IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Real Science Meets Junk Science

SanderO
post Feb 6 2011, 12:44 PM
Post #1





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Our beloved truth movement and its high ideas of openness, intellectual honesty and obedience to the laws of science may need to take a look in the mirror. I write this not to dismiss all the excellent work which independent researchers have done, but to point out that even the most trusted of us have made (I believe) some errors and they need to be retracted. I will not attribute motive to these errors... such as cognitive infiltration, hubris, control, power and so forth. Errors can be made innocently and honestly. We all make them unintentionally. To err is human. I write now not of motive, but of the fact that we need to look at some of our errors... and some of them made by "giants' in the truth movement.

Several of the erroneous claims and exaggerations have been identified and we no longer hear of them. One was the diagonal cut core column as the smoking gun evidence of the use of thermtie on the core columns. This was made in a paper written by Steven Jones, repeated by Gordon Ross PE who cited it as proof in support of his thesis.

This and other claims by the truth movement have been debunked and Gordon Ross has retracted some of so called evidence he cites in support of his theory.

The work of Bazant and Zou has been discredited as reductionist and not descriptive of the destruction. Intellegent engineers who produced junk science.

What Happened

Structural failure refers to loss of the load-carrying capacity of a component or member within a structure or of the structure itself. Structural failure is initiated when the material is stressed to its strength limit, thus causing fracture or excessive deformations. In a well-designed system, a localized failure should not cause immediate or even progressive collapse of the entire structure. Ultimate failure strength is one of the limit states that must be accounted for in structural engineering and structural design.

A building undergoes progressive collapse when a primary structural element fails, resulting in the failure of adjoining structural elements, which in turn causes further structural failure. The resulting damage is disproportionate to the original cause, so the term disproportionate collapse is also used to describe this collapse type.

Extreme Loading for Structures (ELS) - a commercial structural analysis software program based on the applied element method (AEM) for the automatic tracking and propagation of cracks, separation of elements, element collision, and collapse of structures under extreme loads[1]. AEM combines features of Finite element method and Discrete element method simulation with its own solver capabilities for the generation of PC-based structural analysis.

In the ELS modeler the user has the ability to model using a variety of default structural components such as columns, slabs, walls, windows, steel sections, reinforcement and 8-node objects. Pre-stressing, cables, pre-cracking and holes can also be added to models to reflect the required attributes of structures. To aid the user in modeling, attachments such as *.dxf, *.stl, *.dgn, and *.jpeg can be easily imported. Models can also be imported from several FEM based software programs such as Abaqus, ANSYS, Etabs, Gambit, Ideas, LS-DYNA, Nastran, Patran, SAP2000, and STAAD. ELS is Building Information Modeling (BIM) compatible with a plug-in for Autodesk Revit Structure, allowing users to import previously created structural components[3].

The solver performs multi-stage static and dynamic analysis in 2D and 3D. Static loading types include concentrated loads, displacements, hydrostatic pressures, uniform pressures, moving loads, element removals, and line loads. Available dynamic loading types include concentrated loads, displacements, seismic loads, uniform pressures, element removals, and moving loads. ELS comes with a predefined material library with both linear and non-linear material models that include steel, concrete, reinforced concrete, glass, aluminum, elastic, and tension[3].
The AEM solver automatically calculates:

* Crack generation
* Plastic hinge formation
* Element separation
* Buckling, post buckling and large displacements
* Contact and collisions

Structural Vulnerability Assessment:

Due to the nature of extreme loads resulting from blasts, impacts, seismic events and progressive collapse, large amounts of structural damage can usually be expected. This damage cannot be studied solely as the initial loading type; the user must also be able to additionally consider the secondary effects of the failing elements on other parts of the structure.

1. Initial Load: The initial load is the type of loading which may cause damage to a main supporting column and which can lead to a progressive collapse.
2. Secondary Effect: The secondary effect comes from flying debris. This may cause another failure in other main supporting elements and can result in the structure loosing its ability to carry the increased loads, leading to a total failure.

Most structural analysis methods currently used to perform a structural vulnerability assessment depend on the Finite Element Method (FEM). Unfortunately FEM is not capable of automatically analyzing a structure up to element separation and collision which has a great effect on a structure's performance during collapse. For example, a blast load can cause damage to a main supporting column in a structure, which will cause debris flying from the damaged column to be moving at a very high velocity. This debris can cause additional local failure in another column upon impact and can lead to the progressive collapse of the entire structure. While FEM can determine a point of failure, it cannot calculate crack propagation, separation of elements or secondary collision of structural elements.
The Applied Element Method (AEM) on the other hand has the ability to analyze a structure right down to element separation and secondary collision. This allows structural engineers to fully study the effects of such extreme loads, from the initial cracking until the all elements come to rest. AEM analysis was used by Applied Science International, LLC in the modeling and simulation of the collapse analysis of Oklahoma's Murrah Building.

Ronan Point was an example of a progressive collapse.

"On 16 May 1968 the 22 storey residential tower Ronan Point in the London Borough of Newham collapsed when a relatively small gas explosion on the 18th floor caused a structural wall panel to be blown away from the building. The tower was constructed of precast concrete, and the failure of the single panel caused one entire corner of the building to collapse. The panel was able to be blown out because there was insufficient reinforcement steel passing between the panels. This also meant that the loads carried by the panel could not be redistributed to other adjacent panels, because there was no route for the forces to follow. As a result of the collapse, building regulations were overhauled to prevent disproportionate collapse and the understanding of precast concrete detailing was greatly advanced. Many similar buildings were altered or demolished as a result of the collapse.[10]"

Frank Legge, although qualified as a chemist shows ignorance about how a structures were put together and how they fail and how the floors could collapse. He won't admit it and he won't admit he is not competent to explain aviation matters either.

Most ECD (explosive controlled demolition) proponents dismiss the gravity driven part of the destruction and assume that the destructive initiation which was required to start the collapse was therefore required to continue the collapse and gravity played virtually no part and could not account for such a collapse. They all share the same lack of understanding of materials and structures though they apparently accept Newton's 3 laws on the macro level.

The speed of collapse is perfectly explainable by the nature of the failure - which was a progressive destruction of the floors.

The only part of the destruction which needs to be understood is how it began and where the series of "attacks" which led to the creation of the threshold conditions for the progress failure of the floor system which led to the failure of the facade columns and ultimately left the core columns too tall and thin to support themselves without bracing.

The initiating event could have been a single explosion destroying the structural integrity of a sufficient number of floors representing the threshold mass to cause the progressive floor failure. A single explosive event is certainly a possibility.

However if this was the case, the explosive force stopped at the facade because we observe the upper floor's facade descending not being blasted outward. It is still possible that a single explosive event occurred and was obscured by the facade. It broke apart the core, much of the floors attached to it and the percussive force did not extend to the facade.

It is also possible and likely that the attack which initiated the collapse was directed at a number of structural elements. It did not have to be taken at the same instant and it did not have to attack ALL the structure. The attack initiation likely involved a series of attacks which over time "took out" various structural members and this led to a load redistribution to the remaining members which were not attacked or had not reached the point of failure from similar attack... such as partial cutting by thermite reducing a member's load carrying capacity.

Over time these attacks removing members and redistributing loads to remaining ones reached the point where the remaining structure at the level of these attacks exceeded its yield strength and they gave way. Progressive structural failures through framed structures propagate very rapidly.

When the frame lost integrity all the mass descended in obedience to Newton's laws... and the floor which was the recipient of the descending mass complied as well and it too failed. And so on and so on.

Heat could have weakened the structure... if hot enough as in a Besemer furnace and long enough... but not in an open air fire from normal carbon combustion. Ergo the introduction of incendiaries such as thermite and explosives to blast connections apart. Both of these were likely part of the initiation.

Is there evidence to support this? YES.. We see the eutectic melting of the steel which was ABOVE the crash zone (none from below). We see extreme temperatures below the debris as if some melted iron, steel, aluminum and other metals had seeped down and collected in pools... as liquids do. There are reports of molten metal from below all three towers and this too supports heat exceeding open air carbon based combustion.

These are all signatures of "attacks" of the structure and can be connected to the region ABOVE the plane crash zones. This is very damning evidence of an engineered attack which could initiated the progressive collapse of the floors.

Why is this "theory" such an anathema to the truth movement and its proponents? Why is this characterized as the OCT?

Why is the person who presents this science called a fake, a dis info agent, a disruptive influence with a mission to destroy the most respected "911 truth" groups?

Why is there such staunch rejection of science when it is the same science which will demonstrate that the initiation was engineered?

You can't have it both ways. You can't call in science for SOME aspects of the destruction and IGNORE it for other aspects of the destruction.

The truth movement needs to take a honest, methodical, rational, fact based, scientific approach to understanding the destruction of the twin towers. Nothing more or less will do.

All those who do not support this are anti intellectuals frauds. No other words can be used to describe them. They talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

No one has proved that a progressive floor failure is not possible when the threshold conditions present. No one.

In response to the discussion of what happened at the World Trade Center there have been discussions about where the towers went, but remarkably few about where the rationality and good sense of the truth movement went.

It bears some discussion on what is going on at a meta level as it relates to any discussion about the World Trade Center as well as the Pentagon and Shankesville.

On the one hand we see a type of "herd mentality" and a circling of the wagons to protect ideas and theories which have attacked the OCT by the most and some less respected members of the 911 truth community. And since a new idea is seen as displacing an older one it is seen as an attack from the OCT and the enemy. PARANOIA and IRRATIONALITY. Are we in jeopardy of becoming lemmings following stubborn ego driven leader off the cliff who have assured us that they have "got it right"... and used only science to get it right? I fear this may be where we are heading.

And then there's the willful ignorance to look at the science and engineering because it in fact, is undermining some of the "scientific" claims of the truth movement. This, of course, seriously not only undermines the "truth movement's claims... as in another competing theory.. oh ho hum... it undermines their use of "science" their claims of the OCT's false science, if the truth movement is in fact doing much the same, it undermines the individual's credibility of those who make the claims and they effectively become deniers of science.

This would be a rather fatal outcome. Who could take the truth movement or any of its staunch advocates, published papers etc. seriously, if they amount to "junk science"? Not too many rational people would or should.

Now I am not asserting that everything the truth movement and these vocal advocates such as Fetzer, Cole, Chandler, Wood, Legge, Hoffman, Jones et al says is 100% junk science. I am not asserting that some of these researchers have not done yeoman's work at presenting the false science used in the OCT and have done some excellent science to explain what the OCT fails to. I am simply asserting the truth movement needs to stick to the truth and be very careful in its use of "science" and engineering. And certainly not dismiss or disparage those who expect his of the truth movement.

I am neither a scientist nor an engineer. I am an architect with a fundamental understanding that architects must have of structure to design buildings. I am not a physicist nor a chemist nor a materials scientists. I don't know how to use finite element analysis.

I understand structure and composite systems, progressive structural failure theory to know what is possible. Other scientists and engineers who DON'T support the OCT have done the calculations and shown that progressive failure IS not only possible but what explains what happened with those floors.

The resistance to this science is explained by the truth movement trying to hold onto its standing as the "truth" it purports to rest upon is no more the "truth" that the OCT was shown to fall upon.

This is a problem. Who can we believe? We know the OCT was a lie and its supporters lie and have their "global agenda" and political objectives... But who can we trust to tell us what happened if the guys who say they are telling the truth are not only blowing smoke and mirrors (like the OCT) but acting like "idea nazis" and closing out those who are asking for the truth? That is not "a good thing" as Martha Stewart used to say.

But the truth movement is really an ad hoc assembly of researchers... some with louder voices such as Fetzer...and more followers.... such as Lemkin... All of them seem to be crippled by and in the thrall of willful ignorance of science, embracing junk science, of course not seeing this and blind to the fact that they are actually part of the problem and not part of the solution... at this point.

When you make a mistake... Man up and admit it.

Gordon Ross PE did it... Robert McCoy sees it... I, too, have revised my thinking on what happened. I did it by study and by not accepting on face value what ANYONE said. Not all of the people who have criticized the movement are OCT apologist or proponents... nor infiltrators and spies.

We have much too much to do to be learning basic science at this stage. There is too much at stake here.

Would you all please drop the ego and suspend your hubris and support our getting the facts, engineering and science correct. ALL OF IT. Not pick and choose what suits your pet theory.

There is lots to explain. But let's not fight about the explainable and provide exotic and overly complex explanations... just because the "government did it" and they have the resources to do it and cover it up.

Let's uncover the truth with real science not junk science.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 6 2011, 02:50 PM
Post #2





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



False Science / claims / evidence presented by the Truth Movement

1. Steel girders weighing up to 20 tons were ejected at speeds of 70-100 mph to distances of 600 feet.
2. Towers of such as the 3 towers would not collapse "symmetrically" from a gravitational or "natural" collapse
3. The "spire" turned to dust and disappeared in mid air
4. The tilting top of WTC 2 should have continued over the side as a block
5. The top or the bottom sections act like and can be treated as homogeneous blocks
6. Very tall building collapses at 60mph average velocity are too fast - they came down to fast to be gravity driven
7. explosions in the sub basements contributed to the collapse of the twin towers
8. liquid metal pouring from the south tower proves that there was thermite used to melt the columns
9. there were 2 million cubic yards of dust produced by the 3 collapses
10. the dust in lower Manhattan after the collapse for miles around was 4-12" thick
11. sudden onset of a structural failure is not possible... failures are slow starting and progressing
12. the towers were pulverized to dust in mid air
13. the tilting top of the south tower was exploded in mid air
14. massive clouds of expanding dust and hot gas (air) propagating from the base would be seen in a gravitational collapse of a tall structure
15. the rubble pile from a collapsed high rise would be 12% of the original building
16. the towers were 12% solid material and 88% air by volume
17. High speed collisions of aluminum jetliners could not penetrate the steel facade of the twin towers

How about the above for starters...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Feb 6 2011, 03:59 PM
Post #3





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



I cant believe your posting this BS.

Ronan Point was was a pre-formed concrete building.

The Twins and 7 were framed with massive STEEL core columns
and perimeter sections.

Absolutely NO COMPARISON................ AT ALL


And the Murrah building had the side blown out of it and
it still didnt collapse.




But WTC 7 "colapsed" from a few small fires









These buildings got STRONGER as you descend from the top,
NOT weaker. Tapered columns, all interconnected with the perimeter
columns, concrete floors on top of steel girders and steel floor pans.


Your theory is a major FAIL, seriously.


Steel... Sander, Steel.








Talk about disingenuous junk science !


Education is a powerful thing bro. Get some.

This post has been edited by aerohead: Feb 6 2011, 04:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DonM
post Feb 6 2011, 04:12 PM
Post #4





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 34
Joined: 12-March 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 2,921



Well, I agree with one thing... it was a good idea to get this out of the CIT Response thread :-)

Don
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 6 2011, 04:59 PM
Post #5





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Ronan Point was given as an example of a progressive collapse not of an ANALOGOUS one.

Are you saying that steel framed structure don't exhibit progressive collapses?

What do you think a controlled demolition actually is?

It is a progressive gravity driven collapse following the destruction of the axial support of the upper part which collapse down destroying each floor which impacts the ground one after the other.

It is possible to explode every single column and beam connection, but this is rarely ever done. The Demo engineer designs which columns and beams to attack and let's gravity do MOST of the work as it progressive destroy the structure.

WTV 7 was a progressive collapse following an attack on the core columns of about 8 stories of height below the 23rd floor I believe... That's a fact.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 6 2011, 05:22 PM
Post #6





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Many of your 17 points are complete nonsense SanderO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Feb 6 2011, 05:33 PM
Post #7





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



It is estimated that it would have taken about 1300 lb
of thermite cutter charges to bring each tower down.

Thats not alot. If you cut the core, gravity will take over
and tear the outer columns down. The core is the strength.

Did the Murrah building collapse ?

Did the Windsor Building in Spain Collapse ?
It burned for over 20 hrs.


This is what was left.






And your saying this is a structural failure collapse ?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 6 2011, 05:48 PM
Post #8





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Amazed

I couldn't agree with you more and these are cited as facts.

I don't suspect Arrow has an mechanical or structural engineering background. As they say... Don't say I didn't tell you...

Remember the diagonal cut column which was cited as evidence? I left if off the list because no one seems to use that bit as evidence any more.

Yes I am saying it was a collapse of the floors after an engineered attack at the zone above the plane strikes which set off a runaway collapse. Yes I am.

Arrow I am an architect and I know very well how those towers were built... I every worked for the architect of the towers in 1970. I don't think I need a lecture from you about structure or the structure of those towers.

I could do a lecture of several hours about their structure and construction.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Feb 6 2011, 05:52 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Feb 6 2011, 05:53 PM
Post #9





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (SanderO @ Feb 6 2011, 04:48 PM) *
Amazed

I couldn't agree with you more and these are cited as facts.

I don't suspect Arrow has an mechanical or structural engineering background. As they say... Don't say I didn't tell you...

Remember the diagonal cut column which was cited as evidence? I left if off the list because no one seems to use that bit as evidence any more.

Some of us do have backgrounds and lot's of experience with building structures, even though we might not have be an engineer. As a matter of fact, those of us on the construction side, usually know a lot more about these things then the pencil pushers who've never hammered a nail.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 6 2011, 06:32 PM
Post #10





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I've been practicing architecture since 1970 and I have also pounded a nails as well. I'd call myself a bit more qualified that the average person on matters of forensic engineering. I have immersed myself in the study of the twin towers and consider myself quite knowledgeable about their structure and construction.

Frankly I don't think too many people in the truth movement have gone into them as I have. At least I see no evidence of this. I could be and usually am wrong.

Suggest someone who is an expert on the details of the twin towers structure.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Feb 6 2011, 07:22 PM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (SanderO @ Feb 6 2011, 05:32 PM) *
I've been practicing architecture since 1970 and I have also pounded a nails as well. I'd call myself a bit more qualified that the average person on matters of forensic engineering. I have immersed myself in the study of the twin towers and consider myself quite knowledgeable about their structure and construction.

Frankly I don't think too many people in the truth movement have gone into them as I have. At least I see no evidence of this. I could be and usually am wrong.

Suggest someone who is an expert on the details of the twin towers structure.

Again, you make assumptions about people who don't even know.

I'll give you bit of personal information. My grandfather was a construction foreman on many of the hi-rises built in Manhattan. My other grandfather built houses all over NY and NJ. So I've been around builders all my life. I'm also one of the few people involved in 9/11, who has actually been in those buildings and probably one of the only ones, who got to ride their express freight elevators. That's why when those buildings fell on 9/11, I knew that there was something seriously wrong that day. Steel buildings, this massive don't just fall down. After 9/11, I have spent 1000's of hours, reading ever document, report, study, etc, about these building that I can put my hands on. I've studied 1000's of images over and over. So please, get off your high horse because you think your so much smarter and more qualified then anyone else around here and that you are the only authority qualified enough to understand what happened.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 6 2011, 07:43 PM
Post #12





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



DYEW,

I didn't say I was so much smarter than anyone who is interested 911. I just happened to be, by my education and profession more knowledgeable and facile with structure and engineering concepts. I've also lived in NYC been in those towers many times, run a business for a several years in their shadow.

I don't expect everyone to understand something as esoteric as engineering. I do see how naive many are about the subject and don't seem to think that understanding the structure in detail even matters.

Most people say it's impossible that the floors could have progressively collapse under any circumstances. Are you one of them?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Feb 6 2011, 07:59 PM
Post #13





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



QUOTE (SanderO @ Feb 6 2011, 05:32 PM)
Suggest someone who is an expert on the details of the twin towers structure.



How bout Frank DeMartini. He designed the Twins and was killed
or presumed dead on 9/11. Turn the volume up and let it sink
in Sander.




We could ask Barry Jennings, but he's dead now and no one knows
why or how. He was an emergency coordinator of the WTC.
Listen carefully, this is credible, eyewitness testimony of WTC 7.



This post has been edited by aerohead: Feb 6 2011, 07:59 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Feb 6 2011, 08:04 PM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (SanderO @ Feb 6 2011, 06:43 PM) *
DYEW,

I didn't say I was so much smarter than anyone who is interested 911. I just happened to be, by my education and profession more knowledgeable and facile with structure and engineering concepts. I've also lived in NYC been in those towers many times, run a business for a several years in their shadow.

I don't expect everyone to understand something as esoteric as engineering. I do see how naive many are about the subject and don't seem to think that understanding the structure in detail even matters.

Most people say it's impossible that the floors could have progressively collapse under any circumstances. Are you one of them?

Of course it was a progressive collapse but what happened that morning required explosives placed in specific places.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 6 2011, 08:52 PM
Post #15





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Aero,

The plane strike comment was correctly identifying that the towers could and did not sustain enough column destruction to initiate a collapse. The floor collapse had nothing whatsoever to do with the columns than day ONCE it got going and DYEW the explosives and incendiaries were only required to get the runaway floor collapse going... After that it was gravity all the way.

It's possible that some charges were placed lower down... but if they were they played no part in the floor collapse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Feb 7 2011, 12:00 AM
Post #16





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi My Dear Friends And Compatriots DYEW and Aero!

Please remember that SanderO is saying that there was at least one bomb in each WTC (actually he is saying more than one). But Just one bomb is out of place, unjustifiable, inexplicable and proves impropriety and that the OCT is false just as surely as ten zillion bombs!

And the fewer the number of bombs, the easier it is to explain how the buildings were rigged for demolition in the first place (i.e., less time required, less forewarning required, less smuggling of demo materials into buildings).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Feb 7 2011, 12:10 AM
Post #17





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (SanderO @ Feb 6 2011, 06:43 PM) *
DYEW,

I didn't say I was so much smarter than anyone who is interested 911. I just happened to be, by my education and profession more knowledgeable and facile with structure and engineering concepts. I've also lived in NYC been in those towers many times, run a business for a several years in their shadow.

I don't expect everyone to understand something as esoteric as engineering. I do see how naive many are about the subject and don't seem to think that understanding the structure in detail even matters.

Most people say it's impossible that the floors could have progressively collapse under any circumstances. Are you one of them?

My father-in-law was the founder of the Center for Guided Design and my husband is a scientist and I've never had any trouble understanding or keeping up with either of them, even though my husband might disagree. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Feb 7 2011, 12:11 AM
Post #18





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Feb 6 2011, 11:00 PM) *
Hi My Dear Friends And Compatriots DYEW and Aero!

Please remember that SanderO is saying that there was at least one bomb in each WTC (actually he is saying more than one). But Just one bomb is out of place, unjustifiable, inexplicable and proves impropriety and that the OCT is false just as surely as ten zillion bombs!

And the fewer the number of bombs, the easier it is to explain how the buildings were rigged for demolition in the first place (i.e., less time required, less forewarning required, less smuggling of demo materials into buildings).

Ah, the single bullet theory. laughing1.gif

It's a much bigger deal if there were nukes in the basement, or thermobaric weapons in the elevator shafts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Feb 7 2011, 12:22 AM
Post #19





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi DYEW!

Even a nuke or theromobaric theory would still be a single bomb theory, along the lines of what SanderO says.


What Sander is saying is not really single bomb theory. He is saying that the collapse could have been maybe 90 percent gravity driven and maybe 10 percent explosivve driven. Why use a lot of explosives when you can rely on Mr. Gravity to do most of the work. Although I understand him, I still don't agree totally with him. I would up the percent of for explosive drivers and lessen the percent of gravity drive from his minimal numbers. But he has convinced me to move to at or below 50/50..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Feb 7 2011, 04:12 AM
Post #20





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



As ive posted before, it is estimated by scientists that it
would take roughly 1300 Lb of cutter charges per building.

And in my mind, it would have had to have been planted in
multiple places, on every core column (47) on say every 10 floors.
This would explain the "squibs" shooting out of the windows, leading the collapses.
This would explain the eyewitnesses describing explosives going off
"like gunfire". It would explain the symmetry and speed of the
collapses. In my mind, it would explain everything.

But really who knows?
But what i do know, is that the official story of the airplanes
causing these collapses is beyond my capability to process fiction.
The buildings both stabilized within 15 minutes after impact, just like
they were designed to do. These were steel giants and they should
still be standing today imo.


And does anyone find it "odd" that WTC 5 & 6 had to be demolished to bring them
down, AFTER WTC 1 & 2 COLLAPSED ONTOP OF THEM. Why didnt they
structurally collapse ????????









I guess WTC 1,2 and 7 had different contractors build them?
Cheap labor ? Maybe they were on drugs and forgot to put the support columns in ?

This post has been edited by aerohead: Feb 7 2011, 04:30 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th October 2019 - 07:18 PM