|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 10, 2007 3:33:11 GMT -4
How the weldings which attached the floor trusses connections to the steel pillars have resisted to that treatment ?Well they weren't welded on. The trusses were sat into connectors that were basically a peice of steel folded into a shape like a U. Those were welded and bolted to the columns. You are right . Visual description . 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/floors.html Initially (In the FEMA) report, it was assumed that these had failed first, basically unfolding and dropping the truss, thus leading to the idea of the pancaking causing the collapse. NIST showed that they had not failed but held, allowing the trusses to pull on the columns as they deformed and that the pancaking was a result of the collapse, not the the cause. NIST showed that they had not failed but held,allowing the trusses to pull on the columns as they deformed I am very interested to see the NIST reference backed with the tests. Are they include in the Cardington tests? a direct link would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 10, 2007 7:44:08 GMT -4
You are right .You make it sound surprising. I do try my best to get things right. I am very interested to see the NIST reference backed with the tests.Try starting hereAre they include in the Cardington tests?The Cardington tests were conducted with a standard Beam and Post building rather then trusses, the result was that the beams behaved in a similar manner as the trusses did in the NIST tests.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Apr 10, 2007 11:17:31 GMT -4
I think the most laughable part of this whole thing is that people really think this bumbling incompetent administration could pull off the most complex conspiracy in history. If this administration was able to so easily cause 9/11, why wouldn't they follow it up by planting some WMDs in Iraq to justify their war? The administration lost control of the U.S. public when they found no WMDs and they haven't had control since.
For 9/11 to have been hoaxed would be a ridiculously complex endeavour. It would have been an enormous risk to take (most of it being broadcast live nationwide) to coordinate all of the things you say the government was behind.
The events of 9/11, calculated by our own government, would have been like a huge rube goldberg machine. Everything had to work perfectly on the first try with no trials or tests, and even a single mistake would bring the whole thing down. With all of the scandals constantly being leaked to the public and the government's poor history with top secret conspiracies, it's pretty obvious the administration can't even take care of itself, much less undertake some mastermind conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 10, 2007 14:41:45 GMT -4
You don't understand. The gov't could pull everything off without a hitch, and without anyone having an attack of conscience and confessing - even anonymously - to, say, murdering the occupants of, say, Flight 77 at some military airbase. And if they tried, they would be ruthlessly suppressed. Everyone who would talk about it is ruthlessly suppressed, like Noam Chomsky. Well, until they actually start talking about it - like Rosie O'Donnell - or have been talking about it all along - like Fetzer - or simply want to casually admit it on national television - like Silverstein. Got it?
Of course, the execution of the plot itself was absolutely flawless - such as telling the BBC that a building which was still standing had just collapsed (the motivation being to make sure that they noticed the collapse of a 47-story skyscraper). Such techniques are far too subtle and advanced for anybody but laymen to figure out. And, like all good conspiracies, it was kept as simple as possible - for instance, to stage a commercial airliner crashing into the Pentagon, they simply took the airliner to an airfield somewhere and killed the passengers, then had a drone fly into the Pentagon, then strewed airliner chunks and body parts everywhere (afterwards, while no one was looking at the Pentagon), rather than do something complicated like actually flying an airliner into the Pentagon. They knew that dozens of eyewitnesses to the airliner crash aren't evidence; only solitary janitors in building basements count (sorry, add one more category to the Ruthless Suppression Exemption List).
And don't forget that anyone who doesn't agree with all this is a blind supporter of Them. (Unless frightened into silence and too lazy to speak out, thus earning an exemption under Clause #1; see above). (There are relatively few people simply paid for their 9/11 silence, due to overruns in paying off millions of Apollo engineers and scientists and descendants and modern-day engineers and scientists. In fact, the budget overruns are so severe that planting WMDs in Iraq got canceled.)
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 11, 2007 3:08:42 GMT -4
The suppression was subtle and brilliant and it worked, they had flags waving and guns being cocked all over the world, any questioning of the official account and you were a terrorist loving traitor. The media instead of looking at the obvious problems with the account of the attacks , which even you say were too much for Junior let alone Tim Osman stirred the mob into a whoopin hollering posse of Osama killin fury, just like on Blazing Saddles it wasn't until most of the props were riddled with bullet holes or knocked over that people started to see they had been fooled. The pipeline contracts could now be signed and the poppies replanted now that Hedley's men were in the town, they only wanted the fake one anyway.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 11, 2007 3:23:56 GMT -4
You are right .You make it sound surprising. I do try my best to get things right. I am very interested to see the NIST reference backed with the tests.Try starting here I have suspected there was a bone in these tests made by NIST And the bone is NIST have omitted to include the fire-proofing on the bridging trusses and on the underside of the metal deck in their tests . , See the specific details about why that detail is important about the sagging modeling in the computer simulation. in section 2.3 Floors Assembly Fire Resistance www.journalof911studies.org/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 11, 2007 9:32:10 GMT -4
The suppression was subtle and brilliant and it worked, they had flags waving and guns being cocked all over the world, any questioning of the official account and you were a terrorist loving traitor.
