Connecting the Dots

[SanderO]

This seems to be the problem in understanding 9/11. Everyone embraces the ideas that when you connect the "dots" the picture emerges explaining what appear to be disparate and separate bits of information. This is often how crimes and mysteries are solved.... piecing together evidence... connecting the evidence "dots".

The zodiac is an example of a nonsense connecting the dots... the stars which make up Orion have hardly anything to do with each other. When view from almost any other place in the universe the pattern which we see as Orion would not resemble it at all. So there is no Orion... it is a collection of dots (stars) we connect because we choose to see Orion, the hunter in Greek MYTHOLOGY. Note the word MYTH in mythology.

There are many puzzles to be solved when we look at the events of 9/11. There are political forces and there was the technical events. Observers clearly seem to be selecting the bits they choose as significant and then draw connections between them. Some will call this cherry picking. It's not different than what the early civilizations did when they looked to the stars which they clearly did not understand as we do today. They were ignorant about astronomy and came up with astrology a seemingly coherent system made out of whole cloth. The underlying concept of astrology is so absurd it's amazing that anyone would pay heed to it. How do heavenly bodies influence personality and character based on the moment one pops out the birth canal and the geographic location on earth?

In the case of 9/11 there are so many dots to choose from and there are lots which are not there for any number of reasons. The missing ones we might call data and evidence. And when it's not there, we try to explain why we don't have those data. One common aspect of criminal behavior... is the criminal's need to get away with their crime. So the clever criminal will both leave little incriminating evidence, or leave decoys and fake evidence or evidence which points to someone else and definitely away from them.

Many who look at 9/11 as a crime expect that the conspirators were up to this sort of deception. They will then connect some dots in support of this notion and call it a false flag. They see all the signs of this sort of deception. Why? Just like the Greeks who wanted to see their gods in the sky... those who believe 9/11 was an inside job... a criminal conspiracy... look for the signs OF a criminal conspiracy.... You hear things such as ... failure to do a proper fire investigation or look for explosives... or remove all the incriminating evidence in the steel frame and so on. Everyone is trying to figure out which dots to connect and which are significant and which are not. Was the steel actually whisked away to destroy evidence? Or was it removed for some other purpose and sold for scrap? What should they have done with 300,000 tons of steel? How much of it should have been saved to study? How important was the recovery of remains as opposed to preserving a "crime scene'?

Houston.. we have a dot connecting problem. Choose your dots and it frames your beliefs. Or what also seems to be present look for the dots which support your beliefs. There are so many dots there, so many missing, so many confusing that dot collectors can building any story they want. And they do... and the stories will make perfect sense because once the dots are connected... there is a logical consistency to them. How could anyone deny it?

When you realize how lost this all has been in connecting the dots exercises you realize that it's all hardly different from the Greeks who needed to see their gods in the sky. They saw what they wanted to see... what confirmed their world view however good or bad it was.

Step right up and connect the dots....

 

[Menard_K]

This seems to be the problem in understanding 9/11. Everyone embraces the ideas that when you connect the "dots" the picture emerges explaining what appear to be disparate and separate bits of information. This is often how crimes and mysteries are solved.... piecing together evidence... connecting the evidence "dots".

The zodiac is an example of a nonsense connecting the dots... the stars which make up Orion have hardly anything to do with each other. When view from almost any other place in the universe the pattern which we see as Orion would not resemble it at all. So there is no Orion... it is a collection of dots (stars) we connect because we choose to see Orion, the hunter in Greek MYTHOLOGY. Note the word MYTH in mythology.
...............................................................................................................
Step right up and connect the dots....

The "collapse" of three steel framed buildings
is NOT mythology, and indeed the manner of said destruction is VERY suspicious to say the least.

can anybody connect any sort of "dots" at all & get commercial airliner at the PENTAGON?
REALLY?

 

[SanderO]

The "collapse" of three steel framed buildings
is NOT mythology, and indeed the manner of said destruction is VERY suspicious to say the least.

can anybody connect any sort of "dots" at all & get commercial airliner at the PENTAGON?
REALLY?

