| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| John White wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | John White wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | John White wrote: | The universe is infinite: our minds are not
What you are telling me is that the fact that contemplating the infinite inevitably leads to contemplating paradox and the need to consider two or more contradictory ideas simultaneously means your not going to go there |
Erm, no. That's not at all what I'm telling you. Could you explain how you inferred such an idea from my posts? |
Easy. You dismiss contradiction as fallacy. Ergo, you can't, or won't. consider contradictions as a balance: you can, or will, only choose one position to identify with |
Say what? I dismiss your characterization of me as a fallacy. A non sequitur. |
"Hey John! Youve contradicted yourself! Therefore your arguments no good"
"Hey Chipmunk! You dismiss contradiction as fallacy!"
"No I dont!!!"
And if contradiction is fallacy, entertaining contradictory notions simultaneously is obviously right out. QED
Honestly, one couldnt make this up  |
If you'll notice, I didn't make any mention of your argument being "no good". The post you're referring to was purely observational. You made a statement that seemed to contradict what you had earlier asserted, and validate a concept that aggle-rithm and I had illustrated.
It was an invitation for clarification. Rather than carrying on the conversation, you started psychoanalyzing me and other "critics", drawing unfounded inferences, and misattributing flaws.
Who's driving the wedge here, John?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | We promote critical thinking because it's empowering. |
You think, for a moment, that truthseekers dont find their quest empowering? Where's that empathy you mentioned last week? |
There you go drawing false inferences. This sentence is the beginning of a response to: "Are critics overly concerned that if they have non conventional thinking they risk losing their mind?"
To which I answered: "Not at all." The rest of the response fleshed out this pithy reply.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | If you understand how things work, you can make yourself very useful. If you can spot scams, cons, and pseudoscience, you can make much more informed personal decisions. If you can interpret data sets, you can operate out of knowledge and confidence, rather than faith and superstition. |
Yes, but interpeting data sets is not the only way to understand how things work... |
False inference.
| Quote: | | what about awareness of patterns and trends? |
You need data sets for that
| Quote: | | Comparing current situations to past examples and looking for similarities? |
i.e. Comparing data sets.
| Quote: | | Again we have this reference to faith and superstition. What you are describing as reprehensable is dogma. But you are falsley associating dogma with faith and superstition alone: dogma also comes from undue association with data sets linked to an illogical drive to defend them. |
I guess so. I don't really understand what you mean by that, but it doesn't sound like something I engage in.
| Quote: | Look at the history of scientific heresey to find ample evidence of that
In fact, what we are both describing is methodology to produce awareness: I have mine: you have yours. I can see the similiarities. Can you? |
Produce "awareness"? Clarify.
The method is only as good as the reliability of the information it produces.
| Quote: | I've said it once, I'll say it again, truthseekers and sceptics should unite around the areas we agree (hint: press for truth) not divide about where we disagree
Boy oh boy, then we would be a power to move Mountains
| Quote: | | We only appear to have a bias towards conventional ideas because most new ideas don't stand up to scrutiny. But there are exceptions. |
I am certain that it would be very interesting to have a concise overview of what those exceptions are |
You want all of them? I'm not sure that's possible. One of mine is the unconventional idea that the War on Drugs increases violent criminal activity.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | | Is the subconcious foundation of the JREF method the sublimal fear of insanity? |
No. |
Well I didnt expect you would say yes! 
I wonder if your rather quick to claim clarity of perception regarding subliminal drives though? |
I'm very clear that there is no "JREF method", and that if there were, and it had a subconscious foundation, that foundation would not be "the subliminal fear of insanity".
| Quote: | ****
You also put forward the observation that my left/right brain description was simplistic. See my forthcoming response to aggle-rythm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
Do you get the general theme of balance here?
I could say:
"we are not our thoughts and feelings, we are the spaces between our thoughts and feelings"
...but I expect I'd just be told I was superstitious, perish the thought that there might be something there to actually be communicated...like the existance of an entirely different form of conciousness to exist from... |
The difference between a skeptic and a believer is not that one uses intellect more or creativity more than the other. It's how the two interact.
With a skeptic, the creative part of the brain tells him what to do and what to believe, then the rational part determines whether he should do it and whether he should believe it.
With a believer, the process is much the same, but the rational part is used to rationalize the action or the belief, not determine whether or not it is the best action to take or belief to hold.
This, of course, is a gross generalization, but the point is, I don't buy the idea that people live exclusively in one hemisphere of the brain or the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
What we have is a situation where a building fell
This event has not been explained convincingly by any official statement (however proud critics are of their own theories)
Holding the view that the building was CD'd is the result of asking "If not fire, what else could account for a collapse of a building in this way". It is an end product, not a leap of illogical reasoning
To prove this is easy. All critics have to do is ask:
"If we hypothesised that the collapse through fire theory was incorrect, what other theory could account for the known evidance?"
If any of you find anything other than CD at all convincing, let me know so I can call you a nutter
Thats if critics can actually manage the exercise. Flexible mind required
|
Indeed, nothing other than controlled demolition comes to mind. We then have to consider whether in fact controlled demolition fits the all the available evidence, and we find that it does not. Specifically, it fails to account for the pre-collapse bowing of some of the perimeter columns. Evidence that one would expect to find, such as evidence of demolition charges having been planted extensively throughout three occupied buildings, evidence of cutting of the columns and seismic evidence of pre-collapse explosions is absent. The method of demolition cannot be plausibly explained. We are therefore driven to conclude that our hypothesis that the fire collapse theory was incorrect was itself incorrect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Indeed, nothing other than controlled demolition comes to mind. We then have to consider whether in fact controlled demolition fits the all the available evidence, and we find that it does not. Specifically, it fails to account for the pre-collapse bowing of some of the perimeter columns. Evidence that one would expect to find, such as evidence of demolition charges having been planted extensively throughout three occupied buildings, evidence of cutting of the columns and seismic evidence of pre-collapse explosions is absent. The method of demolition cannot be plausibly explained. We are therefore driven to conclude that our hypothesis that the fire collapse theory was incorrect was itself incorrect. |
Bowing columns like your previously discredited photo showed you mean?
You called me a liar - I'm still waiting for the evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | Bowing columns like your previously discredited photo showed you mean?
You called me a liar - I'm still waiting for the evidence. |
Chek, the bowing columns are abundantly clear in the film at
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=4865
("The S Tower's amazing pyroclastic flow" ... thread)
from the start to around the 0:09 mark
here's a snap
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | Bowing columns like your previously discredited photo showed you mean?
You called me a liar - I'm still waiting for the evidence. |
Chek, the bowing columns are abundantly clear in the film at
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=4865
("The S Tower's amazing pyroclastic flow" ... thread)
from the start to around the 0:09 mark
here's a snap
|
It seems to me that apart from the possibility of confusing the outer aluminium cladding with the columns themselves, there are moire effects, heat effects and white smoke explosive effects all happening within that time period of the video.
Only here's the interesting thing: firstly in May 2002 FEMA decided it was it was the floor trusses that failed. Then a mere 5 months later NIST decided it wasn't the floors at all, it was the columns.
The fact is neither should have failed under the circa 250 degree heat that UL were able to determine the columns had been exposed to on NIST's behalf.
And to me it looks if anything like the area bulges due to those white smoke charges exploding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
It seems to me that apart from the possibility of confusing the outer aluminium cladding with the columns themselves, there are moire effects, heat effects and white smoke explosive effects all happening within that time period of the video.
Only here's the interesting thing: firstly in May 2002 FEMA decided it was it was the floor trusses that failed. Then a mere 5 months later NIST decided it wasn't the floors at all, it was the columns.
The fact is neither should have failed under the circa 250 degree heat that UL were able to determine the columns had been exposed to on NIST's behalf.
And to me it looks if anything like the area bulges due to those white smoke charges exploding. |
Kid yourself if you want. The whole area is clearly bowing inwards.
And the cladding was attached to the columns, not held out a few metres in mid air.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
Only here's the interesting thing: firstly in May 2002 FEMA decided it was it was the floor trusses that failed. Then a mere 5 months later NIST decided it wasn't the floors at all, it was the columns.
|
This is a "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" problem. Since the columns held up the floors and the floors held up the columns (by linking them to the perimeter), and they both failed at about the same time, how do you tell which component is responsible? They first thought it was the floors, but then, after further study, found that failure of the columns explained the evidence better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: |
It seems to me that apart from the possibility of confusing the outer aluminium cladding with the columns themselves, there are moire effects, heat effects and white smoke explosive effects all happening within that time period of the video.
Only here's the interesting thing: firstly in May 2002 FEMA decided it was it was the floor trusses that failed. Then a mere 5 months later NIST decided it wasn't the floors at all, it was the columns.
The fact is neither should have failed under the circa 250 degree heat that UL were able to determine the columns had been exposed to on NIST's behalf.
And to me it looks if anything like the area bulges due to those white smoke charges exploding. |
Kid yourself if you want. The whole area is clearly bowing inwards.
And the cladding was attached to the columns, not held out a few metres in mid air. |
It is equally likely that you see what you expect to see, aka 'kidding yourself'.
However, the attached shows nothing that is unexpected in the buckled aluminium facade deformed near the plane's impact zone. In the area above the green line, broken and bent areas of cladding are clearly seen. That does not necessarily imply column damage.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: |
It seems to me that apart from the possibility of confusing the outer aluminium cladding with the columns themselves, there are moire effects, heat effects and white smoke explosive effects all happening within that time period of the video.
Only here's the interesting thing: firstly in May 2002 FEMA decided it was it was the floor trusses that failed. Then a mere 5 months later NIST decided it wasn't the floors at all, it was the columns.
The fact is neither should have failed under the circa 250 degree heat that UL were able to determine the columns had been exposed to on NIST's behalf.
And to me it looks if anything like the area bulges due to those white smoke charges exploding. |
Kid yourself if you want. The whole area is clearly bowing inwards.
And the cladding was attached to the columns, not held out a few metres in mid air. |
It is equally likely that you see what you expect to see, aka 'kidding yourself'.
However, the attached shows nothing that is unexpected in the buckled aluminium facade deformed near the plane's impact zone. In the area above the green line, broken and bent areas of cladding are clearly seen. That does not necessarily imply column damage.
|
Of course it does. The cladding can't buckle inwards unless the columns also do. The cladding was attached to the columns.
And here's some wall with cladding still mostly attached :
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: |
It seems to me that apart from the possibility of confusing the outer aluminium cladding with the columns themselves, there are moire effects, heat effects and white smoke explosive effects all happening within that time period of the video.
Only here's the interesting thing: firstly in May 2002 FEMA decided it was it was the floor trusses that failed. Then a mere 5 months later NIST decided it wasn't the floors at all, it was the columns.
The fact is neither should have failed under the circa 250 degree heat that UL were able to determine the columns had been exposed to on NIST's behalf.
And to me it looks if anything like the area bulges due to those white smoke charges exploding. |
Kid yourself if you want. The whole area is clearly bowing inwards.
And the cladding was attached to the columns, not held out a few metres in mid air. |
It is equally likely that you see what you expect to see, aka 'kidding yourself'.
However, the attached shows nothing that is unexpected in the buckled aluminium facade deformed near the plane's impact zone. In the area above the green line, broken and bent areas of cladding are clearly seen. That does not necessarily imply column damage.
|
Of course it does. The cladding can't buckle inwards unless the columns also do. The cladding was attached to the columns.
And here's some wall with cladding still mostly attached :
|
You're making an assumption that the facade fixings remained intact in the impact zone. And we have no way of knowing where your falling section comes from.
Of course if the evidence hadn't been destroyed in suspicious circumstances, such answers might be possible to determine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | You're making an assumption that the facade fixings remained intact in the impact zone. And we have no way of knowing where your falling section comes from.
Of course if the evidence hadn't been destroyed in suspicious circumstances, such answers might be possible to determine. |
Irrelevant.
The cladding panels cannot bow inwards unless the columns they're fixed to are also bowed inwards. Simple fact.
Arguing about the source of the falling section is also a total red-herring. The photo shows that the cladding adheres closely to the columns, just in case the plans aren't good enough for you
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | You're making an assumption that the facade fixings remained intact in the impact zone. And we have no way of knowing where your falling section comes from.
Of course if the evidence hadn't been destroyed in suspicious circumstances, such answers might be possible to determine. |
Irrelevant.
The cladding panels cannot bow inwards unless the columns they're fixed to are also bowed inwards. Simple fact.
Arguing about the source of the falling section is also a total red-herring. The photo shows that the cladding adheres closely to the columns, just in case the plans aren't good enough for you |
And without a 500mph impact test to verify the point you're just hand waving in favour of your interpretation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | You're making an assumption that the facade fixings remained intact in the impact zone. And we have no way of knowing where your falling section comes from.
Of course if the evidence hadn't been destroyed in suspicious circumstances, such answers might be possible to determine. |
Irrelevant.
The cladding panels cannot bow inwards unless the columns they're fixed to are also bowed inwards. Simple fact.
Arguing about the source of the falling section is also a total red-herring. The photo shows that the cladding adheres closely to the columns, just in case the plans aren't good enough for you |
And without a 500mph impact test to verify the point you're just hand waving in favour of your interpretation. |
Well, in the absence of any sense from you we can only assume you believe that the cladding collapsed inwards while the outer columns it was attached to stayed intact and upright. Which is total gibberish, of course. Feel free to clarify.
p.s. they did the plane crash test already. Twice.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | You're making an assumption that the facade fixings remained intact in the impact zone. And we have no way of knowing where your falling section comes from.
Of course if the evidence hadn't been destroyed in suspicious circumstances, such answers might be possible to determine. |
Irrelevant.
The cladding panels cannot bow inwards unless the columns they're fixed to are also bowed inwards. Simple fact.
Arguing about the source of the falling section is also a total red-herring. The photo shows that the cladding adheres closely to the columns, just in case the plans aren't good enough for you |
And without a 500mph impact test to verify the point you're just hand waving in favour of your interpretation. |
Well, in the absence of any sense from you we can only assume you believe that the cladding collapsed inwards while the outer columns it was attached to stayed intact and upright. Which is total gibberish, of course. Feel free to clarify.
p.s. they did the plane crash test already. Twice. |
As the cladding was not epoxied to the entire surface of the outer columns but bolted, as can be seen below the impact hole, broken pieces indicate damage was caused over a greater area than the actual penetration zone.
Why is it unreasonable that the softer aluminium cladding not have torn loose from some of its fixings and stretched or bowed with the force of impact?
Deducing that the cladding behaviour indicates the underlying and far stronger multiple columns suffering the same trauma does not follow.
I haven't heard of these tests before - can you point to a relevant link or page number in a report somewhere? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | As the cladding was not epoxied to the entire surface of the outer columns but bolted, as can be seen below the impact hole, broken pieces indicate damage was caused over a greater area than the actual penetration zone.
Why is it unreasonable that the softer aluminium cladding not have torn loose from some of its fixings and stretched or bowed with the force of impact?
Deducing that the cladding behaviour indicates the underlying and far stronger multiple columns suffering the same trauma does not follow. |
The bowing was observed on sides of the building where no impact occurred: The South face of WTC 1 (impact was on North face) and the East face of WTC2 (impact was on South face). The bowing also increased over time. You really should take the time to understand the evidence being presented before you make such stupid comments:
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf
You could scarcely be more wrong about this.
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | Bowing columns like your previously discredited photo showed you mean?
You called me a liar - I'm still waiting for the evidence. |
Chek, the bowing columns are abundantly clear in the film at
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=4865
("The S Tower's amazing pyroclastic flow" ... thread)
from the start to around the 0:09 mark
here's a snap
|
I'm pretty sure that image is taken seconds before collapse note what may be a thermite reaction at the corner of the building. It may even be the same thermite reaction that gave us the dripping molten metal footage: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=camerap lanet+9%2F11 If trusses and columns are being cut or weakened by thermite we might expect some to fall. If trusses cut at the core collapse then it is likely that they 'may bend the ends of sheared columns so I don't think the sagging trusses theory counters the CD theory in anyway.
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: |
I'm pretty sure that image is taken seconds before collapse note what may be a thermite reaction at the corner of the building. It may even be the same thermite reaction that gave us the dripping molten metal footage: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=camerap lanet+9%2F11 If trusses and columns are being cut or weakened by thermite we might expect some to fall. If trusses cut at the core collapse then it is likely that they 'may bend the ends of sheared columns so I don't think the sagging trusses theory counters the CD theory in anyway. |
For the love of...
You're killing me here. Read:
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
As the cladding was not epoxied to the entire surface of the outer columns but bolted, as can be seen below the impact hole, broken pieces indicate damage was caused over a greater area than the actual penetration zone.
Why is it unreasonable that the softer aluminium cladding not have torn loose from some of its fixings and stretched or bowed with the force of impact?
Deducing that the cladding behaviour indicates the underlying and far stronger multiple columns suffering the same trauma does not follow.
I haven't heard of these tests before - can you point to a relevant link or page number in a report somewhere? |
I genuinely can't believe you're saying all this.
The cladding was fixed closely to the steel columns underneath, yes? The cladding is seen to be bowed inwards in the photos, yes? Therefore the columns also had to be bowed inwards, otherwise all that we would see would be *broken* cladding.
If the cladding had been held 3' away from the columns, then you would have a point. It wasn't. You don't.
p.s. the closeups in the early part of that film are of the East side of the S. Tower. Check Trinity Church, New York on Google maps and take the one near Trinity Place + Thames St for the line of sight.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: |
As the cladding was not epoxied to the entire surface of the outer columns but bolted, as can be seen below the impact hole, broken pieces indicate damage was caused over a greater area than the actual penetration zone.
Why is it unreasonable that the softer aluminium cladding not have torn loose from some of its fixings and stretched or bowed with the force of impact?
Deducing that the cladding behaviour indicates the underlying and far stronger multiple columns suffering the same trauma does not follow.
I haven't heard of these tests before - can you point to a relevant link or page number in a report somewhere? |
I genuinely can't believe you're saying all this.
The cladding was fixed closely to the steel columns underneath, yes? The cladding is seen to be bowed inwards in the photos, yes? Therefore the columns also had to be bowed inwards, otherwise all that we would see would be *broken* cladding.
If the cladding had been held 3' away from the columns, then you would have a point. It wasn't. You don't. |
Considering that the maximum observed bowing was almost FIVE feet, he would barely even have a point then.
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf
| Quote: | | p.s. the closeups in the early part of that film are of the East side of the S. Tower. Check Trinity Church, New York on Google maps and take the one near Trinity Place + Thames St for the line of sight. |
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: |
As the cladding was not epoxied to the entire surface of the outer columns but bolted, as can be seen below the impact hole, broken pieces indicate damage was caused over a greater area than the actual penetration zone.
Why is it unreasonable that the softer aluminium cladding not have torn loose from some of its fixings and stretched or bowed with the force of impact?
Deducing that the cladding behaviour indicates the underlying and far stronger multiple columns suffering the same trauma does not follow.
I haven't heard of these tests before - can you point to a relevant link or page number in a report somewhere? |
I genuinely can't believe you're saying all this.
The cladding was fixed closely to the steel columns underneath, yes? The cladding is seen to be bowed inwards in the photos, yes? Therefore the columns also had to be bowed inwards, otherwise all that we would see would be *broken* cladding.
If the cladding had been held 3' away from the columns, then you would have a point. It wasn't. You don't.
p.s. the closeups in the early part of that film are of the East side of the S. Tower. Check Trinity Church, New York on Google maps and take the one near Trinity Place + Thames St for the line of sight. |
The 'bowing' due to impact and explosion damage :
"The debris cut a shallow path through the west and center array of trusses, damaging the insulation up to the north wall of the building core. This devastation took 0.7 s. The structural and insulation damage was considerable and was estimated to be:
35 exterior columns severed, 2 heavily damaged" (out of 236).
NIST (p 22/76) i.e. nowhere near enough column damage to cause catastrophic failure.
"The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.
The perimeter columns essentially had enough reserve capacity to carry 200% of the WTC 1 design load.
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#severe d
(Loadings The load rating for columns in the perimeter area was 50 psf. The load rating for the core area was up to 100 psf. This comes out to be an estimated 75 psf average for an office floor. The load ratings for floors 110-94 average out to be about 82 psf (3.9 kPa) per floor. On average, a floor's design live load was 1,488 tons. The estimated total weight of a floor, dead load plus live load, is 3,306 tons. Add the factor of safety and the building structure could handle multiple times this load. It is estimated that the average factor of safety for a floor was 3.35. This means a floor could handle a total of 11,075 tons before failing.)
The core columns could carry 135%. For floor 97 to collapse, the equivalent of 55% of the core columns and 80% of the perimeter columns would have to fail. That means on average 26 core columns and 189 perimeter columns would have to fail. 75% of the total columns would have to fail. This indicates that the WTC 1 design had lots of redundancy. This was no house of cards. Could fires burning on only 13% of floor 97 cause 75% of the columns to fail simultaneously? Science says no way. Add the fact that the steel was certified ASTM E119 and at least a majority of the columns still had fireproofing.
Add the fact that fires burned at most about 45 minutes. Add the fact that on floor 97 at the time of collapse no fires existed on the north and west faces, that 45 minute fires existed on the east face, and that less than 25 minute fires existed on the south face; and one can see the impossibility of 200+ columns being harmed catastrophically by heat of fire".
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpman/CoreAnalysisFinal.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
The 'bowing' due to impact and explosion damage :
<loads of stuff snipped> |
I thought we were talking about whether or not the exterior columns on the E side of the S tower were bowed inwards - or not - just prior to collapse?
I'll take it that you agree they were, but can't bring yourself to admit it in public.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: |
As the cladding was not epoxied to the entire surface of the outer columns but bolted, as can be seen below the impact hole, broken pieces indicate damage was caused over a greater area than the actual penetration zone.
Why is it unreasonable that the softer aluminium cladding not have torn loose from some of its fixings and stretched or bowed with the force of impact?
Deducing that the cladding behaviour indicates the underlying and far stronger multiple columns suffering the same trauma does not follow.
I haven't heard of these tests before - can you point to a relevant link or page number in a report somewhere? |
I genuinely can't believe you're saying all this.
The cladding was fixed closely to the steel columns underneath, yes? The cladding is seen to be bowed inwards in the photos, yes? Therefore the columns also had to be bowed inwards, otherwise all that we would see would be *broken* cladding.
If the cladding had been held 3' away from the columns, then you would have a point. It wasn't. You don't.
p.s. the closeups in the early part of that film are of the East side of the S. Tower. Check Trinity Church, New York on Google maps and take the one near Trinity Place + Thames St for the line of sight. |
The 'bowing' due to impact and explosion damage :
"The debris cut a shallow path through the west and center array of trusses, damaging the insulation up to the north wall of the building core. This devastation took 0.7 s. The structural and insulation damage was considerable and was estimated to be:
35 exterior columns severed, 2 heavily damaged" (out of 236).
NIST (p 22/76) i.e. nowhere near enough column damage to cause catastrophic failure. |
The "bowing" in this case is not the bowing shown in the video or here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf
You're moving the goalposts from bowing exterior columns to the number of severed/heavily damaged exterior columns, while trying to construe this as an answer to bowing. You are being dishonest. Stop it.
Do you acknowledge the bowing on the South face of WTC1 and the East face of WTC2?
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf
(As for column damage, how many core columns were severed/heavily damaged, in addition to the 16% of the exterior columns?)
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: |
The 'bowing' due to impact and explosion damage :
<loads of stuff snipped> |
I thought we were talking about whether or not the exterior columns on the E side of the S tower were bowed inwards - or not - just prior to collapse?
I'll take it that you agree they were, but can't bring yourself to admit it in public. |
I'm accounting for the cause of column deformation, but admit I'm having a hard time reconciling visble exterior damage on the East face with NIST's debris diagrams.
You'll have to wait until I've time to check through other docs I have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: |
The 'bowing' due to impact and explosion damage :
<loads of stuff snipped> |
I thought we were talking about whether or not the exterior columns on the E side of the S tower were bowed inwards - or not - just prior to collapse?
I'll take it that you agree they were, but can't bring yourself to admit it in public. |
Ok first - apologies for earlier comments - I wrongly assumed we were looking at the south face impact hole. Now I've had time to study - I agree the WTC2 east face columns are bowing inwards as seen in the first few seconds of :
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546
Before going further I'd like to hear what theory you're proposing from that observation first.
(hint: Patricks video link is very relevant) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: |
The 'bowing' due to impact and explosion damage :
<loads of stuff snipped> |
I thought we were talking about whether or not the exterior columns on the E side of the S tower were bowed inwards - or not - just prior to collapse?
I'll take it that you agree they were, but can't bring yourself to admit it in public. |
Ok first - apologies for earlier comments - I wrongly assumed we were looking at the south face impact hole. Now I've had time to study - I agree the WTC2 east face columns are bowing inwards as seen in the first few seconds of :
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546
Before going further I'd like to hear what theory you're proposing from that observation first.
(hint: Patricks video link is very relevant) |
I think the NIST report and the "Official Story" fit quite neatly with this observation.
Thermite, holograms, Lizards, pods, Zionists, Global Hawk, Able Danger, Operation Northwoods, Illuminati, Bohemian Grove, Big Oil, Haliburton, MegaPharma, UFO's, teh gubmint, teh Joos, and the New World Order...
do not.
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jay Ref wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: |
The 'bowing' due to impact and explosion damage :
<loads of stuff snipped> |
I thought we were talking about whether or not the exterior columns on the E side of the S tower were bowed inwards - or not - just prior to collapse?
I'll take it that you agree they were, but can't bring yourself to admit it in public. |
Ok first - apologies for earlier comments - I wrongly assumed we were looking at the south face impact hole. Now I've had time to study - I agree the WTC2 east face columns are bowing inwards as seen in the first few seconds of :
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546
Before going further I'd like to hear what theory you're proposing from that observation first.
(hint: Patricks video link is very relevant) |
I think the NIST report and the "Official Story" fit quite neatly with this observation.
Thermite, holograms, Lizards, pods, Zionists, Global Hawk, Able Danger, Operation Northwoods, Illuminati, Bohemian Grove, Big Oil, Haliburton, MegaPharma, UFO's, teh gubmint, teh Joos, and the New World Order...
do not.
-z |
The myth of the bowing columns is as you of all people should know, and like all myths, only a myth; in service to those who seek to use them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Jay Ref wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: |
The 'bowing' due to impact and explosion damage :
<loads of stuff snipped> |
I thought we were talking about whether or not the exterior columns on the E side of the S tower were bowed inwards - or not - just prior to collapse?
I'll take it that you agree they were, but can't bring yourself to admit it in public. |
Ok first - apologies for earlier comments - I wrongly assumed we were looking at the south face impact hole. Now I've had time to study - I agree the WTC2 east face columns are bowing inwards as seen in the first few seconds of :
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546
Before going further I'd like to hear what theory you're proposing from that observation first.
(hint: Patricks video link is very relevant) |
I think the NIST report and the "Official Story" fit quite neatly with this observation.
Thermite, holograms, Lizards, pods, Zionists, Global Hawk, Able Danger, Operation Northwoods, Illuminati, Bohemian Grove, Big Oil, Haliburton, MegaPharma, UFO's, teh gubmint, teh Joos, and the New World Order...
do not.
-z |
The myth of the bowing columns is as you of all people should know, and like all myths, only a myth; in service to those who seek to use them. |
I suppose you're going to reveal what the bowing columns really indicate, now, right?
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it can be seen either way although the probability is that the core has been compromised and as it falls it pulls inward, for just a few seconds, some columns which may or may not have been cut by the impacting aircraft.
Read this post if you dare: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5070
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | I think it can be seen either way although the probability is that the core has been compromised and as it falls it pulls inward, for just a few seconds, some columns which may or may not have been cut by the impacting aircraft.
Read this post if you dare: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5070 |
If you had read this
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf
you would know that the bowing on WTC1 (bowed FIVE FEET inward) lasted for at least FIVE MINUTES
and the bowing on WTC2 lasted for at least THIRTY-FIVE minutes, increasing over time.
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
