Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?
- Thread starter scott3x
- Start date
- Status
I don’t care if they are ‘obvious’, surely they would leave some clues which would be detected visually.
But again I must point out the inconsistencies in your theory. You claim that there are very obvious tell-tale clues which demonstrate that there was a controlled demolition (explosions molten steel ect), yet when the destroyed building was actually looked at, up close, by many people, some of whom are experts, you rationalize the complete lack of evidence by explaining that the government destroyed the building in a covert manner! If there were actually extremely high temperatures, cut columns, or explosions (I forget which theory you are pushing) then there would have been signs that one of the experts would have picked up on, if not one of the many thousands who were at the site.
The site you just linked to says – “Such accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable.” Visually identifiable, or do they mean only under a microscope?
From inspecting the steel he found evidence that a normal fire, fuelled by office materials was enough to initiate the collapse on the structure.
So you have no compelling evidence for a controlled demolition, you apply post hoc reasoning to account for the lack of evidence and in the end you challenge people to a game of truther physics. You have been here a while now so you know that no one is going to take the time to go through your calculations. Take it to the jref if you really want an answer… The skeptics here are part timers and not that dedicated. Don't pretend that the whole conspiracy hinges on your question.
Last edited:
.
Obviously 9/11 psychosis causes tremendous variation in what people regard as obvious.
I think it is OBVIOUS to want to know the distribution of steel and concrete in a skyscraper that supposedly collapses straight down in less than 18 seconds.
http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/contrib/911_physics_v9a.htm
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc
psik
Tony Szamboti
Registered Senior Member
Your question is not valid, since as far as most of us know the columns were not "cut" but were broken by a concussive force and to determine how this force was applied and what the actual failure mode would have been would require a certain amount of lab work.
It seems you are trying to get me to say a simple visual would have been sufficient and I have explained several times why it would not be.
These answers go for Shaman also as he believes a simple unaided visual would have been enough. It wouldn't be and that isn't what happens in any legitimate fire investigation let alone fire and the most catastrophic building collapses in history. The investigations to date have not been investigations but sophisticated cover-ups.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
* * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *
This thread seems to be back on topic. Please keep it that way. If I get one more complaint from a member about insults and I come back to it only to find another flame war, it will be closed.
We're pretty lenient about enforcing the rule against personal insults in the main part of the forum, because most of the members are kids and we have to tolerate a little childish behavior. But this subforum is for FORMAL debates and as the Linguistics Moderator my interpretation of the word FORMAL does not include insults and flaming.
You'll notice that a couple of us have deleted a number of posts. Not all deleted posts were offensive, so don't be miffed if yours was among them. If we delete an insult and the next post is a response to it, we have to delete that one too or there will be a lapse in continuity.
This thread seems to be back on topic. Please keep it that way. If I get one more complaint from a member about insults and I come back to it only to find another flame war, it will be closed.
We're pretty lenient about enforcing the rule against personal insults in the main part of the forum, because most of the members are kids and we have to tolerate a little childish behavior. But this subforum is for FORMAL debates and as the Linguistics Moderator my interpretation of the word FORMAL does not include insults and flaming.
You'll notice that a couple of us have deleted a number of posts. Not all deleted posts were offensive, so don't be miffed if yours was among them. If we delete an insult and the next post is a response to it, we have to delete that one too or there will be a lapse in continuity.
Tony Szamboti
Registered Senior Member
psik,
I finally got a chance to watch all three of the Hardfire shows with Ron Wieck and Ryan Mackey.
I wanted to tell you the other day that I thought your comment on Mackey's model lecture was great. He played right into your alley with that one.
Here is Mackey telling others how to build a complex model, and even go through multiple iterations to get it right as it is admittedly complicated. All the while he has to know we don't have every particular of the buildings. While the core column sizes and strength, the floor slab concrete thickness and reinforcement, and the floor truss sizes and strength have been released, there are many structural details which have not been made public.
The actual wall thickness and strength of the perimeter columns at every story, the size and strength of the large perimeter columns at grade and sub-levels, and the beam sizes and their connections in the central core are all still a mystery.
I wanted to call it Mackey's malarky. On top of that why does he feel it is the average citizen's job to build a model of this complexity? What do we have sophisticated labs with lots of resources like the NIST for if we have to do this ourselves? Why isn't Mackey asking why the NIST didn't build a physical model?
Ron Wieck and Ryan Mackey should be embarassed to have put on such an obvious sophist ploy, especially with the softball questions of the first two shows. If you noticed in the third show Mackey completely ignores the fact that it has been determined that there is no discernable deceleration in the measurable first 114 feet of fall of the upper block of WTC 1 and that WTC 7 has been proven to be in freefall for the first 100 feet of it's collapse, meaning there was no impulse energy available during that time.
The first two shows should have been called "Softfire" and the last "Hold back their fire".
Last edited:
so the columns broke?
now tony tell me, how to you get explosives from "broken" girders?
at least i know enough about steel to tell the difference between a broken edge and one that has been cut.
