Double standards

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2
3
4
…
8

Double standards
Topic Started: Jul 5 2008, 04:39 PM (2,653 Views)
TDX	Aug 4 2009, 01:35 PM Post #51
Posts: 159 Group: Members Member #435 Joined: 03/24/08	Look, it's problem with your logic. Nobody claims that the plane/fires took only one column down. The ultimate point is that you have to agree that 5 additional charges on the core columns would cause the collapse. You have to, otherwise is a double standart by definition. Now, 5 charges are not that hard to install. I belive that failure of 30 perimeter and cca.20 core columns caused the move in the upper block (aka ollapse initation). NIST states something like 10 core columns and 50 exterior columns...... The collapsing upper block has enough energy to destroy the whole tower, the question is: will the impacting mass impact the structur or will it slide sideways???? I personally belive that the global collapse was aided with maybe 40 - 50 charges.
Posts: 159 Group: Members Member #435 Joined: 03/24/08


espresso	Aug 4 2009, 02:45 PM Post #52
Posts: 124 Group: Skeptics Member #1,078 Joined: 03/05/09	TDX Aug 4 2009, 01:35 PM Look, it's problem with your logic. No, I've already pointed out the problems with your reasoning. Perhaps you are misunderstanding my posts. TDX Nobody claims that the plane/fires took only one column down. It is a hypothetical scenario just like your "one column taken down by explosives" situation. TDX The ultimate point is that you have to agree that 5 additional charges on the core columns would cause the collapse. You have to, otherwise is a double standart by definition. That's like saying "you have to agree that an additional hole in the titanic would have caused it to sink". It's irrelevant. It's not a double standard at all. ZERO charges were needed to cause the collapse. Therefore you can add as many charges as you want and none of them will change the fact that the building collapsed. TDX I belive that failure of 30 perimeter and cca.20 core columns caused the move in the upper block (aka ollapse initation). NIST states something like 10 core columns and 50 exterior columns...... So NIST thinks that 60 columns must fail to initiate collapse but you think that it would only take 50? TDX The collapsing upper block has enough energy to destroy the whole tower, the question is: will the impacting mass impact the structur or will it slide sideways???? Which way is gravity pulling it?



TDX	Aug 5 2009, 01:46 AM Post #53
Posts: 159 Group: Members Member #435 Joined: 03/24/08	I'm sorry, but your posts are full of double standarts. Quote: It is a hypothetical scenario just like your "one column taken down by explosives" situation. No, it's your mantra.You belive that the plane impact and subsequent sagging of floor trusses caused the collapse. Quote: That's like saying "you have to agree that an additional hole in the titanic would have caused it to sink". It's irrelevant. No, it's not. I do not belive that the fireproofing loss was significant, hence I belive that....... Quote: ZERO charges were needed to cause the collapse. Therefore you can add as many charges as you want and none of them will change the fact that the building collapsed. Well, this is not the point of the discussion, as anyone with a **** of brain can see. (will I get a ban?). The ultimate point is that: if you belive in natural collapse, you can't say that it would take too much time to rig the buildings or that it would be impossible. Quote: So NIST thinks that 60 columns must fail to initiate collapse but you think that it would only take 50? the word core means something look NIST says: 30 permieter columns down due to impact, cca 10 core columns due to impact, and a part of a wall 25-50 perimeter columns = tower down I say : 30 perimeter columns from airplane, 10 core columns from impact, and cca 10 core columns hanging on the floor trusses, further destabilizing the adjacent exterior walls Both Scenarios would cause collapse, but my scenario inflicts a few percents (10...25) more damage than NIST scenario, because I belive that the towers were stronger..........years of research behind that Which way is gravity pulling your body? I feel that you'll collapse into soup after this sentence......... Edited by TDX**, Aug 5 2009, 01:47 AM.
Posts: 159 Group: Members Member #435 Joined: 03/24/08


