtc tipped as it dropped because the core axial destruction was on the SE side and in 1wtc the axial destruction was down the center of the core. A tell in 1wtc was the drop of the massive antenna located above the swath of core destruction 16 floors below. The Antenna dropped first descending into the tower just as the rest of the core's columns up there were being displaced.

    The above may not be what happened. It may be also. It is hard to know what the ACTUAL sequence of failures was. But it was not simultaneous. YES a tipping point was reached... the point when there was insufficient axial capacity of the core columns... not unlike how a tree is cut down by destroying the capacity where the trunk is chopped away.

    NIST's explanation is that the floor trusses managed to displace the facade and destroy its axial alignment. pushed out on all 4 sides? Pulled in on all 4 sides? A combination? convoluted. I agree the destruction was heat caused by changing the dimension of horizontal members in addition to plane destroyed columns. That's it.

    There is no credible sequence with place demo devices... Columns were no blown up... columns were pushed out of alignment.
    Nothing is as it appears.

  3. #893
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,566

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by SanderO View Post
    The column to column splices were weak and basically kept then aligned on on top of the other during fabrication. The bracing beams basically held them in place laterally.
    Here's an example of the type of column to column splice that you assert is weak. This is the splice for CC501 in the N tower at floor 95. The specific splice at that height is "101D". Can you point to what you think is "weak" about it please ?
    https://imgur.com/a/1GKAytK
    000013-L-107.jpg

  4. #894
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    23,366

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by SanderO View Post
    What do you mean "proven"? What constitutes a "proof" of an observation?

    I don't find NIST's sequence of events for either the twins or 7wtc compelling. They present a MODEL and they support their model with assorted observations and of course engineering, fire science and physics. There is a lot of wiggle room in their models because there is simply not a full data set of conditions over the course of the event.

    It hardly makes sense to toss the entire thing out for some "detail" which may not be significant.

    Having said the above... I attempted to come up with a sequence for the destruction of the 3 buildings which seems to make more sense to me. Of course I am handicapped by the incomplete data set. Not only that these were very complex 4 D problems almost impossible to solve with "equations".

    I accept that 2 wide body planes hit the towers. Who piloted them is not a factor in how they collapsed. I believe... no I can't prove it... that the collapses of the twins were both cause by failures of the core structure. The cores suffered significant damage from the planes.. obviously not fatal. The structure DID have enough reserve strength to carry the floors above the plane strikes with some destroyed columns (axial load paths). But then the heat from unfought fires changed that. While heat does lower the strength of steel, it was not loss of strength which was the key factor as I see it. Heat also cause steel to expand. And it was the bracing beams between the core columns which began to expand from being heated. The heated beams were framed into columns.. not at the ends but at 3 levels about 3', 15' and 27' from the bottom of each column. The column to column splices were weak and basically kept then aligned on on top of the other during fabrication. The bracing beams basically held them in place laterally.

    So heated beams are pushing laterally against the columns in 3 places. Above and below this "hot zone" the frame pretty much remained "in line" and as built. What likely happened is that the expansion was able to displace a column when the bracing on the opposite side had been destroyed or was not there. Essentially a very small displacement would destroy the column to column connection to perform as the bearing area was driven down by the displacement. Insufficient bearing will allow the column above to drop. This process of expansion, misalignment leading to axial support destruction led to the upper sections losing support and they dropped down delivering a mass of 32 stories in the case of 2wtc and more than 16 in the case of 1 wtc. 2 wtc tipped as it dropped because the core axial destruction was on the SE side and in 1wtc the axial destruction was down the center of the core. A tell in 1wtc was the drop of the massive antenna located above the swath of core destruction 16 floors below. The Antenna dropped first descending into the tower just as the rest of the core's columns up there were being displaced.

    The above may not be what happened. It may be also. It is hard to know what the ACTUAL sequence of failures was. But it was not simultaneous. YES a tipping point was reached... the point when there was insufficient axial capacity of the core columns... not unlike how a tree is cut down by destroying the capacity where the trunk is chopped away.

    NIST's explanation is that the floor trusses managed to displace the facade and destroy its axial alignment. pushed out on all 4 sides? Pulled in on all 4 sides? A combination? convoluted. I agree the destruction was heat caused by changing the dimension of horizontal members in addition to plane destroyed columns. That's it.

