Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

According to common sense. I know, for a conspiracy theorists common sense might not mean much, but it makes sense:

Proposal: There is a challenge and acceptance of it.

Debate: There is a debate

Discussion: We discuss the debate

Call me stupid, but the debate thread is called as such because that's where the debate is SUPPOSED to take place, in the discussion we are supposed to discuss the debate and might add more. But generally still stick to the topic, which wasn't the WTC...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now I can't see it either, because he is on my Ignore.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You replied 3 posts of mine and still no explanation for the flyover. Bad, bad approach...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

which isn't a bad line.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Structural Design lesson for those who are a faux structural designer, pretending to be a structural designer, or, want to be a structural designer ( real structural designers may skip this section ):

Building Codes require floor structures ( and their supporting structure ) to be designed for a specific amount of live load. I think that i remember correctly from perusing the online Structural Blueprints, that the WTC was required to be designed for 150 pounds per square foot live load. Live load is simply the stuff that is not "bolted down". That is; people walking to and fro, furniture that may be moved here and there, and such like. In the normal conduct of business in an office , an office's floor area does not get anywhere near a total of 150 pounds for every square foot. If an office space had a party where everybody was invited, and the donuts were free, and people were standing cheek to jowl, it would probably average out to be 150 pounds on every square foot of floor. In virtually every office space in the normal routine, you will have just a very few people and a very few hundred pounds of furniture. So, in WTC you probably had much less than 150 pounds per square foot live load on the floor. Especially considering the fact that people who could get off the affected floor(s) left, and shortly after that, all the combustible furniture and paper and such like went up in smoke and so were no longer a weight burden. So, we had a floor required to be designed for 150 pounds per square foot which, while the building was still standing, actually was supporting only a very few pounds per square foot, of its original pre-crash load. Except, of course, for 58 tons of newly acquired Aluminum. And, about 50 more tons of Steel, Stainless Steel, Titanium, and such like. Very roughly 100 tons ( 200,000 pounds ) on half the building average storey floor area 20,000 square feet. 200,000 pounds divided by 20,000 square feet. Izzat about 10 pounds per square foot? What'd I say? What'd I say right now? 10 pounds per square foot more after a jetliner landed on it? Somebody check my arithmetic. That is only 10 pounds per square foot extra on a floor required by Building Code to carry 150 pounds per square foot.

Wait a minute. Not the whole story. According to the summary of the online Structural Blueprints, the WTC was actually designed to carry 5X the load required by the Building Code. Holey Moley. The WTC was actually designed to carry 5 x 150 pounds per square foot = 750 pounds per square foot. Of course, all the load reactions into all the floor supports had to be also designed to carry 750 pounds per square foot. The spandrels therefore were designed to resist the inward pull provided by 750 pounds per square foot. The columns were designed to resist the inward pull provided by 750 pounds per square foot. You understand we are talking about live load? The WTC was designed, according to the summary of the online Structural Blueprints, to carry 750 pounds per square foot live load. And, at the moment of collapse, with very few unfortunate people on the floor, and with all combustible furniture up in smoke, the floor had 10 pounds per square foot of new Aluminum on the floor. But, it is likely that the Aluminum melted and flowed out down the wall, and was not there. Aluminum has left the building. So, the structure was designed to carry 750 pounds live load per square foot of floor area, and was actually carrying almost no pounds per square foot live load at the moment of collapse.

Get another bag of popcorn and another bottle of beer. More to come:

Structural Design practice is extremely conservative. Manufacturing mill procedures are not carefully controlled to the extent that a NASA lab is. Steel may have rare minute flaws in the crystal structure. Standard structural engineering practice takes this into account and requires that normally manufactured steel be rated with a SAFETY FACTOR of 3x. This means that every normally manufactured piece of steel must be considered as having 1/3 the strength of a perfectly manufactured piece of steel would have. This means that most of the time a steel beam or whatever ( which is free of the rare crystal flaw ) will carry 3X the load that the Building Code requires.

Most of the time, in most circumstances, most steel does not have any flaws in its crystal structure. Most of the time, most steel structures will gladly support 3X the load that any responsible structural designer will design them for.

So, what do we have here. Every WTC piece of steel would probably have safely carried 3X its design load. And, according to the summary of the online Structural Blueprints, the WTC was designed for 5X the Building Code requirement. 3X times 5X = 15X the Building Code requirement for live load. At the moment of collapse, there was practically no live load.

At the moment of collapse, the steel structural members had much more than 15X structural capacity except for the temperature factor. Steel loses strength at lower temperature than its melting point. This has been extensively tested, published, and is very well known among structural designers.

At the moment of collapse, if the correct theory is that the trusses and their supports were so weakened by high temperature that they no longer resisted inward pull, then all the related steel structural members had to have lost somewhat more than 14/15 of their normal strength. All the involved steel members would have to have been at very close to their melting point to have lost that much strength.

This is not a trivial problem for anyone trying to claim the establishment story of simple airplane crash and jet fuel fire.

 

I'm getting tired of this, but, OK, since you request:

You are stupid.

 

Sgygys asked to be called stupid, in his, her or its (?) post.

To be polite, I was seduced by his/her/its begging, and said: OK. You are stupid.

How can he, she, or, it, beg to be called stupid, then afterward complain when a gallant hero grants his, her, or, its pitiful plea?