Why are the collapses of the 3 buildings suspicious? My response to 9/11 and I was in NY then too as I am now... was simply WOW how did those monsters collapse so easily? I really had never studied building collapses or seen one or had any experiences with such things. And I realized over the years that neither did ANYONE else. Buildings of such size have never collapsed before... nor have they been demolished with intent. Whatever happened was something NO ONE HAD ANY EXPERIENCE to reference. What they did have is all manner of PRECONCEPTIONS... such as why and how could a building stand for 40 years and then fall from fires.... fires which have been in other hi rise towers? They then jump to the conclusion that they could not collapse... from the proximate causes and become suspicious that something else was in play.

They then begin to look for what they see as unusual things associated with the collapse... unusual to them of course because no one has experienced a huge building collapse. They begin to reason by comparison to what they DO have experience with. This is where they get themselves done the road of belief and not science... of speculation and not engineering. Why shouldn't everything be crushed to dust and hardly bigger than sand and gravel sized debris when 400,000 tons collapses? What size should the debris be in? Why should we expect to see a telephone or a toilet? Why shouldn't the contents come pretty much straight down... organized about the center of gravity of the building's mass?

So much of the basis for the insider job is from the incredulity of what we witnessed as being possible without some sort of interference from the powerful conspirators who controlled everything. We were witnessed to discussions that the planes can't fly as fast as reported or that no one could pilot them into the towers or that it was impossible that the defenses could not stop the attacks in progress... that buildings don't collapse. Of course they do and most CD's are nothing more than collapses after enough of the structure has been compromised... they collapse... and they collapse straight down.

There was a stunning lack of understanding of engineering and physics by the leaders of the truth community who purported to be scientists. Take the claim that the steel was tested to see what temps it would fail at and, according to Kevin Ryan... the steel trusses did not fail from the temps of the fires they were subjected to. And this may be true. But did NIST test the effects of temps of fire on loaded connections? Did NIST conduct tests on the effects of warping of steel in frames from high temps? I don't know what these tests would show. But it seems to be that there was a lot more to test and examine than NIST did. And so we can conclude that their work was inadequate. But was it covering up evidence of CD? We can't conclude that.

The problem I have is that there has been no serious effort to lay out any CD mechanism and show the evidence of that by CD proponents. and after more careful examination of the structure and the public visual record the seemingly at first unbelievable collapses begin to make sense. The structure's designs were able to be pushed passed the point of no return and then they simply collapsed. The mystery is how was that possible? And that too seems to be in the nature of progressive failure in systems... which can sustain with some redundancy, but rapidly deteriorate and become overwhelmed and catastrophically fail.

"A cascading failure is a failure in a system of interconnected parts in which the failure of a part can trigger the failure of successive parts. Such a failure may happen in many types of systems, including power transmission, computer networking, finance and bridges.

Cascading failures usually begin when one part of the system fails. When this happens, nearby nodes must then take up the slack for the failed component. This overloads these nodes, causing them to fail as well, prompting additional nodes to fail in a vicious circle."

Perhaps it's best to look at the events of 9/11 as a series of complex system failures. The following was written about financial systems but it applies to All complex SYSTEMS. Buildings, defense, intelligence, aviation... even fire suppression.. and so on are complex systems.

"18 rules of complex system failure

This list below was on ZDnet and is a cut and paste job from this Brief Paper "How Complex Systems Fail" by Richard I. Cook.

In finance complex failure at the largest level is called systemic risk and it is what we are currently facing.

How many items below relate to a recent failure or proposed solution? (real estate, CDS and AIG, US DEBT bubble, stimulus...) the comments in parenthesis are my opinions. My own solution is a lo-fi finance approach.

1. Complex systems are intrinsically hazardous systems. The frequency of hazard exposure can sometimes be changed but the processes involved in the system are themselves intrinsically and irreducibly hazardous. It is the presence of these hazards that drives the creation of defenses against hazard that characterize these systems.

2. Complex systems are heavily and successfully defended against failure. The high consequences of failure lead over time to the construction of multiple layers of defense against failure. The effect of these measures is to provide a series of shields that normally divert operations away from accidents.

3. Catastrophe requires multiple failures - single point failures are not enough. Overt catastrophic failure occurs when small, apparently innocuous failures join to create opportunity for a systemic accident. Each of these small failures is necessary to cause catastrophe but only the combination is sufficient to permit failure.

