The Forum > General Discussion > 9/11 Truth
9/11 Truth
- Pages:
- ‹
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 64
- 65
- 66
- Page 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- ...
- 81
- 82
- 83
- ›
- All
Posted by amoeba, Wednesday, 17 December 2008 1:10:54 AM
| |
Amoeba,
1. The floor in the NE corner of floor 13 was very hot, near column 79. NIST’s report shows that the fire on the 12th floor was a) very hot and b) burned for FAR longer than 10-20 minutes. NISTS preliminary reports were “preliminary”. That’s the nature of an investigation such as this. It’s funny that you fully believe that NIST lies about everything, yet you use as evidence those things which fit your case. NIST also says in their preliminary reports that fires on the 13th floor were burning fiercely at 5.20:52. 2. The NIST simulation of collapse is satisfactory. You haven’t been able to demonstrate that the collapse model isn’t a good approximation. Indeed the NIST reports show that their simulations, with and without damage from the tower collapses, bracket the actual collapse sequences. If you have a look at the presentation by Sunder he places the collapse simulations in the same shot as the actual collapse and the correlation is strong. See 50 minutes in http://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?target=lobby.jsp&eventid=118145&sessionid=1&key=408DE83F525045317FAD444E03E1746B&eventuserid=21429028 you say >> “ ... there must be a section of the building, at least 8 storeys high, totally disintegrating, low down, out of sight of the video” Yes, So? You have provided no evidence to show that isn’t exactly what happened. You say >> “However the simulation shows a huge amount of destruction and distortion has occurred at the top before the top starts to move down. …” That is simply not the case. See the NIST briefing linked above. 3. It is reasonable to believe that a vertical collapse could occur without explosives. The NIST simulation shows the vertical, and then horizontal progression of the interior collapse. Furthermore, they modelled the buckling in the exterior columns that led to the final collapse. With the vast majority of the interior gone, the building was supported by the exterior columns which were of course bound together in a mesh with far superior connections than the internal structure. The exterior fell as one because of the strength of the exterior construction. There is nothing abnormal about that at all. TBC Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 17 December 2008 3:07:58 PM
| |
CONT,
You say >> “NIST … provides no explanation of how all the exterior columns still holding up the building could let go at the same moment. “ Just before the final global collapse, the entire building is basically being held up by the exterior shell. Since the internal rigidity provided by the floors no longer exists, the weight of the building forces the exterior to buckle. It buckles as a single piece and therefore collapses relatively straight down. Straight down is the direction of least resistance as any other direction would require that the exterior start to pull apart. This is the weakest of your arguments so far. The argument that the collapse had to have been initiated by explosives because the building fell straight down is anti-intellectual fallacy. 4. It is reasonable to believe that a collapse which initiates by buckling of columns could pass suddenly into free fall without explosives. You say >> “If this buckling is happening over a span of about 8 storeys, there will be a substantial drop of the roof before something close to free fall is established. “ Isn’t that exactly what Chandler observed? The video you have relied upon this whole time shows a lurch for approximately one second followed by a rapid acceleration, followed by a deceleration? http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=gC44L0-2zL8 5. NIST states that thermal expansion of 4.5 inches of a section of floor pushed a girder off its support, triggering the collapse. You say >> “It is certain that the outer wall would bend outward under pressure and reduce the available movement and hence reduce the force. “ This disregards entirely the construction of the building. Firstly, there are about 4 or 5 exterior columns for EACH of the interior columns 79, 80 and 81. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/images/WTC7_ThermalExpansionPoster.jpg Secondly, the connections in the interior were simple shear connections whilst the exterior connections were moment resistant connections. Thus the exterior of the building was much more rigid than the single shear connection at column 79 and the expansion of the floor beams pushed the girder off the column. See 37 minutes in. http://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?target=lobby.jsp&eventid=118145&sessionid=1&key=408DE83F525045317FAD444E03E1746B&eventuserid=21429028 Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 17 December 2008 3:33:01 PM
| |
Paul claimed of amoeba "You have provided no evidence to show that isn't exactly what happened."
What Paul apears to want us to forget, whilst wading through yet more reams of obfuscation, is that we are discussing something that has never happened before and never happened since, that is a massive building having been brought down by fire alone in a manner that appears indistinguishable from from a controlled demolition. Paul insists that seven floors of the "the exterior columns which were of course bound together in a mesh with far superior connections than the internal structure" causing the exterior to "(fall) as one because" somehow simultaneously and instantaneously lost all of their strength allowing the upper floors to fall as one at free fall speed. I think the onus of proof should lie with those who are making this extraordinary claim and not on those challenging it. Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 17 December 2008 3:46:13 PM
| |
Dagget,
Give it up you sad little man. Amoeba puts the argument far better than you ever could. Anyone who has been reading this already knows your reputation is shot. If you continue to bait me I will be making a complaint. I've already indulged you for quite long enough. Haven't I shown you up enough? Now that Amoeba has stopped posting I'll be stopping too and you can finally see see how many of your audience are still around then Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 17 December 2008 4:33:22 PM
| |
Paul, do I have to point out yet again that personal attacks are no substitute for argument.
Paul, wrote, "Haven't I shown you up enough?" Like when you insisted that John Schroeder was the only Firefight in New York city who attested to having witnessed explosions around the World Trade Center? Or when you insisted that there was no credible evidence of rivers of molten steel beneath the collapsed towers? Or when you insisted that the Barry Jenings' tesimony of numerous explosions in WTC7 at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI was of no consequence? Or when you tried to dismiss the accoustic evidence of explosion at WTC 7 in the broadcast at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I ? If so, I would suggest not. --- Also, please don't kid yourself that you have done me any kind of favour by having continued to post to this discussion. You know perfectly well that that was not your purpose, nor, for that matter, was it to shed any light on the issue at hand for the benefit of other forum participants. I hope this time you do cease posting to this forum as you have promised once before. If you have a problem with my continuing to post, then can I suggest, as I have suggested to another participant, that you turn off your e-mail alerts? Posted by daggett, Thursday, 18 December 2008 3:06:08 AM
|
One final comment:
I said >> “If the whole tower was heated the whole thing would expand and there would be no pressure generated whatsoever [by the expanding floor beams on the girder which was supposed to have been pushed off its support on column 79]”
You said: “Really? You don’t want to rethink that? …”
I will leave it to readers think about that.
One day perhaps we will discuss a new topic, such as the explanation for the minute spheres, mainly iron, with a little aluminium, found in the dust from the collapse of the towers. That will do for now