espresso	Aug 5 2009, 10:51 AM Post #54
Posts: 124 Group: Skeptics Member #1,078 Joined: 03/05/09	TDX Aug 5 2009, 01:46 AM Quote: It is a hypothetical scenario just like your "one column taken down by explosives" situation. No, it's your mantra.You belive that the plane impact and subsequent sagging of floor trusses caused the collapse. Suggesting a single column was taken out by fire is not my mantra. I suggest you re-read my prior posts. Earlier you stated that if 51 columns must fail to initiate a collapse, and 50 failed due to fire and the final one failed due to explosives that would mean that explosives are 100% responsible for the collapse. My example simply illustrated the problem with that logic. EDX Quote: EDX The ultimate point is that you have to agree that 5 additional charges on the core columns would cause the collapse. That's like saying "you have to agree that an additional hole in the titanic would have caused it to sink". It's irrelevant. No, it's not. I do not belive that the fireproofing loss was significant If I believe that the collapse happened due to impact & fire then I don't "have to agree" that any explosives in addition to that would have changed the outcome. EDX Quote: ZERO charges were needed to cause the collapse. Therefore you can add as many charges as you want and none of them will change the fact that the building collapsed. Well, this is not the point of the discussion, as anyone with a **** of brain can see. (will I get a ban?). The ultimate point is that: if you belive in natural collapse, you can't say that it would take too much time to rig the buildings or that it would be impossible. On the flipside, if you DO NOT** believe in natural collapse, you can't say that it would be easy to rig the buildings or that it wouldn't take much time. There's also the fact that the explosives would have to be on or near the same floor as the airplane impact & fires. Without knowing the exact location of the airplane impact & where the fire damage would be the charges would have to be placed on multiple floors which would add to the complexity greatly. EDX Quote: So NIST thinks that 60 columns must fail to initiate collapse but you think that it would only take 50? the word core means something look NIST says: 30 permieter columns down due to impact, cca 10 core columns due to impact, and a part of a wall 25-50 perimeter columns = tower down I say : 30 perimeter columns from airplane, 10 core columns from impact, and cca 10 core columns hanging on the floor trusses, further destabilizing the adjacent exterior walls Both Scenarios would cause collapse, but my scenario inflicts a few percents (10...25) more damage than NIST scenario, because I belive that the towers were stronger.......... If both scenarios cause collapse, what is the purpose of inflicting 10-25% more damage than would be needed for collapse (as in your scenario)? EDX Which way is gravity pulling your body? I feel that you'll collapse into soup after this sentence......... Down. The same direction it was pulling that building.



TDX	Aug 5 2009, 12:22 PM Post #55
Posts: 159 Group: Members Member #435 Joined: 03/24/08	Oh, here we go This thread is on the nonsense double standarts, which you apply, you made the arguments ad-absurudum It goes like this : you say . it would take a year to place 4000 charges to demolish the buildings.... so no demo, airplane did it _______________________ If you would know the construction like I did, you would be able to get it. You would recognize that no more than 10-20 charges would be able to demolish - or at least initiate the collapse- the building (+ the airplane)..you wouldn't have to relly on the fire. Installing a dozen of charges wouldn't take months of man-work.That's for sure. So, everyone with a quarter of brain can see that the argument from OCT beliver " it would take too much time" is a double standart, because he belives in naturall collapse. Right? Edited by TDX, Aug 5 2009, 12:25 PM.
Posts: 159 Group: Members Member #435 Joined: 03/24/08


espresso	Aug 5 2009, 01:53 PM Post #56
Posts: 124 Group: Skeptics Member #1,078 Joined: 03/05/09	TDX Aug 5 2009, 12:22 PM Oh, here we go This thread is on the nonsense double standarts, which you apply, you made the arguments ad-absurudum It goes like this : you say . it would take a year to place 4000 charges to demolish the buildings.... so no demo, airplane did it I didn't state that it would take a year or 4000 charges for your scenario. TDX If you would know the construction like I did, you would be able to get it. You would recognize that no more than 10-20 charges would be able to demolish - or at least initiate the collapse- the building (+ the airplane)..you wouldn't have to relly on the fire. What type of charges are you referring to? What material & what quantity? A few problems with this: 1) The charges would have to be near the area of impact for the collapse to start there. Unless you know exactly where the plane is going to hit you would have to rig multiple floors in a similar manner. 2) Additional charges would have to be placed to make up for any which would be inoperable due to impact or fire. TDZ Installing a dozen of charges wouldn't take months of man-work.That's for sure. But with so many variables you couldn't plant "a dozen of charges" and expect the plan to have a high probability of success. TDX So, everyone with a quarter of brain can see that the argument from OCT beliver " it would take too much time" is a double standart, because he belives in naturall collapse. Right? That depends on what kind of CD theory we're talking about. Most proponents of CD seem to think that there were explosives on every floor which pulverized the concrete in the towers. Do I understand you correctly that you believe that the concrete was crushed without the aid of additional explosives?



