Fyziks 101 [Archive] - Page 2

jaydeehess

28th July 2008, 12:20 PM

Where did those core columns go then? Just like the original posts asked?

Did the bend and buckle inward? Did the telescope down into themselves?
:rolleyes:

Read my post above.
In slightly more detail yes, columns broke and they did so at the weld splices every 30 feet in each core column. There were NO continuous steel columns that were 1000 feet tall. During construction 30 foot, maximum, sections were brought to the job site and hoisted up when needed and welded to the section below eventually creating the 1000 foot tall core columns. Although in some aspects a weld is actually stronger than the column itself it is also the most ridgid part of such a column. Thus when such a column is bent it will do so smoothly only along the 30 foot sections, the welds cannot bend as easily and they fail.

Just give it up. You will never understand.

You need to retake physics.

You see, everyone here assumes the inner core columns and outer perimeter
columns magically disappeared, and the top section had several feet to
drop onto the lower structure.

Read my post above.
In more detail of the initial collapse; some core columns suffered damage or complete severing at the initial impact. Many of those damaged columns and some which had escaped significant damage had their fire insulation abraded.
Many of those were subjected to high temps that lowered the strength of them. This caused the core columns to creep as the load was transfered to columns that were reaching their limit. As floor spans failed lateral support of the core and perimeter columns was lost. We can see that the perimeter columns were bowing outward and that illustrates that the upper section was creeping downward which in turn illustrates that the core columns were sagging as well. The hat truss worked to keep distributing the load throughout the core and perimeter but at some point there was simply no more reserve to left in the building. One more failure, floor truss loss of lateral support, perimeter column or core column failure and the structure as a whole at that level could no longer hold the mass of the upper block. When that occured the columns all buckled/bent in very quick succession and at that point the gravitational force of the upper block would never be transmitted to the ground via the columns. If the columns no longer line up at the collapse zone the mass above the collapse zone is impacting the next lower floorspace which is only designed to transmit the gravitational force of ONE floor to the columns via the span to column connections.
NOPE!

There were only certain columns damaged, or broken.

Initially yes. Then others suffered weakening due to the heat. If I understand where you wish to go with this then you are assuming that if some columns remained in pristine condition then the building must still stand. This is pure folly. Do you then argue that if all perimeter columns were in pristine condition and only one core column that the building must still stand? If so then you have a severe misunderstanding of the physics, and engineering principles involved.

Normally, in the real world...when an object is in motion and strikes another object you expect to see at least one remain. If nothing else, the top
section of the tower should have stayed intact to crush the lower section. It did not.

It blew apart first.

Well it indeed did come apart sooner than the lower 80+ floors but I would really like to see some calculations that illustrate that the upper block should be riding down on top of the collapse zone like some hellish surfer.

Obviously as the upper block impacted the lower floors there would be severe stresses on the lower structure of the upper block. The upper block columns are striking the floor spans of the lower sections, but at the same time the lower section columns are spearing up through the upper section's floor spans. Once again we note that the floor spans supplied lateral support to the columns without which the columns cannot remain standing. After a few floors of collapse the upper block is much less intact as its columns have less and less connectivity to the floor spans.

Turbofan

28th July 2008, 12:21 PM

Actually about 50 m/s, and the BLGB paper predicts airflows of up to about 300 m/s as air is "Squeezed" out of the lowest floors. There is some support for this but it's difficult to prove.

9.8 m/s must be in reference to gravity, but gravity provides acceleration, not velocity -- at sea level, roughly equal to 9.8 m/s2.

This is a telling error. At this point, I heartily recommend you enroll in remedial physics as soon as possible. There appears to be no subject in physics with which you have even the slightest expertise.

I suggest you watch the videos and NOTICE the SQUIB(S) appearing within
the FIRST SECOND.

Therefore you can conclude that the speed could not have surpassed
9.8 m/s

Thanks for playing.

Newtons Bit

28th July 2008, 12:24 PM

I suggest you watch the videos and NOTICE the SQUIB(S) appearing within
the FIRST SECOND.

Therefore you can conclude that the speed could not have surpassed
9.8 m/s

Thanks for playing.

Hey genius, acceleration is a constant on the Earth. And it's also measured in m/(s^2).

Do you ever get anything right? <insert suitable smiley here>

phunk

28th July 2008, 12:25 PM

Compression and squibs are two different things.

You don't even know what a squib is. You're just repeating a word you heard from some CT.

YOu are trying to relate an object moving through a gas at rediculous speeds,
through much lower densities to a building?!

The air may be compressing around the shuttle, but it's not discharging
through a smaller opening.

I just told you, it wasn't a comparison to the buildings, it was an example of compression in an open system.

The compression caused by the collapse of the Twins would not cause
enough heat, or anything you're trying to relate?

No, just drop the shuttle talk, you obviously can't understand the point, even when I explain it multiple times, you keep bringing up the strawman that I was somehow comparing it to the towers.

I even tried to bold it for you, but it seems you, or someone with mod access
removed my post? How do you have a copy of it, and mine is missing?!

You messed up the edit and deleted your own post. I have a copy because someone quoted you before you tried to edit it.

Here's another that will probably get erased :rolleyes:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2006/orionheatshield.html

11 Kms per second vs. 9.8 m/s :boggled:

And now you're comparing a velocity with an acceleration. What school did you attend? I'd like to know so I never make the mistake of sending my kids there.

Jonnyclueless

28th July 2008, 12:27 PM

I suggest you watch the videos and NOTICE the SQUIB(S) appearing within
the FIRST SECOND.

Therefore you can conclude that the speed could not have surpassed
9.8 m/s

Thanks for playing.

Funny. All the demolition companies conclude that they can't possibly be squibs because they are far too slow to have been caused by explosives.

Hmm, who to believe... Experts, or a kid who thinks reading specs form a user manual is consulting experts. Hmmm...

Oh and nice assumption about the speed there kiddo.

A W Smith

28th July 2008, 12:29 PM

jaydeehess

28th July 2008, 12:31 PM

11 Kms per second vs. 9.8 m/s :boggled:

Oh stop TF, you are now looking like you have all the grasp of physics and math that Killtown does.

9.8m/s, what is that supposed to mean? 9.8 m/s/s is (nominally) the accelleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface.

So in a fall an object would be moving at a velocity of 9.8 m/s after one second and a velocity of 19.6 m/s after two seconds of fall.

11000m/s would be faster than the speed of sound IIRC.

Turbofan

28th July 2008, 12:33 PM

Hey genius, acceleration is a constant on the Earth. And it's also measured in m/(s^2).

Do you ever get anything right? <insert suitable smiley here>

Hey smart guy, do you know the difference between speed and acceleration?

I said the building could not have surpassed 9.8 m/s within one second!

Turbofan

28th July 2008, 12:34 PM

Oh stop TF, you are now looking like you have all the grasp of physics and math that Killtown does.

9.8m/s, what is that supposed to mean? 9.8 m/s/s is (nominally) the accelleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface.

So in a fall an object would be moving at a velocity of 9.8 m/s after one second and a velocity of 19.6 m/s after two seconds of fall.

11000m/s would be faster than the speed of sound IIRC.

9.8 m/s is SPEED!

9.8 m/s/s is ACCELERATION!

WHo needs the physics class around here?

Newtons Bit

28th July 2008, 12:39 PM

9.8 m/s is SPEED!

9.8 m/s/s is ACCELERATION!

WHo needs the physics class around here?

I think it's pretty obvious that Turbofan is just a troll who is trying to waste peoples time now. Welcome to ignore!

R.Mackey

28th July 2008, 12:44 PM

Hey smart guy, do you know the difference between speed and acceleration?

I said the building could not have surpassed 9.8 m/s within one second!

Nobody said it did. We're talking about the air.

If you take a floor pan 64 meters square, and drop it on another floor pan 64 meters square, accelerating at, oh, let's call it 6 m/s2, how fast does the air move to get out of the way?

Faster than 9.8 m/s?

9.8 m/s is SPEED!

9.8 m/s/s is ACCELERATION!

WHo needs the physics class around here?

You. Your comments in this thread prove it beyond any possible doubt.

Turbofan

28th July 2008, 12:47 PM

There were NO continuous steel columns that were 1000 feet tall. During construction 30 foot, maximum, sections were brought to the job site and hoisted up when needed and welded to the section below eventually creating the 1000 foot tall core columns.

Wait a minute...are you telling me you can't order steel in 1000 foot sections!

OH MY GOD? All this time I thought the tooth fairy delivered those columns
in one piece. You mean contsruction crews actually welded and bolted them
together in sections?

:cool:

Although in some aspects a weld is actually stronger than the column itself it is also the most ridgid part of such a column. Thus when such a column is bent it will do so smoothly only along the 30 foot sections, the welds cannot bend as easily and they fail.

What caused the interior network of beams to bend if the outer columns
were not bending upon descent?

How were they displaced so quickly that they telescoped down so that we
couldn't see them?

Did they disconnect and slide over, falling down elevator shafts?

I just don't get it. Here are some photos of the network of steel that
needed to break apart at rapid speeds and disappear:

http://www.911readingroom.org/jones/images/9-11%20Picture6.jpg
http://www.wtc7.net/store/books/wakingup/samples/docs/p2/site1099c.jpg

Also notice , there's nothing on top except dust. No large section of building
http://911review.org/Wiki/im/WTC_Demolition.jpg

http://9eleven.info/wtc_collapse1B.jpg

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/wtcexplodes.jpg

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/debrisfield.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/54_explodingVolcano_017.jpg

Nothing there looks like it's exploding huh?

Turbofan

28th July 2008, 12:50 PM

If you take a floor pan 64 meters square, and drop it on another floor pan 64 meters square, accelerating at, oh, let's call it 6 m/s2, how fast does the air move to get out of the way?

Drop it?

Sorry my friend, the top sections were never disconnected and never did
drop from a certain height.

You seem to think these outside and inside support columns never existed?

Try again. Nothing dropped.

R.Mackey

28th July 2008, 12:50 PM

And you believe this because..?

Turbofan

28th July 2008, 12:53 PM

I think it's pretty obvious that Turbofan is just a troll who is trying to waste peoples time now. Welcome to ignore!