4. Complex systems contain changing mixtures of failures latent within them. The complexity of these systems makes it impossible for them to run without multiple flaws being present. Because these are individually insufficient to cause failure they are regarded as minor factors during operations.

5. Complex systems run in degraded mode. A corollary to the preceding point is that complex systems run as broken systems. The system continues to function because it contains so many redundancies and because people can make it function, despite the presence

6. Catastrophe is always just around the corner. The potential for catastrophic outcome is a hallmark of complex systems. It is impossible to eliminate the potential for such catastrophic failure; the potential for such failure is always present by the system’s own nature. of many flaws.

7. Post-accident attribution accident to a ‘root cause’ is fundamentally wrong. Because overt failure requires multiple faults, there is no isolated ‘cause’ of an accident. There are multiple contributors to accidents. Each of these is necessary insufficient in itself to create an accident. Only jointly are these causes sufficient to create an accident.

8. Hindsight biases post-accident assessments of human performance. Knowledge of the outcome makes it seem that events leading to the outcome should have appeared more salient to practitioners at the time than was actually the case. Hindsight bias remains the primary obstacle to accident investigation, especially when expert human performance is involved.

9. Human operators have dual roles: as producers & as defenders against failure. The system practitioners operate the system in order to produce its desired product and also work to forestall accidents. This dynamic quality of system operation, the balancing of demands for production against the possibility of incipient failure is unavoidable.

10. All practitioner actions are gambles. After accidents, the overt failure often appears to have been inevitable and the practitioner’s actions as blunders or deliberate willful disregard of certain impending failure. But all practitioner actions are actually gambles, that is, acts that take place in the face of uncertain outcomes. That practitioner actions are gambles appears clear after accidents; in general, post hoc analysis regards these gambles as poor ones. But the converse: that successful outcomes are also the result of gambles; is not widely appreciated.

11. Actions at the sharp end resolve all ambiguity. Organizations are ambiguous, often intentionally, about the relationship between production targets, efficient use of resources, economy and costs of operations, and acceptable risks of low and high consequence accidents. All ambiguity is resolved by actions of practitioners at the sharp end of the system. After an accident, practitioner actions may be regarded as ‘errors’ or ‘violations’ but these evaluations are heavily biased by hindsight and ignore the other driving forces, especially production pressure.

12. Human practitioners are the adaptable element of complex systems. Practitioners and first line management actively adapt the system to maximize production and minimize accidents. These adaptations often occur on a moment by moment basis.

13. Human expertise in complex systems is constantly changing. Complex systems require substantial human expertise in their operation and management. Critical issues related to expertise arise from (1) the need to use scarce expertise as a resource for the most difficult or demanding production needs and (2) the need to develop expertise for future use.

14. Change introduces new forms of failure. The low rate of overt accidents in reliable systems may encourage changes, especially the use of new technology, to decrease the number of low consequence but high frequency failures. These changes maybe actually create opportunities for new, low frequency but high consequence failures. Because these new, high consequence accidents occur at a low rate, multiple system changes may occur before an accident, making it hard to see the contribution of technology to the failure.

15. Views of ‘cause’ limit the effectiveness of defenses against future events. Post-accident remedies for “human error” are usually predicated on obstructing activities that can “cause” accidents. These end-of-the-chain measures do little to reduce the likelihood of further accidents.

16. Safety is a characteristic of systems and not of their components. Safety is an emergent property of systems; it does not reside in a person, device or department of an organization or system. Safety cannot be purchased or manufactured; it is not a feature that is separate from the other components of the system. The state of safety in any system is always dynamic; continuous systemic change insures that hazard and its management are constantly changing.

17. People continuously create safety. Failure free operations are the result of activities of people who work to keep the system within the boundaries of tolerable performance. These activities are, for the most part, part of normal operations and superficially straightforward. But because system operations are never trouble free, human practitioner adaptations to changing conditions actually create safety from moment to moment.

18. Failure free operations require experience with failure. Recognizing hazard and successfully manipulating system operations to remain inside the tolerable performance boundaries requires intimate contact with failure. More robust system performance is likely to arise in systems where operators can discern the “edge of the envelope”. It also depends on providing calibration about how their actions move system performance towards or away from the edge of the envelope."

