911 Facts Consolidated

[rational]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Interesting question, to which I have no answer based on actual knowledge.

Guess 1) Maybe until the next serious storm to hit NY?

Fact 1) The building would be unoccupied and the surrounding area evacuated until the fault is fixed

LOL.
Seriously, I wasn't even considering environmental factors in that question.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Guess 1) Maybe until the next serious storm to hit NY?

I'm not so sure. Having been to the top of the towers and remembering the wind (prevailing) being quite strong, I doubt the workers removing the floors would live to tell the tail.

[rational]

Originally Posted by DGM

I'm not so sure. Having been to the top of the towers and remembering the wind (prevailing) being quite strong, I doubt the workers removing the floors would live to tell the tail.

That is probably true. I have read that the towers would sway as much as 3 feet at the top on windy days. (Someone correct me of that number is off.)

Also, to be clear, my question was strictly a hypothetical "what if".
I wasn't suggesting that the floors could actually be removed from the towers. For gods sake, some CT'er will take my question and turn it into some theory that floors were removed....................if that hasn't ALREADY been claimed.

[dafydd]

Clayton, when are we going to see the facts mentioned in the title of the thread?

[MIKILLINI]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Clayton, when are we going to see the facts mentioned in the title of the thread?

I have thought this thread should have been titled 9/11 conspiracy theories consolidated.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by MIKILLINI

I have thought this thread should have been titled 9/11 conspiracy theories consolidated.

Yea, but as we all know, the more you repeat debunked "evidence", the more likely it is to become un-debunked, then eventually stone-cold fact.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by MIKILLINI

I have thought this thread should have been titled 9/11 conspiracy theories consolidated.

Really, I don't think that has actually ever been done anywhere.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Really, I don't think that has actually ever been done anywhere.

Wouldn't the shear mass of stupidity collapse and form a black hole?

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

And this shows either staggering ignorance of, or wilful denial of, the clearly observed fact that this did in fact happen. Have you considered stopping making yourself look stupid for a bit and actually finding out some of the things that are fairly common knowledge about the events you claim to have noticed more about than everybody else? Like, for example, the core spires?

Dave

Yes it happened. With explosives.


Why haven't any of your thousands of engineers provided models the collapses?

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by DGM

I'm not so sure. Having been to the top of the towers and remembering the wind (prevailing) being quite strong, I doubt the workers removing the floors would live to tell the tail.

Who built the towers?

[Courier]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

No. The premise that somehow 1/5 of a 110 story building demolished the 4/5 of the building below it by pushing down through it is madness. Pontificating that obvious madness borders on ........

1/5th of the mass of the entire building came down ALL at once, easily crushing the intact floor below it. This set in motion a chain reaction of each intact floor being crushed by the mass of many floors above it. Each floor was designed to handle the static load of the many floors above, NOT the dynamic load of the mass above it moving down at the speed of gravity more than 10 feet all at once.

Its pretty easy to grasp if one has a basic understanding of physics.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Courier

1/5th of the mass of the entire building came down ALL at once, easily crushing the intact floor below it. This set in motion a chain reaction of each intact floor being crushed by the mass of many floors above it. Each floor was designed to handle the static load of the many floors above, NOT the dynamic load of the mass above it moving down at the speed of gravity more than 10 feet all at once.

Its pretty easy to grasp if one has a basic understanding of physics.

Two things allegedly fell, the columns and the floors. Apples and oranges. Yet there was no difference in the visual "collapse." What was it 20 seconds?

[brazenlilraisin]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Yes it happened. With explosives.

How many floors were rigged with explosives? What would have been the result of explosive charges failing to go off on, say, the 36th floor?

[Courier]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Two things allegedly fell, the columns and the floors. Apples and oranges. Yet there was no difference in the visual "collapse." What was it 20 seconds?

That doesn't make a difference. The fact remains that each floor was built to withstand the static force of the floods above it, NOT the dynamic force of 10, 20, or 30 floors coming down all at the same time.

What do you think should have happened when 30 floors came crashing down 10+ feet, all at the same time?

