Skyscrapers have been around for almost 100 years but the only 3 that have ever completely collapsed for any reason all occurred on a single day in one small area and yet people need to be spoon fed information to find that odd.
psik
sorry your examples are all pretty underwhelming - and miss what happened to those WTC towers on 9/11.
The problem is that people who have decided to believe the official story need to believe that fires did it. But the fact of the matter is that fireman actually got to the 78th floor of the south tower and reported in. It was recorded.
So the collapse has to be rationalized backwards and actual data ignored and not collected. Talking about skyscraper that have to hold themselves up without expecting to have accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete is ridiculous to begin with. How much steel had to be heated in the fire to weaken to begin with.
DUH! We don’t know!
your examples are all pretty underwhelming -
your examples are all pretty underwhelming -
your examples are all pretty underwhelming -
Sounds like religion to me. You don’t have to prove your position you just have to dismiss everything demonstrating its absurdity. The nation that put men on the Moon can’t even explain how skyscrapers hold themselves up with accurate data on steel distribution 43 years after the landing. But then talks about kids needing STEM education.
actually it’s been explained plenty, some apparently just don’t listen.
plus I took this conversation seriously a couple years back and the merry-go-round just isn’t interesting enough to try getting on again.
Tear out major structure supports, add major, major metal softening fire, heat, plus lots and lots of weight above the fire and structural damage… and it goes poof. I don’t need to know the exact weight of every floor for that to make sense. The elements that connected floors to super structure were not rated for anything near what they confronted that day.
Falling straight down is also easily understood once the structure of the building is understood.
no conspiracy past what it took to get those jet planes to crash into those building, well plus some luck for them pricks.
Well actually there was another conspiracy;
that of the Bush/Cheney Administration willfully ignoring the threat Al Qaeda posed to America - in order to wait for a big event that would galvanize America into supporting a war with Iraq. Of course, I’m sure that in their infantile wisdom they were expecting another embassy bombing or attack on a Navy ship - and nothing of the magnitude of what happened. But they got their war and gobs of profits and power for their pals - and the world did a monstrous about face that we will never recover from.
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission
Bush Administration’s First Memo
on al-Qaeda Declassified
Richard Clarke, former White House national coordinator for security and counterterrorism, accuses President Bush of mismanaging the war on terrorism in a new book, “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror.” Margaret Warner speaks with Clarke about his explosive allegations.
Here you’ll find a bunch more structural details including the “core”
and floor truss connections. http[colon-back slash back slash]guardian[dot]150m.com/wtc/small/wtc-ch2[dot]htm
{CFI kept seeing this a spam so I had to do the URL this way}
And I may be a carpenter, but I’m no structural expert. But the buildings were a freak’n thousand feet tall, lots and lots of weight.
I simple said the collapse makes gut level sense to me and considering that a lot of real experts have looked into it I’ll take their word and my gut feeling over hand waving.
Besides the objections you’ve raised simply don’t add up. Even if the floor truss connections, and other elements, were twice as strong, I don’t see how one could think it would have stopped the collapse. The jets did not push the buildings over, they ripped the guts out of them.
And I may be a carpenter, but I’m no structural expert. But the buildings were a freak’n thousand feet tall, lots and lots of weight.
You can be a grown man, able to bench press 450lbs, but I’ll just bet that if someone dropped even an 8lb bowling ball from 100 ft, you wouldn’t be able to catch it bare handed, or with a glove without getting knocked down and probably pretty injured in the process.
So can we get back on topic? No one here that even approaches a minimum level of scientific literacy has attempted to deal with the damning implications of my article referenced in the OP. CFI is participating in a massive scientific fraud. No one at CFI or even any of its members can put together a cogent adult response that doesn’t involve logical fallacies and blatant falsehoods.
So can we get back on topic? No one here that even approaches a minimum level of scientific literacy has attempted to deal with the damning implications of my article referenced in the OP. CFI is participating in a massive scientific fraud. No one at CFI or even any of its members can put together a cogent adult response that doesn’t involve logical fallacies and blatant falsehoods.
That’s because your article doesn’t have a bit of science in it. Its a load of accusation an innuendo. For someone who is so quick to judge the scientific literacy of others you seem especially devoid of any scientific acumen yourself.
I asked for an official statement from CFI as to why they are participating in perhaps the largest scientific fraud in US history. Perhaps they will respond here.
A wee bit of hyperbole, don’t you think? I didn’t know CFI had that much power.
The word “girdle” does not appear on that page. And I do not recall anyone ever using that word in reference to the structure of the WTC so would you please explain what you are talking about.
Do you mean “girder”?
But the buildings were a freak’n thousand feet tall, lots and lots of weight.
Exactly, which means the further down the building you come the more weight had to be supported. Which means more weight of steel must be put into that level to support what is above but that means that weight must be supported from below. But this is not a new problem since so many skyscrapers have been built over so many decades. The Empire State Building is 81 years old. This is not NEW PHYSICS.
So this cannot be analysed without accurate data on the distribution of mass, which is what I have been saying all along.
The jets did not push the buildings over, they ripped the guts out of them.
The plane was less than 170 tons with 30 tons of jet fuel. Even though the plane impacted the south tower at 550 mph the building only deflected 15 inches. A single floor slab outside the core was 600 tons. The BBC video had the fuselage missing the core. Your gut feeling does not address the problem.
[3115]
psik
[ Edited: 15 October 2012 04:30 PM by psikeyhackr ]
The word “girdle” does not appear on that page. And I do not recall anyone ever using that word in reference to the structure of the WTC so would you please explain what you are talking about.
Do you mean “girder”?
But the buildings were a freak’n thousand feet tall, lots and lots of weight.
oh gosh I hate getting sucked into this but, I gotta make myself clear. By “girdle” I meant exactly, or rather metaphorically, just that.
The exterior structure served to hold the buildings together during the collapse and helps explain the clean vertical collapse - though the collapse didn’t start that way.
psikeyhackr - 14 October 2012 06:56 PM
citizenschallenge.pm - 07 October 2012 01:15 PM
The jets did not push the buildings over, they ripped the guts out of them.
The plane was less than 170 tons with 30 tons of jet fuel. Even though the plane impacted the south tower at 550 mph the building only deflected 15 inches. A single floor slab outside the core was 600 tons. The BBC video had the fuselage missing the core. Your gut feeling does not address the problem.
psik
The jet impacts aren’t what downed the buildings!! It is the cascading consequences of those impacts and fire!
Look at the sequence of events, as revealed by the images in the NIST report. Nothing you’ve proposed touches that physical reality.
