But the beams are trusses. In a spaceframe, which is what they are, beams and trusses are one and the same (although some could argue that convention uses beams as bending and trusses as purely tension and compression, but they can shut up )
Yes, but you used reason, logic and proof. These are not welcome here. You should know this by now.. anyone who speaks the truth and debunks a conspiracy theory will be summarily ignored. Duh. When will you learn? Worst case scenario, he will just skip on to the next previously-debunked theory.. like Boris, up there.
I've unsubscribed from this thread but unfortunately I can't ignore it. Aside from my mod duties, I am irresistibly drawn to witness the utter stupidity of these religious conspirologists, who in the face of overwhelming common sense and reason persist in believing things that wholly defy logic. It's a sad reflection on human nature that this level of idiocy can exist in a world where, elsewhere and in other peoples' lives, such amazing things are achieved.
Lol, I've got a math quiz in two hours and a physics test in 6 so I'll be on here very little throughout the day as well. I will say, though, that a computer generated image should not be discounted just because it's computer generated. If that were the case all of modern science would be useless. It's still a diagram of how the structure was built.
We're in the same boat. I have SO MUCH WORK TO DO for Aero, and yet I'm drawn back here all the time, even though I keep promising myself I'll ignore this thread. Glad to know that SOMEONE sees the logic in my posts... I was starting to think maybe I didn't know what logic was.
An interesting question, but then you'd be losing your religion.
The center of the controversy is the claim that it wasn't planes that destroyed the WTC and the Pentagon. That is what the conspiracists have been hammering on for 7 years. If you forget controlled demo, you end up with the "official" explanation except that the government knew about it and didn't stop it. An entirely different discussion, and a complete change of course.
Sam, do you have to be so patronizing and insulting? You're the only one I've seen that apparently feels the need to patronize and insult people in this thread, albeit in an eloquent manner. I've only been following this thread for the last 5 or so pages, but everyone else seems to be discussing things without putting other people down. I understand that you believe certain things to be true, but that doesn't mean you have the right to be so condescending (sp?) towards people who believe different things, no matter how silly or impossible they may seem. The things you believe in seem just as silly to them, yet they're not calling you and 'stang idiots.
Reasonable people have heard and dismissed the conspirologists claims long ago. The reason this thread is still running is because of the few people who not only don't believe the 911truth movement's lies, but have a veracious nature. The desire to expose a lie is too great.
That's you, me, Tristan and wsinda at the moment. There have been others in the past, and will probably be more in the future.. but at the moment, this thread lives because of us and not because of any value in the conspiracy religion.
We will finish up leaving this thread behind, and stupidity will be allowed to prevail. It doesn't matter that we are right and the loonies are loonies. You can tell them the truth and prove that they are being lied to til you're blue in the face, but you can't give them what they want, because it is not the truth that they are seeking.
I think I said this before in this thread a year ago.. you can lead a horse to water, but you can't change the fact that it has a brain the size of a walnut.
It's not idiocy. If one man believes in a conspiracy he is called paranoid, if millions of people believe it, it is called religion.
Afaik 30% of the US population believes in a conspiracy. As Juls pointed out, such a massive following can be harmful for a country. It's important to know how this works in the human psyche. If you google you can read some interesting articles about it.
It's not in my nature to pretend that a lie is not a lie. Perhaps I am patronising and condescending, and perhaps you should report me for it. Something in me forces me to look down on foolishness in a disparaging fashion, but if you think it's worthy of a report, hit that button. I've never found it easy to accept that people have a right to spread faux-truths, and perhaps that's a failing in me. I don't find it easy to ignore deliberate and malignant ignorance. I never have, and I can't see it changing any time soon.
Hmmm... ok. I just popped back quickly to see any responses and well, the responses are clear. I'm not taking this insulting attitude any more, I'll believe what I know is right, not what I think is right.
You believe what you lads want. No need to be insulting.
Lol. Alright there. You go ahead and believe what you KNOW is right based on proof that we KNOW is wrong.
It really is pointless isn't it. I dunno how anyone else feels, but the fact that you can't make some people understand just makes we want to strangle something right now.
We should get Bill Gates to pay for the building of another WTC and then crash two aircraft into them in exactly the same spot and just lay everything to rest once and for all.
If you know that you are right about any of the BS that has spewed from your keyboard, then you must have some proof (other than speculation and conspiracy sites).... may I see it, please? The second part better explains your stance... you think that you are right. (how someone could be so foolish is beyond me)
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
Yes we should, and until then no need to be insulting, what's up with that? I find this an interesting subject, i may not have a PHD in engineerance or anything, but we can discuss it in polite manner.. So, people who believe it's not all what it seems are stupid?
Ok, Sam, enlighten us with your IQ of 250, where is the footage of the plane hiting the Pentagon, haven't they knew these terrorists exist, why did 9/11 had to happen for them to invade those evil countries? Where is that WMD? Why do they have to put their finger in EVERY single war and make war out of nothing, they just CAN'T WAIT to test their uber weapons and their B52's and F117's..
Was Vietnam neccessary, was Iraq necessary? Do Iraqis live better now?
I understand that we can never know the thruth through this topic, but we can discuss it with evidence and keep it interesting, no need to be insulting...
No. If you believe something else happened, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. But U4IK ST8 offers NOTHING in the way of solid evidence to support any of his claims.
His argument is "Well, how do YOU know they used small bolts. That would be stupid. I'm sure they wouldn't have done that."
THAT is the kind of thing that makes him stupid. What he is trying to do there is use his [nonexistant] knowledge of how HE would build something based on his [uneducated] thoughts on skyscraper construction to rebuff an argument that I made knowing full well HOW the building was built as well as well as having at least a basic understanding of materials and processes involved in the construction of anything.
So, the stupid part comes from the fact that he's... being stupid. You can't argue against facts unless you can present... "counter-facts" which he doesn't do. He provides "counter-guesses."
All his sources and photos are taken from those conspiracy sites. When I was looking for my photos, I went to Google and tried to find the best photos I could that were on neither side of the fence. You can't offer all your evidence from ONE source...
...if I did that on my college essays, my professor would call me... stupid?
The absence of footage of a plane hitting the building is neither proof nor even evidence that a plane did not hit the building. You don't need an IQ of 80 to figure that out. I also see people claiming that no planes hit the WTC, but I have seen footage of both events and watched one of them live on TV. I have to wonder how stupid they think we are. Obviously they think some of us are REALLY stupid.
I have seen a great many photos of plane wreckage from the Pentagon, including engine parts and wheels etc. I also have seen photos of cars on roads that were struck by streetlight debris falling as a result of the plane coming in at low altitude. I just did another simple Google search and the images are still there, available to anyone that goes to look.
I refuse to believe that you haven't also seen these images, since anyone with even a tiny bit of interest in this topic would surely, at SOME point, have done a simple Google search to see if they existed or not, and would have found them straight away. I have to ask, what is your motivation for re-implying something that I'm 100% sure you know is untrue?
And is this also supposed in some way to prove that the WTC and Pentagon were not hit by aircraft? I said it before, and you were there I clearly remember, that not believing in the conspiracy religion does not mean that I think the official report was adequate. You can add to that, that I also do not support the war in Iraq. Nor do I support the war in Afghanistan. Nor do I support Israel's calls for the west to go to war with Iran, nor do I support Israel's recent offer to kidna ... der of the nation of Iran.
Ok, I know you all knew I wouldn't totally leave this thread, but anyway. I'm also not going to get dragged into tit for tat shit saying you lads stupid, or you are all idiots.
Moving on....
----
All investigations into the collapses were not thorough and precise in their efforts to find exactly what happen all WTC buildings. That's a fact...
There are too many unexplainable incidents on 9/11 for anyone to just take the official word for what happened, if you find a thorough investigation, which explains exactly what happened to each floor, please show me, I'd like to read it.
Next, people here have stated things about physics and saying I have no clue. Fair enough, do you think these people have no clue too?
So, I'd also like to say that I based my ideas on the comments from EXPERTS who have done more tests than the "official investigations" have so how any of you can dismiss what I say I find it hard to understand. And SamH, but he's not the only one, kept saying that he doesn't have to prove anything because he's the one with the proof and I've to prove him wrong(something about double negatives or something), but actually I think you do need to prove it because.... if the investigations you are basing your story on are not indept and have not look at every possiblity then how can you, without a doubt, say I'm the one who need to prove anything. NIST haven't even looked for explosive residue and you said there are hundreds, which is obviously a blatant lie.