 

I don't believe he was really asking to be called by that term; I think he was implying the opposite, that people who -would- call him by that term would more fit the bill for the term. However, -regardless- of whether he was asking to be called it or not, it's a term that's not supposed to be used when describing people in this thread.

 

Uno Hoo, I have already made it clear that such a term shouldn't be used to describe people in this thread. Since there is no doubt that you knew this when you used the term to describe someone this time, I feel obligated to report this new breach of the rules and report this post of yours. For all I know, Fraggle Rocker may have gotten tired of intervening and no other administrator will be interested, but I figure I might as well give it a go...

 

A very good post Uno Hoo.

 

If you were so smart you would not past nonsense like you did in that previous post and pretend you made it up yourself...because you didnt.

From the pasted thread, which has been reproduced more times than the Wizard of Oz:

 

Well, Scott, since you repeatedly failed to address my question I have to declare Uno the winner of the debate.

Moderator, it is time to close down this thread... Converstaion is offtopic and unrelated to the debate...

 

.
Yep, engineering and science and mathematics are not quite the same things. Reality does not conform to the perfection of mathematics and engineering has to take into account the imperfections of manufacturing processes. So these people who say the buildings came down because of some kind of design flaw just kill me. It is easier for them to believe in a design flaw than a complicated conspiracy. So how did the buildings stand for 28 years? I want to just reach through the screen and smack them up side the head.

Morons primarily use Occam's Razor to cut their own throats.

psik

PS - Uh,oh! I see I used a FORBIDDEN word. Should I change that to, "Individuals of very limited intellectual capacity primarily use Occam's Razor to cut their own throats."? LOL

PS2 - How do you debate something when the opposition can just declare that the distribution of steel in a skyscraper is irrelevant even when it supposedly collapsed from the top down and therefore had to crush that steel in sequence? It just amounts to, "Turn off your brain and believe the video." "We won the debate." THE END!

 

What does your beeper go off whenever someone posts in these threads? That bizarre rambling of Uno Hoo (do we know who?) has been posted all over the internet.

 

.
Actually I have a program that monitors web pages and can notify me of changes but I found it too annoying. No, these are just random checks.

I don't find him bizarre or rambling. It's the NORMAL people that don't see simple physics as obvious that I find bizarre, and usually boring.

psik

 

Well you cant just determine that somehting should not have happened and make up whatever you want to prove a point. The Hindenburg disaster was not supposed to happen either. Must be a conspiracy as well then.

within one minute??? impossible......

 

Thermite!! Superthermite! It has to be!

(Actually..one of the components of the doping compound they put on the skin of the Hinderburg was powdered aluminum, to reflect the heat of the sun. To bad its also the main fuel for thermite. Some think this was the cause of the rapid spread of the fire.)

 

.
You mean you can't just claim that the distribution of steel and concrete in a 1360 foot skyscraper is irrelevant while at the same time claiming it collapsed from the top down?

So why hasn't an official source provided us with a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE in SEVEN YEARS? Did the Conservation of Momentum cease to function on 9/11?

That's IMPOSSIBLE!! I don't give a damn about a conspiracy or an Inside Job.

psik

PS - Is damn a forbidden word?

 

Sorry, been busy with lots of threads. What was your question?

I think that the discussion is still fairly on topic and I really don't think that the discussion should be closed- this is now the -only- place on sciforums where one can discuss un-official theories regarding 9/11.

 

Nevermind, you are too busy in the conspiracy circles and probably couldn't answer it anyway.

let's make this thread worth something:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The jury is still out on the debate...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Moderator's note:

I am leaving this one single instance of this photo intact, since it qualifies as art. However, I have deleted all replications of it in responses, since it is pointless and starts to look like nothing more than soft porn.

I can't promise that the next Moderator or Administrator who sees it will agree with my interpretation of the rules, so don't push it.

--Fraggle Rocker

 

Ok, let's imagine that the planes were -not- hijacked by actual terrorist pilots. Instead, the passengers of the original planes were put onto planes that could be piloted by remote control. Now, in the case of the twin towers, they were demolished; there was little left of the planes, but apparently some spook times did manage to steel the black boxes before anyone else could get them. No, I don't have a link for that at present, there's just -too- much information and I don't have an encyclopedic memory. I may be able to get it if you're interested, though.

Ok, carrying on to the pentagon flyover. Apparently there was a switch in this case too, but the switch may have happened in mid air; that is, a decoy plane took over the route of the original plane. Remember, in the case of the pentagon 'crash', the building was -not- flattened and if the plane had managed to actually crash into the building (which is in doubt, there's a lot of cables and such that might have taken it out before it even got there, never mind the self defense mechanisms of the pentagon that apparently didn't do much that day), it would have become obvious that the plane that crashed into the pentagon was -not- the plane that the passengers had originally boarded.

As you can see, I have provided no links to this. I think that it's fair to say, however, that in a crime scene, motive may frequently be difficult to determine, but determining -what actually happened- is the best first step. I believe it's fairly clear that what actually happened is that a plane approached the pentagon, but that (a) it didn't approach the pentagon from the side that the official story says it did and (b) if it didn't approach the pentagon from the official story side it was -impossible- for it to have done the damage it did, according to the official story itself. For this reason, the witnesses that testified that the plane did -not- approach the pentagon from the official story side are golden, as is the one witness who allegedly saw the plane break down telephone poles on the official story side, and who can be seen frantically trying to fit his story with the reality in CIT's excellent video on the subject, The Eye of the Storm.