| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Looks to me like Bushwacker and Alex_V have been pm'ing each other and have agreed that it is not a good idea to continue this discussion any further for fear of looking even more foolish. I mean for Alex_V to state that the collapsing floors could possibly have triggered a progressive collapse is to show complete ignorance of the way the twin towers were constructed. And Bushwacker's statement that gravity is not a force is completely preposterous and hard to backtrack from.
As for pepik's village idiot style grunts, he cements the notion that the critics corner is a sham.
I await more considered answers than the foolish statements you have all been making but I won't be holding my breath. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | Looks to me like Bushwacker and Alex_V have been pm'ing each other and have agreed that it is not a good idea to continue this discussion any further for fear of looking even more foolish. I mean for Alex_V to state that the collapsing floors could possibly have triggered a progressive collapse is to show complete ignorance of the way the twin towers were constructed. And Bushwacker's statement that gravity is not a force is completely preposterous and hard to backtrack from.
As for pepik's village idiot style grunts, he cements the notion that the critics corner is a sham.
I await more considered answers than the foolish statements you have all been making but I won't be holding my breath. |
Wrong yet again, James, and lying about what I said is not going to impress anyone, don't you realise people can simply look back? About up your usual standards of evidence however, so at least you are consistent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Alex_V wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Sections of the tilted portion? There is about a quarter of the whole tower there, a high rise building in its own right - surely it should be a huge mass of debris reaching many stories in height. Where did it go to? Would there not have been an enormous bang not to mention a sizeable crater when it came to ground? I am yet to see a reasonable answer to this question. |
Yes I would guess there was a loud noise, to go with all the noises as the building collapsed. I don't see that it could have been a quarter of the building though, as the overhanging portion of a 3-7% tilt of the top section only. Although granted there seemed to be some rotation as the building collapsed also. I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting, as this issue would be exactly the same whether it was a CD or a collapse, and there was a large field of debris at ground zero. |
The tilting is just an unusual aspect to the fact that the mass above and gravity are the 2 forces you have to work with. Tilt or not, the top 25 stories have to be on the ground roughly around the area formerly owned by WTC. You can say "large field of debris" but take a look at the overhead shots, where are the 25 stories of debris never mind what should have happened to the other 185 stories of twin towers. That debris pile should be deep .... very very deep ... why isn't it? Any ideas? |
Have you worked this one out yet? What about a photo, there's lots of them about covering the immediate aftermath. Show me those top stories. They can't have just disappeared into thin air, they must be somewhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Looks to me like Bushwacker and Alex_V have been pm'ing each other and have agreed that it is not a good idea to continue this discussion any further for fear of looking even more foolish. |
Another conspiracy theory to add to the list  . I don't mind at all looking foolish.
| Quote: | | I mean for Alex_V to state that the collapsing floors could possibly have triggered a progressive collapse is to show complete ignorance of the way the twin towers were constructed. |
Well at worst it would be a similar ignorance to that displayed by others who support the idea that a progressive collapse did occur. I don't think just labelling all of those people frauds and dismissing what they say is a progressive way to hold any sort of debate into these issues.
If I am ignorant of the way in which the twin towers were constructed, then please enlighten me. I suspect that you are only insulting others in the debate for fear that you would actually be called to account to explain yourself with any clarity. But do prove me wrong.
If your general point is that the buildings would not have behaved in such an idealised manner to provide such clear floor-by-floor collisions, or per-floor resistance, then in some ways I agree with you, and so would Greening or anyone else who uses that method to assess energy and resistance (including those in the truth movement). I concede that any actual collapse is a coming together of millions of collisions and deflections and what-have-you, but in terms of getting a theoretical grip on the process of possible collapse, what other options does anybody have? If you have a better approach, or a reason why that approach would be fatally flawed, then let's hear it.
Can I ask you this basic question. IF (a big if) the NIST-suggested collapse initiation had occured, would the mass above fall onto the portion of the towers directly underneath it? If not, why not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Have you worked this one out yet? What about a photo, there's lots of them about covering the immediate aftermath. Show me those top stories. They can't have just disappeared into thin air, they must be somewhere. |
I have the explanation that the 9/11 commission provided. In a way I'm not quite sure what you're getting at - there are lots of videos that show that section of the tower collapsing. I suggest it ended up with all of the debris. Are you suggesting that at some point it exploded? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | Looks to me like Bushwacker and Alex_V have been pm'ing each other and have agreed that it is not a good idea to continue this discussion any further for fear of looking even more foolish. I mean for Alex_V to state that the collapsing floors could possibly have triggered a progressive collapse is to show complete ignorance of the way the twin towers were constructed. And Bushwacker's statement that gravity is not a force is completely preposterous and hard to backtrack from.
As for pepik's village idiot style grunts, he cements the notion that the critics corner is a sham.
I await more considered answers than the foolish statements you have all been making but I won't be holding my breath. |
Wrong yet again, James, and lying about what I said is not going to impress anyone, don't you realise people can simply look back? About up your usual standards of evidence however, so at least you are consistent. |
Um, ok, I'll look back at your post. Ah yes, here's what you said.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | gravity does not supply a torque anyway |
So you are saying that no body under the influence of gravity will rotate because gravity is not a rotational force. So tell me, why did the top of WTC2 begin to rotate if gravity wasn't involved? And while you're at it, why did it stop rotating if gravity also wasn't involved? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Have you worked this one out yet? What about a photo, there's lots of them about covering the immediate aftermath. Show me those top stories. They can't have just disappeared into thin air, they must be somewhere. |
I have the explanation that the 9/11 commission provided. In a way I'm not quite sure what you're getting at - there are lots of videos that show that section of the tower collapsing. I suggest it ended up with all of the debris. Are you suggesting that at some point it exploded? |
I am not suggesting anything. Just that it is there at the start of the collapse, disappears into the dust and (in my view) never seems to appear as debris where gravity dictates it should be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | I am not suggesting anything. Just that it is there at the start of the collapse, disappears into the dust and (in my view) never seems to appear as debris where gravity dictates it should be. |
Well you've called my bluff - I don't have any further info on that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | Another conspiracy theory to add to the list . I don't mind at all looking foolish. |
I didn't realize that pm'ing somebody is an illegal act thereby constituting a conspiracy or is this another case of critics using words they don't understand? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | As for pepik's village idiot style grunts, he cements the notion that the critics corner is a sham. |
Oh come on, don't blame me for calling out your lies. You lied that there is no report on WTC 7, you lied when you said neighbouring buildings were only damaged at ground level. These are easily verified facts and in fact I'm sure you knew them already.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | As for pepik's village idiot style grunts, he cements the notion that the critics corner is a sham. |
Oh come on, don't blame me for calling out your lies. You lied that there is no report on WTC 7, you lied when you said neighbouring buildings were only damaged at ground level. These are easily verified facts and in fact I'm sure you knew them already. |
Oh this is getting worse. Now the critics are putting words in my mouth.
When did I ever say the buildings were only damaged at ground level or that there were no reports on WTC7? Go on, check back and find where I said those things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | I am not suggesting anything. Just that it is there at the start of the collapse, disappears into the dust and (in my view) never seems to appear as debris where gravity dictates it should be. |
Well you've called my bluff - I don't have any further info on that. |
Does it bother you? I would have to presume that it disintegrated before it hit the ground as it would be an enormous amount of material. What always struck me about the collapses was how tiny the debris pile was when compared to the enormity of the buildings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | Looks to me like Bushwacker and Alex_V have been pm'ing each other and have agreed that it is not a good idea to continue this discussion any further for fear of looking even more foolish. I mean for Alex_V to state that the collapsing floors could possibly have triggered a progressive collapse is to show complete ignorance of the way the twin towers were constructed. And Bushwacker's statement that gravity is not a force is completely preposterous and hard to backtrack from.
As for pepik's village idiot style grunts, he cements the notion that the critics corner is a sham.
I await more considered answers than the foolish statements you have all been making but I won't be holding my breath. |
Wrong yet again, James, and lying about what I said is not going to impress anyone, don't you realise people can simply look back? About up your usual standards of evidence however, so at least you are consistent. |
Um, ok, I'll look back at your post. Ah yes, here's what you said.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | gravity does not supply a torque anyway |
So you are saying that no body under the influence of gravity will rotate because gravity is not a rotational force. So tell me, why did the top of WTC2 begin to rotate if gravity wasn't involved? And while you're at it, why did it stop rotating if gravity also wasn't involved? |
Again what is the point of editing what I said in such a stupid way, and trying to imply I said something I did not? Your whole method of argument is based on such falsehoods and attempted deceptions, how can anyone take you seriously as a debater? Don't you realise that this is the sort of thing that is in the process of destroying the so-called truth movement? You really are your own worst enemies.
What I said was actually, "......in the absence of a fulcrum, gravity does not supply a torque......" The top of WTC2 began to rotate under the influence of gravity, because a fulcrum was involved. One side of the tower collapsed first, so the top rotated about the side that had not collapsed, which acted as a fulcrum. It stopped rotating when the side that had given way hit against the lower section of the tower.
Very simple and straightforward, but you have to postulate instead the existence of these hitherto unknown exposives with remarkable properties, timed in a strange and asymmetric manner, in order to produce an explanation that does not accept the official version. Well, that is your problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Does it bother you? I would have to presume that it disintegrated before it hit the ground as it would be an enormous amount of material. What always struck me about the collapses was how tiny the debris pile was when compared to the enormity of the buildings. |
Well it hit other buildings according to the 9/11 commission. So presumably it didn't disintegrate. I think by inference you are overstating the probable size of it though - it was the overhang of a 3-7% lean, so would have been only a proportion of the top section of the tower. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Does it bother you? I would have to presume that it disintegrated before it hit the ground as it would be an enormous amount of material. What always struck me about the collapses was how tiny the debris pile was when compared to the enormity of the buildings. |
Well it hit other buildings according to the 9/11 commission. So presumably it didn't disintegrate. I think by inference you are overstating the probable size of it though - it was the overhang of a 3-7% lean, so would have been only a proportion of the top section of the tower. |
I mean the whole top section - where did it go? Did it turn to dust while turning the other 80 stories into dust? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I mean the whole top section - where did it go? Did it turn to dust while turning the other 80 stories into dust? |
Apologies - I thought you meant the smaller, overhanging section. As for the whole section, I presume what wasn't turned to debris on the way down smashed into the ground and was turned to debris there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bushwacker,
Make up your mind. One minute you appear to deny all knowledge of a fulcrum and the next you are stealing my concept. Why on earth did you ask me about why the upper section stopped rotating if you accept exactly what I said in my first post on this subject that it was due to the loss of the fulcrum. Hell, I was discussing this with you last year but obviously you can't remember!
Tell me, why would the fulcrum give way if the main weight of the upper section was no longer directly above it? What was it you were saying again about the conservation of angular momentum? A few posts ago you were talking about dynamic load. So where was the dynamic load on the fulcrum to cause it to be crushed all of a sudden if in fact, and you agree this yourself, the upper section was still attached to the lower building at this point?
As for asymmetrical explosives, have I said where the explosives were positioned in this thread? I hope you are not implying that I am saying they were positioned directly below the upper section on the facade? I have never said that if you are. Why put explosives in the facade when placing them in the core would have been more than adequate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| james C wrote: | | Oh, and it's been 6 years and no sign of a report from NIST on WTC7. |
| James C wrote: | | When did I ever say... that there were no reports on WTC7? |
James, stop lying. Just stop. Its getting ridiculous.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | james C wrote: | | Oh, and it's been 6 years and no sign of a report from NIST on WTC7. |
| James C wrote: | | When did I ever say... that there were no reports on WTC7? |
James, stop lying. Just stop. Its getting ridiculous. |
hmmm, so you take no sign of a report to mean there is no report?
if the report is out where is it? if its not out then its not in exsistence for public display, therefore no sign of it thus far where the public are concerned.
why you have to twist everything then claim people are lying i'll never know.
maybe you just see it as an oppertunity to smear people, because its much easier and helps the ego. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | pepik wrote: | | james C wrote: | | Oh, and it's been 6 years and no sign of a report from NIST on WTC7. |
| James C wrote: | | When did I ever say... that there were no reports on WTC7? |
James, stop lying. Just stop. Its getting ridiculous. |
hmmm, so you take no sign of a report to mean there is no report?
if the report is out where is it? if its not out then its not in exsistence for public display, therefore no sign of it thus far where the public are concerned.
why you have to twist everything then claim people are lying i'll never know.
maybe you just see it as an oppertunity to smear people, because its much easier and helps the ego. |
Nice post marky 54,
So pepik, tell me, where is the final report on WTC7 - you know, the one that NIST on 29 June 2007 promised would be published by the end of the year? And I'm not talking about the silly preliminary summary that you pretend constitutes a report. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | Bushwacker,
Make up your mind. One minute you appear to deny all knowledge of a fulcrum and the next you are stealing my concept. Why on earth did you ask me about why the upper section stopped rotating if you accept exactly what I said in my first post on this subject that it was due to the loss of the fulcrum. Hell, I was discussing this with you last year but obviously you can't remember!
Tell me, why would the fulcrum give way if the main weight of the upper section was no longer directly above it? What was it you were saying again about the conservation of angular momentum? A few posts ago you were talking about dynamic load. So where was the dynamic load on the fulcrum to cause it to be crushed all of a sudden if in fact, and you agree this yourself, the upper section was still attached to the lower building at this point?
As for asymmetrical explosives, have I said where the explosives were positioned in this thread? I hope you are not implying that I am saying they were positioned directly below the upper section on the facade? I have never said that if you are. Why put explosives in the facade when placing them in the core would have been more than adequate. |
Let me make it clear for you James, you do not own the concept of fulcrums. The top section of the tower must have rotated around a fulcrum, otherwise it would not have started to lean.
What I said was that there was no fulcrum present when, according to you, the lower section had fallen away as a result of explosives, "....which left, for a very brief moment, the top section with nothing below it at all. " If you believe that there was a fulcrum present, please state what it was. If you accept, as you surely must, that there would be no fulcrum, then explain how a torque effect could be produced by gravity, since it would exert only a downwards force acting through the centre of gravity of the top section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | Bushwacker,
Make up your mind. One minute you appear to deny all knowledge of a fulcrum and the next you are stealing my concept. Why on earth did you ask me about why the upper section stopped rotating if you accept exactly what I said in my first post on this subject that it was due to the loss of the fulcrum. Hell, I was discussing this with you last year but obviously you can't remember!
Tell me, why would the fulcrum give way if the main weight of the upper section was no longer directly above it? What was it you were saying again about the conservation of angular momentum? A few posts ago you were talking about dynamic load. So where was the dynamic load on the fulcrum to cause it to be crushed all of a sudden if in fact, and you agree this yourself, the upper section was still attached to the lower building at this point?
As for asymmetrical explosives, have I said where the explosives were positioned in this thread? I hope you are not implying that I am saying they were positioned directly below the upper section on the facade? I have never said that if you are. Why put explosives in the facade when placing them in the core would have been more than adequate. |
Let me make it clear for you James, you do not own the concept of fulcrums. The top section of the tower must have rotated around a fulcrum, otherwise it would not have started to lean.
What I said was that there was no fulcrum present when, according to you, the lower section had fallen away as a result of explosives, "....which left, for a very brief moment, the top section with nothing below it at all. " If you believe that there was a fulcrum present, please state what it was. If you accept, as you surely must, that there would be no fulcrum, then explain how a torque effect could be produced by gravity, since it would exert only a downwards force acting through the centre of gravity of the top section. |
Bushwacker,
The fact that it has taken you two days to concoct such a lame answer is proof that you are finding it very hard to deal with your own understanding of this matter never mind anyone else's.
I have made my position perfectly clear regarding torque, gravity and what happened to the fulcrum and I would suggest that you read back through this thread to find out what I have said.
Stop doing the usual critics thing of arguing about the wording of posts when your own concepts begin to fail you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just to sum up the issues that I wanted to talk about in this post...
I don't believe there is a credible theory to why collapse is impossible on the basis of citing laws of basic physics. Nothing on this thread has changed my mind. This has been an argument used from within the truth movement for years, and I think it is a fraudulent one.
In a similar way, I don't believe that evaluations of the collapse hypothesis are as clear-cut as the truth movement would like to believe. It is clearly a complex issue, and boiling it down to soundbites and simple principles is not easily done. For the truth movement to say that 'collapse was impossible' is easy, but they have found that to actually go out and prove that has been incredibly difficult. Campaigners who cite this case as proven are being misleading in my opinion.
And this is why those in the truth movement seem to prefer to prove explosives rather than disprove collapse. I think this is a flawed basis to work upon, because to hypothetically prove that explosives could have made the towers collapse, does not necessarily disprove the official theory.
If nothing else, I think the truth movement should at least accept that there is a genuine debate to be had on this issue, rather than pretending it is a battle they have already won. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | Just to sum up the issues that I wanted to talk about in this post...
I don't believe there is a credible theory to why collapse is impossible on the basis of citing laws of basic physics. Nothing on this thread has changed my mind. This has been an argument used from within the truth movement for years, and I think it is a fraudulent one.
In a similar way, I don't believe that evaluations of the collapse hypothesis are as clear-cut as the truth movement would like to believe. It is clearly a complex issue, and boiling it down to soundbites and simple principles is not easily done. For the truth movement to say that 'collapse was impossible' is easy, but they have found that to actually go out and prove that has been incredibly difficult. Campaigners who cite this case as proven are being misleading in my opinion.
And this is why those in the truth movement seem to prefer to prove explosives rather than disprove collapse. I think this is a flawed basis to work upon, because to hypothetically prove that explosives could have made the towers collapse, does not necessarily disprove the official theory.
If nothing else, I think the truth movement should at least accept that there is a genuine debate to be had on this issue, rather than pretending it is a battle they have already won. |
Alex_V,
Have you made any attempt to understand how the twin towers were constructed and then cross referenced your findings with Greenings calculations? If you had, and so far it looks like you haven't bothered, then you'd find that what he is saying is purely hypothetical because the floors of the towers could not have possibly pancaked. So it looks like the side of the debate you so dearly cling onto is based upon nothing more than bad assumptions clad in a wonderful array of pointless mathematical analysis just to disguise how truley awful the assertions really are.
So far you have added nothing to the debate other than to suggest that the towers could have come down due to fire and damage alone. Well whopppee - so what!
Guess what? Nothing you have said has changed my mind either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | Alex_V,
Have you made any attempt to understand how the twin towers were constructed and then cross referenced your findings with Greenings calculations? If you had, and so far it looks like you haven't bothered, then you'd find that what he is saying is purely hypothetical because the floors of the towers could not have possibly pancaked. So it looks like the side of the debate you so dearly cling onto is based upon nothing more than bad assumptions clad in a wonderful array of pointless mathematical analysis just to disguise how truley awful the assertions really are.
So far you have added nothing to the debate other than to suggest that the towers could have come down due to fire and damage alone. Well whopppee - so what!
Guess what? Nothing you have said has changed my mind either. |
Again, a heap of conclusions based on the vague assertion that the floors of the tower could not have collapsed. And you ask me to try and verify the vague accusations that YOU put forward without evidence?
Explain HOW they could not have collapsed (in principle) and I will take your allegations seriously. I understand that you think it is something to do with the way that the building was constructed - in what regard?
I'd like to know who else in the truth movement agrees with your assertions as well - does this allegation come from you alone or from others as well? There may be a paper that I can read that will explain the points you are referring to?
Heck, I may even put your points to Greening himself as he is easily contacted, and it's his credentials you seem to be attacking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | James C wrote: | Alex_V,
Have you made any attempt to understand how the twin towers were constructed and then cross referenced your findings with Greenings calculations? If you had, and so far it looks like you haven't bothered, then you'd find that what he is saying is purely hypothetical because the floors of the towers could not have possibly pancaked. So it looks like the side of the debate you so dearly cling onto is based upon nothing more than bad assumptions clad in a wonderful array of pointless mathematical analysis just to disguise how truley awful the assertions really are.
So far you have added nothing to the debate other than to suggest that the towers could have come down due to fire and damage alone. Well whopppee - so what!
Guess what? Nothing you have said has changed my mind either. |
Again, a heap of conclusions based on the vague assertion that the floors of the tower could not have collapsed. And you ask me to try and verify the vague accusations that YOU put forward without evidence?
Explain HOW they could not have collapsed (in principle) and I will take your allegations seriously. I understand that you think it is something to do with the way that the building was constructed - in what regard?
I'd like to know who else in the truth movement agrees with your assertions as well - does this allegation come from you alone or from others as well? There may be a paper that I can read that will explain the points you are referring to?
Heck, I may even put your points to Greening himself as he is easily contacted, and it's his credentials you seem to be attacking. |
Now who's making silly allegations.
Of course the floors could have collapsed. But they wouldn't have brought down all of the building because the core and facade were both structural elements in their own right. The floors spanned between these elements held on small welded plates which were designed to move during wind loading and if any floor had failed and caused a progressive collapse the core and facade would have remained standing. The floors would therefore have fallen between the core and the outer walls although collapse would have been asymmetric because the floor constructions were not uniform nor did they span the same distances being there was a short span and a long span in each plan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Now who's making silly allegations. |
I honestly don't know what you mean by that.
| Quote: | | Of course the floors could have collapsed. But they wouldn't have brought down all of the building because the core and facade were both structural elements in their own right. The floor supports spanned between these elements held on small welded plates which were designed to move during wind loading and if any floor had failed and caused a progressive collapse the core and facade would have remained standing. The floors would therefore have fallen between the core and the outer walls although collapse would have been asymmetric because the floor constructions were not uniform nor did they span the same distance. |
If I may say, that is a much better response - it actually gives me something to react to, to chew upon. Unfortunately not until Monday as I am away for the weekend  . Hope the debate continues in a civil fashion... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | I honestly don't know what you mean by that. |
| Alex_V wrote: | | Again, a heap of conclusions based on the vague assertion that the floors of the tower could not have collapsed |
Have a good weekend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | Bushwacker,
Make up your mind. One minute you appear to deny all knowledge of a fulcrum and the next you are stealing my concept. Why on earth did you ask me about why the upper section stopped rotating if you accept exactly what I said in my first post on this subject that it was due to the loss of the fulcrum. Hell, I was discussing this with you last year but obviously you can't remember!
Tell me, why would the fulcrum give way if the main weight of the upper section was no longer directly above it? What was it you were saying again about the conservation of angular momentum? A few posts ago you were talking about dynamic load. So where was the dynamic load on the fulcrum to cause it to be crushed all of a sudden if in fact, and you agree this yourself, the upper section was still attached to the lower building at this point?
As for asymmetrical explosives, have I said where the explosives were positioned in this thread? I hope you are not implying that I am saying they were positioned directly below the upper section on the facade? I have never said that if you are. Why put explosives in the facade when placing them in the core would have been more than adequate. |
Let me make it clear for you James, you do not own the concept of fulcrums. The top section of the tower must have rotated around a fulcrum, otherwise it would not have started to lean.
What I said was that there was no fulcrum present when, according to you, the lower section had fallen away as a result of explosives, "....which left, for a very brief moment, the top section with nothing below it at all. " If you believe that there was a fulcrum present, please state what it was. If you accept, as you surely must, that there would be no fulcrum, then explain how a torque effect could be produced by gravity, since it would exert only a downwards force acting through the centre of gravity of the top section. |
Bushwacker,
The fact that it has taken you two days to concoct such a lame answer is proof that you are finding it very hard to deal with your own understanding of this matter never mind anyone else's.
I have made my position perfectly clear regarding torque, gravity and what happened to the fulcrum and I would suggest that you read back through this thread to find out what I have said.
Stop doing the usual critics thing of arguing about the wording of posts when your own concepts begin to fail you. |
James, it has not taken me two days, I do have other things in my life than trying to understand your strange notion of what happened.
Please state clearly your position on the situation, after the fulcrum has been blown apart, according to you. You say that for a brief moment the top section had nothing below it at all, and gravity acted upon it in such a way that it stopped rotating because, you say, the bottom was heavier than the top. Just explain how that happened without a fulcrum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Alex_V wrote: | | James C wrote: | Alex_V,
Have you made any attempt to understand how the twin towers were constructed and then cross referenced your findings with Greenings calculations? If you had, and so far it looks like you haven't bothered, then you'd find that what he is saying is purely hypothetical because the floors of the towers could not have possibly pancaked. So it looks like the side of the debate you so dearly cling onto is based upon nothing more than bad assumptions clad in a wonderful array of pointless mathematical analysis just to disguise how truley awful the assertions really are.
So far you have added nothing to the debate other than to suggest that the towers could have come down due to fire and damage alone. Well whopppee - so what!
Guess what? Nothing you have said has changed my mind either. |
Again, a heap of conclusions based on the vague assertion that the floors of the tower could not have collapsed. And you ask me to try and verify the vague accusations that YOU put forward without evidence?
Explain HOW they could not have collapsed (in principle) and I will take your allegations seriously. I understand that you think it is something to do with the way that the building was constructed - in what regard?
I'd like to know who else in the truth movement agrees with your assertions as well - does this allegation come from you alone or from others as well? There may be a paper that I can read that will explain the points you are referring to?
Heck, I may even put your points to Greening himself as he is easily contacted, and it's his credentials you seem to be attacking. |
Now who's making silly allegations.
Of course the floors could have collapsed. But they wouldn't have brought down all of the building because the core and facade were both structural elements in their own right. The floors spanned between these elements held on small welded plates which were designed to move during wind loading and if any floor had failed and caused a progressive collapse the core and facade would have remained standing. The floors would therefore have fallen between the core and the outer walls although collapse would have been asymmetric because the floor constructions were not uniform nor did they span the same distances being there was a short span and a long span in each plan. |
Do you understand that NIST does accept that most of those plates remained attached, and beleives that collapse was initiated by the sagging floor trusses pulling in the perimeter columns of the building? A theory supported by photographic evidence showing the perimeter columns distorted inwards prior to collapse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