TDX	Aug 5 2009, 03:22 PM Post #57
Posts: 159 Group: Members Member #435 Joined: 03/24/08	Ah, ok. I'm glad that you've changed your a attitude. (sorry for typos...) I would like to say that I know a lot about that, that means that I'l cut the long story short, so we should debate one thing at time..even than debating every point to depth would have taken month, no kidding. Quote: What type of charges are you referring to? What material & what quantity? Nanothermite (found in the dust) optional: thermate/thermite and classical explosives (rdx or hmx). Quote: 1) The charges would have to be near the area of impact for the collapse to start there. Unless you know exactly where the plane is going to hit you would have to rig multiple floors in a similar manner. The plane impacted more than 5 floors in both cases, the charges could/were placed zig-zag.In other words they could cope with ~5 floor inaccuracy rather easily. In fact, the planes were guided with a 10-15m accuracy, please take that as a fact for now, this is not an object of the debate, just accept it for now, ok? Ok: this is my story: The core columns on the impact floors were I shaped core columns or box column - I column transitions.Those columns served as an armor against the aircraft debris (15mm+ of slid steel), inside the I column cavity there was a thermite charge covered with two ceramic plates.An antenna + internal proccesing/timing device.This was activated a few minutes / second before the airplane impact, the clocks inside teh charges were safe, because of the armor(column)..... The nanothermite has high ignition temperature of 430°C, that along with the thermal innertia from the column and the cermaci plate..plus membranes maybe..would make the charge safe for more then 15minutes of direct fire........and there were no severe fires around most of the core columns 1) nist doesn't predict highr temperatures than 400°C in the core 2) the elevator shafts would have channeled the flamable debris, so there was no risk of major rubble piles burning directly around the charges.(i.e. in most of the imaginable cases.) ___________________________________________________________________________________ The demolition from the structural viewpoint: They initiated the collapse by manipulating the 900 and 1000 row columns in both cases. They placed 5-15 charges on the impact floors and then on floor 105/ + a minor changes on the basement level (+77th floor in the NT). You can imagine the scenario like that: You have four core columns accesible form one "out of service elevator shaft" You place 8 charges on floors 95 and 105. Then you wait for certain time and fire it.The 4 core columns would make floating block, which would drop for about a meter or so.That would cause major pull on the lateral bracing and the floor trusses.(it's complicated....) those floor trusses would pull the adjacent exterior wall inward between floors 95 and cca 100.(it's complicated) Thus 8 charges (cca 1500kg+) would almost invisibly take out 4 core columns redistributing immense loads to the other construction members + the pull would destabilize around ~ 10-15 perimeter columns, as we say two blowflies in one shot..... This cenario has one advatange. It doesn't matter if the charges at 95th did go off before because of the fire, the few cuts at one story would make almost no difference that high into the building.You have to create a floationg block and that's what you control by the charges at the safe 105th floor........ Well, it's late so I will continue latter. meanwhile you should look at this videos ( a few minutes, for better understanding) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPtAOtO1nTY ( don't care about the core column collapse, it's a crude illustration) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWqdMXV6qY (the very end of the video is important) Quote: That depends on what kind of CD theory we're talking about. Most proponents of CD seem to think that there were explosives on every floor which pulverized the concrete in the towers. Do I understand you correctly that you believe that the concrete was crushed without the aid of additional explosives? A few aditional charges yes, something in range from 10 to let's say 50-80. ______________________ It's very, very complicated subject. Edited by TDX, Aug 5 2009, 03:26 PM.
Posts: 159 Group: Members Member #435 Joined: 03/24/08