 

[Sphere]

Aren't truthers merely connecting the dots to form a hypothesis?
The prez came on the tele a few days ago in regard to Syria. He said,
"you've all seen the videos, of dead and dying children, gasping for air"
etc yadi. Is he saying we're supposed to form an opinion based on utoob?
That's what he wants us to do. The intel he was given was altered, and
he was shown the same videos we can see.
He's asking us to put two and two together and believe what we're told.
You realize that among three categories across sev polls:
1) You believe the official conspiracy the gov says happened.
2) You believe something else happened to bring down the towers.
3) You're undecided.
More people vote # 2 than either of the other categories.
Is the majority just more gullible then?

 

[mike2810]

Aren't truthers merely connecting the dots to form a hypothesis?
The prez came on the tele a few days ago in regard to Syria. He said,
"you've all seen the videos, of dead and dying children, gasping for air"
etc yadi. Is he saying we're supposed to form an opinion based on utoob?
That's what he wants us to do. The intel he was given was altered, and
he was shown the same videos we can see.
He's asking us to put two and two together and believe what we're told.
You realize that among three categories across sev polls:
1) You believe the official conspiracy the gov says happened.
2) You believe something else happened to bring down the towers.
3) You're undecided.
More people vote # 2 than either of the other categories.
Is the majority just more gullible then?

or there is a 4) option . that is people believe the hijack/crash/fire collapse. but just don't agree on some of the details in the OCT.

 

[SanderO]

or there is a 4) option . that is people believe the hijack/crash/fire collapse. but just don't agree on some of the details in the OCT.

How is it possible for people to have opinions about facts?
What can't all observers agree are the facts?
Which observations as fact subject to disagreement?

What IS the debate about?

 

[mike2810]

How is it possible for people to have opinions about facts?
What can't all observers agree are the facts?
Which observations as fact subject to disagreement?

What IS the debate about?

my point SanderO , some can agree on natural collapse and yet not agree 100% on the official report.

I was disagreeing on post 4. I think you and I are on the same page that it was not CD.

 

[Menard_K]

How is it possible for people to have opinions about facts?
What can't all observers agree are the facts?
Which observations as fact subject to disagreement?

What IS the debate about?

The FACTS are not so much the issue, We get agreement
from all sides that indeed WTC7 descended for 2.25 sec
at Free Fall Acceleration, HOWEVER the concept that its significant
that is were the opinion becomes critical. I KNOW that its significant
because you can NOT expect fires, especially fires of the nature observed
in the case of WTC7 to be a major factor in the complete & total destruction
of said building. Also in the case of WTC 1 & 2 note that the "collapse" was
a very regular event, in that as it happened all 4 sides of the tower were destroyed
at the same time, because if the catastrophic failure had a bias to one side or another,
the rubble that was allegedly powering this destruction, would have all rolled over the
edge and down to street level, leaving the "pile driver" with insufficient mass to
completely destroy the entire tower.

The telling feature of all this is the uniformity of the collapse events for WTC1,2 & 7
along with the fact that there was complete & total destruction of the towers & WTC7.

Note that for a total of 3 "airliner crashes" the aircraft hits a wall, penetrates said wall,
and the entire aircraft ( save or aprox 1% of it ) enters the building through the hole
it just made and then a huge jet fuel explosion happens but NOT until after the entire
aircraft had disappeared inside the building. REALLY people?!?!?!?!?!
what is going on around here?

 

[SanderO]

The FACTS are not so much the issue, We get agreement
from all sides that indeed WTC7 descended for 2.25 sec
at Free Fall Acceleration, HOWEVER the concept that its significant
that is were the opinion becomes critical. I KNOW that its significant
because you can NOT expect fires, especially fires of the nature observed
in the case of WTC7 to be a major factor in the complete & total destruction
of said building. Also in the case of WTC 1 & 2 note that the "collapse" was
a very regular event, in that as it happened all 4 sides of the tower were destroyed
at the same time, because if the catastrophic failure had a bias to one side or another,
the rubble that was allegedly powering this destruction, would have all rolled over the
edge and down to street level, leaving the "pile driver" with insufficient mass to
completely destroy the entire tower.

The telling feature of all this is the uniformity of the collapse events for WTC1,2 & 7
along with the fact that there was complete & total destruction of the towers & WTC7.

