IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


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.
Reply
Old 1st April 2016, 10:04 PM   #41
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I'll never understand why these need to be so wordy.

20 floors fell on one floor. One floor couldn't hold the weight, so 21 floors fell on one floor, which couldn't hold the weight. So 22 floors....

repeat until completed.
Please show a picture, or anything, that shows 20 floors of WTC1 or WTC2 falling.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2016, 10:12 PM   #42
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Please show a picture, or anything, that shows 20 floors of WTC1 or WTC2 falling.
Do your own bleeding homework.

If at this stage in 2016 you are denying that the Top Sections of WTC1 and WTC2 fell as part of the collapse....go find some silly patsies to sell your snake oil to.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2016, 11:08 PM   #43
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Do your own bleeding homework.

If at this stage in 2016 you are denying that the Top Sections of WTC1 and WTC2 fell as part of the collapse....go find some silly patsies to sell your snake oil to.
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.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 01:48 AM   #44
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 20,891
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
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.

Please post a picture showing those two options exist and that they are the only two options.
__________________
"*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
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 01:59 AM   #45
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Please post a picture showing those two options exist and that they are the only two options.
A skeptic made a claim. I asked anyone to provide proof this claim is true. If no one can provide this proof, then the claim should be retracted.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 02:13 AM   #46
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
maybe only one floor fell and the other 19 floated in the air?
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 02:15 AM   #47
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
maybe only one floor fell and the other 19 floated in the air?
If you want to make this claim, provide proof.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 02:21 AM   #48
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
And that WAS a great thread. Thanks Bob, you've wrecked it.

Last edited by HotRodDeluxe; 2nd April 2016 at 02:23 AM.
HotRodDeluxe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 02:23 AM   #49
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe View Post
And that WAS a great thread. Thanks Bob.
Can you elaborate on this comment?

Who's Bob?
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 02:28 AM   #50
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
If you want to make this claim, provide proof.
I don't want to make that claim but by your logic if they didn't fall they must still be up there.
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 02:32 AM   #51
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
I don't want to make that claim but by your logic if they didn't fall they must still be up there.
I never said they did not fall. Where did I say the towers did not fall? Please copy and paste the text where I have claimed that the towers did not fall.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 02:36 AM   #52
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Can you elaborate on this comment?
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.

Last edited by HotRodDeluxe; 2nd April 2016 at 02:45 AM.
HotRodDeluxe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 02:51 AM   #53
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
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?
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 03:05 AM   #54
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe View Post
Gladly, you've wrecked what I considered to be an informative thread

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.
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.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 03:09 AM   #55
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
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.
Who are the skeptics?
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 03:14 AM   #56
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
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...

Last edited by HotRodDeluxe; 2nd April 2016 at 03:16 AM.
HotRodDeluxe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 03:23 AM   #57
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Who are the skeptics?
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.

Last edited by FalseFlag; 2nd April 2016 at 03:30 AM.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 09:00 AM   #58
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
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.
Actually among other options there is the option of pointing out a false dichotomy on your part
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 09:36 AM   #59
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe View Post
Oh for....

http://rs479.pbsrc.com/albums/rr154/...epalm.jpg~c200

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...
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.

Last edited by ozeco41; 2nd April 2016 at 09:41 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 11:14 AM   #60
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
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.

Here.


Is your google broken or what?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 11:27 AM   #61
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Please show a picture, or anything, that shows 20 floors of WTC1 or WTC2 falling.
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.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 12:10 PM   #62
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
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

Last edited by jaydeehess; 2nd April 2016 at 12:27 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 12:21 PM   #63
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Please show a picture, or anything, that shows 20 floors of WTC1 or WTC2 falling.
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.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 2nd April 2016 at 12:33 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 12:34 PM   #64
malbec
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 .
malbec is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 12:38 PM   #65
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by Malbec View Post
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 .
If pigs could fly you might have a chance of actually being right about something.

What is most amazing is that anyone could believe the things you post and still function in society on your own.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 2nd April 2016 at 12:39 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 01:14 PM   #66
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
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:
Love follow the money BS logic
... oops, 9/11 truth are the bad guys, and 9/11 truth faith based followers have no idea what the topic is.

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

Last edited by beachnut; 2nd April 2016 at 01:34 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 01:50 PM   #67
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
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.
Amazing! You want to sticky a thread based on response to your derail of the thread.
Do you or do you not have anything at all to contribute to the subject of the thread?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 2nd April 2016 at 03:29 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 02:29 PM   #68
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
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 << consider putting invented word in quotes?? 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 the start of rapid collapse. These demonstrate that the structure was responding to further weakening due to the heat. Loads were continually changing and redistributing during this time.
Line space inserted
At some point a redistribution caused one or more columns to exceed its capacity triggering the rapid stage of collapse.(Note: It wasn't the first to fail - was the first to trigger the rapid acceleration towards global progression.) 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 induced 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 an increasingly rapid 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 through multiple element on element contacts. (Note: Avoiding the "One Big Jolt" misunderstandings.) 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 (lower case initial letters??) 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 may lag 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 (lower case initial letters??) 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
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.

Last edited by ozeco41; 2nd April 2016 at 03:17 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 07:15 PM   #69
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
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.
HotRodDeluxe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 07:20 PM   #70
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe View Post
Thanks Gents for not engaging that pathetic derail. Fascinating stuff from all! Kudos!

This site needs a 'like' button.
Or the full suite as per Metabunk which has Like, Dislike, Agree, Disagree, Funny, Winner, Informative and Useful
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 07:20 PM   #71
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by HotRodDeluxe; 2nd April 2016 at 07:23 PM.
HotRodDeluxe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 07:21 PM   #72
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Or the full suite as per Metabunk which has Like, Dislike, Agree, Disagree, Funny, Winner, Informative and Useful
Indeed!
HotRodDeluxe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 07:58 PM   #73
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe View Post
I have noted your recent frustrations, but I am fascinated by the progress of Mike's model and hopefully it will embarrass Box boy and Cole upon completion.
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.

Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe View Post
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.
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.....

Last edited by ozeco41; 2nd April 2016 at 08:04 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 08:09 PM   #74
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe View Post
Indeed!
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 .
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 08:14 PM   #75
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
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.
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.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 10:11 PM   #76
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Actually among other options there is the option of pointing out a false dichotomy on your part
Then point it out.

Is anyone going to retract the original claim or post any proof to support the claim?

Edit - see post below.

Last edited by FalseFlag; 2nd April 2016 at 10:19 PM.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 10:19 PM   #77
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post

Here.


Is your google broken or what?
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.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 10:36 PM   #78
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
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.


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.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 11:48 PM   #79
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by FalseFlag; 3rd April 2016 at 01:35 AM.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 11:52 PM   #80
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
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.
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.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.