Stundie	Aug 6 2009, 06:35 PM Post #58
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	Hi TDX, I'm sorry but I'm going to have to lay some debunker smackdown on you.......lol You are gonna have to stop using logic, it's not clever and nobody is impressed by it....lol. We all know that it would take hundreds and thousands of tons of thermite and explosives to bring down the towers. And everyone knows that jet fuel is much better at demolition and only dumb twoofers like us would believe that explosives are better than jet fuel. Here is proof and evidence that shows us twoofers how much fuel was needed to get the job done in comparison to the size of the buildings. The small block on the bottom left of the image, is how much jet fuel was available in the plane which as we witnessed, definitely brought those buildings down! Check the power of jet fuel!! That amount can take down the WTC! This is fact! On a side note, I'm looking for investors in my new demolition company which use this new pre-9/11 technique of jet Fuel and a match to bring down buildings. Any debunkers want to invest? lol Cheers Stundie p.s. Thanks to Femr2 for supplying me with the answer and comparison. Edited by Stundie, Aug 6 2009, 06:41 PM.
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


kriskelly	Aug 6 2009, 06:43 PM Post #59
Posts: 30 Group: Skeptics Member #1,261 Joined: 08/02/09	Stundie Aug 6 2009, 06:35 PM I'm sorry TDX but I'm going to have to lay some debunker smackdown on you.......lol You are gonna have to stop using logic, it's not clever and nobody is impressed TDX....lol. We all know that it would take hundreds and thousands of tons of thermite and explosives to bring down the towers. Everyone knows that jet fuel is much better at demolition and only dumb twoofers like us would believe that explosives are better. :ouch As the imagine below shows, here is proof and evidence that shows us twoofers how much fuel was needed to get the job done in comparison to the size of the buildings. The small block on the bottom left is how much jet fuel was available in the plane which as we witnessed, definitely brought those buildings down! Check the power of jet fuel!! That amount can take down the WTC! On a side note, I'm looking for investors in my new demolition company which use this new pre-9/11 technique of petrol and matches to bring down buildings. Any debunkers want to invest? lol Fire weakens steel. There is nothing you can ever say that will change that fact. A 767 tore into the tower tacking out support. Why do you only mention the fire?. No one above the impact zone in tower 1 was able to get down in any stairwell. This tells that the support in the core was damaged, since the staiwells were in the core. This is called evidence. The remaining support may have been sufficient to keep the tower standing had it not been for the fire. It was a one - two punch. I have no difficulty seeing how the towers collapsed when using sound physical principles.
Posts: 30 Group: Skeptics Member #1,261 Joined: 08/02/09


Stundie	Aug 6 2009, 07:03 PM Post #60
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	Kriskelly Fire weakens steel. We know, but that doesn't equals automatic collapse. lol Kriskelly There is nothing you can ever say that will change that fact. Errr!! I don't ever recall changing that fact! lol Kriskelly A 767 tore into the tower tacking out support. Yeah we know, but there was still many undamaged floors underneath the impact zone. Kriskelly Why do you only mention the fire? I mentioned the jet fuel because it takes hundreds and thousand of tons of thermites or explosives to bring down the towers. Apparently........lol Kriskelly No one above the impact zone in tower 1 was able to get down in any stairwell. This tells that the support in the core was damaged, since the staiwells were in the core. This is called evidence. This tells us that the support in the core might have been damaged in the impact zone, but don't make us laugh if you are suggesting that this is evidence to support your theory. Damage is to be expected in that area, but the evidence doesn't support or refute any theory. lol Kriskelly The remaining support may have been sufficient to keep the tower standing had it not been for the fire. I know, all that jet fuel manage to weaken all the undamaged structure to....... Kriskelly It was a one - two punch. I think the towers were capable of bigger combinations than a 1-2 punch! So did the people who worked on the towers, they said they designed the towers to withstand multiple planes impacting the building. Kriskelly I have no difficulty seeing how the towers collapsed when using sound physical principles. Well maybe you could help NIST out, they haven't been able to explain how the towers collapsed using sound physical principles. Which sound physical principles do you use? Pancake? Crush Down? Pile Driver? Edited by Stundie, Aug 6 2009, 07:06 PM.
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