Note that for a total of 3 "airliner crashes" the aircraft hits a wall, penetrates said wall,
and the entire aircraft ( save or aprox 1% of it ) enters the building through the hole
it just made and then a huge jet fuel explosion happens but NOT until after the entire
aircraft had disappeared inside the building. REALLY people?!?!?!?!?!
what is going on around here?

In fact very precise traces of the movement show that there was not perfectly smooth acceleration at G... How would you account for that?

And besides... falling at or near G has nothing to do with CD. The twins did not show a rate of G for the descent... the motion accelerated to about 65mph and then held at that speed. How do you explain that?

Why shouldn't the collapse be uniform? The mass distribution would account for that. The main force was gravity.

You need to brush on on your physics. The impacts were exactly what would be predicted. When would you expect the fuel to explode? Would fuel air explosions require the fuel to be aerosolized (sp?)? What would turn all the fuel into mist? How and when would that happen?

The collapse of the twins was a ROOSD which gutted the interior causing the facades to lose support and peel away and the core to collapse from Euler forces. Do you know what Euler buckling is or how the slenderness ratio applies to columns?

Do you accept the concept of a cascading failure? A cascading failure is a failure in a system of interconnected parts in which the failure of a part can trigger the failure of successive parts. Such a failure may happen in many types of systems, including power transmission, computer networking, finance and bridges. Can you see that one thing can lead to another and the event gets out of control? Do you know the story of the Chicago fire? How did it start? Great Chicago Fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you get it of not?

 

[Menard_K]

In fact very precise traces of the movement show that there was not perfectly smooth acceleration at G... How would you account for that?

And besides... falling at or near G has nothing to do with CD. The twins did not show a rate of G for the descent... the motion accelerated to about 65mph and then held at that speed. How do you explain that?

Why shouldn't the collapse be uniform? The mass distribution would account for that. The main force was gravity.

You need to brush on on your physics. The impacts were exactly what would be predicted. When would you expect the fuel to explode? Would fuel air explosions require the fuel to be aerosolized (sp?)? What would turn all the fuel into mist? How and when would that happen?

The collapse of the twins was a ROOSD which gutted the interior causing the facades to lose support and peel away and the core to collapse from Euler forces. Do you know what Euler buckling is or how the slenderness ratio applies to columns?

Do you accept the concept of a cascading failure? A cascading failure is a failure in a system of interconnected parts in which the failure of a part can trigger the failure of successive parts. Such a failure may happen in many types of systems, including power transmission, computer networking, finance and bridges. Can you see that one thing can lead to another and the event gets out of control? Do you know the story of the Chicago fire? How did it start? Great Chicago Fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you get it of not?

One Question: do you buy it ... that is the statement that "Total collapse was inevitable ....... "
as published by the NIST ? do you are do you not buy it?

enquiring minds & all that rot!

 

[SanderO]

One Question: do you buy it ... that is the statement that "Total collapse was inevitable ....... "
as published by the NIST ? do you are do you not buy it?

enquiring minds & all that rot!

I do accept the concept that once the reserve strength of the columns at the strike zone was destroyed... they could no longer support the mass of the floors above.... that mass was more than sufficient when dropping of the floor below to destroy it and this rapidly repeated all the way to the ground.

The floor collapse did not destroy the columns... facade or core. But the collapsing floors destroyed the bracing (was the bracing for) of the facade and it could not stand without bracing... same with core...

So one it reached a point of no return those structures were goners... total collapse was inevitable... of course there were some columns which stood at the base... some to 14 stories tall I believe.

The collapse of 7WTC was likewise inevitable...but not for the cause NIST proposes... but because the load transfer trusses came apart and with them the core above them collapse and this caused the floors to collapse down inside the tower... pulled the first 7 floors of the perimeter inward and the 57 perimeter columns and the curtain wall came down as the last remaining part of the building.

One thing led to another... and there was no way for those designs to arrest the collapse.

 

[Menard_K]

I do accept the concept that once the reserve strength of the columns at the strike zone was destroyed... they could no longer support the mass of the floors above.... that mass was more than sufficient when dropping of the floor below to destroy it and this rapidly repeated all the way to the ground.

The floor collapse did not destroy the columns... facade or core. But the collapsing floors destroyed the bracing (was the bracing for) of the facade and it could not stand without bracing... same with core...

