Mac, with all due respect. You have said yourself that you came to this new conclusion of 9/11 events 3 weeks ago. I get the impression you have come to a belief first and are now looking for anything to support that. You're throwing darts. I don't see anything you've presented that convinces me, and at least some that is flat out wrong. Perhaps you should take a bit more time. Whenever I have come to idea, I don't go to sites that support it. I go first to sites that dispute it.
Tin Foil Hat Thread on 9/11
- Thread starter Mcluhan
- Start date
He doesn't have a clue what he talking about. He read somewhere about the floor trusses and how they tie into the core column support and the perimeter columns, and he's spouting off in my face on this point, because this is supposed to mystify me some how. This was (as you probably know) ground breaking structural design in 1964, and has been practiced more conventionally afterward, for attaining large free span open floor space. Its worthwhile noting that the supporting columns were (it is claimed) over engineered for their loads and lateral stress factors, because this was a new design.Protoss said:Fug . . . could you please describe what you mean by a suspension building ??fuji said:
Protoss
The floors were blown to smithereens. the building mass as it came down met ZERO resistance. It fell in a cloud of exploded material. Exploded in downward sequence. The concrete dust slurry, right from the beginning moment, down thru the next 13 seconds (about), shows EXACTLY what happened. Its in plain view. Furthermore, the chemistry of the dust (220 acres of dust) defines EXACTLY which pyrotechnics where used. The molten steel in the pit is the smoking gun. None of this is going away.
Mcl, you are a sad pathetic man. Your delusional world may be a happy place for you, and that's fine, but prey tell, what are your motives for coming on an escort review board to spread your message?
What are you trying to gain? Have you gone past the point of no return? Are you now an Alex Jones zombie trying to save the world from the NWO and The Illuminatti ?
If that is your mission, I think you might be wasting your time here with the reprobates here on TERB, myself included.
What are you trying to gain? Have you gone past the point of no return? Are you now an Alex Jones zombie trying to save the world from the NWO and The Illuminatti ?
If that is your mission, I think you might be wasting your time here with the reprobates here on TERB, myself included.
Suspension vs. compression: Think of something hanging from a rope compared to something supported by a pillar.Protoss said:Fug . . . could you please describe what you mean by a suspension building ??
The WTC towers were essentially a giant metal tube, with a series of metal columns around the outside forming a sort of cage, with all the columns connected together and connected at the top. With no concrete/floors/etc. the skeleton would have looked something like a giant, square birdcage. Inside the frame there were only a very, very few central supports.
All the concrete walls, floors, etc., were then attached to this frame, so that for the most part you can imagine they were hanging from it, with only some of the load being held up by the central supports in the middle.
This is quite unlike a house or conventional apartment building where the building is essentially one layer of material piled on top of another, held up by having each floor sit on top of the building below.
Mcluhan and others were for awhile pretending that the WTC must have been a controlled demolition because it came down "all at once". That would be quite unlikely if the WTC had been built with conventional compression techniques since all the mian supports of a building are unlikely to give way at the same time.
In a tube-style building based on principles of suspension, though, there is only really one main central support to give way, combined with the exterior frame. When the exterior frame failed it literally dropped the floors on the interior support, which was not strong enough to hold them up.
In this case because there is essentially only one interior support, and since it's not strong enough to hold up the weight of the building (without the help of the frame) the whole thing simply goes straight down--every time. It would be quite odd in that case for it to do anything OTHER than collapse straight down.,
Not true. You yourself just said it took 13 seconds to come down, but it takes less than 10 seconds for an object in freefall to hit the ground from that height. It came down 30-40% slower than that, which represents resistance.Mcluhan said:
It actually took 25 seconds before all the supporting structures hit the ground--the floor material fell past.through much of it.
Anyway I don't know what plant you're on, but where I'm from 30-40% resistance is pretty significant and not ordinarily called "ZERO".
I don't think anyone is technically capable of setting off a chain of explosions like that, especially not in a building that has just been severely structuraly damaged by an airplane collision.
You know that your mythical explosives would have to detonate floor by floor at an accelarating pace, roughly 9.8 meters per second-squared, plus some resistance factor. So a linear series of detonations wouldn't cut it, it would have to be a series of detonations designed to go off one after another at the same rate that gravity would accelerate a falling body. Worse, you don't even know the timings in advance because you wouldn't know which floor the plane impacted, namely, the point from which the acceleration begins.
Oddly enough that rate of acceleration is the one at which the building would collapse were it just plain old gravity pulling it down under its own weight.
Anyway you don't need this bizarre explosion theory when ordinary forces would bring it down the same way, without any explosives being necessary. The internal support columns just weren't ever built to hold up that much weight, even if you call them over-engineered, they weren't THAT over-engineered.
Had they been that over-engineered they would have looked like standard compression architecture columns, meaning, they would have taken up almost all the floor space.
I already debunked your source for that. It turns out he is not an expert in any of those things, he's a family doctor, and in reality knows nothing more about this stuff than you or I do. That guy was just talking out of his ass.
I have been a Professional Engineer in the province for over 25 years and I mean no offense but your lay analysis just make no sense to me at all. I am going to respectfully disagree with you here.fuji said:
But here's another question I have for you.
I think it fair to say that none of us supporting the controlled demolition theory have any issues with respect to the technical competance of EITHER of the two teams of engineers (NIST and AEfor991truth) What we do have trouble with is the apparant lack of integrity displayed by NIST of which there are many examples.
Just consider one example with respect to the question of the existence of molten metal on site both on the day of the attack as well as a considerable number of days after.
Watch the following video from the 32min 25 sec point for about 2 to 3 minutes. The questions posed to Mr. Gross has noticably caused him to take on a very defensive uncomfortable posture. Notice the odd figetting, nose scratching and glancing away, forced smiles, and the nervous need to have a sip of his water. His body language speaks volumes more than his words ever could. What a terrible job he would do on the witness stand.
But listen to what he says and the testimony of eye witnesses and give me your assessment.
video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-4617650616903609314&hl=en&fs=true"
Protoss
Are you a civil engineer and would you hold yourself out as having professional expertise on tube-frame structural design?Protoss said:
In other words, would you feel that you were violating your professions ethical guidelines if you were to sign off on some aspects of a tube-frame structure in a real project? If so I would be very interested to hear your opinion of the NIST report.
If you are a chemical or electrical or mechanical or computer engineer plainly you don't know anything about these things. If you are a civil engineer we're getting pretty close, depending what type of civil engineering you are involved in.
Really you don't?Protoss said:
I had lunch with an P.E. today her comments were 1) O.C. not that again 2) and uh huh basicly.
I regret having to be so blunt but I am afraid there is no way to do this gently. I have been observing your posts over the last few days and while you try to use technical jargon to sound authoritative, it simply makes no sense at all. I was not commenting on the content of your message but the fact that it simply comes off like someone trying to sound like a competant professional.fuji said:
I am however interested in your comments on the clip of the interview with John Gross that I mentioned in the last post. Do you have anything to share?
Protoss
So you are not a civil engineer then, and know no more than the rest of us about this topic? You responded claiming to be an engineer but if you are one then you know damn well that a chemical engineer has no business passing judgement on the structural integrity of a building.Protoss said:
If you don't agree with something I wrote you ought to be able to point out a problem with it. My main claims have been that the NIST version is essentialy credible.
Absolutely!Mcluhan said:
How about you think the world is one great conspiracy, I entirely disagree. And that is that.
I seemingly am not going to change your mind and you certainly are not going to change mine.
No, its not 'one big'. But it is certainly big. Its not my purpose to change your mind. I already know you are locked in, and i know by what force. I was in your shoes three weeks ago. For some reason I feel compelled to throw you a life line. That will pass.Aardvark154 said:Absolutely!
How about you think the world is one great conspiracy, I entirely disagree. And that is that.
I seemingly am not going to change your mind and you certainly are not going to change mine.
fuji said:
Fuji, you're an idiot. That's obvious. As for the troll remark, you made it already. You lack attention in life, and you get it an obstructive nasty way. You pull people down to your level, rather than rise to their's. Its a common failing among many people, and you in particular. Some would pity you. If you we're my dog, I'd put you out of your misery.
Well Fuj let me explain it another way. If I went to a dictionary of medical terms pulled out a half dozen or so words and phases ramdomly I could write a few paragraphs that might make a layperson think that a doctor had actually written it. Of course the gibberish would actually have no meaning at all and a real doctor would read it and say . . . WTF ???fuji said:
That's pretty much the way I feel when I read some of the stuff you are posting here. And you think you are qualified to access anyone's technical competance? Please . . just don't go there.
If on the other hand you are actually a university student getting his yuks posting junk here just to aggavate everyone I suggest you cease immediately.
Protoss
Actually, no, why don't you shit, or get off the pot?Protoss said:
Do you have any criticism of what I wrote? Yes or no? Be specific. No more mumbling diatribes. See if you can find something you actually disagree with in something I wrote.
Your entire post was just a lame personal attack to cover up the fact that you haven't actually got any criticism of anything I wrote, so rather than criticize what I wrote, you've decided to invent some criticisms of me instead.
Do you feel stupid doing that?