Yup, typical GL move. Ignore the facts.

Funny how nobody questioned the NASA article when the noted SPEED of
the shuttle!

"But Mr. NASA Scientist, the guys at JREF said it's supposed to be 11 KMs/S/S."

LOL

Hokulele

28th July 2008, 12:53 PM

And you believe this because..?

Don't bother, Turbofan is of the Judy Wood school of the entire top section vanishing into thin air (dustified or whatever).

WildCat

28th July 2008, 12:55 PM

Nothing there looks like it's exploding huh?
Have you used your fyziks skillz to determine how much explosive would be necessary for your claims? And how they were silent?

Turbofan

28th July 2008, 12:55 PM

And you believe this because..?

I believe this because of the design of the towers, the NIST report, and ummm...
the simple fact that the twin towers don't suspend themselves in mid air?

Are you kidding me?

Did the plane cut all of the interior and exterior columns? :rolleyes:

Once again Mr. Mackey, nothing dropped. It was all connected.

R.Mackey

28th July 2008, 12:56 PM

Yup, typical GL move. Ignore the facts.

Funny how nobody questioned the NASA article when the noted SPEED of
the shuttle!

"But Mr. NASA Scientist, the guys at JREF said it's supposed to be 11 KMs/S/S."

I am a NASA scientist, and I also didn't see anyone here claim that at all. The person with acceleration/velocity confusion is yourself.

Grizzly Bear

28th July 2008, 12:57 PM

Yup, typical GL move. Ignore the facts.

Funny how nobody questioned the NASA article when the noted SPEED of
the shuttle!

"But Mr. NASA Scientist, the guys at JREF said it's supposed to be 11 KMs/S/S."

LOL

if you've got time to mock people then you have time to actually educate if you have the qualification you claim you have to speak of the subject. Please come back after you have taken the remedial physics classes. Clearly your perception of physics approaches Judy Wood...

R.Mackey

28th July 2008, 12:59 PM

I believe this because of the design of the towers, the NIST report, and ummm...
the simple fact that the twin towers don't suspend themselves in mid air?

Are you kidding me?

Did the plane cut all of the interior and exterior columns? :rolleyes:

Once again Mr. Mackey, nothing dropped. It was all connected.

"Nothing Dropped" suggests it is you who believes they suspended themselves in midair.

The impacts cut about 15-20 percent of perimeter columns and 5-8 percent of core columns, best estimate. The remainder failed after the fires. We have video clearly demonstrating buckling at the perimeter wall. Video also shows the roofline descending at a large fraction of gravitational acceleration. The drop of the upper sections is absolutely beyond any question.

Now, again, you seemed to indicate that the "squibs" were impossible because they were too fast. You claimed, in a roundabout way, that 9.8 m/s was the maximum speed of airflow after one second of building upper motion. Do you realize that the air can indeed move faster than building motion, if funneled, as it would be by the collapse of such large structures? Or is that also beyond your comprehension?

Minadin

28th July 2008, 01:12 PM

nicepants

28th July 2008, 01:15 PM

You got it dude. Just like the squibs show in the videos.

The Space Shuttle produces squibs?

You get compression? Wow. Do you get squibs too?

Compression and squibs are two different things.

I suggest you watch the videos and NOTICE the SQUIB(S) appearing within
the FIRST SECOND.

Please post your definition of the word "squib" as used in the examples above, and cite your source.

Thanks in advance.

Turbofan

28th July 2008, 01:26 PM

Video also shows the roofline descending at a large fraction of gravitational acceleration. The drop of the upper sections is absolutely beyond any question.

No, no. Let me fix that for you:

"Video also shows the tilt and destruction of the upper section before the
supporting structure descends. The explosion of the upper section is beyond
any question."

Please show me a large section of the building intact as the tower is
crushed for about 1000 feet.

Now, again, you seemed to indicate that the "squibs" were impossible because they were too fast. You claimed, in a roundabout way, that 9.8 m/s was the maximum speed of airflow after one second of building upper motion. Do you realize that the air can indeed move faster than building motion, if funneled, as it would be by the collapse of such large structures? Or is that also beyond your comprehension?

Do you realize there is a massive hole in the side of the building in which
the plane went through?

Kinda tough to create squibs with a 757 sized hole in the side of the building, huh?

Do you realize that within or less than a second the speed of the upper
section could not have exceeded 9.8 m/s?

I did not claim anything in a round about way...we were talking about the
speed of collapse in our discussion.

Stop spinning. Start thinking.

R.Mackey

28th July 2008, 01:36 PM

No, no. Let me fix that for you:

"Video also shows the tilt and destruction of the upper section before the
supporting structure descends. The explosion of the upper section is beyond
any question."

No, I will not let you. The above is false. Watch the roofline. It descends steadily about 30 meters before it is lost in the dust cloud, for both towers. In the case of WTC 2, not only is it not destroyed "by explosion," but it even retains enough structural integrity -- after starting to fall -- that it develops a kink.

Please show me a large section of the building intact as the tower is
crushed for about 1000 feet.

I cannot, but I can show you a large section intact after the tower is crushed for over 100 feet. The latter stages are obscured by smoke and dust, and we really cannot say one way or the other.

Do you realize there is a massive hole in the side of the building in which
the plane went through?

Kinda tough to create squibs with a 757 sized hole in the side of the building, huh?

No, it's not. Again, the "pressure" is a dynamic pressure, not a static pressure. The big hole means that fluid velocities on that side would be slower, by virtue of reduced pathlength, but it has no effect at all on velocities on other faces.

Do you realize that within or less than a second the speed of the upper
section could not have exceeded 9.8 m/s?

Yes. In fact, certain papers such as Bazant & Verdure and BLBG have quantified it in much more detail than your theoretical upper limit. Our observations are consistent with, and greatly sharpen, your claim here.

Stop spinning. Start thinking.

No spin to be found here. Just your unfamiliarity with physics, and rejection of directly observable evidence.

A W Smith

28th July 2008, 01:53 PM

Mancman

28th July 2008, 02:54 PM

Anyone care to explain how the top section of the towers blew apart before
the decent of the support structure?

Check out the stop frame analysis. Why did 300 feet of tower eat itself
from the top down, without the support structure moving? Where is the
mass to pressure down the 1000 feet of building?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop2.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop3.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop4.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop5.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop6.jpg

Nothing ate itself. All we see is that the top section has compressed by a few floors.

Note that WTC1 does not display this behaviour:
http://i35.tinypic.com/153652h.jpg

The difference is most likely down to the fact that the top of WTC2 met reinforced mechanical levels after only 5 floors of descent, whereas WTC1 would not destroy these before a drop of 20 floors.

GlennB

28th July 2008, 03:02 PM

You get compression? Wow.

Yes I do. So do you.

Do you get squibs too?

This would be a poor way to change the subject, even if you knew what a squib was. Which you don't. So .. no cigar for you !!

28th July 2008, 03:25 PM

I didn't know you could have compression without a sealed environment,
and some sort of reduction in volume while maintaining the seal?

But such a notion would negate:
- fans
- pumps
- airfoils
- shockwaves
- your namesake
and a great many other things

I suggest you watch the videos and NOTICE the SQUIB(S) appearing within
the FIRST SECOND.

Therefore you can conclude that the speed could not have surpassed
9.8 m/s

Thanks for playing.

The speed of air can change depending on the path of flow, and geometry, and compressibility, and speed (in the trans-sonic region). It does not depend solely on the speed of the moving object pushing it.

Given that it has been shown that air can be compressed without needing an enclosed container (which I assume you know now; maybe you should consider what you do not know before leaping to conclusions dependant on knowledge you do not have) and that pressure differentials drive air motion, it is a straightforward conclusion that the puffs of dust seen exiting the building in random locations during the collapse are the result of escaping airflow driven by the above collapse.

With the relatively small area of the window or vent the air is seen exiting from, basic fluid dynamics holds that the velocity can be substantially higher than the air would move at without restriction.

(On the fluid dynamics: A large volume of air has to move through small area. What is the only way it can do this?
Hint: look up the formulas for volume, area and speed)

By the way, has anyone noticed that Turbofan has a tendency to respond to rebuttals as though they address different points than they actually do?

pomeroo

28th July 2008, 03:49 PM

WHo needs the physics class around here?

All of the hopelessly ineducable idiots like yourself.

beachnut

28th July 2008, 03:55 PM

;3898151']But such a notion would negate:
- fans
- pumps
- airfoils
- shockwaves
- your namesake
and a great many other things
...

That is funny, the big jet engine squib; how can the exhaust "squib" come out the back and not the big giant front opening of our young Turbofan.

His name, as you remind me, debunks his whole big opening theory. Oops, he has no theory, Rob told us so in the secret forum of p4t forum, we are to have no theories, etc. Some animals are not as equal as others, so p4t have back forums for the special p4t members. That is why their traffic is down, you can't see the secret forum sections where the truth is metered out slowly. When will Turbofan see they are selling DVDs, and that is the goal, not truth, but DVD sales.

Squibs, the sign of someone does not understand 9/11.

Stellafane

28th July 2008, 04:09 PM

I think it's pretty obvious that Turbofan is just a troll who is trying to waste peoples time now. Welcome to ignore!

Yes, I am certain you are correct. Thus the perfect way to end this thread is to just let TF make one final comment, and then ignore it forever. He'll hate that!

And when he attempts to disrupt other threads (which he surely will, because this isn't about debate, it's about calling attention to himself) we can all just ignore him there as well. He will really, really hate that!!

And pretty soon, he'll just go away because no one will play. And then we'll see this is the perfect way to treat all trolls, that if they just get ignored (not treated nicely or meanly, just ignored) they won't come here any more because trolling is about attention and nothing else.

So what do you say -- let's make TF a test case, and ignore every single troll posting he makes. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't, but perhaps once and for all we'll have an effective way of getting rid of trolls with no wasted effort. And who knows? Miracle of miracles, perhaps TF will eventually grow so starved for attention, he'll actually try posting -- dare I say it? -- something meaningful!!

28th July 2008, 04:09 PM

That is funny, the big jet engine squib; how can the exhaust "squib" come out the back and not the big giant front opening of our young Turbofan.