So one it reached a point of no return those structures were goners... total collapse was inevitable... of course there were some columns which stood at the base... some to 14 stories tall I believe.

The collapse of 7WTC was likewise inevitable...but not for the cause NIST proposes... but because the load transfer trusses came apart and with them the core above them collapse and this caused the floors to collapse down inside the tower... pulled the first 7 floors of the perimeter inward and the 57 perimeter columns and the curtain wall came down as the last remaining part of the building.

One thing led to another... and there was no way for those designs to arrest the collapse.

This is one of the ways that I express myself as being a "FREE RADICAL"
you see, I do NOT believe that "total collapse was inevitable ..... "
because there are so many possible alternatives that involve damage, but not
complete destruction. & I have a sufficiently open mind to be able to embrace
alternatives on this subject.

I have in several previous posts, attempted to explain alternative modes of failure
that do not involve total collapse & total destruction of the tower(s), however
nobody wants to even engage in discussion on this bit. so be it ....

have a nice day

: )

 

[SanderO]

This is one of the ways that I express myself as being a "FREE RADICAL"
you see, I do NOT believe that "total collapse was inevitable ..... "
because there are so many possible alternatives that involve damage, but not
complete destruction. & I have a sufficiently open mind to be able to embrace
alternatives on this subject.

I have in several previous posts, attempted to explain alternative modes of failure
that do not involve total collapse & total destruction of the tower(s), however
nobody wants to even engage in discussion on this bit. so be it ....

have a nice day

: )

What alternatives? How would the collapse arrest?

 

[Menard_K]

What alternatives? How would the collapse arrest?

The very fact that you ask that question, speaks volumes.

The "collapse" was allegedly dependent on the mass of the "pile driver"
and with so much stuff being ejected out the sides of the towers, how
can anyone be certain that sufficient mass remained, to form the "pile driver"?

 

[SanderO]

The very fact that you ask that question, speaks volumes.

The "collapse" was allegedly dependent on the mass of the "pile driver"
and with so much stuff being ejected out the sides of the towers, how
can anyone be certain that sufficient mass remained, to form the "pile driver"?

I believe that what was ejected through the windows was the contents of the floors NOT the concrete. The contents being ceilings, furniture and so forth. What you call the pile driver... is the mass of descending slabs... fractured.. not rectangular plates... but the mass of fractured concrete impacts on a slab and drive is down... also fracturing it... the mass is dropping at about 100' per second and so all the contents including the air between the slab being impacted and the one below it (and the contents) is forced out through the windows they over pressure shatters. 18,000 cu yards of air and contents are pushed out (like a bellows) at speeds of reaching 400 mph. This is a mighty destructive wind and pretty much destroys everything in the .1 seconds that it takes to drive the air out as the mass drops the 12 feet only to repeat again.

You don't need the contents to provide the mass to destroy the slabs one after another. Once you have 5 or more moving slab masses at 65 mph it's more than adequate to destroy the typical WTC floor slab.

 

[Menard_K]

I believe that what was ejected through the windows was the contents of the floors NOT the concrete. The contents being ceilings, furniture and so forth. What you call the pile driver... is the mass of descending slabs... fractured.. not rectangular plates... but the mass of fractured concrete impacts on a slab and drive is down... also fracturing it... the mass is dropping at about 100' per second and so all the contents including the air between the slab being impacted and the one below it (and the contents) is forced out through the windows they over pressure shatters. 18,000 cu yards of air and contents are pushed out (like a bellows) at speeds of reaching 400 mph. This is a mighty destructive wind and pretty much destroys everything in the .1 seconds that it takes to drive the air out as the mass drops the 12 feet only to repeat again.

You don't need the contents to provide the mass to destroy the slabs one after another. Once you have 5 or more moving slab masses at 65 mph it's more than adequate to destroy the typical WTC floor slab.

Getting a "chain reaction" of that sort going + sustaining it is a good trick considering the fact that if at any given floor level, the connections on one side of the tower failed before the ones on the other side, the floor would have to drop on only one side forming a ramp for all that rubble to slide off & down to street level. oops!
its a rather good trick to have a building suffer asymmetrical damage, and then "collapse" in a completely symmetrical manner. The fact of the completeness of destruction is also still a red-flag. and in the completeness of destruction, how is it that people comment on the lack of recognizable items in the rubble, no desk, chair, telephone .... or? after other fires or natural disasters, damaged but recognizable bits of offices & home furnishings can be seen int the pix of the aftermath, but NOT at ground zero....also, what magic made the hat-trusses disappear?