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin

How many floors were rigged with explosives? What would have been the result of explosive charges failing to go off on, say, the 36th floor?

Maybe one of your engineer friends could program a model to show how the "collapse" took place in about 20 seconds WITHOUT explosives.

[beachnut]

For the idiots in 911 truth, they ignore an attack by 19 terrorists, and have willfully spread lies about 911. Some spread lies to sell books (DRG), some spread lies to sell DVDs (Balsamo and the failed nuts called Pilots for truth), and some beg for dollars promising a call for a new investigation (Gage and his failed group of idiots who blindly sign up for woo). 11 years of failure as web sites remain spreading lies, fooling the gullible.

Robertson built the WTC, the structure, it was designed to resist an aircraft going 200 mph. The Towers also could withstand high winds.

Quote:

http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Brid...adeCenter.aspx
It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

The engineer who built the WTC towers understands why they fell, 911 truth can't. 911 truth believers don't do physics. No math, only lies.

As an engineer, I did a model and found one WTC to fall in 12.8 seconds. 911 truth can't do physics, they fail, using common sense they perfected in kinder-care, at the age of 5. Hope they didn't waste money on higher education, because, it failed. 11 years of solid failure, perfected 11 years ago - 911 Truth, liars who don't care they are liars, because they have no clue they are liars (except the snake-oil salesmen making money - Gage made over a million dollars from clueless donors).

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Courier

That doesn't make a difference. The fact remains that each floor was built to withstand the static force of the floods above it, NOT the dynamic force of 10, 20, or 30 floors coming down all at the same time.

What do you think should have happened when 30 floors came crashing down 10+ feet, all at the same time?

Certainly the huge columns would not react/collapse in tandem with the concrete floors.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by beachnut

For the idiots in 911 truth, they ignore an attack by 19 terrorists, and have willfully spread lies about 911. Some spread lies to sell books (DRG), some spread lies to sell DVDs (Balsamo and the failed nuts called Pilots for truth), and some beg for dollars promising a call for a new investigation (Gage and his failed group of idiots who blindly sign up for woo). 11 years of failure as web sites remain spreading lies, fooling the gullible.

Robertson built the WTC, the structure, it was designed to resist an aircraft going 200 mph. The Towers also could withstand high winds.



The engineer who built the WTC towers understands why they fell, 911 truth can't. 911 truth believers don't do physics. No math, only lies.

As an engineer, I did a model and found one WTC to fall in 12.8 seconds. 911 truth can't do physics, they fail, using common sense they perfected in kinder-care, at the age of 5. Hope they didn't waste money on higher education, because, it failed. 11 years of solid failure, perfected 11 years ago - 911 Truth, liars who don't care they are liars, because they have no clue they are liars (except the snake-oil salesmen making money - Gage made over a million dollars from clueless donors).

Did you publish it along with the data and parameters?

[MIKILLINI]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Certainly the huge columns would not react/collapse in tandem with the concrete floors.

Why wouldn't they?

[MIKILLINI]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Yes it happened. With explosives.

What explosives? You are certain of your statement, so provide the evidence of explosives. If you claim "that's what it looked like" to use as your evidence, then you have to take the next step and prove there were actual explosives.

[beachnut]

911 truth followers can't do physics to verify it take 12.8 seconds for a momentum model of the WTC to collapse to the ground - the floors. Why can't they do physics? Failed education?


Oh, too busy doing their job.

911 truth nuts post lies, they never do research, or math.

[Ape of Good Hope]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Two things allegedly fell, the columns and the floors.

Clayton, this has been explained to you before.

The columns and the floors definitely fell.

Remember, the title of this thread is "911 Facts Consolidated", not "911 dribblingly ignorant woo spam trolling exercise".

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Ape of Good Hope

Remember, the title of this thread is "911 Facts Consolidated", not "911 dribblingly ignorant woo spam trolling exercise".

Then stop popping in with ignorant spam woo nonsense.

[Ape of Good Hope]

Try to stay on topic, Clayton.

