Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad

[Gamolon]

Or why the lower more robust structures "provided only minimal resistance"-NIST

Let's discuss this Mr. Jones.

Please explain how you think the "lower, more robust structure" should have performed in your eyes. Can we start there?

Hello Gamolon, yes this seems to be one of the biggest problems with the demise of the towers that other engineers have, from what I have read.
It is the opinions that while the gravitational collapse indeed took place-
1) something other then fire initiated the collapse, or "kicked started it"
2) the times of the collapses should have taken somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-40 secs,
This is from the opinion of and a rebuttal for the NIST and the Bazant theories. From reading it, considerations were taken into account of the counter resistance of the lower structure, and its many components, the fact that the building was constructed with a degree of extra safety factors, and the fact that the lower parts of the towers were more robust, as it was responsible for holding up a huge amount of static weight loads.
I have also delved a little deeper, and found that there are also opinions that not a lot of explosives/incendiaries would necessarily have been required to kick start the gravitational collapse events.
For the record, the 9-11 commission has excepted that, the towers fell in about 10 secs.
I don't hold the theory that every single floor had to be wired, or rigged, as the planes penetrated a significant portion of the buildings, to provide a "projectile" using the kinetic energy, to use as a destructive force.
The question is, and has always been, what initiated the collapse, and why was it allowed to progress almost unimpeded?
As NIST said "the buildings fell, essentially at free fall" and "the lower structure provided minimal resistance"
But they proceed no further to explain "why"?

That's about the towers of course, and WTC 7, is a different animal, as there has been no rational explanation as to what, or how fires started in the sporadic places it did.
The fact that 2 witnesses were inside the building, and heard explosions, and were trapped in it, until finally being rescued, is also not taken into consideration.
Free fall being at first ignored, then admitted to, but not even explained by NIST is another mystery. Column 79 "walking" is not explained IMO, and NIST had to make a huge correction about the shear studs too...
All in all there are too many things left unexplained and the reports make for even more questions left unanswered.
RE: Another poster--
I don't understand why certain ignorant people want some sort of proof that there are any anomalies in the NIST and 9-11 theories, as there have been many documented articles written about the inconsistencies of the OCT version for a while now. In other words there is proof that there are objections to the OCT everywhere.
From the discovery of chemicals in the WTC dust, to the calculated collapse times, and the "inconsistent" testimony from pentagon personnel, as well as NORAD, as well as the Mineta testimony
There is sufficient "proof" of inconsistencies and disputes to warrant a new independent investigation.

Gamolon-How is it that Bazant and co. could come up with the collapse theory in only 2 DAYS, were it took NIST years to come to their conclusion? Most of the early rebuttals and counter views were established based on the Bazant theory, but have since been extrapolated on.


My question:

What creditable and indisputable scientific facts convinced you that the OS is one hundred percent true? Please post your creditable sources that cannot be undisputed?

Mr. Jones.

With all due respect, I asked you to please explain a certain aspect of one of your questions and you have gone of in 50 different tangents while never actually answering my original question.

I am trying to understand your line of thinking by asking you questions that I have about the way you see things. Going off in many different directions is not helpful. Can we just stick with one subject please?

Here is the full quote from NIST:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

So I ask you again. In your eyes, and based on what you have read or researched, how should the lower, more robust part of the structure have reacted to the falling upper "block"? Should it have resisted?

 

[Gamolon]

Also, you just said that the Towers were designed to support a "static" load. Once the upper block started to move, it is obviously not static anymore. Now you are dealing with an accelerating mass. You can break ANYTHING with enough mass and/or speed.

Bingo!

This is what I am trying to get Mr. Jones to discuss. Based on what was quoted above, Mr. Jones thinks that the more robust lower potion of the building should have resisted or acted differently. I want to figure out why and what reasoning was used to come to this conclusion.

 

[Gamolon]

...and the fact that the lower parts of the towers were more robust, as it was responsible for holding up a huge amount of static weight loads

More to your question.

This is no longer a static load.

These were designed to support dead and live loads place on the floors.