The media instead of looking at the obvious problems with the account of the attacks . . .
Please explain why the media in N. Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, Syria, China, and Russia did not call attention to these "obvious problems."
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 11, 2007 10:16:52 GMT -4
Because they've been suppressed - don't you get it? Just like all those people here in the U.S. who have been screaming about the eeevil gubmint conspiracy to kill its own citizens and put a trillion-dollar knock on its own economy. They're so suppressed that they can only assemble in public. They're so suppressed that they can only run elaborate Web sites and expound in print and over the airwaves.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."
Of course, 3onthetree and other CTs are using their very own custom definition of the word. In this case, I think, he's saying that the "you're-either-with-us-or-against-us" attitude is a form of suppression. I actually agree that it is a suppressive method; it suppresses dissent and debate, and it was effective at stifling Congressional debate over the Iraq invasion in particular. But decrying this approach is nothing new, and thoughtful indictments of it have appeared in the mainstream press from the beginning.
Also, it does not mean that anyone who really wants to scream bloody murder is truly suppressed; anyone who wants to libel the Administration for things they didn't do, rather than criticize their real motivations and actions in a grown-up manner, is still free to do so. And that's part of the problem. The conspiracy screeching, with its insanity about phantom demolition charges and disappeared passengers and depleted-uranium drones and planted airline parts, detracts from the many real problems. No wonder some people accuse the conspiracists of being government stooges paid to make critics look foolish. Not that I buy into that one, either.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 11, 2007 11:36:31 GMT -4
The Wall Street Journal had an interesting piece on its opinion pages yesterday about supposed suppression. Walter Murphy, a professor emeritus of jurisprudence at Princeton who now lives in New Mexico, complained that he had been subjected to abnormal security measures when trying to fly because he was an anti-Bush critic. Specifically he was not able to get his boarding pass at the curb and his luggage got lost. The article theorizes that he was randomly selected for heightened security and that the lost luggage was a coincidence. When he told his story on a blog he immediately received several comments of support along the lines of "that is so true - I'm sure the Bush Administration does this all the time to its critics." As the article points out: Full text at: www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009923
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Apr 11, 2007 11:57:49 GMT -4
So a primary directive of the Bush administration is to cause its critics minor inconvenience?
I think Prof. Murphy needs to get over himself.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 11, 2007 12:46:51 GMT -4
It doesn't seem likely, but it's not inconceivable. My point (other than the sheer self-contradictory and otherwise nonsensical nature of so many CT claims) is that the alleged "suppression" of 9/11 CT claimants (except for those who actually make such claims, oddly enough) detracts from the real issues, such as real incidents of "suppression".
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 11, 2007 15:59:29 GMT -4
I have suspected there was a bone in these tests made by NIST And the bone is NIST have omitted to include the fire-proofing on the bridging trusses and on the underside of the metal deck in their tests . , See the specific details about why that detail is important about the sagging modeling in the computer simulation. in section 2.3 Floors Assembly Fire Resistance www.journalof911studies.org/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf He seems to have misconstrued the report they did it seems do one test on half length (17 ft) trusses without SFRM to seem how long the trust would last but did another with 17 ft trusses with.75 inch of SFRM The main tests were done with full length 34 trusses with foam. wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf pg 72 - 75 These test were not used as a basis for the fire models
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 11, 2007 16:21:23 GMT -4
I have suspected there was a bone in these tests made by NIST And the bone is NIST have omitted to include the fire-proofing on the bridging trusses and on the underside of the metal deck in their tests . , See the specific details about why that detail is important about the sagging modeling in the computer simulation. in section 2.3 Floors Assembly Fire Resistance www.journalof911studies.org/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf He seems to have misconstrued the report they did it seems do one test on half length (17 ft) trusses without SFRM to seem how long the trust would last but did another with 17 ft trusses with.75 inch of SFRM Which was the thickness before the upgrade.The upgraded insulation was equivalent to a uniform thickness of 2.2 inch. The main tests were done with full length 34 trusses with foam. wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf pg 72 - 75 These test were not used as a basis for the fire models One way or another NIST dont take into account the upgrade of the fire-proofing insulation existing WTC condition. So the author is right when he said NIST used test which not represented the existing condition of the floor system assembly but were based as they were originally disigned before the upgrade of the fire proofing insulation of the floors assembly. As pointing out in section 2.3 Floors Assembly Fire Resistance www.journalof911studies.org/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 11, 2007 16:49:27 GMT -4
One way or another NIST dont take into account the upgrade of the fire-proofing insulation existing WTC condition. But did that upgraded insulation survive the aircraft impacts?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 11, 2007 17:03:07 GMT -4
One way or another NIST dont take into account the upgrade of the fire-proofing insulation existing WTC condition. But did that upgraded insulation survive the aircraft impacts? We talk about the fireproofing of the floor system assembly . If NIST have test them with the foam as mentioned in Lenbrazil post ,so they assume it was mostly intact.
|
|