[brazenlilraisin]

Quote:

woo nonsense

Says the (converted) no planer. Some kind of narrative from you would be appreciated. Actually the effort would be, the actual narrative likely not so much. But you're kind of waving in the wind, alternately scoffing at and embracing stuff like mini nukes. We'd like to know what you think did happen; we already know what you think didn't happen.

[Bell]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Maybe one of your engineer friends could program a model to show how the "collapse" took place in about 20 seconds WITHOUT explosives.

Burden of proof is on you, Clayton. You say explosives, you have to proof they were there and how they brought the towers down.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Bell

Burden of proof is on you, Clayton. You say explosives, you have to proof they were there and how they brought the towers down.

Beachnut said he programmed a model of WTC 1 collapsing in 12.8 seconds.

[Bell]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Beachnut said he programmed a model of WTC 1 collapsing in 12.8 seconds.

So what? Got evidence?

[Captain_Swoop]

Clayton. From start to finish. What do you think happened? How was it done?

At the moment you are claiming random events without giving a narrative that links them together or says how they were set up.

[Mikeys]

Originally Posted by beachnut

As an engineer, I did a model and found one WTC to fall in 12.8 seconds.

A model! I assume it was scaled down. Did you scale down Gravity to fit with the new ratio? How about atmospheric pressure and last but not least those cute dwarf elephants? Forget it beachnut. It works only in abstract world. Keep it real bro.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Clayton. From start to finish. What do you think happened? How was it done?

I have asked that of Clayton many times. No answer will be forthcoming.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by rational

Exactly!
I have been pondering a hypothetical on this subject.
Considering the building in it's pristine condition, how many floors could be removed and the building still stand? For instance, if you were to remove the 70th to the 80th floors, leaving the core and perimeter columns as is, would the building still stand? This is a question R. Mackey can probably answer rather easily.

Originally Posted by GlennB

Interesting question, to which I have no answer based on actual knowledge.

Guess 1) Maybe until the next serious storm to hit NY?

Fact 1) The building would be unoccupied and the surrounding area evacuated until the fault is fixed

Originally Posted by DGM

I'm not so sure. Having been to the top of the towers and remembering the wind (prevailing) being quite strong, I doubt the workers removing the floors would live to tell the tail.

To this exchange Clayton responds:

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Who built the towers?

Reading comprehention is not exactly his strong suit.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by DGM

To this exchange Clayton responds:



Reading comprehention is not exactly his strong suit.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post

Quote:

I'm not so sure. Having been to the top of the towers and remembering the wind (prevailing) being quite strong, I doubt the workers removing the floors would live to tell the tail.

So you're saying that the wind was less powerful when the towers were being erected?

That some type of old wives tail?

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

So you're saying that the wind was less powerful when the towers were being erected?

Where did I indicate that?


Can you read what I was responding to?

Originally Posted by rational

Exactly!
I have been pondering a hypothetical on this subject.
Considering the building in it's pristine condition, how many floors could be removed and the building still stand? For instance, if you were to remove the 70th to the 80th floors, leaving the core and perimeter columns as is, would the building still stand? This is a question R. Mackey can probably answer rather easily.

[twinstead]

Yea. Clayton's the smartest guy in the room...

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by twinstead

Yea. Clayton's the smartest guy in the room...

Thanks.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

So you're saying that the wind was less powerful when the towers were being erected?

You don't even realise you just posted something idiotic, do you?

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by DGM

To this exchange Clayton responds:



Reading comprehention is not exactly his strong suit.

I think that's a large part of the truther problem. When you have a lack of education and intelligence then it's actually hard to understand what people mean when they write English especially if that English is technical or nuanced.

For example "any length of time" actually means for a significantly large amount of time and is easily discernible in context if you have a decent reading level. Mr Moore fails this again and uses his failure to dismiss a valid point. See here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=243529 post #9.

It's this complete lack of understanding that then reveals itself in the Dunning-Kruger effect , eg: I'm the smartest person in the room and avatars saying "I see dumb people".

[Locknar]

Upon review, this thread is general discussion of 9/11 )vs any specific topic)....a discussion best suited for existing 9/11 threads. As such, thread closed. Do not create any new general discussion threads re 9/11.

Posted By:Locknar