    There is no credible sequence with place demo devices... Columns were no blown up... columns were pushed out of alignment.
    By the rules of logic SanderO, if any element of a theory is invalid, that renders the entire theory invalid.


    By that standard, the OCT and your support of it with reservations fail.

  5. #895
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,917

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau72 View Post
    By the rules of logic SanderO, if any element of a theory is invalid, that renders the entire theory invalid.


    By that standard, the OCT and your support of it with reservations fail.
    You realize what you posted applies to your believe that mini neutron bombs were used. Rule of logic, your theory is invalid.
    "
    If we have data, let's look at the data. if all we have is opinions let's go with mine
    -barksdale
    "

  6. #896
    Guru
    SanderO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    NYC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    2,621

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau72 View Post
    By the rules of logic SanderO, if any element of a theory is invalid, that renders the entire theory invalid.


    By that standard, the OCT and your support of it with reservations fail.
    I don't have a theory... I suggested and summarized an hypothesis. I don't know what you feel is false in what I wrote... Please let me know.

    two planes hit the towers
    all the fires of the day were un fought. All sprinkler systems failed almost immediately
    engineering statements are true: steel expands when heated, beams were framed into 3', 15 & 27 feet from the column bottom, column splices were not designed to resist lateral forces... the antenna dropped first and so on.

    Give it a shot... what detail that I wrote is false?
    Nothing is as it appears.

  7. #897
    Sage
    Quag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,634

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by SanderO View Post
    I don't have a theory... I suggested and summarized an hypothesis. I don't know what you feel is false in what I wrote... Please let me know.

    two planes hit the towers
    all the fires of the day were un fought. All sprinkler systems failed almost immediately
    engineering statements are true: steel expands when heated, beams were framed into 3', 15 & 27 feet from the column bottom, column splices were not designed to resist lateral forces... the antenna dropped first and so on.

    Give it a shot... what detail that I wrote is false?
    The part where you didnt blame everything on the ebil US govt. After all that is the only part he cares about
    A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
    Winston Churchill



    A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
    Winston Churchill

  8. #898
    Guru
    SanderO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    NYC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    2,621

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
    Here's an example of the type of column to column splice that you assert is weak. This is the splice for CC501 in the N tower at floor 95. The specific splice at that height is "101D". Can you point to what you think is "weak" about it please ?
    https://imgur.com/a/1GKAytK
    000013-L-107.jpg
    The cross section of the splice plates are substantially thinner than the columns... ergo weaker
    Nothing is as it appears.

  9. #899
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    23,366

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by SanderO View Post
    I don't have a theory... I suggested and summarized an hypothesis. I don't know what you feel is false in what I wrote... Please let me know.

    two planes hit the towers
    all the fires of the day were un fought. All sprinkler systems failed almost immediately
    engineering statements are true: steel expands when heated, beams were framed into 3', 15 & 27 feet from the column bottom, column splices were not designed to resist lateral forces... the antenna dropped first and so on.

    Give it a shot... what detail that I wrote is false?
    Here's another true statement: jet fuel cannot melt steel, and it cannot weaken steel, and neither could the airplanes seriously impact the structures, according to the man who helped design it. Those are the facts you don't like to consider, as I recall.

  10. #900
    Guru
    SanderO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    NYC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    2,621

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau72 View Post
    Here's another true statement: jet fuel cannot melt steel, and it cannot weaken steel, and neither could the airplanes seriously impact the structures, according to the man who helped design it. Those are the facts you don't like to consider, as I recall.
    No steel was melted... Who made this claim?
    high temperatures weaken steel - FACT
    The towers' structures had 47 core columns and several hundred perimeter columns. So a plane could not destroy even 1/4 of the columns. But it could destroy SOME of the columns and destroy some it did FACT. THAT destruction ALONE was not sufficient to cause the towers' top to collapse destroying the floors slabs below... leaving the columns un braced and vulnerable to Euler buckling. FACT

    No problem consider intelligent comments. You are out of your league... essentially a parrot.
    Nothing is as it appears.

Page 90 of 108 FirstFirst ... 40808889909192100 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •