Because they were impolite.
9/11: Is this photo consistent with a progressive collapse?
- Thread starter lee h oswald
- Start date
- Status
Because they were impolite.
What exactly are the odds? Can you work it out?
The odds of what?
Here's my theory:
Your position is dangerously flawed. You accept incomplete reports as reasonable (though not, apparently, as satisfactory); deny that explosives should have been tested for as part of any full and proper investigation; will not call for a new investigation with no-holds barred; deny that Newton's laws are relevant while simultaneously describing your Purdue simulation as being necessarily faithful to Newton's laws; deny the testimony of credible eyewitnesses and attempt to re-frame their comments to suit your position; put up examples of 'progressive collapse' which are all controlled demolitions, to promote your view of 'accident', but deny controlled demolition as a hypothesis for the towers; resort to straw man and ad hominem attacks; and last, but not least: you deny, right here on this website, discussion of all the elements of this crime.
Does debunking not bother with the truth of a matter?
I'm debunking specific claims. Like, for example the claim you made that the photo at the head of this thread is not consistent with progressive collapse. Of the claim that girders could not possible end up hundreds of feet away from the building footprint. These are things we should be able to address and come to some agreement.
Oh, I thought you made the thread and its title in my name, remember? I protested. Remember? Have a look at page one
No. The claim you made on my behalf.
I protested and then you banned me, in fact
You said:
And your subsequent posts made it clear you did not think it was a progressive collapse.
If you'd like to clarify what you think, then go ahead.
I opened this thread with the title 9-11 An Inside Job Pt2; you changed it and wrote the question:
[h=1]9/11: Is this photo consistent with a progressive collapse?[/h]
You wrote it, I asked you to change it. That's the truth of it.
Last edited by a moderator:
How about you show me a progressive collapse like that - one that is not a controlled demolition?
You've been telling me about my theory, guessing about it, saying it must be this that or the other - but when I tell you what it is, specifically, unequivocally - you ignore every point as if it didn't get made.
Is it because you have no intention of ever changing your mind?
01-04-2012, 09:41 AM #122
Mick
AdministratorJoin DateDec 2010Posts2,309Thanks21Thanked 85 Times in 72 PostsBlog Entries4
You can link directly to that post:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/71-Micha...full=1#post380
And it's also in a comment on contrailscience.com
http://contrailscience.com/what-in-t...#comment-52461
Everything posted here and on Metabunk is going to stay around, most of the new threads I start are with the intent of them becoming references in the future (particularly the ones I preface with "Debunked:")
Last edited by a moderator:
01-04-2012, 09:41 AM #122
Mick
Administrator
You can link directly to that post:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/71-Micha...full=1#post380
And it's also in a comment on contrailscience.com
http://contrailscience.com/what-in-t...#comment-52461
Everything posted here and on Metabunk is going to stay around, most of the new threads I start are with the intent of them becoming references in the future (particularly the ones I preface with "Debunked:")
You can't even remember which site you're on! LoL
Last edited by a moderator:
You said:
Originally Posted by lee h oswald
Here's a picture of the North Tower going down.
[...]
Would anyone care to say that this looks like a 'progressive collapse'?
And your subsequent posts made it clear you did not think it was a progressive collapse.
It doesn't look like a progressive collapse if a progressive collapse is what you've been showing in your controlled demolition videos. What you've been showing in your controlled demolition videos is controlled demolitions.
What about the two large vertical plume ejections from the tower in the photo at the head of this thread? What causes that? Collapse?
Last edited by a moderator:
You can clearly see how those shapes form here. They are formed by the collapse.
Right
..night
You'll never change your mind - you're still harping about Newton's laws not being relevant but you've also referred to them numerous times over the course of the debate to back your points. You've been openly shown to contradict yourself over this, but can't bring yourself to put your hands up and admit when you've been caught. And that you are wrong about that. Instead you make silly excuses; you're trying to say black is white when everyone can see it's black. And now you'll likely make some faux appeal to authority (you don't have) and tell everyone that I don't know what I'm saying. More black is white. No, you won't change your mind and that's one big difference between us - I don't change my mind all the time, but I am able to, and do change my ideas because my mind is not closed to possibilities where yours is. Like I've always said: I don't have a theory. Why? Because there's not enough information available to base a plausible theory on. You disagree because you are so sure of what happened, you've got it all sewn up and you won't move your position because you're too invested in 'the world according to Mick - and any government agency that comes along'. You've got your faith in the official narrative and you're going to keep it come hell or high water. Just like a lawyer, you have your advocate position and you're going to see it through to the bitter end - no matter how much you pretend to take a 'scientific' approach, the opposite is clear.
How about you. Seing as the video above shows the photo IS consistent with progressive collapse, then would you change your mind at all?
Me? Like I said, I do change my mind because it's not clear what the truth is. You make statements like the video above shows the photo IS consistent with progressive collapse when it isn't.
I've asked this a good few times, maybe ten or more: Show me an example of a 'progressive collapse' which is not a controlled demolition.
There are none that I know of that involve the total collapse of a building. But that's not the issue here. The issue is if the photo could be described as showing progressive collapse. Since it resembles the verinage demolitions, then I'd say yes (but I'm no expert, why don't you ask one).
So I'd happily explore the argument that the WTC towers were destroyed by verinage, if that's where you want to go. I mean, they certainly don't look or sound like they were destroyed by conventional controlled demolition, do they? Other than the damage from the plane impacts and the subsequent fires, I'd say it looks just like a controlled verinage demolition. So that must be it?
Hmm. So, what is a progressive collapse? How might it be defined in a sentence, or maybe two?
[FONT=Courier New,Courier,Monaco]
[/FONT]
What would you say about this graphic?
[/FONT]What would you say about this graphic?
Last edited by a moderator:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse
A building undergoes progressive collapse when a primary structural element fails, resulting in the failure of adjoining structural elements, which in turn causes further structural failure, similar to a house of cards.
I doubt very much that's true. Any of it. You've already indicated you accept the official reports and websites such as 911myths and debunking911 (btw, do you subscribe to Popular Mechanics?), but now the need to 'explore' something you've already dismissed?
There are three straightforward questions for you.
And a fourth: So the term is only applied to controlled demolitions, as you say: There are none that I know of that involve the total collapse of a building?
What would you say about this graphic?
I'd concur with this post:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread208023/pg1
The thread goes into more detail. The original image comes from a rather inaccurate BBC story, obviously cobbled together just two days after the collapse. They use the term "melted" when "weakened" is really what they are talking about. BU they do describe it as a steel core with concrete covering, which is roughly accurate, but not the "reinforced concrete" the graphic artist ended up drawing.There is not much anyone can say about that picture except that it is wrong. Not just plain wrong, either, but spectacularly and stupidly wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm
Steel-core design
The building's design was standard in the 1960s, when construction began on what was then the world's tallest building. At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells.Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel uprights, forming the building's outer wall.
All the steel was covered in concrete to guarantee firefighters a minimum period of one or two hours in which they could operate - although aviation fuel would have driven the fire to higher-than-normal temperatures. The floors were also concrete.
What has this to do with progressive collapse?
Last edited:
No, but I've read their debunking, and it seems reasonable.
I never said it only applies to controlled demolitions. The wikipedia page lists several progressive collapses, a few of them are total (I did not know of them before reading the article).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse
Some relevant examples:
On November 1, 1966, the 7 story University of Aberdeen Zoology Department building in Aberdeen, Scotland suffered a total collapse while under construction. The collapse was attributed to poor girder welds that were weakened by metal fatigue. The metal fatigue was induced by oscillating lateral forces on the structure (primarily wind). 5 people were killed and 3 others were injured. The building was asteel-frame design and the first known example of the total progressive collapse of a steel-framed building.[2]
On March 15, 1986, the 6 story Hotel New World in Little India, Singapore collapsed due to a design error when the structural engineer forgot to add the buildings dead load (the weight of the building itself) to his calculations when determining how strong he needed to make the support pillars that held up the building during its construction in 1971.[6] 33 people were killed and 17 others were injured. The building was a steel-reinforced concrete design.
On March 2, 1973, the 26 story Skyline Towers Building in Fairfax County, Virginia collapsed as a result of wooden shoring being removed too soon from an upper-story floor during construction. 14 people were killed and 34 others were injured. The tower was a steel-reinforced concrete design.
I'm really not that interested in ATS for various reasons, and I'd really prefer your own words as you're perfectly able. However, the commenter you quote is absolutely correct. I also concur. Is this a first?!
I suspect the difficulties will arrive shortly: a rather inaccurate BBC story, obviously cobbled together just two days after the collapse. They use the term "melted" when "weakened" is really what they are talking about. BU they do describe it as a steel core with concrete covering, which is roughly accurate, but not the "reinforced concrete" the graphic artist ended up drawing... add to all that that they couldn't describe a column as a column, but as a beam; and that the scale is completely wrong; and that the words are emotive (as well as inaccurate) and you've got a serious bit of evidence for hype. If this was presented on a website, I doubt you'd be so charitable as to describe it as 'rather inaccurate' or 'cobbled together' as any excuse for this. It's disgraceful - and you are too kind to them. The BBC. Why?
they do describe it as a steel core with concrete covering, which is roughly accurate, but not the "reinforced concrete" the graphic artist ended up drawing
It is accurate. The r/c the 'artist' (producer?) drew was not right at all, I agree. But please don't try to say, or imply by omission, that the concrete in the core was not steel reinforced - it wouldn't be anything other.
I'm feeling conciliatory, but we can go back to the Windsor Tower any time you like.
Come on. Leave these out of it. These aren't comparable because they're all the result of poor practice or workmanship/design faults. The towers were superbly structured.
They were referring to concrete being used as a fireproof coating for the steel core.
All the steel was covered in concrete to guarantee firefighters a minimum period of one or two hours in which they could operate - although aviation fuel would have driven the fire to higher-than-normal temperatures. The floors were also concrete.
I would not be surprised if there there was steel-reinforced concrete in the WTC. But the elements that failed that initiated the collapse were steel girders coated in concrete or some other form of fireproofing, which is not the same thing at all.
What were the RC elements? How are they relevant?
Well, you did not specifically ask about "superbly structured" buildings collapsing.
The WTC tower collapses were a unique set of events. They were unique buildings. Very few planes had flow into buildings before. The lack of comparables here is hardly surprising.
Some of this is contrary to what you've previously said in regard to the construction of the towers.
When you say: steel girders coated in concrete or some other form of fireproofing what do you mean? Are you talking about spray-on cementitious fireproofing?
I would not be surprised if there there was steel-reinforced concrete in the WTC Come on mate. You wouldn't be surprised because you know the towers were by volume mostly steel r/c.
the elements that failed that initiated the collapse were steel girders coated in concrete or some other form of fireproofing, which is not the same thing at all. Which steel girders initiated the collapse, I forget
I was just referring to what the BBC said. I know the trusses had spray on fireproofing. I'm not sure what type of fireproofing the central columns had.
No, I genuinely do not know that. I know they had concrete slab floors, but I don't think they are considered reinforced, as they just sit on corrugated steel on top of the trusses. Where is the RC?
The floor trusses, and the central support columns (which were box girder assemblages)
Ok. There was about an acre of concrete slab per floor, I'm sure you know that. What you need to consider is all the possible flex of the building in terms of lateral loads, torsion, all that. Concrete will help stiffen the join between the two tubes of the inner core and the outer perimeter, and in turn the whole structure, but it wouldn't last five minutes without some reinforcing mesh in it. Quite simply, you couldn't pour a concrete slab of 10 square metres at 4 inches and expect it to have any kind of longevity - put some A393 mesh in it though, and it's nails. Concrete without steel reinforcement in poured slabs at that thickness is prone to crack and fail pretty quickly.
- Status
Similar threads