 

[SanderO]

Getting a "chain reaction" of that sort going + sustaining it is a good trick considering the fact that if at any given floor level, the connections on one side of the tower failed before the ones on the other side, the floor would have to drop on only one side forming a ramp for all that rubble to slide off & down to street level. oops!
its a rather good trick to have a building suffer asymmetrical damage, and then "collapse" in a completely symmetrical manner. The fact of the completeness of destruction is also still a red-flag. and in the completeness of destruction, how is it that people comment on the lack of recognizable items in the rubble, no desk, chair, telephone .... or? after other fires or natural disasters, damaged but recognizable bits of offices & home furnishings can be seen int the pix of the aftermath, but NOT at ground zero....also, what magic made the hat-trusses disappear?

Had nothing necessarily to do with the connections failing... any part of the floor system/composite could fail when overloaded. And considering that the mass above say any location on the 85th floor was about the same and if that mass dropped onto that location on floor 85 it would shatter it. And so since the mass distribution was more or less uniform in the tower.. the collapse would be more or less uniform and come straight down. And no it did not come down uniformly on each floor... sections of the floor plan collapse/destruction were ahead of others.

 

[Menard_K]

Had nothing necessarily to do with the connections failing... any part of the floor system/composite could fail when overloaded. And considering that the mass above say any location on the 85th floor was about the same and if that mass dropped onto that location on floor 85 it would shatter it. And so since the mass distribution was more or less uniform in the tower.. the collapse would be more or less uniform and come straight down. And no it did not come down uniformly on each floor... sections of the floor plan collapse/destruction were ahead of others.

Even if at the wave of Harry Potter's wand, you could cause ALL of the floors to simply disappear and all at the same time,
would the outer wall & core of the WTC towers simply give up and collapse straight down?

The manner and speed of destruction is still VERY suspicious!

or?

 

[SanderO]

Even if at the wave of Harry Potter's wand, you could cause ALL of the floors to simply disappear and all at the same time,
would the outer wall & core of the WTC towers simply give up and collapse straight down?

The manner and speed of destruction is still VERY suspicious!

or?

Yes if the core bracing was gone... 100% certainty.

 

[mike2810]

Even if at the wave of Harry Potter's wand, you could cause ALL of the floors to simply disappear and all at the same time,
would the outer wall & core of the WTC towers simply give up and collapse straight down?

The manner and speed of destruction is still VERY suspicious!

or?

So you find the speed of destruction suspicious. Many don't.

 

[Menard_K]

So you find the speed of destruction suspicious. Many don't.

The fact that so many people simply do NOT get it
speaks volumes about the psychological warfare going on.

 

[mike2810]

The fact that so many people simply do NOT get it
speaks volumes about the psychological warfare going on.

Yes, the CT guru's are doing a good job. You bought what they had to sell.

 

[Menard_K]

Yes, the CT guru's are doing a good job. You bought what they had to sell.

as I have said before, on the day ( 9/11/2001 )
it was OBVIOUS that the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 had to have been CD.

 

[mike2810]

as I have said before, on the day ( 9/11/2001 )
it was OBVIOUS that the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 had to have been CD.

Well its all solved and settled now. MK said "it was OBVIOUS that the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 had to have been CD." It is to be considered a fact.:mrgreen:

Then someone can say that on September 01, 2001 it was obvious that the impact of the planes, resulting fires, led to the collapse of the WTC buildings. It must also be true because its obvious.

 

[Menard_K]

as I have said before, on the day ( 9/11/2001 )
it was OBVIOUS that the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 had to have been CD.

I cite as evidence the fact that people have conducted tests where bits of concrete are
dropped from 5 or 6 stories up and onto various surfaces, such as steel, concrete ... etc...
and the result is always the same, the concrete breaks, but does not pulverize. WHY should
anybody expect that in the case of the twin towers there would be total pulverization of so
many tons of materials? Takes a LOT of energy to pulverize stuff, and once that energy is
used up, what is powering the "collapse" .....