Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

.
The WTC towers were 116 stories tall counting the 6 basement levels. The buildings were supposedly designed to sway 3 feet at the top in a 150 mph wind. Imagine the stresses on the steel in the basement with a 400,000 ton building swaying back and forth. Didn't the concrete in the basement have to keep all of that steel properly alligned?

Have you ever heard anyone say how much concrete was in the basements?

Have you heard anyone raise the question in SEVEN YEARS?

Isn't that an obvious question?

Why don't we have a table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every LEVEL?

psik

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

according to psik there are no accurate numbers of this type for any highrise.
this implies that this information is not necessary when determining the cause of building collapses.

psik,
i'm surprised you haven't figured this out yet.
the amount of concrete on each floor can be assumed to remain constant.
the core column dimensions have been published.
that only leaves the perimeter and you have a starting point of 22 tons i believe.
why not assume that the perimeter decreases in weight in direct proportion to the core?
you will have three scenarios:
1. the 22 ton piece is at the top.
2. the 22 ton piece is in the middle.
3. the 22 ton piece is at the bottom.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Psik has a point that with a catastrophe of the magnitude of the collapses of the twin towers that all of the engineering information should have been made public. Proprietary design reasons should be subordinated to the public welfare. The fact that it hasn't been implies a cover-up. However, there has been enough information put out in the NIST reports, the 2007 release of the core column data due to an FOIA, and leaked (the architectural drawings) that one can do an analysis for conservation of momentum and show that the fall times are impossible in a natural collapse. Many have done just that including Psik.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

how does it imply a cover up when this information isn't available for any
high rise?

i'm not a structural engineer so i cannot argue this point but it seems to me that psiky can get a reasonable, if not quite accurate, model by following my suggestions.

 

Yes psik.

Yes psik, I have heard that question (for nearly 2 years)- I think that you and I discussed this one earlier (before I veered into the planes and aluminum aspects)... I was actually requesting a status update/confirmation of the "unknown"...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

None of the other high rises collapsed due to fire, as the towers and WTC 7 are alleged to have by the present official story.

When the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapsed in 1940, due to wind induced resonance, the drawings were made public to help with research aimed at preventing a re-occurrence.

The magnitude of the WTC collapses should have caused the drawings to be put into the public domain to help ascertain the faults of the design. Of course, we just heard that most buildings couldn't be designed to withstand aircraft impact. But now the aircraft impact as a cause for collapse is backed off of and we are told it was the fires due to the fireproofing being stripped by the impact.

Where is the forensic analysis of the steel showing how it failed? Why wasn't most of the steel from the fire affected areas saved for test and analysis by the NIST? They have no physical evidence of high temperatures being experienced by the steel.

Leopold, you still haven't answered how you think a naturally caused collapsed could have occurred in WTC 1 without any deceleration of the upper block for the measurable first nine stories of it's fall. While you are at it you might want to also tell us what you think caused the upper section of WTC 7 to be in freefall for eight stories at the start of it's collapse. I asked Stryder these two questions last week and he hasn't been back since.

 

spikey made a nice experiment with toothpick and washers. HA...

 

Uh-huh

Where did psik say those exact words Leo?

If psik did not actually say those specific words, then I am detecting one of these on Leo's [unsourced] part:
--------------------------------------
Google: wikipedia strawman
------
"Reasoning

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.
Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations which are intentionally misrepresentative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments - thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
---------------------------
You aren't trying to "broad brush" one of these here, are you Leo?

Google wikipedia "hasty generalization"

 

Yes...

1. Who is spikey?
2. Is there a context that you would like to apply here?
3. HA?
4. Can you provide a link to said nice experiment?

 

maybe you missed the part where i said i'm not a structural engineer.
i'll repeat it for clarity "i'm not a structural engineer".
plainly put i cannot answer your questions.

about WTC 7,
i stated before that the entire front of WTC 7 was essentially built over a large hole in the ground, it was erected on a piece of ground that was unfit for the buildings design. to get around this shortcoming the designers used outriggers to span across said hole.
once these outriggers were compromised the entire building collapsed because there was no ground to support it.