Bolding mine.

Come on mister pilot sir.
Surely you've heard of compressor stall?
:p

That'll fire a burst of air out the front of an engine, won't it?
(And potentially lots more. Nasty things, compressor stalls.)

Minadin

28th July 2008, 04:47 PM

Yup, typical GL move. Ignore the facts.

Funny how nobody questioned the NASA article when the noted SPEED of
the shuttle!

"But Mr. NASA Scientist, the guys at JREF said it's supposed to be 11 KMs/S/S."

LOL

G-L? What's that mean, exactly?

The reason that I ask is because depending on the answer, I might have just won, if it means what I think it might . . .

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12532488e4c0b3a80a.gif

I'm just not sure which of the 2 possibilities in blue is where my bingo mark should be placed. Please help.

johnny karate

28th July 2008, 04:51 PM

Did it ever occur to you , that I'm ignoring you and your repetitive useless
questions? Same goes for some of the other members.

"We've" already tried to show this on MSM. One case in particular was
Steven Jones

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ayYXNo0i_Cs

You see, they (MSNBC) didn't have the balls to show the video!

You may also recall the original MSM news broadcasts from 9/11 (which
are archived) were pulled from public view!

So keep asking your dumb questions about why we don't go to MSM!

Your display of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice in this post is staggering.

You didn't even begin to address my question, and ignored the parts of it you found inconvenient.

Here it is again. Please pay special attention to the parts I've bolded:

If the collapse of the towers was so odd and in such violation of the laws of physics that a layperson such as yourself can perceive these oddities and violations merely by looking at photos of the collapse, then why hasn't any of this been discerned and/or revealed by a single MSM outlet, law enforcement agency, or investigative body on the planet?

Come on, Turbofan. Explain what special knowledge or insight you have that no single person in any of the above mentioned organizations seems to have. Why hasn't any investigative journalist or other professional investigator anywhere on the planet able to figure out what you did?

Turbofan

28th July 2008, 05:56 PM

when you post a still image of the collapse, you remove the movement and thus remove the evidence that it is not an explosion at all. Thats called being dishonest. in some clips you can still see the intact chamfered edge of the tower parapet as it descends into the plume.

jArCJc9QOJk

There's nothing dishonest about getting a still frame shot of a video.

It's not like it was edited to show otherwise.

That's a poor excuse if I ever read one.

As for this compression theory you (R. Mackey) are trying to spin; that's
not how a fluid or gas reacts in an open environment. The entire volume
would need to reach the same pressure before the windows blow out.

Differential pressure will equalize in an open environment. Since you have
a massive airplane hole on at least one side of the building, you will have
to overcome outside ambient pressure throughout most of NYC before
one floor reaches enough pressure to blow out a window.

Afterall, you guys keep saying the towers were 90% air :rolleyes:

Nice try but, Mr. Mackey wants us to believe a pocket of air can travel
across a room in a linear fashion just like a bullet! :rolleyes:

Corsair 115

28th July 2008, 05:58 PM

Because right now it just looks like your blowing smoke out your rear end. It's embarrasing, and honestly rather disgusting.And smelly too. Why'd he have to eat beans first? :D

Since you have a massive airplane hole on at least one side of the building, you will have
to overcome outside ambient pressure throughout most of NYC before one floor reaches enough pressure to blow out a window..I'm amazed you can't figure out what's wrong with your own statement...

Grizzly Bear

28th July 2008, 06:17 PM

And smelly too. Why'd he have to eat beans first? :D

I'm amazed you can't figure out what's wrong with your own statement...

physics and architecture are clearly not his field...

There's nothing dishonest about getting a still frame shot of a video.
It's not like it was edited to show otherwise.

No there isn't, however you are expecting people to interpret it in way that completely contradicts what the video shows. That's rather disengenous of you...

That's a poor excuse if I ever read one.
Whip out the irony yet again, that's what, 5th, 6th time today?

Turbofan

28th July 2008, 06:26 PM

physics and architecture are clearly not his field...

No there isn't, however you are expecting people to interpret it in way that completely contradicts what the video shows. That's rather disengenous of you...

Whip out the irony yet again, that's what, 5th, 6th time today?

Then watch the video, and you'll see the same thing. Focus your eye on
one point of the tower where I drew the line. Use a pencil to reference
the same spot if you need to.

It's all the same. Tough to accept the facts huh?

defaultdotxbe

28th July 2008, 06:29 PM

Nice try but, Mr. Mackey wants us to believe a pocket of air can travel across a room in a linear fashion just like a bullet! :rolleyes:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/warfare/60b6/

Grizzly Bear

28th July 2008, 06:32 PM

Then watch the video, and you'll see the same thing. Focus your eye on
one point of the tower where I drew the line. Use a pencil to reference
the same spot if you need to.
Unfortunately the video still shows nothing to indicate that the dust is moving 'up' AND out... I'm not sure why you are still at it trying to convince me it's doing anything other than falling. The only thing the picture shows is that the dust in the immediate vicinity of the collapse wake is being pulled down by a negative air current...

Tough to accept the facts huh?
For you maybe, especially with you're inability to understand basic physics... However since what I am looking at are already facts there's nothing difficult for me to accept

Arus808

28th July 2008, 06:32 PM

http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/warfare/60b6/

its also clear that turbo never constructed a potato gun.

Cl1mh4224rd

28th July 2008, 06:35 PM

Nice try but, Mr. Mackey wants us to believe a pocket of air can travel across a room in a linear fashion just like a bullet! :rolleyes:

You never tried that experiment I suggested, did you?

SezMe

28th July 2008, 06:42 PM

Yes, I am certain you are correct. Thus the perfect way to end this thread is to just let TF make one final comment, and then ignore it forever. He'll hate that!
Although (s)he doesn't seem to having much luck, I want to support Stellafane's call to completely ignore Turbofan but my reason, I must confess, is a bit more personal.

As I watch some of the videos one more time to rebut TF's idiocy, I can clearly see that he has no interest in the facts of the matter. But then the video ends and I stare at the screen thinking I just watched thousands of people die. Seven years on and it still hurts.

That these scenes get replayed for TF's benefit makes it worse. To revisit the scene of horror to relearn some important lessons is one thing but to do so in the service of stubborn, repugnant ignorance is another.

Yeah, sure, I could avoid the videos or even the thread. And I probably will do just that as time goes on. But for now, I join Stellafane's call to starve this ignorant person like we would a cancerous lump. And I choose the analogy for its accuracy.

Turbofan

28th July 2008, 06:43 PM

You never tried that experiment I suggested, did you?

Which one is that?

WildCat

28th July 2008, 06:45 PM

Have you figured out how much explosives are required for your hypothesis Turbofan?

Hokulele

28th July 2008, 06:46 PM

The weird thing about some of these threads are the CTists who are suddenly experts in a wide variety of fields. Fluid dynamics, Newtonian physics, aircraft maintenance, video technology, forensic chemistry, structural engineering, you name it, they are an expert! When you read the posts of the people examining their arguments, you usually see specialists (such as Newton's Bit or beachnut), or people referring to formally presented papers by such specialists. In addition, there have been threads in the past on how to recognize expertise, and for the posters here to list their areas of knowledge that show how important it is to determine what information and which sources of information can be trusted.

It's a shame that common sense is so common . . .

Turbofan

28th July 2008, 06:56 PM

WildCat

28th July 2008, 07:06 PM

You mean those same faceless people you quoted posting in all the same
threads?

They are super scientists, engineers, chemists, investigators, theorists all in one!

LMAO!
You'd have been better off keeping your "experts" secret. I mean, having a guy who thinks there's alien bases on the moon and secret submarine bases in the desert as an "expert" doesn't help your credibility.

Because, as has been established here over and over, there are no real FDR experts at the PfffT.

Porkpie Hat

28th July 2008, 07:12 PM

You mean those same faceless people you quoted posting in all the same
threads?

They are super scientists, engineers, chemists, investigators, theorists all in one!

LMAO!Spoken like a true ideologue.

stateofgrace

28th July 2008, 07:12 PM

LMAO!

I think it's pretty obvious that Turbofan is just a troll who is trying to waste peoples time now. Welcome to ignore!

Yes, I am certain you are correct. Thus the perfect way to end this thread is to just let TF make one final comment, and then ignore it forever. He'll hate that!

And when he attempts to disrupt other threads (which he surely will, because this isn't about debate, it's about calling attention to himself) we can all just ignore him there as well. He will really, really hate that!!

And pretty soon, he'll just go away because no one will play. And then we'll see this is the perfect way to treat all trolls, that if they just get ignored (not treated nicely or meanly, just ignored) they won't come here any more because trolling is about attention and nothing else.

So what do you say -- let's make TF a test case, and ignore every single troll posting he makes. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't, but perhaps once and for all we'll have an effective way of getting rid of trolls with no wasted effort. And who knows? Miracle of miracles, perhaps TF will eventually grow so starved for attention, he'll actually try posting -- dare I say it? -- something meaningful!!

Although (s)he doesn't seem to having much luck, I want to support Stellafane's call to completely ignore Turbofan but my reason, I must confess, is a bit more personal.

As I watch some of the videos one more time to rebut TF's idiocy, I can clearly see that he has no interest in the facts of the matter. But then the video ends and I stare at the screen thinking I just watched thousands of people die. Seven years on and it still hurts.

That these scenes get replayed for TF's benefit makes it worse. To revisit the scene of horror to relearn some important lessons is one thing but to do so in the service of stubborn, repugnant ignorance is another.

Yeah, sure, I could avoid the videos or even the thread. And I probably will do just that as time goes on. But for now, I join Stellafane's call to starve this ignorant person like we would a cancerous lump. And I choose the analogy for its accuracy.

Of course you are Turbo, goodbye.

Turbofan

28th July 2008, 07:50 PM

Yup, all of your faceless "experts" can post in every thread at JREF, but
that's OK.

When a member of PFT replies in multiple threads its a problem.

Feel free to ignore me, I wont cry.

Feel free to keep ignoring the original post as well. It shows your level
of expertise.

AZCat

28th July 2008, 07:50 PM

As for this compression theory you (R. Mackey) are trying to spin; that's
not how a fluid or gas reacts in an open environment. The entire volume
would need to reach the same pressure before the windows blow out.

Differential pressure will equalize in an open environment. Since you have
a massive airplane hole on at least one side of the building, you will have
to overcome outside ambient pressure throughout most of NYC before
one floor reaches enough pressure to blow out a window.

Afterall, you guys keep saying the towers were 90% air :rolleyes:

Nice try but, Mr. Mackey wants us to believe a pocket of air can travel
across a room in a linear fashion just like a bullet! :rolleyes:

I see someone isn't familiar with transient behavior of systems.

stateofgrace

28th July 2008, 07:57 PM

Jonnyclueless

28th July 2008, 08:27 PM

Yup, all of your faceless "experts" can post in every thread at JREF, but
that's OK.

And what was your real name again?

And what are the names of your experts at L3 again?

johnny karate

28th July 2008, 08:27 PM

Your display of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice in this post is staggering.

You didn't even begin to address my question, and ignored the parts of it you found inconvenient.

Here it is again. Please pay special attention to the parts I've bolded:

If the collapse of the towers was so odd and in such violation of the laws of physics that a layperson such as yourself can perceive these oddities and violations merely by looking at photos of the collapse, then why hasn't any of this been discerned and/or revealed by a single MSM outlet, law enforcement agency, or investigative body on the planet?

Come on, Turbofan. Explain what special knowledge or insight you have that no single person in any of the above mentioned organizations seems to have. Why hasn't any investigative journalist or other professional investigator anywhere on the planet able to figure out what you did?

Bump for Turbofan.

tanabear

28th July 2008, 09:35 PM

All this talk of 15 floors vs 95 floors needs to stop because it is just out right wrong. It wasn't 15 vs 95, it was 15 floors vs 1 floor, the floor that was being impacted into by the above floors. Of course in 15 vs 1 the 15 win and the 1 is crushed and now it is 16 floors vs 1 floor and again the 1 floor will lose and it will be 17 vs 1 and so on.

Continuing to pretend the floors below the floor being crushed contribute in any way to the structural integrity of the floor being crushed is either just outright stupid or disingenuous.

So let me follow your example to its conclusion. It starts of as 15 floors vs 1 floor. Then it moves to 16 floors vs. 1 floor. Then it is 17 floors vs. 1 floor. So eventually it will be, say, 107 floors vs. 1 floor...108 floors vs. 1 floor...109 floors vs 1 floor...then were are back to 110 floors. So in your scenario when the "collapse" is over, we are back to 110 floors. Can you show me pictures of these 110 floors when the collapse is over?

johnny karate

28th July 2008, 09:43 PM

So let me follow your example to its conclusion. It starts of as 15 floors vs 1 floor. Then it moves to 16 floors vs. 1 floor. Then it is 17 floors vs. 1 floor. So eventually it will be, say, 107 floors vs. 1 floor...108 floors vs. 1 floor...109 floors vs 1 floor...then were are back to 110 floors. So in your scenario when the "collapse" is over, we are back to 110 floors. Can you show me pictures of these 110 floors when the collapse is over?

As you are a Truther, I understand that everything has to be explained to you in excruciating detail and that you love to argue semantics in order to bog down a discussion, but come on, you're just being ridiculous.

Clearly, Travis wasn't implying that the floors somehow magically retain their original structure as the building collapsed. He was referring to the mass of each floor as the collapse progressed.

nicepants

28th July 2008, 09:46 PM

Another BUMP for Turbofan...

-You got it dude. Just like the squibs show in the videos.
-The Space Shuttle produces squibs?
-You get compression? Wow. Do you get squibs too?
-Compression and squibs are two different things.
-I suggest you watch the videos and NOTICE the SQUIB(S) appearing within
the FIRST SECOND.

Please post your definition of the word "squib" as used in the examples above, and cite your source.

Minadin

28th July 2008, 09:57 PM

And what was your real name again?

And what are the names of your experts at L3 again?

It seems his real name is Tino and he works at an auto body shop outside of Toronto.

And since i never got an answer to my question:
The reason that I ask is because depending on the answer, I might have just won, if it means what I think it might . . .

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12532488e4c0b3a80a.gif (http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12532488e4c0b3a80a.gif)

I'm just not sure which of the 2 possibilities in blue is where my bingo mark should be placed. Please help.

I'm going to assume that by "GL" he meant "Government Loyalist, and declare 'Bingo!' He's actually used enough poor, tired conspiracy theorist tactics to fill out the Bingo card I made for Orphia a couple years back. I'll have to email her.

defaultdotxbe

28th July 2008, 10:05 PM

Turbofan

28th July 2008, 10:08 PM

It seems his real name is Tino and he works at an auto body shop outside of Toronto.

And since i never got an answer to my question:

I'm going to assume that by "GL" he meant "Government Loyalist, and declare 'Bingo!' He's actually used enough poor, tired conspiracy theorist tactics to fill out the Bingo card I made for Orphia a couple years back. I'll have to email her.

You're partly right. My first name is Tino (not full name).

I don't work at a shop outside of Toronto. That is my part time hobby.

15 floors?

I still don't see the entire 15 floor section as the tower descends?

I still don't see anyone's explanation about the core columns?

When you make up your theory please include the outer perimeter columns
and inner core columns which hold the floors in place.

The floors did not pancake.

In the middle of the tower is a MASSIVE network of steel.

That MASSIVE network of still exists in the top section above the impact
zone, and the lower section below the impact zone.

Those columns we connected from top to bottom with the exception of a
few core and perimeter columns.

Once again, look at these two photos. Then explain where the core went?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop1.jpg

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop6.jpg

Notice the red line doesn't move at this point. Where is the top section?
What happened to it?

Someone PLEASE show me a section of 15 floors going all the way down? :rolleyes:

A W Smith

28th July 2008, 10:11 PM

You're partly right. My first name is Tino (not full name).

Valentino then?

WildCat

28th July 2008, 10:11 PM

Once again, look at these two photos. Then explain where the core went?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop1.jpg

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop6.jpg
Those aren't photos. They're stills from a video that has been downsized and compressed who knows how many times. The detail has been completely lost.

Minadin

28th July 2008, 10:15 PM

this is the first time ive seen the card, im thinking of making some sort of program to randomize the squares on it (for next time :) )

There's another -

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1253245bf877dcd575.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3877)

A W Smith

28th July 2008, 10:18 PM

Those aren't photos. They're stills from a video that has been downsized and compressed who knows how many times. The detail has been completely lost.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/southtoweranimation-1.gif

R.Mackey

28th July 2008, 11:37 PM

As for this compression theory you (R. Mackey) are trying to spin; that's not how a fluid or gas reacts in an open environment. The entire volume would need to reach the same pressure before the windows blow out.

Nope.

For the third time, it isn't compression. At least not at this stage. It is dynamic pressure. Dynamic pressure means there is no pressurization, per se, but instead it is all based on the fluid's inertia. Air, like everything else, has inertia.

Gas doesn't experience much actual compression until (a) velocities approach the speed of sound, (b) there is a rigid container that supports static pressure, or (c) there is a partial container that puts fluid into a blocked flow condition. Early in the collapse, none of these are present. Very late in the collapse, (a) and (c) are possible, after the floors are failing at a rate of tens per second and the air is getting crowded out through the windows.

Windows require approximately 1 PSI of pressure to break. This can be either static or dynamic pressure. For dynamic pressure, this equates to a fluid velocity of about 100 meters per second, well before air gets truly compressible. However, in the collapses, there are also a lot of heavy pieces of things flying around, as well as building flexure, so some windows are breaking anyway even with lower fluid speeds. Air by itself is marginal in the early stages of collapse -- Not impossible, but far from guaranteed to break all the windows.

Differential pressure will equalize in an open environment. Since you have
a massive airplane hole on at least one side of the building, you will have
to overcome outside ambient pressure throughout most of NYC before
one floor reaches enough pressure to blow out a window.

Again, no. Dynamic pressure. Not static pressure. And there is no "overcoming outside ambient pressure," since the static pressure is the same inside and out...

Afterall, you guys keep saying the towers were 90% air :rolleyes:

They were.

Nice try but, Mr. Mackey wants us to believe a pocket of air can travel
across a room in a linear fashion just like a bullet! :rolleyes:

It can. In a wide open area, a jet of air will dissipate through vortex rollup at the boundary layer. However, it takes some distance -- the dissipation distance is approximately equal to four times the jet diameter for a wide variety of conditions.

There are also other ways to do it. One such is a vortex ring. This toy (http://www.airzookatoys.com/), for instance, can blow a focused puff of air, in the form of a vortex ring, for about 30 feet, even outdoors. I have one.

You're not likely to learn anything if you keep accusing your betters of "spin." I suggest you open your mind, and just listen for a while.

ETA: defaultdotxbe beat me to the toy recommendation. A tip of the sombrero is in order.

beachnut

28th July 2008, 11:59 PM

So let me follow your example to its conclusion. It starts of as 15 floors vs 1 floor. Then it moves to 16 floors vs. 1 floor. Then it is 17 floors vs. 1 floor. So eventually it will be, say, 107 floors vs. 1 floor...108 floors vs. 1 floor...109 floors vs 1 floor...then were are back to 110 floors. So in your scenario when the "collapse" is over, we are back to 110 floors. Can you show me pictures of these 110 floors when the collapse is over?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/see.jpg
This is what you get as the last floor hits at 51 m/s, and over 100 tons of TNT kinetic energy destroy a building (why it looks like 100 1000 pound bombs hit). Gravity, it kills.

Jonnyclueless

29th July 2008, 12:21 AM

So let me follow your example to its conclusion. It starts of as 15 floors vs 1 floor. Then it moves to 16 floors vs. 1 floor. Then it is 17 floors vs. 1 floor. So eventually it will be, say, 107 floors vs. 1 floor...108 floors vs. 1 floor...109 floors vs 1 floor...then were are back to 110 floors. So in your scenario when the "collapse" is over, we are back to 110 floors. Can you show me pictures of these 110 floors when the collapse is over?

You've already seen the pictures. That's what a building without any of the space between the parts looks like. Surely you do not think that the WTC buildings were solid do you? Oh wait, you probably do. Most people who seem to think that the bottom portion of the building should stop the top portion only think in terms of solid objects instead of a large series of small parts.

jhunter1163

29th July 2008, 02:41 AM

its also clear that turbo never constructed a potato gun.

He can't have mine.

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 05:50 AM

Nope.

For the third time, it isn't compression. At least not at this stage. It is dynamic pressure. Dynamic pressure means there is no pressurization, per se, but instead it is all based on the fluid's inertia. Air, like everything else, has inertia.

You don't have to tell me it isn't compression, that's what your guys are
spinning to explian the jet of debris shooting out the side of the building!

Again, no. Dynamic pressure. Not static pressure. And there is no "overcoming outside ambient pressure," since the static pressure is the same inside and out...

No, it's not! You just contradicted yourself. The pressure inside the building
will change once the upper level begins to move.

The pressure inside the building would become higher. Gas/Fluids move from
high pressure to low pressure.

Without a differential, fluid/gas flow cannot exist.

You're not likely to learn anything if you keep accusing your betters of "spin." I suggest you open your mind, and just listen for a while.

I suggest that you learn how to apply these terms to the actual case, and
stop inviting possibilities that did not occur based on the video and photo
evidence.

YOu still have not explained where the 47 core columns ended up?
I guess you believe the floors pancaked like everyone else? :rolleyes:

pomeroo

29th July 2008, 05:52 AM

You don't have to tell me it isn't compression, that's what your guys are
spinning to explian the jet of debris shooting out the side of the building!

No, it's not! You just contradicted yourself. The pressure inside the building
will change once the upper level begins to move.

The pressure inside the building would become higher. Gas/Fluids move from
high pressure to low pressure.

Without a differential, fluid/gas flow cannot exist.

I suggest that you learn how to apply these terms to the actual case, and
stop inviting possibilities that did not occur based on the video and photo
evidence.

YOu still have not explained where the 47 core columns ended up?
I guess you believe the floors pancaked like everyone else? :rolleyes:

Low-IQ ignoramuses arguing with NASA engineers--it just doesn't get any better.

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 06:07 AM

Low-IQ ignoramuses arguing with NASA engineers--it just doesn't get any better.

Hey Pomeroo, are you the one with the talk show?

Care to have me interviewed along with Mr. Mackey? Anti? Beachnut?

pomeroo

29th July 2008, 06:10 AM

Hey Pomeroo, are you the one with the talk show?

Care to have me interviewed along with Mr. Mackey? Anti? Beachnut?

No, you are an ineducable know-nothing. Mindless tinfoil-hatters are as plentiful as cockroaches.

nicepants

29th July 2008, 06:14 AM

Bump for Turbofan:

-You got it dude. Just like the squibs show in the videos.
-The Space Shuttle produces squibs?
-You get compression? Wow. Do you get squibs too?
-Compression and squibs are two different things.
-I suggest you watch the videos and NOTICE the SQUIB(S) appearing within
the FIRST SECOND.

Please post your definition of the word "squib" as used in the examples above, and cite your source.

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 06:22 AM

No, you are an ineducable know-nothing. Mindless tinfoil-hatters are as plentiful as cockroaches.

That's what I thought. Another guy scared to face us.

A radio talk show host that thinks he's a physics guru... :cool:

Nicepants, take a hint.

WildCat

29th July 2008, 06:26 AM

Nicepants, take a hint.
What "hint" are we supposed to take? That you don't have the slightest clue what a "squib" is and continually misuse the word? :rolleyes:

pomeroo

29th July 2008, 06:33 AM

That's what I thought. Another guy scared to face us.

A radio talk show host that thinks he's a physics guru... :cool:

Nicepants, take a hint.

You started what has grown into a nine-page thread to showcase your staggering ignorance of the mechanics of the collapses. I predicted that you would recycle every ancient, thoroughly debunked canard in the twoofer handbook and you didn't disappoint. You bring absolutely nothing new to the table. Why would any rationalist fear the farrago of junk science and outright falsehoods you're peddling? We've heard it all a thousand times and it's just as stupid now as it was four years ago.
You haven't so much as glanced at the NIST Report. In your embarrassing performance, you haven't made one original blunder.

If your evil movement has been reduced to this level of incompetence, the cause of reason is won.

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 06:50 AM

Bump for Turbofan:

Originally Posted by Turbofan

-You got it dude. Just like the squibs show in the videos.
-The Space Shuttle produces squibs?
-You get compression? Wow. Do you get squibs too?
-Compression and squibs are two different things.
-I suggest you watch the videos and NOTICE the SQUIB(S) appearing within
the FIRST SECOND.

Please post your definition of the word "squib" as used in the examples above, and cite your source.

Squib = tiny explosives. The jets of debris you see shooting out the buildings
are produced by squibs.

I don't have a source, you'll have to take this explanation and live with it.

Try AE911truth.org for a complete breakdown of squibs and how they're used.

Mr.Herbert

29th July 2008, 06:55 AM

Squibs = laughter from rationalists watching AE911truth.org founder Richard Gage playing with cardboard boxes.

Par

29th July 2008, 07:09 AM

Irel.

Slayhamlet

29th July 2008, 07:12 AM

You don't have to tell me it isn't compression, that's what your guys are
spinning to explian the jet of debris shooting out the side of the building!

No, it's not! You just contradicted yourself. The pressure inside the building
will change once the upper level begins to move.

The pressure inside the building would become higher. Gas/Fluids move from
high pressure to low pressure.

Without a differential, fluid/gas flow cannot exist.

I suggest that you learn how to apply these terms to the actual case, and
stop inviting possibilities that did not occur based on the video and photo
evidence.

YOu still have not explained where the 47 core columns ended up?
I guess you believe the floors pancaked like everyone else? :rolleyes:

You clearly haven't the slightest grasp of fluid dynamics. This post proves that you don't even understand the terms, or else you would not have accused Mackey of contradicting himself when he did no such thing. You're winging it. Just who the hell do you think you're fooling with this behavior?

ElMondoHummus

29th July 2008, 07:16 AM

Squibs = Not a term used by the demolitions industry. They call explosive packages "charges".

This issue was dealt with a long time ago at http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm.

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 07:22 AM

You clearly haven't the slightest grasp of fluid dynamics. This post proves that you don't even understand the terms, or else you would not have accused Mackey of contradicting himself when he did no such thing. You're winging it. Just who the hell do you think you're fooling with this behavior?

Is that right?

R. Mackey stated:

Again, no. Dynamic pressure. Not static pressure. And there is no "overcoming outside ambient pressure," since the static pressure is the same inside and out...

Do you believe the static pressure is the same inside and outside of the building
once gas flow begins? :confused:

I wasn't born yesterday my friend.

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 07:26 AM

Squibs = Not a term used by the demolitions industry. They call explosive packages "charges".

This issue was dealt with a long time ago at http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm.

Who cares whether it;s used in the industry? It's a friggin' description/name/
reference!

You are starting to become like Nicepants where I must use politically correct
terminology for everything I say.

Call it what you want, I don't care. This thread has gone this long because
of the whiners wanting their specific , user friendly terms used.

From now on, let's get back to the original post questions. Let's start
seeing some answers and proof to back it up please.

ElMondoHummus

29th July 2008, 07:31 AM

It demonstrates that you are not speaking from a position of knowledge of the demolitions industry. That's what the issue of terminology reveals.

Also: You ignore the refutation of the notion of squibs that I linked. As I said, this myth has long been disproven. That is the major substance of my post.

rwguinn

29th July 2008, 07:40 AM

You clearly haven't the slightest grasp of fluid dynamics. This post proves that you don't even understand the terms, or else you would not have accused Mackey of contradicting himself when he did no such thing. You're winging it. Just who the hell do you think you're fooling with this behavior?

Sound is a fizicul impossiblity!
Can't have no compression or pressure without what you gots a clozed silender!
They've found us out, guys! Time to surrender!

phunk

29th July 2008, 07:40 AM

Grizzly Bear

29th July 2008, 07:46 AM

Squibs aren't just small explosives, they're tiny. They're used as detonators for larger explosives, and to simulate gunshot wounds in movie special effects, among other things. They are too small to have any effect on a building. Saying the dust blowing out the windows of the WTC was caused by squibs is like saying it was caused by firecrackers, it's rediculous.

I find it funny that they use the 'squibs' to tell us that there are explosives detonating inside the towers yet massive portions of the core were still standing briefly after the main collapse in some of the same areas... After all... the interior support structure is the core...

I'm losing hope in turbofan learning anything here... this is becoming a soap opera...

~enigma~

29th July 2008, 07:52 AM

Sound is a fizicul impossiblity!
I can't hear you :)

29th July 2008, 07:53 AM

No, you are an ineducable know-nothing. Mindless tinfoil-hatters are as plentiful as cockroaches.

lol

says the "amarican wannabe thinker" that judges religions based on a book he never readed himself.

you was on a TV show about Islam, and you had no clue about islam nor did you read the koran lol.

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 07:56 AM

I find it funny that they use the 'squibs' to tell us that there are explosives detonating inside the towers yet massive portions of the core were still standing briefly after the main collapse in some of the same areas... After all... the interior support structure is the core...

I'm losing hope in turbofan learning anything here... this is becoming a soap opera...

Here's a perfect example of CD. Look at the structure standing straight up
at the 16 second mark.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_EdoxJam_gE

Watch how it descends STRAIGHT down in seconds!

See it again at 1:52

Keep spinning and denying.

Hey , what's the GL excuse for this anyway?

STRAIGHT! LMFAO!

nicepants

29th July 2008, 08:08 AM

Squib = tiny explosives.

Correct.

Let's plug that definition into your statements below:

I suggest you watch the videos and NOTICE the tiny explosives within the FIRST SECOND.

-You got it dude. Just like the tiny explosives show in the videos.

Were you saying that you actually see tiny explosives appearing/showing in these videos somewhere? (Or were you just mis-using that word?)

29th July 2008, 08:15 AM

for ppl in denial, those are no squibs........

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 08:21 AM

TheRedWorm

29th July 2008, 08:23 AM

bje

29th July 2008, 08:28 AM

Hey Pomeroo, are you the one with the talk show?

Care to have me interviewed along with Mr. Mackey? Anti? Beachnut?

Why? Aldo Marquis already wrote clearly:

"...we have nothing for you..."Can't you read, Turbofan?

bje

29th July 2008, 08:30 AM

Hey Nicepants, I answered your question and you came back with anotherwithout answering any of mine.

:dl::dl::dl:

What a hypocrite you are, Turbofan. You're too bloody scared to answer my question.

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 08:39 AM

Will you please give an explanation of how the structure in the video linked
falls straight down?

Thanks

I started the thread. I asked the questions. You avoided them.

Answer post #1, or answer how the structure in the video is able to telescope
straight down.

This is an example of controlled demolition. If not, please explain otherwise.

phunk

29th July 2008, 09:12 AM

Turbofan: Which direction does gravity pull?

WildCat

29th July 2008, 09:19 AM

Squib = tiny explosives. The jets of debris you see shooting out the buildings
are produced by squibs.
"tiny explosives"? Aren't you the guy who claims that the explosives were so powerful they sent steel weighing thousands of pounds several hundred feet away from the building? And in fact, they were so powerful that not a single ounce of material was present to cause the progressive collapse?

Why, yes you are!

I guess you don't study much, or watch the videos of first responders,
or testimony where people are stating they heard and felt bombs.

Here are a few to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39SuzYsK-9U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39SuzYsK-9U)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFV0T_HLRuc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFV0T_HLRuc)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64)

The debris that flew 350+ feet into WTC7 and cut through massive steel
support columns? Does that count too? Must have been some pretty strong
gravity to fly a football field away and THEN cut steel beams :rolleyes:

So your "squibs" did that, did they Turbofan? :rolleyes:

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 09:23 AM

Turbofan: Which direction does gravity pull?

You can't be serious? :eye-poppi

Are you saying that length of steel drove itself straight into the ground?

Is that how objects behave naturally?

nicepants

29th July 2008, 09:27 AM

Hey Nicepants, I answered your question and you came back with another
without answering any of mine.

Will you please give an explanation of how the structure in the video linked
falls straight down?

Thanks

I'm not able to see that video from here...but when something "falls straight down", it's usually because gravity is pulling it....straight down. *

*ETA: And it's unable to resist.

TheRedWorm

29th July 2008, 09:31 AM

uk_dave

29th July 2008, 09:35 AM

You can't be serious? :eye-poppi

Are you saying that length of steel drove itself straight into the ground?

What length of steel?

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 09:42 AM

I'm not able to see that video from here...but when something "falls straight down", it's usually because gravity is pulling it....straight down.

Nicepants:

Here's a summary of the video since you can't see it:

Imagine a steel beam sticking straight up in the air.

Now imagine that steel beam telescoping down (vertically, straight, etc.)
into the ground.

Is that acceptable to you based on gravity?

If the collapse of the towers was so odd and in such violation of the laws of physics that a layperson such as yourself can perceive these oddities and violations merely by looking at photos of the collapse, then why hasn't any of this been discerned and/or revealed by a single MSM outlet, law enforcement agency, or investigative body on the planet?

Oh geez, do I have to answer this again? It's been addressed already in
the other threads you keep following me through.

My answer (to the bold) is because they are not looking at the video
evidence shown. They refuse to broadcast it (WTC7, Pentagon, etc.).

When the truth movement tries to go public via MSM, they are rejected.
Nobody wants to answer our questions. Your president didn't even have
the decency to testify under oath, recorded, or have the families of the
victims present! He even needed his buddy Dick beside him! Nice cover up.

I've answered your question (again), so please answer mine.

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 09:47 AM

What length of steel?

Come on?!

The one I pointed out at 16 seconds into the video.

Are you telling me you can't see it?

What's your explanation of this? How does it drive itself straight down
by gravity?

Are you guys going to wake up, and realize the mess your government
is pushing on you?

D'rok

29th July 2008, 09:49 AM

9 pages of argument from personal incredulity. When do we get to see the fyziks?

uk_dave

29th July 2008, 09:54 AM

Come on?!

The one I pointed out at 16 seconds into the video.

Are you telling me you can't see it?

What's your explanation of this? How does it drive itself straight down
by gravity?

Are you guys going to wake up, and realize the mess your government
is pushing on you?

There was a single length of steel in the video? How did they manage to deliver that to the site?:boggled:

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 09:57 AM

9 pages of argument from personal incredulity. When do we get to see the fyziks?

What's your take on the video?

Still waiting for an answer from everyone, especially

- uk_Dave
- R. Mackey
- Pomeroo
- Nicepants
- Wildcat
- bje
- Mr. Herbert
- Anti-sophist
- Beachnut
- Reheat

Stop dodging, start answering.

Newtons Bit

29th July 2008, 09:59 AM

9 pages of argument from personal incredulity. When do we get to see the fyziks?

I concur. I want to see the maths.

SDC

29th July 2008, 10:02 AM

I will state the obvious. They are answering. You just don't like, or don't believe (could be either; doesn't matter, really) the answers.

WildCat

29th July 2008, 10:03 AM

I concur. I want to see the maths.
There is no math necessary for fyziks, "common sense" is all that is needed.

Unfortunately, Turbofan doesn't seem to have any of that either.

nicepants

29th July 2008, 10:04 AM

Nicepants:

Here's a summary of the video since you can't see it:

Imagine a steel beam sticking straight up in the air.

Now imagine that steel beam telescoping down (vertically, straight, etc.)
into the ground.

Is that acceptable to you based on gravity?

A single solid steel beam has no capacity to "telescope" (gravity-induced or otherwise).

Did I misunderstand your explanation.....or are you using the wrong word again?

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 10:07 AM

NOBODY has tried to answer this:

Here's a perfect example of CD. Look at the structure standing straight up
at the 16 second mark.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_EdoxJam_gE

Watch how it descends STRAIGHT down in seconds!

See it again at 1:52

What is the reason for the straight down telescope?

What's your take on the video?

Still waiting for an answer from everyone, especially

- SDC
- Newtons Bit
- uk_Dave
- R. Mackey
- Pomeroo
- Nicepants
- Wildcat
- bje
- Mr. Herbert
- Anti-sophist
- Beachnut
- Reheat

Stop dodging, start answering.

D'rok

29th July 2008, 10:07 AM

What's your take on the video?
A very large building collapsed after being hit by a plane.

Show me wrong with "fyziks", not personal incredulity.

nicepants

29th July 2008, 10:08 AM

There is no math necessary for fyziks, "common sense" is all that is needed.

Unfortunately, Turbofan doesn't seem to have any of that either.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." -Einstein

SDC

29th July 2008, 10:10 AM

Here is my answer. "Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens." Schiller said it. "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." (Apology for using "ae" and "oe" instead of "a umlaut" and "o umlaut.")

Turbofan, here is a hint: I'm referring to your postings when I use the word "Dummheit."

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 10:14 AM

A very large building collapsed after being hit by a plane.

Show me wrong with "fyziks", not personal incredulity.

You are not answering the question abuot the steel structure that
drives straight down!

Stop avoiding the obvious!

Still waiting for an answer from everyone, especially

- d'rok
- SDC
- Newtons Bit
- uk_Dave
- R. Mackey
- Pomeroo
- Nicepants 3 times avoiding question
- Wildcat
- bje
- Mr. Herbert
- Anti-sophist
- Beachnut
- Reheat

Stop dodging, start answering.

uk_dave

29th July 2008, 10:14 AM

NOBODY has tried to answer this:

What's your take on the video?

Still waiting for an answer from everyone, especially

- SDC
- Newtons Bit
- uk_Dave
- R. Mackey
- Pomeroo
- Nicepants
- Wildcat
- bje
- Mr. Herbert
- Anti-sophist
- Beachnut
- Reheat

Stop dodging, start answering.

What? The cluster of core columns left standing after the failure of the perimeter and internal floors was laterally unrestrained and the joints between the individual lengths of steel failed as the columns moved out of upright.

What's the problem? :boggled:

You don't..... you don't seriously think those columns were single lengths of steel from ground to the top....do you?

D'rok

29th July 2008, 10:15 AM

You are not answering the question abuot the steel structure that
drives straight down!

Stop avoiding the obvious!

You are not giving me any reason to take you seriously.

Stop avoiding the fyziks.

nicepants

29th July 2008, 10:24 AM

Still waiting for an answer from everyone, especially

- Nicepants 3 times avoiding question

Stop dodging, start answering. !

I answered your question in post #353, #364. (Prior to the 2nd and 3rd times you asked for an answer)

Also still waiting on your answer to #343:

Were you saying that you actually see tiny explosives appearing/showing in these videos somewhere? (Or were you just mis-using that word?)

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 10:24 AM

No reason? Did you watch the video? You are fine with what you see?

Here's a perfect example of CD. Look at the structure standing straight up
at the 16 second mark.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_EdoxJam_gE

Watch how it descends STRAIGHT down in seconds!

See it again at 1:52

What is the reason for the straight down telescope?

Still waiting for an answer from everyone, especially

- d'rok 3 times avoiding question
- SDC
- Newtons Bit
- uk_Dave
- R. Mackey
- Pomeroo
- Nicepants 3 times avoiding question
- Wildcat
- bje
- Mr. Herbert
- Anti-sophist
- Beachnut
- Reheat

Stop dodging, start answering.

Confuseling

29th July 2008, 10:26 AM

Turbofan: If the collapse of the towers was so odd and in such violation of the laws of physics that a layperson such as yourself can perceive these oddities and violations merely by looking at photos of the collapse, then why hasn't any of this been discerned and/or revealed by a single MSM outlet, law enforcement agency, or investigative body on the planet?

on the planet

on the planet

on the planet

PLEASE try to understand the significance of this. OK. We hear you. Mainstream media in America are too scared of the evil neocons to publish what is clearly the scoop of the millennium.

The rest of the ENTIRE world, however, are:

1) Too stupid to understand engineering

2) Haven't watched any videos about 911 [incl. 2a) Can't get youtube]

3) Scared of / deeply in love with Cheney

Which is it? Are there any other choices? Explain them please.

Newtons Bit

29th July 2008, 10:26 AM

What? The cluster of core columns left standing after the failure of the perimeter and internal floors was laterally unrestrained and the joints between the individual lengths of steel failed as the columns moved out of upright.

What's the problem? :boggled:

You don't..... you don't seriously think those columns were single lengths of steel from ground to the top....do you?

If he's waiting for a response from me he's going to be waiting a long, long time. Ignore is a neat thing, you don't get to see what they write except what other people quote!

Be sure to let me know if he actually posts some math though. I might actually read his posts if they have an actual argument reinforced with some rational analysis.

D'rok

29th July 2008, 10:32 AM

No reason? Did you watch the video? You are fine with what you see? Yes and yes.

Use fyziks to convince me otherwise.

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 10:36 AM

The rest of the ENTIRE world, however, are:

Not as many as you think. The truth movement is fairly large and continues
to grow.

>> 1) Too stupid to understand engineering

No need to be an engineer to know that objects don't drive themselves
straight down into the ground.

>> 2) Haven't watched any videos about 911 [incl. 2a) Can't get youtube]

Only Government loyalists seem to exclude the alternative media coverage
from that day. Most of you still haven't clicked on my video link I'm sure.

>> 3) Scared of / deeply in love with Cheney

Typical of a government loyalist.

Which is it? Are there any other choices? Explain them please.

Other choices:

- denial
- pride
- lack of motivation to research alternative media coverage

... to name a few.

Still waiting for an answer from everyone, especially

- Confuseling
- d'rok 3 times avoiding question
- SDC
- Newtons Bit Admits to avoiding response. Probably not schooled
enough to give a comprehenisve answer to the question
- uk_Dave
- R. Mackey
- Pomeroo
- Nicepants 3 times avoiding question
- Wildcat
- bje
- Mr. Herbert
- Anti-sophist- Beachnut
- Reheat

Mods/Admin, may I suggest suspending those that continue to contaminate
this thread, and avoid the question?

I have done my best to answer questions from several people at one time.

The least you all could do is explain yourselves. Look in the mirror before
you reply and ask yourself if you believe what you type.

WildCat

29th July 2008, 10:45 AM

Mods/Admin, may I suggest suspending those that continue to contaminate
this thread, and avoid the question?
The question has been answered, your boneheaded ionability to see that is your problem.

I have done my best to answer questions from several people at one time.
I sincerely hope that isn't true... if that's your 'best" I'd hate to see what tripe you come up with on a bad day.

Confuseling

29th July 2008, 11:04 AM

Sorry, I can't quite follow your reasoning there chap.

Lets take the Central Committee of the Chinese government, as a random example.

Are their efforts to destroy the US government by revealing the conspiracy hampered by denial, pride, or lack of motivation to research alternative media coverage?

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 11:04 AM

Grizzly Bear

29th July 2008, 11:09 AM

Here's a perfect example of CD. Look at the structure standing straight up at the 16 second mark.

*Brian Regan voice* Yes, that's the remnants of the core structure... thank you for proving my point /*Brian Regan voice*

Watch how it descends STRAIGHT down in seconds!
You're implying that this is strange? Considering it's almost 60 stories of [now] unbraced column length... how is this supposed top be strange that is also collapsed?

Sorry, controlled demolition does not leave behind standing structural members. A controlled demolition aims to cripple it to induce collapse. The fact that they continued to stand proves that the collapse was never initiated at those floor levels

Here turbo... I'll try to be optimistic and hope this teaches you the concept... I won't hold my breath :rolleyes:

LINK (http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/6056/structureskc9.jpg)

ETA: Assuming you even bother to check the link... pay special attention to the area in orange That is the difference braced vs. UNbraced

See it again at 1:52
And...? :rolleyes:
Nothing too different unless the title of that video is supposed to tell me something: Strange Phenomenon of Steel Turning Into Dust

That would be a red herring

I already went over why the core collapsed afterwards... I can repeat it ad nauseum, but it seems you are incapable of comprehending the concept.

How does it fall straight down? Something called 'gravity'. Why do you ignore this concept?

Keep spinning and denying.
You are doing a fine job of it turbo.

Hey , what's the GL excuse for this anyway
Going back to semantics again? Then don't disappoint me with cliché insults... you've done enough to entertain me with your alien physics... or 'fyziks' as you put it.

STRAIGHT! LMFAO!
I'm glad you're able to laugh at your own humiliation :D
A gift that keeps on giving!

Nicepants:
Imagine a steel beam sticking straight up in the air.
Now imagine that steel beam telescoping down (vertically, straight, etc.)
into the ground.

Not only has that entire length of core structure lost it's lateral stability, it has debris landing all around it on the ground, 10's of thousands (if not much more) of it, now affecting the structure from below Considering that large parts of the core were also dragged down by the main collapse, this is not out of the question for the later span of time as the main collapse finishes for debris to have struck the core as well.

Is that acceptable to you based on gravity?
Once the connections were compromised the only thing they could do was fall because gravity pulls objects down
To believe that they would have continued to stand indefinitely is simply wrong....

My answer (to the bold) is because they are not looking at the video evidence shown. They refuse to broadcast it (WTC7, Pentagon, etc.).
So you're also implying that countries hostile to the US wouldn't dare show such evidence? Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela... they'd wet themselves over such an opportunity to expose the United States in this fashion. Remember, this event was seen LIVE across the globe. Why aren't countries hostile to the United States taking advantage of this revolutionary evidence of mass murder?

defaultdotxbe

29th July 2008, 11:10 AM

Wildcat,

Show me a response from anyone explaining how the structure drives
straight down in a matter of seconds?

Still waiting for an answer from everyone, especially

- Confuseling
- d'rok 3 times avoiding question
- SDC
- Newtons Bit Admits to avoiding response. Probably not schooled
enough to give a comprehenisve answer to the question
- uk_Dave
- R. Mackey
- Pomeroo
- Nicepants 3 times avoiding question
- Wildcat 3 times avoiding question
- bje
- Mr. Herbert
- Anti-sophist
- Beachnut
- Reheat
UK dave explained to you pretty much exactly what happened

The cluster of core columns left standing after the failure of the perimeter and internal floors was laterally unrestrained and the joints between the individual lengths of steel failed as the columns moved out of upright.

nicepants

29th July 2008, 11:11 AM

... to name a few.

Still waiting for an answer from everyone, especially

- Nicepants 3 times avoiding question

Repost for turbofan:

I answered your question in post #353, #364. (Prior to the 2nd and 3rd times you asked for an answer)

Confuseling

29th July 2008, 11:11 AM

"Avoiding question" isn't a definite quantity, like "over drink/drive limit", dear.

It's "has avoided the question three times."

Been schooled?

rwguinn

29th July 2008, 11:13 AM

Anybody see a goalpost around here?
I swear i saw it a couple of pages ago...

~enigma~

29th July 2008, 11:17 AM

Repost for turbofan:
Reading is not his strong suit.

phunk

29th July 2008, 11:25 AM

Turbo, you're taking "straight down" way too literally, no one other than you is suggesting the stack of columns should have stayed perfectly vertically aligned and driven itself into the ground like a giant nail. The core section that remained standing had the rest of the building collapsing around it. It drops almost straight down in that video because the parts holding it up were destroyed by the rubble piling up at its base.

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 11:28 AM

A single solid steel beam has no capacity to "telescope" (gravity-induced or otherwise).

Did I misunderstand your explanation.....or are you using the wrong word again?

Wow, you're so good at twisting stuff around. Do you work for the Pentagon?

Replace single solid steel beam with "steel structure".

I'm pretty content with the replies thus far. It really confirms what I
already knew.

The cluster of core columns left standing after the failure of the perimeter and internal floors was laterally unrestrained and the joints between the individual lengths of steel failed as the columns moved out of upright.

This makes absolutely no sense? The structure left standing suddenly
decides to break apart? Laterally unrestrained, so it decides to vertically
impale itself into the ground. :rolleyes:

Go to bed believing all of this! Smile and wave as your stupid government
kills innocent people in IRAQ, AFGAN., and next IRAN.

Oh yeah, those wars were waged without linking proof to 9/11.

beachnut

29th July 2008, 11:32 AM

A single solid steel beam has no capacity to "telescope" (gravity-induced or otherwise).

Did I misunderstand your explanation.....or are you using the wrong word again?

Teleported down, he has a new theory, the WTC was teleported to destruction.
A new theory! Individualism breaks thought the cult movement lockstep, and invents a new theory. Breaking free from other nut case ideas… "what" ... oh...

…hunh… Telescope?
Oh, never---mind.
Anybody see a goalpost around here?
I swear i saw it a couple of pages ago... I have asked USAF Chief of Staff to reactivate the SR-71 so we can track the goalposts in real time, it is too costly to reposition satellites.

WildCat

29th July 2008, 11:34 AM

Anybody see a goalpost around here?
I swear i saw it a couple of pages ago...
It reminds me of the homecoming game my final semester at NIU. We were playing Fresno State, they were ranked at trhe time. Everyone thought we'd get slaughtered, but it was a gorgeous 80 degree day (very rare that time of year).

NIU ran a wishbone offense, which Fresno State's defense figured out about as well as a truther does an FDR. It was a slaughter.

After the game was over, which NIU won by something like 72-13, the crowd stormed the field, ripped a goal post out of the ground and passed it down the field, up the stands, over the stands, down past the dorm towers, and into the west lagoon. Goalpost moving at its finest! :D

WildCat

29th July 2008, 11:39 AM

Teleported down, he has a new theory, the WTC was teleported to destruction.
A new theory! Individualism breaks thought the cult movement lockstep, and invents a new theory. Breaking free from other nut case ideas… "what" ... oh...

…hunh… Telescope?
Oh, never---mind.
It's like every truther has to stamp their own brand of stupidity on their, uh, "unique" observation. That's Ace Baker's "turning into dust in mid-air" video. Turbofan claims their "telescoping".

Anyone with any observational ability at all sees them coming apart at the welds as they topple over and fall to the ground.

WildCat

29th July 2008, 11:41 AM

Anybody see a goalpost around here?
I swear i saw it a couple of pages ago...

Replace single solid steel beam with "steel structure".