kriskelly	Aug 6 2009, 07:25 PM Post #61
Posts: 30 Group: Skeptics Member #1,261 Joined: 08/02/09	Stundie Aug 6 2009, 07:03 PM Kriskelly Fire weakens steel. We know, but that doesn't equals automatic collapse. lol Kriskelly There is nothing you can ever say that will change that fact. Errr!! I don't ever recall changing that fact! lol Kriskelly A 767 tore into the tower tacking out support. Yeah we know, but there was still many undamaged floors underneath the impact zone. Kriskelly Why do you only mention the fire? I mentioned the jet fuel because it takes hundreds and thousand of tons of thermites or explosives to bring down the towers. Apparently........lol Kriskelly No one above the impact zone in tower 1 was able to get down in any stairwell. This tells that the support in the core was damaged, since the staiwells were in the core. This is called evidence. This tells us that the support in the core might have been damaged in the impact zone, but don't make us laugh if you are suggesting that this is evidence to support your theory. Damage is to be expected in that area, but the evidence doesn't support or refute any theory. lol Kriskelly The remaining support may have been sufficient to keep the tower standing had it not been for the fire. I know, all that jet fuel manage to weaken all the undamaged structure to....... Kriskelly It was a one - two punch. I think the towers were capable of bigger combinations than a 1-2 punch! So did the people who worked on the towers, they said they designed the towers to withstand multiple planes impacting the building. Kriskelly I have no difficulty seeing how the towers collapsed when using sound physical principles. Well maybe you could help NIST out, they haven't been able to explain how the towers collapsed using sound physical principles. Which sound physical principles do you use? Pancake? Crush Down? Pile Driver? I use the sound physical principle that if the support gives out, the top part is going to come down on the bottom floors. The top part will fall as a unit, while each floor below takes that impact alone. It isn't hard to see how each floor is no match for many floors IN MOTION slamming into them.
Posts: 30 Group: Skeptics Member #1,261 Joined: 08/02/09


JFK	Aug 6 2009, 07:31 PM Post #62
Posts: 4,218 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Sounds like piledriver to me Stundie.
Posts: 4,218 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Stundie	Aug 6 2009, 07:37 PM Post #63
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	JFK Aug 6 2009, 07:31 PM Sounds like piledriver to me Stundie. Sounds like a variation to me JFK.... We should call it the PanCrush Driver theory.
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


kriskelly	Aug 6 2009, 07:43 PM Post #64
Posts: 30 Group: Skeptics Member #1,261 Joined: 08/02/09	Stundie Aug 6 2009, 07:37 PM JFK Aug 6 2009, 07:31 PM Sounds like piledriver to me Stundie. Sounds like a variation to me JFK.... We should call it the PanCrush Driver theory. When the top part came down, what was suppose to happen?
Posts: 30 Group: Skeptics Member #1,261 Joined: 08/02/09


Stundie	Aug 6 2009, 08:01 PM Post #65
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	kriskelly I use the sound physical principle that if the support gives out, the top part is going to come down on the bottom floors. The top part will fall as a unit, while each floor below takes that impact alone. A sound physical principle of treating the upper floors as a unit, but the lower floors as individual floors? If you want to use sound physical principle and be taken seriously, then maybe you should treat the lower floors as a unit or the upper floors as individual floors. Upper Unit vs Lower Unit - or - Upper Floor vs Lower Floor NOT Upper unit vs Lower Floor. kriskelly It isn't hard to see how each floor is no match for many floors IN MOTION slamming into them. The upper unit ALSO consists of floors kris. If the upper unit slams into the lower portion or floors, then the bottom floor in the upper unit would slam into upper floor of the lower unit. When any 2 objects collide consisting of the same materials but are of differing masses, like above and below the failure point in the WTC the larger mass wins. The funny thing is you have no evidence for your belief of how the towers collapse, yet you have the cheek to claim it isn't hard to see, even though your sound physical principles do not even match the video evidence......lol Next you'll be telling me you believe in fairies because you would have as much evidence for your belief in that than you do for the collapses.
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