Tony Szamboti
Registered Senior Member
So you can't answer the problem of a lack of deceleration of the upper block of WTC 1 for the present official story, which was initially promoted by Dr. Zdenek Bazant in his papers on the issue, and with which the NIST took umbrage and then did not analyze the actual collapse. I didn't think you would be able to and still think the buildings came down due to natural causes.
So now you try to simply disparage it as unimportant and secondarily say nobody has time to digest what is being said.
This question is central to whether those buildings could have come down naturally, so a lot does hinge on this issue, and it doesn't take an inordinate amount of time to understand it. So your part time researcher excuse is nothing but a copout. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Registered Senior Member
Go to
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/
and look at the large collection of photos of the core columns in the debris. The sides of the columns near the weld fractures are concave on both sides. A good explanation for this is that their was concussion involved on one side and shear forces causing the plate to bend inward on the other side as it dragged across.
Maybe someone like you can come up with a better explanation for the end conditions of the core columns. I'll be waiting.
Oh, Good night and good luck. Have a ball with your research.
Last edited:
I haven’t even looked at it.
The evidence is overwhelming that this is the case.
lol my bubble is fine. This is generally how the truthers find their small ‘victories’. Devoid of evidence for their conspiracy fantasy, no real rebuttal to the evidence which supports the official story, they challenge the locals at a game of physics or chemistry until no one can be bothered responding or taking up the challenge to go through their calculations. When no one responds they claim victory and the conspiracy has just been demonstrated! You are averting the attention away from the many, many absurd claims which make up the implausible conspiracy and trying to legitimize it by concentrating on physics questions which you know that no one here is going to analyze.
Once again, go to the jref if you think you have a point to be made regarding the deceleration.
**Edit. Fraggle please don't close the thread on account of my posts. This discussion probably isn't appropriate for this sub forum but others are trying.. .I think.
Last edited:
i'm actually more interested in how explosives can break the core columns.
can you explain that to a simpleton like me?
Wouldn't a concussive force, strong enough to blow the columns still leave visual clues?
You do realise that there are witness accounts of bowing seen minutes, not seconds, before the collapse of WTC1?
If all that happend that day was a few building fires then perhaps they would have followed the same process. However on 9/11 there was not a simple building fire. Two planes crashed into the WTC and part of WTC1 (i think) fell onto WTC7 when collapsing. What is the standard procedure for planes crashing into skyscrapers? Is there one?
That the event would be treated as a terrorist attack or even a plane crash and not a simple building fire is not really that surprising and doesn't necessarily mean a cover up.
Tony Szamboti
Registered Senior Member
The NIST says that due to thermal expansion the beams on the east side of the building at the 13th floor pushed a girder coming from the north face to core column 79 off it's seat on column 79 and then the beams fell off the girder and caused the floors under them to collapse and further remove lateral support from column 79, finally causing it to buckle which they say then caused a progressive collapse of the whole interior (without any deformation of the exterior) and then the exterior came down on it's own with 2.25 seconds of full freefall in the overall 6.6 second fall. Bear in mind that it would take 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to hit the ground at full freefall, but the NIST says this is all consistent with their fire induced progressive collapse model.
Their story is almost as bad as Leopold's when he was confused about WTC 7 being built over a hole in the ground with long cantilever beams spanning the hole causing the collapse due to some form of fire weakening. At least Leopold finally admitted he didn't know. Maybe the NIST will someday.
I really have to stop discussing this as the controlled demolition of these three buildings is so obvious that one has to be getting paid to say any different, once they have looked closely at it.
Tony Szamboti
Registered Senior Member
Very, very little of WTC 1's debris fell on WTC 7. Go look at the FEMA report if you don't believe it.
Many engineering problems are unique, but physical laws are constant and allow engineering principles to help determine cause from effect. That is why investigations are done very carefully and the physical evidence is safeguarded. The fact that it wasn't done in this case should tell you it was fraudalent. However, you just don't seem capable of even considering that possibility even with overwhelming evidence of fraud staring you in the face. You seem to be another individual suffering from incredulity.
.
LOL
MacKey is telling people to ignore me on JREF and complaining about my TONE.
I don't even know what he means by that.
psik
tony,
i'm still waiting for your response to this:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2210002&postcount=391
edit:
just to be clear i'm talking about the core columns in WTC 1 and 2.
i'm still waiting for your response to this:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2210002&postcount=391
edit:
just to be clear i'm talking about the core columns in WTC 1 and 2.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Registered Senior Member
Leopold, I will not answer you again until you do some actual research.
Have you looked over the core columns and information on the site I suggested? What you are asking is explained there and maybe it will penetrate this time. I have told you how it could occur several times and you obviously aren't listening or refuting what I am saying. You are like a broken record literally. There is one difference, they don't have the ability to listen.
the only thing you've said about the matter is this:
i want to know how explosives can do this tony.
Tony Szamboti
Registered Senior Member
Does the explosive apply a force to the side of the column?
it's your hypothesis, not mine. you tell me.
- Status