So I'll ask again of you as I have of eots. When that upper block descended, what structural components did that upper block it come into contact with first and what components would that descending load be directed to? What is the weakest link in the towers?

 

[eots]

Eots?

what happened to the first 2/3 of the core ? why did the rest crumble secs later ? where is the core in the seconed tower ?

Is this what you do when you have no answer? Ask derailing questions?

so you find these simple questions to be derailing ?

 

[eots]

...and the fact that the lower parts of the towers were more robust, as it was responsible for holding up a huge amount of static weight loads

More to your question.

This is no longer a static load.

These were designed to support dead and live loads place on the floors.

So I'll ask again of you as I have of eots. When that upper block descended, what structural components did that upper block it come into contact with first and what components would that descending load be directed to? What is the weakest link in the towers?

if your theory is correct we should see two cores from both towers standing not a small portion of one that crumbles within secs

 

[Gamolon]

what happened to the first 2/3 of the core ? why did the rest crumble secs later ? where is the core in the seconed tower ?

Is this what you do when you have no answer? Ask derailing questions?

so you find these simple questions to be derailing ?

You can't answer the questions first asked of you?

 

[Gamolon]

...and the fact that the lower parts of the towers were more robust, as it was responsible for holding up a huge amount of static weight loads

More to your question.

This is no longer a static load.

These were designed to support dead and live loads place on the floors.

So I'll ask again of you as I have of eots. When that upper block descended, what structural components did that upper block it come into contact with first and what components would that descending load be directed to? What is the weakest link in the towers?

if your theory is correct we should see two cores from both towers standing not a small portion of one that crumbles within secs

You didn't even answer the questions (as usual). I'll ask them again.

When that upper block descended, what structural components did that upper block it come into contact with first and what components would that descending load be directed to? What is the weakest link in the towers?

 

[eots]

More to your question.

This is no longer a static load.

These were designed to support dead and live loads place on the floors.

So I'll ask again of you as I have of eots. When that upper block descended, what structural components did that upper block it come into contact with first and what components would that descending load be directed to? What is the weakest link in the towers?

if your theory is correct we should see two cores from both towers standing not a small portion of one that crumbles within secs

You didn't even answer the questions (as usual). I'll ask them again.

When that upper block descended, what structural components did that upper block it come into contact with first and what components would that descending load be directed to? What is the weakest link in the towers?

that depends on what happened to the upper portion of the core and how the structural failure occurred.. something NIST was unable to determine with any certainty

 

[Gamolon]

towers standing not a small portion of one that crumbles within secs

You mean like this?

 

[Gamolon]

if your theory is correct we should see two cores from both towers standing not a small portion of one that crumbles within secs

You didn't even answer the questions (as usual). I'll ask them again.

When that upper block descended, what structural components did that upper block it come into contact with first and what components would that descending load be directed to? What is the weakest link in the towers?

that depends on what happened to the upper portion of the core and how the structural failure occurred.. something NIST was unable to determine with any certainty

According to you and your posted video, the lower portion should have resisted. Now you are saying you aren't sure?

Interesting...

 

[eots]

You didn't even answer the questions (as usual). I'll ask them again.

When that upper block descended, what structural components did that upper block it come into contact with first and what components would that descending load be directed to? What is the weakest link in the towers?

that depends on what happened to the upper portion of the core and how the structural failure occurred.. something NIST was unable to determine with any certainty

According to you and your posted video, the lower portion should have resisted. Now you are saying you aren't sure?

Interesting...

you asked what contacted first.. not if there would of been Resistance..of course there should be Resistance

 

[Gamolon]

if your theory is correct we should see two cores from both towers standing not a small portion of one that crumbles within secs

You didn't even answer the questions (as usual). I'll ask them again.

When that upper block descended, what structural components did that upper block it come into contact with first and what components would that descending load be directed to? What is the weakest link in the towers?

that depends on what happened to the upper portion of the core and how the structural failure occurred.. something NIST was unable to determine with any certainty

What does this video show?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rbfLLp7rBI&feature=relmfu]YouTube - ‪WTC close up of South Tower buckling‬‏[/ame]

 

[Gamolon]

that depends on what happened to the upper portion of the core and how the structural failure occurred.. something NIST was unable to determine with any certainty

According to you and your posted video, the lower portion should have resisted. Now you are saying you aren't sure?