 

Oh, I see. You say since you aren't a structural engineer you can't comment on the constant acceleration of the upper block of WTC 1 for nine measurable stories, but you feel confident enough in your structural abilities to say you think the outriggers of WTC 7 are what caused it's failure and the freefall for eight stories.

There are more than a couple problems with you saying about how WTC 7 collapsed, but I'll mention only two. One is that your theory doesn't account for eight stories of freefall and doesn't agree with what the NIST said happened either.

By the way, it wasn't a hole in the ground that the outriggers or deep trusses were used for. It was to bridge over a two story electrical substation that the back half of WTC 7 was built over.

You apparently haven't done much homework on WTC 7 or the towers and since I only have so much time I hope you won't be offended if I direct more of it towards those who have actually invested enough of their time to accurately research things before making claims.

 

it's plausible in my opinion, yes.

and where was this sub station tony?
in a two story hole in the ground perhaps?

such as claiming the buildings were demolished when no bomb debris was found in the pile?
no, i'm not offended because it doesn't refute the six points i listed, all of which are verifiable facts.

 

.
You appear to have a gift for rewording what people say.

Was it you that accused me of saying this was a "gray area".

What I have said was that I "have not found" distribution of mass data in steel or concrete on any skyscraper though I have gone to skyscraper enthusiast sites looking for it.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/

I do not generally use the term highrise. There are plenty of buildings that I would call highrises that I would not call skyscrapers.

You seem to be implying that there have been LOTS OF COLLAPSES that needed to be analyzed and they didn't need that information. Would you tell us about a few?

psik

 

.
Since I am the only one that made an experiment with toothpicks and washers I presume you mean me. Should I have used a 4 ton girder to stop the 3.8 ounce stack of washers? How would I get it up the stairs to my apartment?

What have you used in your physics demonstrations?

psik

 

Wasn't me...I've never spoken with him before. If you google your name Tony, your Sciforums posts show up..I imagine that's where he found you.

(actually, we are both agents of the Lizardman Kabal, and I sent him a message on our secret decoder ring. We use these anytime a truth seeker gets close to uncovering the conspiracy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) j/k

 

Just put the text of the URL in your message, and I'll post the link for you. Welcome to the board.

 

Leopold, just to finally bury your notion that WTC 7 was built over a hole in the ground.

There was no basement under either the two story substation or WTC 7.

You can read about it and see pictorial diagrams about it in the FEMA report on WTC 7 at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf and the NIST Report on WTC 7 at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf where you can see pictorial diagrams on pages 3, 4, and 6. The outriggers were composed of deep trusses and I-sections up to 9 feet deep.

Your points that somebody would have had to see evidence of explosives are a logical fallacy called "an argument from incredulity". It has been pointed out numerous times that evidence of the use of explosives is usually only found with laboratory testing. It isn't something one can just see. It is actually hilarious that you make the comment that at least some of the explosives wouldn't have gone off and would have remained bolted to the column. That is another argument from incredulity.

Do some actual research.

 

I thought it might have been you since you are now posting over at the JREF forum.

If it wasn't you then I apologize for saying it might have been.

I actually do not dislike Ron Wieck, I just think he is deluded about what actually occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

Apparently, you are deluded about it also. Although sometimes it seems you aren't too sure.

 

i have.
that research is summed up in the six verifiable points i have posted.

 

Those points aren't facts from research which would show that there is no way the buildings could have been demolished. All they are are tidbits of erroneously used logic which you use to support your incredulity.

Don't you realize that the very first thing a covert demolition would need to consider is not to leave obvious evidence around and then to make sure any less than obvious evidence isn't tested for afterwards? That is precisely what was done by George Bush's FEMA appointees getting rid of the steel and no testing being done for explosive residue.

I would hope you realize that the NIST admitted that no steel was saved for testing from WTC 7 and less than 0.5% from the towers was saved for testing but no residue tests were performed.

However, scientifically it can be shown that the buildings could not come down any other way. The covert operation couldn't solve that problem.

What do you say about your notion of a hole under WTC 7 now? Did you browse through the reports to see the diagrams?