And next, these trusses, man... I can't understand your logic on this. Lets look at the 2nd tower to go, every single "truss", at every single point over the few floors at the impact zone had to fail within a split second of each other for it to collapse like it did. Also, if you watch it, the crushing piece(the top ~15 floors) reduces itself by HALF within the first few seconds. That is IMPOSSIBLE in a heat enduced, gravitational collapse. (First of all, the fires were not spread out that much on that many floors and second, the fires were not hot enough across that many floors to make them fail simultainiuosly)There's a statement, somebody prove me wrong, please.
Physics test in less than 3 hours so I'm just gonna comment on this.
The trusses did NOT have to fail simultaneously for the building to collapse as it did. The trusses failed one at a time over the course of the burning process. When enough of them had failed, there were not enough trusses left to keep the outer skeleton from bowing outward/inward, and that's when the whole thing went kerplop. So yeah - wrong about that one.
That is rediculous. I seriously cannot believe you truely believe what you are saying there, honestly...
Show me proof of this outward/inward bowing because all I've seen on this is an attempt to show it through a computer program, which can easily be manipulted to get the results you want. A computer generated animation which FAILED to show ANY core columns in it's animation/test. And it's impossible, yes impossible, that one truss at a time failed when it can clearly be seen that there was simultanious failure of the entire floor space, over multiple floors, so there's another blatant lie. I don't know where you are getting this information from but it is clearly flawed.
Nice, you study physics and you can clearly understand that a 110 storey building can be crushed/pulverised by a ~20% portion of itself? Amazing.... Read what the second structural engineer has to say in my previous post. And he is alot more qualified to speak on this than you OR I, OR your tutor for that matter.
That's funny because not one part of the official story, or any investigation btw, can destroy the statements made by the people I linked to, none. So, I'm very interested in hearing your response.
You go on like you know it all when actually, the investigations you base your theory on have been proven to be incomplete, so your arguements can't actually prove anything else, other than what the investigations have already shown. There'll be no new info from your next post, I can guarantee it.
I'm sorry to say that it is highly likely the trusses failed one by one, all within a short time (as one fails the stress on the others increases immediately, and causes more failures, which causes the stress to rise etc etc).
And, if the failure happens 20% of the way down the resulting floor collapse can set off the chain reaction of failures that leads to the building buckling.
Whether or not it did in the specific case of the WTC is, of course, another matter, but I have yet to see any credible evidence that that failure mode was not only possibly but, in fact, likely.
Edit: The nonsense they post about violating laws of conservation - are we agreed that the buildings fell within their own base in a relatively short space of time (considerably slower than free fall by the way; do the maths)? Even if (and I don't believe for a second this is the case) the building was damaged by explosives at the bottom of the building (or at several points across the top) then these laws would still apply. There would still be considerable structure to overcome, which would need to stick to the aforementioned laws. In short - the laws of conservation of momentum apply regardless of the cause or mode of failure. And yet it DID fall straight down, and it DID so in a relatively short passage of time. So, we are faced with 4 options
1. The building collapse indeed broke the laws, and we now pass this theory onto Lerts to examine as a scientific conspiracy to cover up the real laws of motion.
2. The building broke no laws, and the website is wrong
3. The building didn't fall down as seen by millions
4. You, yet again, prove that your lack of understanding of mechanics and engineering means that you don't know bullshit from plausible theories, and are taking entirely on trust that that website even has the vaguest clue what it is talking about.
5. There are no laws (but there are 5 options when I stated 4).
Also, the investigations you base YOUR theory on (can you remind us what that is again please) are MORE incomplete, and rely on stuff made up. Can you give credible evidence of YOUR theory that a 9 year old can't debunk?
Ok, so show me where you get this information from? Because I'm sure that not only I, but many other people looking into this would like to see it.
If you look at the second tower to fall, there is no way that it gradually failed. The section falling halved in sized in the first few seconds, explain that to me please.
At no point does a sequential failure have to take a long time. The trusses can fail very quickly, one after another, as the peak loadings once the inital failure takes hold are going to be many times higher than statically.
I got this information from text books, lecturers, teachers, journals, discussion and common sense from the last 20 odd years of me being interested in mechanical and static structures. If you wish to learn the information is available, and courses are probably run at your local college or university. At the level we are discussing at (which is very simple, all in vague non-specific terms) is pretty much A-Level sort of stuff. You don't even need to bring Euler into the discussion.
)
Worst case scenario, he will just skip on to the next previously-debunked theory.. like Boris, up there.
I find this an interesting subject, i may not have a PHD in engineerance or anything, but we can discuss it in polite manner.. So, people who believe it's not all what it seems are stupid? 