Interesting...

you asked what contacted first.. not if there would of been Resistance..of course there should be Resistance

Resistance provided by what? What components would provide resistance to a descending mass?

Come on eots. Let's think this through. Explain how the lower block should have resisted. What components of that lower block are involved?

 

[Gamolon]

that depends on what happened to the upper portion of the core and how the structural failure occurred.. something NIST was unable to determine with any certainty

According to you and your posted video, the lower portion should have resisted. Now you are saying you aren't sure?

Interesting...

you asked what contacted first.. not if there would of been Resistance..of course there should be Resistance

Also, what happened to the upper block that supposedly "sank through" (according to your accurate video) the lower portion? Why is it not sitting intact on top of the pile? Are you suggesting that they used explosives to tear apart that upper block?

 

[eots]

towers standing not a small portion of one that crumbles within secs

You mean like this?

and what is that ? a small portion of the core that fell instantly

 

[eots]

According to you and your posted video, the lower portion should have resisted. Now you are saying you aren't sure?

Interesting...

you asked what contacted first.. not if there would of been Resistance..of course there should be Resistance

Also, what happened to the upper block that supposedly "sank through" (according to your accurate video) the lower portion? Why is it not sitting intact on top of the pile? Are you suggesting that they used explosives to tear apart that upper block?

that is a possibility

 

[Rationalist1016]

that depends on what happened to the upper portion of the core and how the structural failure occurred.. something NIST was unable to determine with any certainty

According to you and your posted video, the lower portion should have resisted. Now you are saying you aren't sure?

Interesting...

you asked what contacted first.. not if there would of been Resistance..of course there should be Resistance

Would you agree, that in many videos, you can see the side of WTC 2 bowing in? And would you agree that once those columns are pulled out of "true", they can no longer support the load? Once the upper block starts to move & tilt, columns are no longer resting on columns. Thus, columns are landing on floors. Which obviously can't support that load.
Is there any part of this you would not agree with?

 

[eots]

“The WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause….Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? Their current explanation for the collapse of the towers is critically based on an assumption that the insulation was removed from the steel in the path of the aircraft, particularly the core columns. NIST does not show calculations or experiments to satisfactorily confirm that the insulation was removed in the core.” [1]

—James G. Quintiere, Ph.D.

Professor, Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland

(1971-1989, NIST chief of Fire Science and Engineering Division)

 

[SFC Ollie]

“The WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause….Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? Their current explanation for the collapse of the towers is critically based on an assumption that the insulation was removed from the steel in the path of the aircraft, particularly the core columns. NIST does not show calculations or experiments to satisfactorily confirm that the insulation was removed in the core.” [1]

—James G. Quintiere, Ph.D.

Professor, Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland

(1971-1989, NIST chief of Fire Science and Engineering Division)

Interesting person your Dr James G. Quintiere.

I have to ask, how much of his work have you read? You see he doesn't believe in any conspiracy theory, he believes that NIST was wrong because he thinks the fires were hotter and were at peak temperatures longer than NIST says.

http://www.enfp.umd.edu/documents/QuintiereNATOFinal.pdf

 

[eots]

“The WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause….Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? Their current explanation for the collapse of the towers is critically based on an assumption that the insulation was removed from the steel in the path of the aircraft, particularly the core columns. NIST does not show calculations or experiments to satisfactorily confirm that the insulation was removed in the core.” [1]

—James G. Quintiere, Ph.D.

Professor, Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland

(1971-1989, NIST chief of Fire Science and Engineering Division)

Interesting person your Dr James G. Quintiere.

I have to ask, how much of his work have you read? You see he doesn't believe in any conspiracy theory, he believes that NIST was wrong because he thinks the fires were hotter and were at peak temperatures longer than NIST says.

http://www.enfp.umd.edu/documents/QuintiereNATOFinal.pdf

bullshit ollie



Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said




. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have


. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”


OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation