|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
1st April 2016, 10:04 PM | #41 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
1st April 2016, 10:12 PM | #42 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
1st April 2016, 11:08 PM | #43 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
Please show a picture, or anything, that shows 20 floors of WTC1 or WTC2 falling.
That was the text of my post. There should only have been two options. The first option was to post something that meets the requirements of my request. The second option should have been to ignore it if you could not fulfill the request, or chose not to fulfill the request. |
2nd April 2016, 01:48 AM | #44 |
The Clarity Is Devastating
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 20,891
|
|
__________________
"*Except Myriad. Even Cthulhu would give him a pat on the head and an ice cream and send him to the movies while he ended the rest of the world." - Foster Zygote |
|
2nd April 2016, 01:59 AM | #45 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
2nd April 2016, 02:13 AM | #46 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
|
maybe only one floor fell and the other 19 floated in the air?
|
2nd April 2016, 02:15 AM | #47 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
2nd April 2016, 02:21 AM | #48 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
|
And that WAS a great thread. Thanks Bob, you've wrecked it.
|
2nd April 2016, 02:23 AM | #49 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
2nd April 2016, 02:28 AM | #50 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
|
|
2nd April 2016, 02:32 AM | #51 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
2nd April 2016, 02:36 AM | #52 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
|
Gladly, you've wrecked what I considered to be an informative thread, and hereafter, (if your current pattern of behaviour is any indication) it won't be worth reading owing to your 'contributions'. I hope that is sufficiently clear and no more discourse with you on the matter will be considered.
Oh, and Bob is a 9/11 truther on a few sites I'm on, and his posting style is highly reminiscent of yours (that is not a positive appraisal), and he has the same talent for shutting down discussion of 9/11 as you evince. |
2nd April 2016, 02:51 AM | #53 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
It should be noted that when people refer to the collapse phase of the lower section... below the plane strike... referred to by some as "ROOSD" and the period before ROOSD is referred to as "initiation"... this is somewhat misleading.
In actual fact, I would suggest that there was a sort of continuous process of stage/phase transition. That is to say ROOSD did not have a t=0 when it began but there was a process which transitioned into ROOSD... which did not involve heat driving destruction, but mechanical disintegration of the normal temperature structure from gravity driven mechanical "collisions" of loose building components with the intact structure below... In order for ROOSD to get going... material needs to crash down and destroy floor slabs. That material has to be freed from the structural matrix... or the if it remains locked into it... the entire top would have to be freed ( pushed or pulled off column alignment to drop. I suspect this did not happen. It was more of the former and a some of the later. The phase transition may have been very rapid and in a very compressed time frame... much like the concept of aggregate FOS being driven below 1 by whatever means. Until a member is seeing loads exceed its yield strength is remains static and functioning. The instant the loads exceed capacity or the capacity drops below the loads the member sees... failure has occurred. It seems absurd to thing that over time the structure kept getting hotter and weaker throughout a few levels as the sole means of driving capacity down below FOS 1. This is not to say that heat was not cutting into axial capacity. It must have played some role. Surely core beams were losing capacity, expanding, concrete slabs within the core spalding and breaking up. Perhaps partial collapses were loading up floors below pushing them closer and closer to their limit such that one the straw dropped the at capacity floor and loads upon it crashed down starting local "mini" cascading in bay failures in the core region. The phase transition is almost impossible to conceptualize and explain. But it seems to be a process were the effect of heat was causing mechanical failures (dropping mass) which facilitated the distorting of the frame itself in a gutted hot zone. I suspect the failure of people to understand how heat leads to freed collapsing mass which then can destroy what it falls on is the basis for so much skepticism which gives rise to belief that fires cannot collapse strong steel framed buildings. Would column shortening cause a building to collapse? I think not. Column buckling would. Column misalignment would. Was there enough head to induce buckling in enough columns? That is... a threshold amount to begin the fatal load redistribution and drive axial capacity below FOS 1... and all remaining columns instantly buckle the with the remain structure moving laterally as it dropped? How was HEAT undoing things which lead to what is referred to as ROOSD or the runaway floor collapse? |
2nd April 2016, 03:05 AM | #54 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
What you are claiming is that asking someone to prove ONE statement has "wrecked an 'informative' thread".
LOL. I wish I could send this thread to every person on this planet, because you have done what I have worked so hard to do. You have given me a gift I can not repay you for. You have shown that the "skeptics" on this forum absolutely run away when confronted by a legitimate request for proof. It's there, clear for anyone to see. I made one simple request, which no one has even made an attempt to fulfill, and you claim I have "wrecked" this thread. Awesome. Everyone on the planet needs to see this. What more proof does anyone need to show that this forum is a hoax? Really? What more proof do you need? All you want to do is fantasize about what you think happened. All you want to do is validate your delusions, and when you are asked for proof of just one statement, you claim the thread is wrecked. Incredible. And thanks. This thread needs to be a sticky. |
2nd April 2016, 03:09 AM | #55 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
|
2nd April 2016, 03:14 AM | #56 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
|
Oh for....
Sander, please proceed (if you're not done), I'm actually enjoying the material. I might go over old threads at Metabunk until this guy gets the axe. You've much there as well as Oz etc... |
2nd April 2016, 03:23 AM | #57 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
For the purposes of this forum, the widely-accepted definitions are that a truther is someone who questions the official story, and a skeptic is someone who supports it. The official story is, basically, everything contained in the 9/11 CR and the NIST WTC7 report.
If you wish to add to these definitions, please do so. |
2nd April 2016, 09:00 AM | #58 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
2nd April 2016, 09:36 AM | #59 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Currently I'm massively frustrated with a couple of topics on Metabunk. Put simply I've temporarily given up in disgust at the unacknowledged drift in focus.
The old problem - no clarity of objective - so drifting all over the place when (I think) the foundation options have been clearly identified. (Add comment about "putting examples of species equus ferus caballus in proximity to aqueous fluid will not necessarily predispose to imbibing.") AND - in this thread - I'm biting my tongue to resist responding to Sanders Post #53 and the multiple bits of confusion/errors it contains. OP a thread Sander -- someone - and we can go over the many issues yet again. F'rinstance the four (if I count right) self contradictions. |
2nd April 2016, 11:27 AM | #61 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
Why? It's common knowledge.
The plane impacted roughly the 80th floor of the South Tower. (78th to 84th to be precise) The other one impacted the north tower between 92 and 98. The towers were 110 floors. Do the math. I exaggerated for the North tower, and minimized at the South Tower as it turns out. Of course, it's a moot point. But you won't get that because you'll crank out asinine minutiae as if you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. We'll point and laugh and wait till the process repeats itself on another thread. The point is, each floor wasn't designed to hold the weight of the mass above it, which only increased as the collapsed progressed. It's really not too tough to figure out. |
2nd April 2016, 12:10 PM | #62 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Revision 2:
Generic Description of the Collapse Progression of the Two WTC Towers: Video evidence demonstrates aircraft impact destroyed or bent a number of perimeter columns. A lesser amount of core column severance or damage is expected. Some floor spans also directly damaged. Aircraft fuel spread through several vertically adjacent floors of the structure and ignited. This created a condition of very large area office contents fire on those floors with various levels of rubblization of the contents. This is a fire condition well beyond design expectations for fire spread. Office fires are expected to usually begin small, in a waste basket, or an electrical fault in a device or circuit, for instance. Aircraft impact debrided spray on fire insulation in varying degree, on a significant number of structural components on impact floors. This reduced fire resistance of those structural steel components. Structural response to impact was a redistribution of loads previously carried by missing or foreshortened ( due to being bent) columns. Load redistribution was not even across all remaining columns. Fire spread and movement was similar, but not identical, on each involved level and also spread to higher levels. Heat began affecting steel structural components, both vertical and horizontal, and the connecting components between them on all fire involved levels. Floor spans had long trusses with their lower chords exposed to the heat and the trusses in several areas began sagging. A few areas had already seen truss or truss to perimeter connection failure at impact. Perimeter columns and truss to perimeter connecting components heated less than the core columns and truss to core structure components. The interface between long span trusses and core was a belt truss rather than direct connection to core columns. Core columns are subject to heating basically from all sides, over the several floors fully involved in the fires, and over the course of fire spread around each level. ( that is to say a column at level x may heat more on one face than that same column at level x-1 or x+1 but that over the several levels involved some columns are heated on all sides and taking into account the changes through time) The capability of the structure to resist any collapse was being eroded. One very obvious indication of this is the inward bowing of part of the perimeter. Each tower also twisted and tilted noticeably up to collapse. These demonstrate that the structure was responding to further weakening due to the heat. Loads were continually changing and redistributing during this time. At some point a redistribution caused one or more columns to exceed its capacity. Column capacity in this case does not necessarily mean its original engineered load bearing ability. Loads were not necessarily on axis (due to impact or heat unduced creep, or expanding floor beams) and many columns were subjected to significant heating, both of which would tend to lower any individual column's strength. At this point a progression of column failures occurs. A column or columns fail and in redistributing the load, cause other columns to exceed capacity, causing another rapid load shift. Column failures rapidly progressed to all columns over one or more levels With all columns now having failed over one or more adjacent levels, a large section of the upper building is now falling, accelerating to next contact. A combination of factors result in few, if any, buckled columns impacting on lower parts of themselves. Upper falling section column ends are, in many locations, the first contacts with lower structure. That contact would be proximate to the lower section columns and thus the greatest impact occurs near or directly on lower floor truss to column connecting components immediately failing the lateral support provided by those trusses. This is occurring both to long span truss to column connecting components, at perimeter and belt truss, as well as with the core's beams running between core columns. As upper mass continues its lowest floor begins contacting floorspace below the initial failure level. This first contact is between floor systems that are already severely compromised. They are among those that have been affected by impact and heat and one has suffered loss of connections to columns as per last paragraph. Concrete floor pans shatter under massive dynamic overload. Both upper structure and lower structure now have major connection failures, both in the vertical/horizontal connections as well as connections between column sections. The later is due to both the destruction of Lateral Support and the buffeting collisions from the falling mass. Perimeter column "trees" peel away, the first to do so are on the order of 1000 feet above ground as they pivot away. Collapse continues with a relatively small amount of falling mass being ejected at the collision interface. Since initial contact was an order of magnitude greater than that which the long span open floors could absorb, little effect is seen on the falling mass. This means that the still intact portion of upper mass will continue to accelerate. Further contact of falling upper mass with lower structure will have mutual destruction of both. As collapse continues lower levels will be impacted by more mass , albeit more rubblized, that is necessarily moving faster than first contact. Those floor spans must also be hit by an order of magnitude greater load than they can withstand, and indeed greater than at that earlier, first contact impact. There existed no mechanism by which this floor pan, truss and perimeter peel, destruction could be arrested as this continues. The core area beam destruction lags that of the long span destruction since those beams are heavier and shorter. Perimeter peel necessarily lags long span destruction as it is a direct result of that long span truss destruction. Core columns stripped of inter-core Lateral Support succumb to a combination of slender column buckling and heavy buffeting from falling debris. A relatively small, heavily damaged, portion of the core remains after long span floor and perimeter destruction (no longer being buffeted by debris impact) but cannot remain intact and it comes apart as well |
2nd April 2016, 12:21 PM | #63 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Please note that in the OP and the two revisions of it, I never ennumerate or quantify the upper section at collapse initiation.
The bleeding obvious reason for that is that this is a generic description of both collapses. In other threads I have referred to the 10-20 storey tall upper section.. Your nit pick of one post is a derail. Perhaps you would care to tell us what you consider the least number of storeys making up the initial falling upper section of WTC1, and the greatest number in that of WTC2 AND Why it matters in the context of this thread. |
2nd April 2016, 12:34 PM | #64 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 960
|
Amazing that such a stubborn remainder cannot handle the notion that this was the most transparent ever False Flag .
Guess this is similar to the times when some hung on to the flat earth notion and more recently that the might of America was strong enough to win even a single war . If pigs could fly etc . Just follow the money to solve this easy murder case . |
2nd April 2016, 12:38 PM | #65 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
2nd April 2016, 01:14 PM | #66 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
With Gage, Richard Gage, who spreads lies about 9/11 and makes over $500,000 dollars a year.
Quote:
summary... impacts, fire, collapse - |
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
2nd April 2016, 01:50 PM | #67 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
2nd April 2016, 02:29 PM | #68 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Very good JDH - just a couple of points left - typos and nuance issues:
(My suggestions this colour. Explanatory notes This colour Good work JDH. A carefully considered "medium level" summary. Not bullet proof but no big holes that a genuine honest reader would exploit. And what truthers would do with it is irrelevant. |
2nd April 2016, 07:15 PM | #69 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
|
Thanks Gents for not engaging that pathetic derail. Fascinating stuff from all! Kudos!
This site needs a 'like' button. |
2nd April 2016, 07:20 PM | #70 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
2nd April 2016, 07:20 PM | #71 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
|
I have noted your recent frustrations, but I am currently fascinated by the progress of Mick's model and hopefully it will embarrass Box boy and Cole upon completion.
Unfortunately, I do not have the necessary background as you know and I get what I know from here and Metabunk (inter alia). I lurk more than post as my time here and post count will attest to. However, lately ISF has turned into the usual trollfest we saw on that other site (I can't remember now what it was called), and that is not very constructive. |
2nd April 2016, 07:21 PM | #72 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
|
|
2nd April 2016, 07:58 PM | #73 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Sure but I try to keep it in perspective:
Some people benefit from physical models to demonstrate mechanisms that they cannot visualise. Others - including me - have less difficulty "visualising" the real event in full colour 4D splendour (3D + T). I cannot speak for other NLP "visuals" but I find it harder to translate from a near enough but simplified and not quite right demonstration model into real world than it is to visualise the real thing direct . And the associated risk that those committed to the model start to see it as realistic beyond where it is in fact valid. So the frustrations are not about the needs of those who have to have models versus those who don't - that is a genuine range of differences of human perception skills. BUT it is the total overlooking the constant drift of objectives as the goalposts move. And I don't mind changing objectives - as long as you recognise you are doing it. Look at recent spurt of activity on another thread - the 2016 annual recycling of "We Don't Like ROOSD Because it was Coined by Major_Tom and We Don't like Him". Of the three central issues of actively maintained confusion the dominating ones are the shifting of goalposts PLUS denial that it is happening. Multiple variants on the them of "we don't like you calling it an apple because we want to describe fruit." Two distinct easily separable purposes and each valid for its own purpose. And that without the unspoken but implied personality issues. No point discussing when you cannot even agree on the topic - which is the main reason I have nothing to add "over there" - I've said it clearly several times and been effectively ignored. No problem. Let it run. Mea Culpa Father - I have sinned grievously - posted TWICE on that unnamed site. Broke my last year resolution to not post there again. It was because of what I regard as the greatest professional offence in Forum Posting. When engineers prostitute their profession to deliberately mislead gullible lay persons. It was T Sz repeating his nonsense about "A proportion of columns cut means uniform redistribution of loads to other columns" Utter hogwash. And no civil, structural or mechanical engineer can honestly make that false claim OR pretend they don't know better. And I'll include electrical, chemical, aeronautical engineers once they have been told the true situation. I don't like the word "lie" or its derivatives but..... |
2nd April 2016, 08:09 PM | #74 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Great shorthand for offering specific forms of praise or disagreement - without the overheads of a brief post which distracts from the theme.
Of course when you have an active spammer in every thread it is not a priority issue to avoid distraction from theme by the genuine members' comments . |
2nd April 2016, 08:14 PM | #75 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
How ironic... the skeptics are actually the people who question the official mainstream accepted narratives... and are the so called 9/11 truth folks....
Of course those who support a non CD inside job false flag are SKEPTICAL of those who do (truth folks).... because people with these (skeptical) beliefs have not made an affirmative case... just demanding proof and expressing their disbelief (disbelief = skepticism...no?). I'd say you got it backwards. |
2nd April 2016, 10:11 PM | #76 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
2nd April 2016, 10:19 PM | #77 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
It's about time someone posted that picture. Are you seriously claiming that 20 floors is falling on the structure below? Please count the floors and show me how 20 of them are falling on the structure below. Use the picture you have posted as the reference.
For the sake of argument, let's define floor. Here is a definition that I think will be easy to agree on: 1. the lower surface of a room, on which one may walk. 2. all the rooms or areas on the same level of a building; a story. I am not playing the semantics game, regardless of how many of you are going to accuse me of this. My challenge is simple. Please count the floors (as defined above) and show me how 20 of them are falling on the building below. To make sure that we understand the term "building", I mean the intact portion of WTC2 before the collapse reaches each floor. |
2nd April 2016, 10:36 PM | #78 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
We've already established that 20 isn't the exact number. It's more in the south tower, and less in the north tower, as it turns out. I was generalizing. The point however, (which is elusive to you and your ilk) is that the first intact floor was not designed to hold the weight of the falling mass of the structure above it. Therefore, it had no choice but to collapse, and add its weight to the falling mass,which then hit another floor which wasn't designed to hold the weight of the falling mass, etc..etc...etc... Where I reside, in what we refer to as "reality" - this is common sense. I knew those buildings were coming down as soon as it because obvious that no firefighting was possible - and I knew why. This is during the event, live on television. I have yet to be proven wrong. Strange, that. |
2nd April 2016, 11:48 PM | #79 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
No, it's not too tough to figure out, but you refuse to do just that.
The purpose of the support columns is to support each floor. I will define floor, for the purposes of this argument, as the outer and inner support columns, trusses, metal sheets on the trusses, and then the cement poured over the top of the trusses. You claim that each floor wasn't designed to hold the weight of the mass above it. Your claim is wrong. Each floor, as I have defined it, is designed to support the loads of the floor in question, plus every floor above it, plus a safety margin of 5x (for WTC1 and WTC2). You argument is misleading because you want readers to simply assume that the concrete slab on a given floor is not capable of supporting the mass of all of the concrete slabs above it. You are correct at a very basic level, but you are misleading people. The concrete slabs on each floor are not designed to support anything other than the normal expected loads of people, furniture, and other things you would normally find on a floor. If the concrete slabs are not designed to support anything other than what is directly on top of them then how does the building remain standing? The answer is simple. The support columns, trusses and steel plates support the concrete slabs and hold the building up. Your argument simply pretends that the support columns don't exist, and each concrete slab fell on the concrete slab below it. This didn't happen. The picture that was just posted is proof that it didn't happen. You do NOT see concrete slabs falling on concrete slabs. If that is what you saw, the support columns would still be there. What you see is concrete being pulverized and ejected laterally. If the concrete slabs are being pulverized and ejected laterally, what material is left to fall on the structure below? What explains the failure of the support columns when most of the material it had been supporting for decades is not falling down, but is being ejected laterally? Please don't give me the fire argument. The floors below the plane impacts were fine. They were not on fire. The picture shows one thing. You skeptics have spent years trying to convince people they don't see what is there. Pictures are worth 1000 words, as they say. Your words don't explain away what the picture is clearly telling us. |
2nd April 2016, 11:52 PM | #80 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
No firefighting was possible? Then why did firefighters go into the building?
Your statement might make sense to you, but to a person who does not suffer from delusions and who has the ability to reason, your statement is a massive red flag. Here are some facts: WTC1 and WTC2 were designed to withstand plane impacts. All steel-framed high rise buildings are designed to withstand fire. You choose to ignore these facts to support your delusions. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|