ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events 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.
Tags 9/11 , collapse initiation , twin towers , wtc1 , wtc2

Reply
Old 16th May 2015, 08:14 AM   #1
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,287
ozeco41 / Jango debate on WTC Twin Towers collapse initiation - The Peanut Gallery

To help oz and Jango keep their discussion next door clean, I propose us bystanders comment mostly here.

Thanks to oz for OPing this!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=292837



:
Oystein 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 16th May 2015, 10:10 AM   #2
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,597
I think the obsession with buildings falling down misses the point entirely.

Just sayin.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 16th May 2015, 10:24 AM   #3
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
I agree. At some point everyone should have realized that no amount of evidence will ever mean anything to some conspiracy theorists.

And for the 9/11 types, that point should've been about ten years ago.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
ehcks 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 16th May 2015, 11:37 AM   #4
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by ehcks View Post
I agree. At some point everyone should have realized that no amount of evidence will ever mean anything to some conspiracy theorists.

And for the 9/11 types, that point should've been about ten years ago.
Greetings ehcks.

Both Oystein and Mark F will know exactly where I am coming from...

...including my interest in explaining the remaining few technical "too hard bits" which most 9/11 discussion has either avoided or got wrong.

I think we actually did pass "that point" - about 2010. IMO there has been little involvement of genuine truthers in discussion since that time. By "genuine truthers" I mean those who held genuine concerns about 9/11 matters AND were honestly seeking answers.

Most of the allegedly truther side debate we see these days is IMO driven by attention seeking or trolling behaviour. Which leaves the still active debunkers with little material to seriously chew on. And forcing discussion down to the low level of the remnant truther or troll inputs.
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 16th May 2015, 11:40 AM   #5
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by ehcks View Post
I agree. At some point everyone should have realized that no amount of evidence will ever mean anything to some conspiracy theorists.

And for the 9/11 types, that point should've been about ten years ago.
That point should have been really practically a few day after 9/11 at most frankly.
Aepervius 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 16th May 2015, 12:24 PM   #6
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,597
Originally Posted by ehcks View Post
I agree. At some point everyone should have realized that no amount of evidence will ever mean anything to some conspiracy theorists.

And for the 9/11 types, that point should've been about ten years ago.
The remaining crop of 9/11 CT's tend to compartmentalize everything.

There are the Twin Tower obsessives
The Building 7 obsessives
The Pentagon obsessives
The Flight 93 obsessives

Rarely, if ever will you find a 9/11 CT who considers all of these together.

In the first two categories the surviving 9/11 CT's have become obsessed with building collapse. I would submit that building collapse rather than being the focus of 9/11 is in fact merely incidental and completely unnecessary. By that I mean that for the 9/11 attackers everything that occurred from successfully hijacked airliners was already a major victory. There was never any requirement for any building to actually be hit, let alone fall down for the political objectives of the operation to be achieved. IF they had accomplished nothing more than to hijack 4 planes and crash them in empty fields the attack would have been a huge success, its political objectives achieved.

In that light all this obsession over fanciful CD scenario's is simply ridiculous. Nobody in their right mind would bother.

But few people want to discuss the political objectives of the attacks - which should be the whole point. They want to bog the discussion down in technical minutia over some buildings falling down in a half-assed blame-the-man exercise while completely missing what 9/11 was really all about.

What 9/11 wasn't about was re-arranging the New York real estate market.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 16th May 2015, 12:48 PM   #7
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,819
I doubt Jango wil engage in the spirit of the challenge.

If he does he'll constantly play the "but we don't know everything" card that he's played from day 1 here, in order (he thinks) to leave CT as a playable card.

See my sig (it's very funny, if you fancy a few minutes of standup entertainment)
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 16th May 2015, 01:06 PM   #8
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post

See my sig (it's very funny, if you fancy a few minutes of standup entertainment)
Lol, I like that
Spanx 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 16th May 2015, 01:29 PM   #9
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
I would submit that building collapse rather than being the focus of 9/11 is in fact merely incidental and completely unnecessary. By that I mean that for the 9/11 attackers everything that occurred from successfully hijacked airliners was already a major victory. There was never any requirement for any building to actually be hit, let alone fall down for the political objectives of the operation to be achieved. IF they had accomplished nothing more than to hijack 4 planes and crash them in empty fields the attack would have been a huge success, its political objectives achieved.
Yes, ^^ This!

I have said as much several times myself.
Plan to hijack four planes. Manage to hijack only one and then get intercepted, and have the rest of your compatriots dead or captured. Still a terrorist "win". That one plane is not going to land nicely. Its either going to be deliberately crashed killing several dozen passengers and crew, or its going to be shot down. The later is an even greater " win" for the terrorist as it is having the POTUS being forced to order the deaths of those several dozen passengers and crew.

Was flight 93 a failure because it did not make it to a structural target ? ( IMHO it was headed to the Capitol Building, big, highly identifiable, well known, symbol of American political power) Not even 911 truthers characterize it as such. Instead they attempt to say it was shot down. ( I ignore no planer arguments as lunatic fringe) What possible gain is there , a small measure of "win" for the administration in that they sucked a teeny bit less?

Anything beyond getting one plane is simply icing on the terror cake. I cannot imagine being able to successfully spin 3 out of 4 as a substantial win for the good guys.
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 16th May 2015, 01:38 PM   #10
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,792
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Yes, ^^ This!

I have said as much several times myself.
Plan to hijack four planes. Manage to hijack only one and then get intercepted, and have the rest of your compatriots dead or captured. Still a terrorist "win". That one plane is not going to land nicely. Its either going to be deliberately crashed killing several dozen passengers and crew, or its going to be shot down. The later is an even greater " win" for the terrorist as it is having the POTUS being forced to order the deaths of those several dozen passengers and crew.

Was flight 93 a failure because it did not make it to a structural target ? ( IMHO it was headed to the Capitol Building, big, highly identifiable, well known, symbol of American political power) Not even 911 truthers characterize it as such. Instead they attempt to say it was shot down. ( I ignore no planer arguments as lunatic fringe) What possible gain is there , a small measure of "win" for the administration in that they sucked a teeny bit less?

Anything beyond getting one plane is simply icing on the terror cake. I cannot imagine being able to successfully spin 3 out of 4 as a substantial win for the good guys.
I admit, I disagree somewhat with this... I really do believe from the way the approach was done to the 2nd building the objective was not only to hijack the planes but aim for a collapse event.

I say "somewhat disagree" with emphasis and the possibility is still there that they were indeed incidental. Striking lower in the buildings could have very well been designed to trap more people rather than expect a collapse.

Regardless... the nuances there are kind of pointless since we know what the result was already, and for that matter the context of this discussion doesn't really depend on specific ones being exclusive
__________________
Grizzly Bear 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 16th May 2015, 02:28 PM   #11
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Not sure if Mark meant that collapse wasn't a goal of the terrorists. My point is that it wasn't necessary to call the operation a success for the plotters. It was meant to bloody the nose of the USA, and that would have been accomplished with one successful mid-air hijacking and four foiled in the terminal before boarding.
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 16th May 2015, 02:35 PM   #12
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
More on topic, I have made the point that while impacts and multi floor fires were widespread within seconds of impact, and this is obvious from the video records, there is little to no evidence at all that there was any other causitive factor for structural damages. The entire CD scenario is based on interpretation of dust/debris ejections, a disputed testing of the list collapse dust, and a rather large platter of pure imaginative speculation.
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 16th May 2015, 06:34 PM   #13
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
..But few people want to discuss the political objectives of the attacks - which should be the whole point. They want to bog the discussion down in technical minutia over some buildings falling down in a half-assed blame-the-man exercise while completely missing what 9/11 was really all about.
I understand and agree with the truth of Mark's comments. Especially when the technical true minutia do not support "blame the man".

(I'll avoid the derail diversion into one of my favourite themes - "blame the man" is the driver of conspiracy theories - JFK 9/11 et al are only excuses to "blame the man" and truth is irrelevant...but - leave that for another place/time )

For myself I would add in two additional "perspectives".

A The Multiple Levels of the Issues.


9/11 was a complex of events which can be ranked in taxonomic "layers" - just three examples to illustrate the point:

High Level - the strategic aim was to bloody the nose of the US by striking at points of national symbolism;

Mid Level - the tactics were to hijack planes and hit targets.

Collapse of the WTC Towers an unexpected "bonus" IMO

Low Level - understanding the details of the collapses (or plane into Pentagon or Shanksville was not a shoot down"

All of those and many other gradations of "level" are legitimate topics of interest and discussion.

B Truth Movement Naive Strategy

Truth movement bids for more investigation of political mis/mal/nonfeasance based on false claims of CD - the AE911Truth explicit strategy.

Naive and doomed to failure IMO because CD is easily dis proven to any politician who doesn't want to review political actions. And a false argument will not persuade a politician to do that which he/she doesn't want to do - put politicians on trial. I've expounded on that theme many times.

Meanwhile - relevant to recent comments here - explanation of the detail level - "How the buildings really collapsed" is a valid topic of discussion.

Last edited by ozeco41; 16th May 2015 at 06:35 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 16th May 2015, 09:57 PM   #14
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
The remaining crop of 9/11 CT's tend to compartmentalize everything.

There are the Twin Tower obsessives
The Building 7 obsessives
The Pentagon obsessives
The Flight 93 obsessives

Rarely, if ever will you find a 9/11 CT who considers all of these together.

In the first two categories the surviving 9/11 CT's have become obsessed with building collapse. I would submit that building collapse rather than being the focus of 9/11 is in fact merely incidental and completely unnecessary. By that I mean that for the 9/11 attackers everything that occurred from successfully hijacked airliners was already a major victory. There was never any requirement for any building to actually be hit, let alone fall down for the political objectives of the operation to be achieved. IF they had accomplished nothing more than to hijack 4 planes and crash them in empty fields the attack would have been a huge success, its political objectives achieved.

In that light all this obsession over fanciful CD scenario's is simply ridiculous. Nobody in their right mind would bother.

But few people want to discuss the political objectives of the attacks - which should be the whole point. They want to bog the discussion down in technical minutia over some buildings falling down in a half-assed blame-the-man exercise while completely missing what 9/11 was really all about.

What 9/11 wasn't about was re-arranging the New York real estate market.
People nevertheless profited from it happening. The arms industry has been protested against all around the world because their profits can be measured in blood and lives. War time is obviously when business picks up for the arms industry. The right-wing of U.S. politics had long dreamed of new foreign policy conquests to use the U.S. Military Machine on. President Bush named three of them personally -- Iraq, Iran & North Korea. Fellow right-wingers weren't further by adding Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and the Occupied Territories (Gaza and the West Bank).

The war on terror had been gathering steam since the '80's just as the Cold War was petering out and then suddenly collapsed. The massively bloated arm industry bureaucracy scrambled to find new threats to maintain the war machine that had been created out of World War II and maintained to counter the existential Soviet threat.

Many of the key features of President Bush's War on Terror had been previously authorized by previous Presidents or had been campaigned for in the right-wing media by right-wing commentators here in the states and abroad, particularly Israel, who had been experiencing acts of terrorism with horrific frequency.

Geopolitical messes started many administrations ago come due, but the U.S. Security Services remain throughout. The information about the security services in the run up to 9/11 is troublesome. It is not a cut and dry sort of thing, there is more to it then they are letting on. Many of you have admitted as much by saying they were in CYA mode.

The only problem is, What Were They Covering Up. Also this, Why Does That Not Matter?

Those are real conversational pieces on 9/11 that many people do not want to talk about.
Jango 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 16th May 2015, 10:56 PM   #15
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,765
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
People nevertheless profited from it happening. The arms industry has been protested against all around the world because their profits can be measured in blood and lives. War time is obviously when business picks up for the arms industry. The right-wing of U.S. politics had long dreamed of new foreign policy conquests to use the U.S. Military Machine on. President Bush named three of them personally -- Iraq, Iran & North Korea. Fellow right-wingers weren't further by adding Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and the Occupied Territories (Gaza and the West Bank).

The war on terror had been gathering steam since the '80's just as the Cold War was petering out and then suddenly collapsed. The massively bloated arm industry bureaucracy scrambled to find new threats to maintain the war machine that had been created out of World War II and maintained to counter the existential Soviet threat.

Many of the key features of President Bush's War on Terror had been previously authorized by previous Presidents or had been campaigned for in the right-wing media by right-wing commentators here in the states and abroad, particularly Israel, who had been experiencing acts of terrorism with horrific frequency.

Geopolitical messes started many administrations ago come due, but the U.S. Security Services remain throughout. The information about the security services in the run up to 9/11 is troublesome. It is not a cut and dry sort of thing, there is more to it then they are letting on. Many of you have admitted as much by saying they were in CYA mode.

The only problem is, What Were They Covering Up. Also this, Why Does That Not Matter?

Those are real conversational pieces on 9/11 that many people do not want to talk about.
Military suppliers making money is no more evidence of something being covered up than auto accidents are evidence of an auto body shop conspiracy and cover up. You still need documents, corroborated testimony, money trails, video and audio recordings of the deed.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 16th May 2015, 11:13 PM   #16
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Military suppliers making money is no more evidence of something being covered up than auto accidents are evidence of an auto body shop conspiracy and cover up. You still need documents, corroborated testimony, money trails, video and audio recordings of the deed.
And you're absolutely sure that none of the stuff they're purposely withholding from us does not cover any of those bases? I cannot take that approach very seriously given the amount of times that disappoint has ensued. It is not a safe bet to take. Neither is the bet that relevant evidence was not purposely destroyed as we have seen in many cases, most famously in Iran-Contra and Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North's paper-shredder.

9/11 is bigger than the government let on.

This is a worthwhile video to watch for this concept. The Director of the National Security Archive is an authoritative voice on government secrecy and lack of transparency. Anytime there is a large incident that requires an investigation there is a mountain of information that is included into the narrative released but is not allowed to be seen, which logical means that we have to take them at their word. There is obviously a problem with blind trust with government.

Last edited by Jango; 16th May 2015 at 11:17 PM.
Jango 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 16th May 2015, 11:20 PM   #17
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,765
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
And you're absolutely sure that none of the stuff they're purposely withholding from us does not cover any of those bases? I cannot take that approach very seriously given the amount of times that disappoint has ensued. It is not a safe bet to take. Neither is the bet that relevant evidence was not purposely destroyed as we have seen in many cases, most famously in Iran-Contra and Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North's paper-shredder.

9/11 is bigger than the government let on.
What I cannot see I can only guess at, same as you. So I don't know what I don't see and neither do you.

Say, since this is the peanut gallery, when are you going back on the stage? We all came to see a show. Spotlight too bright?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 16th May 2015, 11:29 PM   #18
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
What I cannot see I can only guess at, same as you. So I don't know what I don't see and neither do you.
You're right, however, I don't automatically rule out that the information is there because, as I said, that bet is not a guaranteed winner and has lost many times before. Many of you don't seem interested whatsoever in testing these boundaries.



Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Say, since this is the peanut gallery, when are you going back on the stage? We all came to see a show. Spotlight too bright?
1. You have a low threshold for entertainment.

2. I've already agreed to the terms, what more do you want? I can't make my tutor post any faster. Good grief.
Jango 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 17th May 2015, 12:24 AM   #19
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
A... 9/11 is bigger than the government let on.
...
Is this your preparation for collapse initiation; it is bigger than the government let on. Kind of off topic... and a load of BS. Double BS once removed.

Quote:
The only problem is, What Were They Covering Up. Also this, Why Does That Not Matter?
You make up the fantasy, a cover up, and offer no evidence. As the field artillery rolls along.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 17th May 2015 at 12:31 AM.
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 17th May 2015, 12:32 AM   #20
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
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 17th May 2015, 12:50 AM   #21
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Good night
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
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 17th May 2015, 12:55 AM   #22
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Good night
Yes - thanks - got the time zone diffs correct. 17:55 Kilo here.

Cheers.
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 17th May 2015, 02:11 AM   #23
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 36,305
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
People nevertheless profited from it happening. The arms industry has been protested against all around the world because their profits can be measured in blood and lives. War time is obviously when business picks up for the arms industry. The right-wing of U.S. politics had long dreamed of new foreign policy conquests to use the U.S. Military Machine on. President Bush named three of them personally -- Iraq, Iran & North Korea. Fellow right-wingers weren't further by adding Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and the Occupied Territories (Gaza and the West Bank).

The war on terror had been gathering steam since the '80's just as the Cold War was petering out and then suddenly collapsed. The massively bloated arm industry bureaucracy scrambled to find new threats to maintain the war machine that had been created out of World War II and maintained to counter the existential Soviet threat.

Many of the key features of President Bush's War on Terror had been previously authorized by previous Presidents or had been campaigned for in the right-wing media by right-wing commentators here in the states and abroad, particularly Israel, who had been experiencing acts of terrorism with horrific frequency.

Geopolitical messes started many administrations ago come due, but the U.S. Security Services remain throughout. The information about the security services in the run up to 9/11 is troublesome. It is not a cut and dry sort of thing, there is more to it then they are letting on. Many of you have admitted as much by saying they were in CYA mode.

The only problem is, What Were They Covering Up. Also this, Why Does That Not Matter?

Those are real conversational pieces on 9/11 that many people do not want to talk about.
So why are we talking about architectural failures?

Why?

Because everything you've leeched from the internet is (to all intents and purposes) WRONG.

You nitpick every single detail, little realising that you have no basic standards of evidence. You're defending a house of cards; repeating a litany of canards that have never stood up to any scrutiny.

However, I applaud you for agreeing with ozeco's first statements.

I hope you show similar fortitude in following his upcoming reasoning.
__________________
Challenge your thoughts.
Don't believe everything you think.
Orphia Nay is online now   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 17th May 2015, 02:21 AM   #24
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
So why are we talking about architectural failures?

Why?

Because everything you've leeched from the internet is (to all intents and purposes) WRONG.

You nitpick every single detail, little realising that you have no basic standards of evidence. You're defending a house of cards; repeating a litany of canards that have never stood up to any scrutiny.

However, I applaud you for agreeing with ozeco's first statements.

I hope you show similar fortitude in following his upcoming reasoning.
It is really easy to say that. What is harder to do is explain why I am universally wrong. Perhaps that's why you ignored that part of your "rebuttal."
Jango 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 17th May 2015, 02:21 AM   #25
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,037
So, has the debate moved to the Peanut Gallery or are there now two threads/discussions/debates going on at once?

To me, a Debate is a debate, and "a" Peanut Gallery comments on the discussion in the absence of the two.

Make up your minds! This is just another free for all thread which might as well be merged back into the original debate thread.

Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 17th May 2015 at 02:23 AM.
fromdownunder is online now   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 17th May 2015, 02:52 AM   #26
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,867
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
People nevertheless profited from it happening. The arms industry has been protested against all around the world because their profits can be measured in blood and lives. War time is obviously when business picks up for the arms industry. The right-wing of U.S. politics had long dreamed of new foreign policy conquests to use the U.S. Military Machine on. President Bush named three of them personally -- Iraq, Iran & North Korea. Fellow right-wingers weren't further by adding Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and the Occupied Territories (Gaza and the West Bank).

The war on terror had been gathering steam since the '80's just as the Cold War was petering out and then suddenly collapsed. The massively bloated arm industry bureaucracy scrambled to find new threats to maintain the war machine that had been created out of World War II and maintained to counter the existential Soviet threat.

Many of the key features of President Bush's War on Terror had been previously authorized by previous Presidents or had been campaigned for in the right-wing media by right-wing commentators here in the states and abroad, particularly Israel, who had been experiencing acts of terrorism with horrific frequency.

Geopolitical messes started many administrations ago come due, but the U.S. Security Services remain throughout. The information about the security services in the run up to 9/11 is troublesome. It is not a cut and dry sort of thing, there is more to it then they are letting on. Many of you have admitted as much by saying they were in CYA mode.

The only problem is, What Were They Covering Up. Also this, Why Does That Not Matter?

Those are real conversational pieces on 9/11 that many people do not want to talk about.
Unfortunately WAR is business and profit. The national security state is an enormous profit engine... This is capitalism. I suppose if the MIC were non profit there would be less motivation to see every problem a nail and the NSS as a hammer.

You don't think that companies who worked after Fukishima or BP Horizon or Katrina worked at no profit? Or the companies that salvaged the debris from the WTC worked at no profit?

The question is whether profit motive ALWAYS drives policy? The MIC makes this a very touchy question.

I find it not credible that the profit motive was behind 911... but it certainly reared its hear before the dust had settled over NYC.
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 17th May 2015, 03:24 AM   #27
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
OK - some entertainment for the peanut gallery.

Recall that when you go to the movies they show 'trailers' - short bits out of coming features as advertising for next weeks shows.

Here are a couple of 'trailers' - bits out of the main explanation Stage 3 - not yet posted for Jango who has still to respond to Stage 2.

And it is a competition. On the princples of load redistributions.

This is a simplified WTC Tower - simplified to three rows of columns. Left Centre and Right.



The total load in each of row L and Row R is 100 whilst Row C has 200.

Now some nefarious b..... cuts Row R.

what is the load in Row L? Row C?

Assume the "Top Block" is rigid.

No answers in the thread please - PM to me will do. winners get a free mini Mars Bar - available next time you knock at my front door in Moss Vale.

Here is the second one:

Seven rows of columns A>> G Equally spaced (no snide comments about my graphic skills - I'm not C7 using MSPaint.) All same load - make it 100 if you must have a number.

That same nefarious b..... Cuts Row "D"

Assume that the "Top Block" is a steel frame with the limited elastic flexibility that such a frame would have.

What happens to:

load in rows "C" and "E"?

load in rows "B" and "F"?

(It is symmetrical so I suppose using that word makes me a truther. )

Same rules - answers to me by PM. Prizes available for pickup.

Last edited by ozeco41; 17th May 2015 at 03:27 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 17th May 2015, 03:32 AM   #28
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
So, has the debate moved to the Peanut Gallery or are there now two threads/discussions/debates going on at once?

To me, a Debate is a debate, and "a" Peanut Gallery comments on the discussion in the absence of the two.

Make up your minds! This is just another free for all thread which might as well be merged back into the original debate thread.

Norm
It isn't a debate. It's a one sided explanation with allowance for questioning.
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 17th May 2015, 03:36 AM   #29
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Unfortunately WAR is business and profit. The national security state is an enormous profit engine... This is capitalism. I suppose if the MIC were non profit there would be less motivation to see every problem a nail and the NSS as a hammer.

You don't think that companies who worked after Fukishima or BP Horizon or Katrina worked at no profit? Or the companies that salvaged the debris from the WTC worked at no profit?

The question is whether profit motive ALWAYS drives policy? The MIC makes this a very touchy question.

I find it not credible that the profit motive was behind 911... but it certainly reared its hear before the dust had settled over NYC.
Monetary profit is part of the equation, but whether it takes top spot over the desired redrawing of the geopolitical map not just in the Middle East and Muslim dominated regions, but the world over. The U.S. is the lone global hegemony. That baseline must be defended because an empire bankrolled by an unimaginable amount of money relies upon it to conduct their business, be it overtly or covertly (a word synonymous with 'conspiracy').

The international relations scene starts with the U.S. because our Navy is the overwhelmingly dominant force patrolling the oceans. Our Navy has been partner-in-chief to all of the various stages of U.S. Foreign Policy, from gunboat diplomacy, imperialism, unilateralism, preemption, nuclear posturing, power projection, trade route shielding to worldwide presence.

This is not a new age phenomenon. Marine Maj. General Smedley Butler wrote the book War is a Racket long before World War II. It is not controversial to say that the arms industry becomes richer by more armed conflict. That is their function. There was an arms industry before bombs and bullets graced the world scene. People who work in the arms industry have lobbyists like any other interest group. What do you think they're lobbying for?

The ideologues try to get their Pax Americana and the arms industry get funding for a very long time because a nasty beehive has been viciously and repeatedly antagonized and attacked, namely, the Middle East and the Muslim world.

Military commanders, like the Special Operations commander, has said that the war on terrorism is going to be an on-going conflict for decades to come. We also have an aggressive Russia, a growing China and a nuclear ambitious Iran and North Korea to contend with.

Big geopolitical moves by the world hegemony have a ripple effect through the international community and effects relations from a wide variety of avenues. We've been living through those ripple effects long before 9/11*, which is a large point missed in these discussions. 9/11 was not the start of something. It was clearly a continuation of an on-going narrative. The post-9/11 world is also part of that on-going narrative.

* = Like the 1953 Iranian coup. The amount of blowback emanating from Iran since 1979 is enormous and has been an on-going problem ever since.
Jango 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 17th May 2015, 03:40 AM   #30
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 875
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Many of you don't seem interested whatsoever in testing these boundaries.
What would constitute "testing these boundaries"? Declassifying military information? If so, how much?
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
Matthew Cline 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 17th May 2015, 03:59 AM   #31
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,037
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
It isn't a debate. It's a one sided explanation with allowance for questioning.
So this is not a Peanut Gallery thread, it is just another thread on the exact same topic.

Got it! Except, Why?

Maybe a Peanut Gallery thread about the Peanut Gallery thread is needed now. What a waste of time this is.

Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 17th May 2015 at 04:01 AM.
fromdownunder is online now   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 17th May 2015, 04:19 AM   #32
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
What would constitute "testing these boundaries"?
For starters, how about just asking the obvious questions, hell, just questions in general. Being an informed electorate involves the exchange of words in the question form. Perhaps not think "Case closed" when the White House Press Secretary "denies the accusations." There is like a light switch automatic defense mechanism about questioning the narrative the government constructs day-in-day-out because they are a government. We are all presumably adults past the "normal" college age, so the benefit of the doubt giving naive routine is way cliche. Newsflash: the U.S., like every other damn country ever, has done terrible things since day 1. The bureaucracy has claimed many lives. That is not a judgment. That is a fact of life. One that has not really registered with very many people here.


Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
Declassifying military information? If so, how much?
In all spheres of government there should be a realistic standard of transparency. As we see in smaller bureaucracies like local police, when the **** hits the fan and some patrol officer empties a magazine into an unarmed person, the police department closes ranks. They try to internalize the problem and investigate themselves. That routinely happens at the federal level. "The bad news, a review is needed. The good news, we're our own oversight committee."

As to how much, I mentioned a 'realistic standard'. What I mean by that is information that will not damage the U.S. National Interest (if you must have specific examples, those would be troop movements, specifications, sources, methods, launch codes, patents, R&D efforts and other practical exemptions I did not exhaustively mention).

However, I do not include the reputation of whoever is currently the POTUS, Secretary of State/Defense/Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence or any other appointed position in the government or any employee thereof to be vital or necessary for the continuation of the U.S. National Interest. We've had lame ducks before, got rid of them and tried anew.

Too much unnecessary information is being kept hidden because it exposes not National Security Interests, but because it exposes lies, corruption, deceit, illegalities and unconstitutional ********...just like any other government habitually produces. It has gotten tremendously worse since business and the government got into bed. At this point, we don't know who the pitcher or catcher is because impeccable wisdom has removed limits for campaign contributions. How hard is it to ignore the fact that the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election was a $1,000,000,000 election? A billion dollars in one election. Where do I need to go to school where they will tell me that that kind of behavior is "normal"? Also, "Move along folks, there's nothing to see here." I mean, give me a break, man.
Jango 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 17th May 2015, 10:01 AM   #33
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
For starters, how about just asking the obvious questions, hell, just questions in general. Being an informed electorate involves the exchange of words in the question form. Perhaps not think "Case closed" when the White House Press Secretary "denies the accusations." There is like a light switch automatic defense mechanism about questioning the narrative the government constructs day-in-day-out because they are a government. We are all presumably adults past the "normal" college age, so the benefit of the doubt giving naive routine is way cliche. Newsflash: the U.S., like every other damn country ever, has done terrible things since day 1. The bureaucracy has claimed many lives. That is not a judgment. That is a fact of life. One that has not really registered with very many people here.




In all spheres of government there should be a realistic standard of transparency. As we see in smaller bureaucracies like local police, when the **** hits the fan and some patrol officer empties a magazine into an unarmed person, the police department closes ranks. They try to internalize the problem and investigate themselves. That routinely happens at the federal level. "The bad news, a review is needed. The good news, we're our own oversight committee."

As to how much, I mentioned a 'realistic standard'. What I mean by that is information that will not damage the U.S. National Interest (if you must have specific examples, those would be troop movements, specifications, sources, methods, launch codes, patents, R&D efforts and other practical exemptions I did not exhaustively mention).

However, I do not include the reputation of whoever is currently the POTUS, Secretary of State/Defense/Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence or any other appointed position in the government or any employee thereof to be vital or necessary for the continuation of the U.S. National Interest. We've had lame ducks before, got rid of them and tried anew.

Too much unnecessary information is being kept hidden because it exposes not National Security Interests, but because it exposes lies, corruption, deceit, illegalities and unconstitutional ********...just like any other government habitually produces. It has gotten tremendously worse since business and the government got into bed. At this point, we don't know who the pitcher or catcher is because impeccable wisdom has removed limits for campaign contributions. How hard is it to ignore the fact that the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election was a $1,000,000,000 election? A billion dollars in one election. Where do I need to go to school where they will tell me that that kind of behavior is "normal"? Also, "Move along folks, there's nothing to see here." I mean, give me a break, man.
The last line is the 911 truth standard tag line for when 911 truth followers have no evidence, they manufacture paranoia.

No claim, all BS. This kind of gish gallop is used by 911 truth followers to form the lies and fantasy due to paranoia.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
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 17th May 2015, 03:29 PM   #34
George 152
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
It is really easy to say that. What is harder to do is explain why I am universally wrong. Perhaps that's why you ignored that part of your "rebuttal."
Your school has a lot to answer for......
would be my guess.
And no real life experience
George 152 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 17th May 2015, 05:29 PM   #35
BazBear
Possible Suspect
 
BazBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Slightly Over The Hill, Not Too Far Around The Bend
Posts: 2,569
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I doubt Jango wil engage in the spirit of the challenge.

If he does he'll constantly play the "but we don't know everything" card that he's played from day 1 here, in order (he thinks) to leave CT as a playable card.

See my sig (it's very funny, if you fancy a few minutes of standup entertainment)
That's what I don't get. There's no historical event we know everything about. There are always some discrepancies in the record. Why should or would 9/11 be any different?
__________________
I don't see how an article of clothing can be indecent. A person, yes. - Robert A. Heinlein
If Christ died for our sins, dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them? - Jules Feiffer
If you are going through hell, keep going - Winston Churchill
BazBear 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 17th May 2015, 09:01 PM   #36
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 486
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
OK - some entertainment for the peanut gallery.

Recall that when you go to the movies they show 'trailers' - short bits out of coming features as advertising for next weeks shows.

Here are a couple of 'trailers' - bits out of the main explanation Stage 3 - not yet posted for Jango who has still to respond to Stage 2.

And it is a competition. On the princples of load redistributions.

This is a simplified WTC Tower - simplified to three rows of columns. Left Centre and Right.



The total load in each of row L and Row R is 100 whilst Row C has 200.

Now some nefarious b..... cuts Row R.

what is the load in Row L? Row C?

Assume the "Top Block" is rigid.

No answers in the thread please - PM to me will do. winners get a free mini Mars Bar - available next time you knock at my front door in Moss Vale.

Here is the second one:

Seven rows of columns A>> G Equally spaced (no snide comments about my graphic skills - I'm not C7 using MSPaint.) All same load - make it 100 if you must have a number.

That same nefarious b..... Cuts Row "D"

Assume that the "Top Block" is a steel frame with the limited elastic flexibility that such a frame would have.

What happens to:

load in rows "C" and "E"?

load in rows "B" and "F"?

(It is symmetrical so I suppose using that word makes me a truther. )

Same rules - answers to me by PM. Prizes available for pickup.

Fascinating prelude .
Here is an unsimplified WTC tower schematic
indicating the exact locations of the exterior and core column layout for your next step--

Note that the core has forty seven columns and each side of the tower has fifty nine exterior
box columns for a total of two hundred thirty six plus four corner columns at alternating floors.
236 plus 4 plus 47 adds up to 287 columns for load redistribution ...
Carry on !


__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time __Bovee

Truth once elicited never dies -Bancroft

twoofers versus twidiots , twaitors , twusters and boil-thuckers

Last edited by Fonebone; 17th May 2015 at 09:06 PM.
Fonebone 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 17th May 2015, 11:35 PM   #37
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,287
Fonebone, I think you failed to understand the context and the aim of ozeco's little illustrations of how column failure + load redistribution affects the loads on yet-not-failed columns in general.

The point is that proportional load redistribution is a theoretical best case that is not reached in almost every case. Instead, there will always be some columns that are handed a disproportionally large fraction of the redistributed load formerly carried by the failed column. This would increase the plausibility of some columns failing in rapid turn. It does not matter at this point which column failed where when and how. Remember, for argument's sake ozeco even left in the possibility of failing columns via CD!

How about you take a second look at ozeco's post, and this time try answering the questions he asked? A good answer might show that you understand what he posted. A bad answer might give him motivation to explain it better to you.
Oystein 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 18th May 2015, 12:52 AM   #38
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by George 152 View Post
Your school has a lot to answer for......
would be my guess.
And no real life experience
Which school and what do they to answer for?

You don't think I have any real life experience? Okay... What is your metric of having a real life experience?
Jango 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 18th May 2015, 02:15 AM   #39
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,867
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Fonebone, I think you failed to understand the context and the aim of ozeco's little illustrations of how column failure + load redistribution affects the loads on yet-not-failed columns in general.

The point is that proportional load redistribution is a theoretical best case that is not reached in almost every case. Instead, there will always be some columns that are handed a disproportionally large fraction of the redistributed load formerly carried by the failed column. This would increase the plausibility of some columns failing in rapid turn. It does not matter at this point which column failed where when and how. Remember, for argument's sake ozeco even left in the possibility of failing columns via CD!

How about you take a second look at ozeco's post, and this time try answering the questions he asked? A good answer might show that you understand what he posted. A bad answer might give him motivation to explain it better to you.
Redistribution has to take place through lateral members and of course through the connections to them.

When I column typically fails.. the floor areas around it lost support and the become "cantilevered" and add load the the columns surrounding/adjacent to the failed column. PERIOD.

One might imagine that the failed column turns the ones above them into tension members/hangers from some "structure" above. In the case of the twin towers were was a 3D hat truss. The question which needs to be addressed is if the former axial columns can perform... carry the floor loads as tension / hangers? For sure the cross section area is likely adequate... But the connections of one column to another is likely not.

I would suspect in the twins the columns would separate at a connection and drop and not hang... certainly not 15 stories of them. The structural situation is the reverse of axial loading. The hangers would need to be stronger.. and their connections more robust as you go higher and closer to the hat truss.

I suspect that the hat truss might have carried on set of 3 story columns and the floors attached to them... the columns and floors connected to them down to the failed column would like separate and drop down.

+++++

The critical effect of heat from fires was not loss of strength, but expansion of the lateral steel in the core. This had two effects... sheared the connections of the 3 part braces - 2 beam stubs and the beam - 4 sets of connections... an / or expended as little as 1/2" pushing the columns would of axial alignment leaving as little as bearing area of less than 1.5 square inches... clearly inadequate bearing area for the column to column connection. Inadequate bearing area is as if the columns above are "suspended"... or hung.

This is the PROGRESSIVE process which worked its way through the core as the fires raged... destroying core capacity at the fire/impact zone and leaving the facade to handle more and more of the OOS floor load... to the point where capacity was exceeded and the facade buckled and moved itself out of alignment. There WAS translation of the top section and loss of coupling and then drop.
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 18th May 2015, 04:39 AM   #40
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,287
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Redistribution has to take place through lateral members and of course through the connections to them.

When I column typically fails.. the floor areas around it lost support and the become "cantilevered" and add load the the columns surrounding/adjacent to the failed column. PERIOD.

One might imagine that the failed column turns the ones above them into tension members/hangers from some "structure" above. In the case of the twin towers were was a 3D hat truss. The question which needs to be addressed is if the former axial columns can perform... carry the floor loads as tension / hangers? ...
This is all very well but several steps too far ahead in the discussion. To lead Fonebone (and Jango) towards a proper understanding of "load redistribution", they first need to grasp the basics, which are
  1. Loss of a column decreases capacity, leaves load essentially the same
  2. On average, load on remaining columns increases in proportion to the load formely born by the failed column
  3. But for all columns to experience such proportional increased load is merely a theoretical "best case" scenario
  4. In reality (almost always), some columns receive additional loads in excess of their proportional contribution, while others may get only a minor increase, or even a decrease
And this is completele independent from the mechanism/pathways by which load is redistributed. So we need not concern ourselves with the particulars of

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
The critical effect of heat from fires was not loss of strength, but expansion of the lateral steel in the core.[/list]This leads us even further astray, but since this is the peanut gallery...
What about column creep?
Oystein 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

Bookmarks

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 11:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.