Stundie	Aug 6 2009, 08:11 PM Post #66
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	kriskelly Aug 6 2009, 07:43 PM Stundie Aug 6 2009, 07:37 PM JFK Aug 6 2009, 07:31 PM Sounds like piledriver to me Stundie. Sounds like a variation to me JFK.... We should call it the PanCrush Driver theory. When the top part came down, what was suppose to happen? Collide with the lower portion. If you look at video footage of the WTC 1 collapse, you will see the top portion disintegrate sbefore the lower portion collapse starts moving. Notice the bottom portion of the collapse zone doesn't get crushed down after the initiation. Proving this..... kriskelly It isn't hard to see how each floor is no match for many floors IN MOTION slamming into them. Totally wrong! lol
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


kriskelly	Aug 6 2009, 08:28 PM Post #67
Posts: 30 Group: Skeptics Member #1,261 Joined: 08/02/09	Stundie Aug 6 2009, 08:11 PM kriskelly Aug 6 2009, 07:43 PM Stundie Aug 6 2009, 07:37 PM JFK Aug 6 2009, 07:31 PM Sounds like piledriver to me Stundie. Sounds like a variation to me JFK.... We should call it the PanCrush Driver theory. When the top part came down, what was suppose to happen? Collide with the lower portion. If you look at video footage of the WTC 1 collapse, you will see the top portion disintegrate sbefore the lower portion collapse starts moving. Notice the bottom portion of the collapse zone doesn't get crushed down after the initiation. Proving this..... kriskelly It isn't hard to see how each floor is no match for many floors IN MOTION slamming into them. Totally wrong! lol The top was a unit in motion at that point. How is the bottom a unit in this situation? I think you need to rethink that part. If the top 15 come down on floor 95, floor 95 is going to have to stop them all by itself or collapse into floor 94. The other floors will each have to wait there turn to try and hold up the increasing mass coming down.
Posts: 30 Group: Skeptics Member #1,261 Joined: 08/02/09


kriskelly	Aug 6 2009, 08:37 PM Post #68
Posts: 30 Group: Skeptics Member #1,261 Joined: 08/02/09	kriskelly Aug 6 2009, 08:28 PM Stundie Aug 6 2009, 08:11 PM kriskelly Aug 6 2009, 07:43 PM Stundie Aug 6 2009, 07:37 PM JFK Aug 6 2009, 07:31 PM Sounds like piledriver to me Stundie. Sounds like a variation to me JFK.... We should call it the PanCrush Driver theory. When the top part came down, what was suppose to happen? Collide with the lower portion. If you look at video footage of the WTC 1 collapse, you will see the top portion disintegrate sbefore the lower portion collapse starts moving. Notice the bottom portion of the collapse zone doesn't get crushed down after the initiation. Proving this..... kriskelly It isn't hard to see how each floor is no match for many floors IN MOTION slamming into them. Totally wrong! lol The top was a unit in motion at that point. How is the bottom a unit in this situation? I think you need to rethink that part. If the top 15 come down on floor 95, floor 95 is going to have to stop them all by itself or collapse into floor 94. The other floors will each have to wait there turn to try and hold up the increasing mass coming down. The top has to reach the first intact floor before it collapses it. That is why floor 10 didn't collapse until the mass reached it. In your clip, the mass hasn't reached the next intact floor yet. It has to get though the impact zone first.
Posts: 30 Group: Skeptics Member #1,261 Joined: 08/02/09


Stundie	Aug 6 2009, 08:48 PM Post #69
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	kriskelly Aug 6 2009, 08:28 PM Stundie Aug 6 2009, 08:11 PM kriskelly Aug 6 2009, 07:43 PM Stundie Aug 6 2009, 07:37 PM JFK Aug 6 2009, 07:31 PM Sounds like piledriver to me Stundie. Sounds like a variation to me JFK.... We should call it the PanCrush Driver theory. When the top part came down, what was suppose to happen? Collide with the lower portion. If you look at video footage of the WTC 1 collapse, you will see the top portion disintegrate sbefore the lower portion collapse starts moving. Notice the bottom portion of the collapse zone doesn't get crushed down after the initiation. Proving this..... kriskelly It isn't hard to see how each floor is no match for many floors IN MOTION slamming into them. Totally wrong! lol The top was a unit in motion at that point. How is the bottom a unit in this situation? I think you need to rethink that part. If the top 15 come down on floor 95, floor 95 is going to have to stop them all by itself or collapse into floor 94. The other floors will each have to wait there turn to try and hold up the increasing mass coming down. Again, another fallacy repeated. What is holding up floor 94? Its totally rhetorical because getting an answer from you would be as hopeful as entering Gordon Brown into a beauty pageant and expecting him to win. lol The fact is below floor 94, there is also another 93 floors not including the basement, holding that 94th floor up. A job it as been doing for years might I add. So therefore, anything above the failure point impacting floor 94 is in theory impacting the entire structure, not just floor 94 as you debunkers want to believe. As I said, you can't treat the upper portion as a unit and the lower portion as individual floors when both portions consist of the same materials but different masses. Edited by Stundie, Aug 6 2009, 08:56 PM.
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


Stundie	Aug 6 2009, 08:55 PM Post #70
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	kriskelly Aug 6 2009, 08:37 PM kriskelly Aug 6 2009, 08:28 PM Stundie Aug 6 2009, 08:11 PM kriskelly Aug 6 2009, 07:43 PM Stundie Aug 6 2009, 07:37 PM JFK Aug 6 2009, 07:31 PM Sounds like piledriver to me Stundie. Sounds like a variation to me JFK.... We should call it the PanCrush Driver theory. When the top part came down, what was suppose to happen? Collide with the lower portion. If you look at video footage of the WTC 1 collapse, you will see the top portion disintegrate sbefore the lower portion collapse starts moving. Notice the bottom portion of the collapse zone doesn't get crushed down after the initiation. Proving this..... kriskelly It isn't hard to see how each floor is no match for many floors IN MOTION slamming into them. Totally wrong! lol The top was a unit in motion at that point. How is the bottom a unit in this situation? I think you need to rethink that part. If the top 15 come down on floor 95, floor 95 is going to have to stop them all by itself or collapse into floor 94. The other floors will each have to wait there turn to try and hold up the increasing mass coming down. The top has to reach the first intact floor before it collapses it. That is why floor 10 didn't collapse until the mass reached it. In your clip, the mass hasn't reached the next intact floor yet. It has to get though the impact zone first. I'm sorry but these are nothing but groupthink thoughts. If there is an upper portion, then there should be supporting evidence of it collapsing downwards. Please free to show it to the forum but of course, I do not expect as such from someone who preaches JRF groupthink (tm) to show evidence to support their beliefs. p.s. Even Bazants model that JRF Groupthink cling to is discredited and even Dr Greening rarely defends it these days but this is all you have. A 1D mathematical model which doesn't match observed events. Edited by Stundie, Aug 6 2009, 08:57 PM.
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


espresso	Aug 6 2009, 09:57 PM Post #71
Posts: 124 Group: Skeptics Member #1,078 Joined: 03/05/09	Stundie Aug 6 2009, 08:48 PM What is holding up floor 94? Its totally rhetorical because getting an answer from you would be as hopeful as entering Gordon Brown into a beauty pageant and expecting him to win. lol The fact is below floor 94, there is also another 93 floors not including the basement, holding that 94th floor up. Actually floor 94 was supported by the columns, not by floor 93. Stundie So therefore, anything above the failure point impacting floor 94 is in theory impacting the entire structure, not just floor 94 as you debunkers want to believe. If this statement were true then floor 13 would have been impacted at the exact instant that floor 94 was crushed.



TDX	Aug 7 2009, 02:00 AM Post #72
Posts: 159 Group: Members Member #435 Joined: 03/24/08	Well, I don't like to talk about the crush down- crush up or about the general collapse mechanics, because it's very hard topic, more complicated than you (both sides) realize. The upper portion of 12 stories had enough energy (after is descent for some meters) to overcome the columns in the lower part of the building. But the problem is not only a problem of brute force (the energy) but a problem of mechanism. Both upper portions tillted before the global collapse, so acctualy when the upper portion fell, almost all of the columns missed the lower columns, they impacted floorslabs or air outside the tower. From the study of perimeter behaviour response in the first moments of collapse we can learn that almost all of the exterior columns fell ouside the footpring very quickly, look at my profile picture..... So, a big portion of the upper floors did not impact the lower section, it did fall off. So what caused the collapse if it was naturall? Remeber the tillting? It jammed some of the columns and the floorslabs. To cut long story short: the collapse should have been caused by a few floor slabs...5..7, which were jammed between the perimeter and the core columns (avalanche in a tube...chute). Nobody can be sure what happend without a NIST-WTC7 like model of the situation (in regard to the crush down- crush up). The uppermost stories 105-110 were more rigid and heavier then the rest of the tower (to the let's say 90th floor) due to the hat truss construction and the antenna.
Posts: 159 Group: Members Member #435 Joined: 03/24/08


Stundie	Aug 7 2009, 06:56 AM Post #73
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	espresso Actually floor 94 was supported by the columns, not by floor 93. I know, but if we are playing the semantics game then I will rephrase this to say that Floor 94 was supported by the core and exterior columns, which was supported by the core and exterior columns on each floor underneath it, i.e. floor 93, 92, 91 etc etc. Still doesn't make Kriskellys point any more valid. espresso If this statement were true then floor 13 would have been impacted at the exact instant that floor 94 was crushed. Floor 13 would not have been impacted. The core columns and exterior columns below the failure point would have transferred the energy through it's load bearing path, through the entire lower structure. It would not just be transferred to a single floor as kriskelly suggests. ie. floor 93, then 92 and so on and so forth.
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


Stundie	Aug 7 2009, 07:02 AM Post #74
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	TDX Aug 7 2009, 02:00 AM Well, I don't like to talk about the crush down- crush up or about the general collapse mechanics, because it's very hard topic, more complicated than you (both sides) realize. The upper portion of 12 stories had enough energy (after is descent for some meters) to overcome the columns in the lower part of the building. But the problem is not only a problem of brute force (the energy) but a problem of mechanism. Both upper portions tillted before the global collapse, so acctualy when the upper portion fell, almost all of the columns missed the lower columns, they impacted floorslabs or air outside the tower. From the study of perimeter behaviour response in the first moments of collapse we can learn that almost all of the exterior columns fell ouside the footpring very quickly, look at my profile picture..... So, a big portion of the upper floors did not impact the lower section, it did fall off. So what caused the collapse if it was naturall? Remeber the tillting? It jammed some of the columns and the floorslabs. To cut long story short: the collapse should have been caused by a few floor slabs...5..7, which were jammed between the perimeter and the core columns (avalanche in a tube...chute). Nobody can be sure what happend without a NIST-WTC7 like model of the situation (in regard to the crush down- crush up). The uppermost stories 105-110 were more rigid and heavier then the rest of the tower (to the let's say 90th floor) due to the hat truss construction and the antenna. Don't get me wrong, I'm no expert on the collapse physics, but I have to point out the absurdity of a crush down collapse that JRF Groupthink uses to explain how the WTC collapse. In reality there is no crush down. It's nothing more than a debunker fantasy used to comfort them from reality. And highlights the double standards* they employ. Edited by Stundie, Aug 7 2009, 07:04 AM.
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


Miragememories	Aug 7 2009, 07:29 AM Post #75
Posts: 758 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Kriskelly "No one above the impact zone in tower 1 was able to get down in any stairwell. This tells that the support in the core was damaged, since the staiwells were in the core. This is called evidence." No, it tells us that the stairwells were blocked! http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf “McIntyre, Sharke and 9 other employees, all uninjured, hustled out of the ABS reception area in the north-west corner and turned left towards the lifts and stairways in the tower core. McIntyre recalls peering into a dim shattered stairwell, billowing with smoke. He heard nothing but water cascading down the stairs, almost certainly from severed sprinkler pipes. He looked up. The stairs were blocked by huge pieces of the light gypsum drywall, often called sheetrock, that had enclosed the stairwell. Huge chunks of it sealed the passage from 92, the floor above. Going down the stairs, it made a slightly less formidable obstruction.” There are many reports of how the heavy sheetrock blocked all the WTC1 stairwells in the impact zone. In WTC2, a few people survived from above the impact zone when they found one stairwell that they could clear a path through. The other two stairwells were too blocked by drywall to permit any escape. Drywall was not part of the core's structural support so your "this is called evidence", is really bs Kriskelly! MM Edited by Miragememories, Aug 7 2009, 07:30 AM.
Posts: 758 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4
…
8