:dl:

roundhead

29th July 2008, 11:44 AM

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/1717/thisneedstocrushthis3om.jpg

ElMondoHummus

29th July 2008, 11:44 AM

Here's a perfect example of CD. Look at the structure standing straight up
at the 16 second mark.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_EdoxJam_gE

Watch how it descends STRAIGHT down in seconds!

See it again at 1:52

Keep spinning and denying.

Hey , what's the GL excuse for this anyway?

STRAIGHT! LMFAO!

This was answered a long time ago (http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf), years before you wrote that post.

ASSERTION #2
“But they fell straight down into their own footprint.”
PROTEC COMMENT: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance.

Any discussion of how the towers fell on 9/11 requires a fundamental understanding of how buildings collapse and an examination of the damage inflicted upon adjacent structures that morning.

A tall office building cannot be made to tip over like a tree. Reinforced concrete smokestacks and industrial towers can, due to their small footprint and inherently monolithic properties. However, because typical human-inhabited buildings (and their supporting elements) are spread over a larger area and are not nearly as rigid, the laws of gravity cause them to begin collapsing downward upon being weakened or tipped off center to a certain point. Blasters are well aware of this and often rely on this principle in designing upper-floor charge patterns to maximize breakage and in predicting debris drop zones.

The collapse of towers 1 and 2 followed this principle exactly. When the impact floors of both towers eventually failed, the upper sections did not simply tumble over onto the street below, rather they tilted while simultaneously collapsing downward.

In short, the towers fell the way they did because gravity would naturally pull the components downward once they were separated from their supports. When the jets hit, they severed columns. Other columns failed from the heat of the fires. The remainder failed from the overload resulting from the previous two types of failures. Once those failures occurred, the upper section came down onto the lower sections. And that leads back to the posts you continue to ignore, the ones describing how the upper section defeated the individual floors' resistance on the way down. No explosives demolition required. This is not too hard to understand.

ElMondoHummus

29th July 2008, 11:47 AM

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/1717/thisneedstocrushthis3om.jpg

That's true. And no explosives demolition is required for that to happen.

Measure the force of the upper section against the ability of the floor immediately below the impact/fire zone. Measure how little that floor negates the acceleration of the upper section. Now, measure the upper setion plus that newly failed floor, which is now moving at a higher rate of speed (it's accelerating due to gravity, remember) against the next floor below. Repeat until the ground is reached.

Not too hard to understand.

nicepants

29th July 2008, 11:48 AM

Replace single solid steel beam with "steel structure".

Imagine a steel beam structure sticking straight up in the air.

Now imagine that steel beam structure telescoping down (vertically, straight, etc.)
into the ground.

Is that acceptable to you based on gravity?

Yes.

I'm sure you'll disagree, which is fine. Your question is too open-ended.

For example:

Imagine a car
Imagine it going 0-60mph in 4 seconds
Is that acceptable to you?
(Hint: There is no wrong answer)

jaydeehess

29th July 2008, 11:53 AM

9.8 m/s is SPEED!

9.8 m/s/s is ACCELERATION!

WHo needs the physics class around here?

I don't have the time during lunch to see how many others addressed this but YES m/s is speed and m/s/s is accelleration and gravity at the Earth's surface causes an ACCELLERATION of 9.8m/s/s and it looks like to many here that you have assumed that gravity causes a velocity of 9.8 m/s, which, of course, ridiculous.

Sorry if we are reading you incorrectly.

DavidJames

29th July 2008, 11:55 AM

Yes.

I'm sure you'll disagree, which is fine. Your question is too open-ended.

For example:

Imagine a car
Imagine it going 0-60mph in 4 seconds
Is that acceptable to you?
(Hint: There is no wrong answer)
Remember, TF gained all his fyziks knowledge while working at an auto body shop. You're just making this to easy for him :D

Confuseling

29th July 2008, 12:04 PM

bje

29th July 2008, 12:07 PM

Stop dodging, start answering.

No, no, Turbofan I asked you a question. Answer it.

roundhead

29th July 2008, 12:09 PM

This was answered a long time ago (http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf), years before you wrote that post.

In short, the towers fell the way they did because gravity would naturally pull the components downward once they were separated from their supports. When the jets hit, they severed columns. Other columns failed from the heat of the fires. The remainder failed from the overload resulting from the previous two types of failures. Once those failures occurred, the upper section came down onto the lower sections. And that leads back to the posts you continue to ignore, the ones describing how the upper section defeated the individual floors' resistance on the way down. No explosives demolition required. This is not too hard to understand.

"other columns failed from the heat of the fires"

NIST flatly states that 157 of 160 pieces of Steel they tested reached no more than 500 degrees.

There is zero evidence any impact zone steel MELTED(or failed from the heat of the fires). NONE.

Show me where in the NIST report they found melted steel from the impact zone?

Give me a minute, i better go check all my pots and pans from my Kitchen, some of those have been subjected to 500 degress of heat way longer than an hour.

Just got back, all my pots and pans are fine.

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 12:11 PM

Sorry if we are reading you incorrectly.

Thank you Jaydee sincerely. Even though we don't see eye-to-eye,
I do respect your civil replies.

On that note, I'll just take off and concentrate on FDR threads.

Nicepants: I own a car that goes 0-60 MPH in four seconds. I build
cars that go 0-60 MPH in two seconds. I've been around cars that
go 0-320 MPH in four seconds.

I have yet to see a solid vertical object bury itself into the ground due
to gravity.

roundhead

29th July 2008, 12:14 PM

Thank you Jaydee sincerely. Even though we don't see eye-to-eye,
I do respect your civil replies.

On that note, I'll just take off and concentrate on FDR threads.

Nicepants: I own a car that goes 0-60 MPH in four seconds. I build
cars that go 0-60 MPH in two seconds. I've been around cars that
go 0-320 MPH in four seconds.

I have yet to see a solid vertical object bury itself into the ground due
to gravity.
\

Hey Turbofan, us gearheads seem to stick together:D

I have a 3350 pound(with me in it)70 Duster that has been 9.86 in the 1/4, with a ten inch DOT tire and stock suspension.422" smallblock

It will get to 60 in about 1.34 seconds.

uk_dave

29th July 2008, 12:17 PM

On that note, I'll just take off and concentrate on FDR threads.

Very wise. Though your attempt to present yourself as an expert on the structural failure of the wtc towers and the arrogant manner in which you conducted yourself despite the obvious shortcomings of your knowledge, should be a wake up call to any lurkers who have been taken in by your equally suspect 'expertise' on all matters FDR.

jaydeehess

29th July 2008, 12:18 PM

Wait a minute...are you telling me you can't order steel in 1000 foot sections!

OH MY GOD? All this time I thought the tooth fairy delivered those columns
in one piece. You mean contsruction crews actually welded and bolted them
together in sections?

Seems to me you were the one referring to 1000 foot columns and questiong where they went. Obviously such a beast never existed. Glad to have you on board with that and acknowledging that the columns were constructed of sections that were welded together.

What caused the interior network of beams to bend if the outer columns
were not bending upon descent?

The perimeter columns were in fact bending for a long time before collapse initiation. This was due to core column creep caused by those columns losing strength to the heat. Those columns that were less affected by heat were sufficient to halt that creep but not sufficient to stop it. The perimeter columns of course also took 50% of the floor loads and the hat truss redistributed load as the building crept downward. But especially in the perimeter lateral support is supplied soley by floor truss connections and floor trusses were failing. This meant that the hat truss in some areas was holding UP the perimeter load above the fire floors and transferring that load to the core. So each time a floor truss failed the load on the core increased and the ability to carry a load at the perimeter was reduced and while this is happening the core is also suffering the effects of heating. At a moment in time just before initial collapse the redistribution of loads could no longer be taken up by remaining structual members and the building started to creep very fast. Now a column that 'creeps' is not simply contracting, it is deforming, mashing down upon itself, and is no longer the nice vertical member it used to be.

By analogy fashion a tube out of playdoh and set it upright. Push down on it and at first it will mash upon itself but eventually it just bends. (analogys break down, I know that let's not now say that jaydeehess says that the tower columns were made of playdoh and be all silly about it)

So when the remaining structural members could no longer support the upper block they bent. The perimeter columns quickly broke away from the connection to the remaining trusses and fell,, which way would they be likely to fall given that they were bending outward at the onset and the fact that there is nothing but clear air on one side,, outward.

Inner columns also bent and snapped. Well if they were bent when they snapped would they be lined up to fall upon the lower part of the very same column? Hardly!

How were they displaced so quickly that they telescoped down so that we
couldn't see them?

Why would you be able to see something occuring 50 feet inside the building? You were expecting that these columns had to lie horizontally?

Did they disconnect and slide over, falling down elevator shafts?

You believe that if a column impacted a floor pan that the floor pan could offer much to stop the column, and the mass above that column, from continuing on its journey downward?

I just don't get it.

I may not have time to read all responses right now but I am sure I cannot be the first to agree with this statement of yours.

Hokulele

29th July 2008, 12:19 PM

"other columns failed from the heat of the fires"

NIST flatly states that 157 of 160 pieces of Steel they tested reached no more than 500 degrees.

NIST was looking for indentification marks on the steel they tested. The steel recovery had two purposes:

- Properties were correlated with the design requirements of the buildings to determine if the specified steel was in place in the towers.

- Properties were supplied as input for models of building performance.

The steel that reached higher temperatures wasn't identifiable and was not usable for the purposes of the report.

There is zero evidence any impact zone steel MELTED(or failed from the heat of the fires). NONE.

It did not have to melt, and there is plenty of evidence of failure. The images of the perimeter bowing demonstrates this clearly.

Show me where in the NIST report they found melted steel from the impact zone?

They didn't have to find any.

Give me a minute, i better go check all my pots and pans from my Kitchen, some of those have been subjected to 500 degress of heat way longer than an hour.

Just got back, all my pots and pans are fine.

Just for fun, explain the differences between a pot on a stove and structural steel in an office fire. Bonus points awarded for correct math.

jaydeehess

29th July 2008, 12:23 PM

Thank you Jaydee sincerely. Even though we don't see eye-to-eye,
I do respect your civil replies.

On that note, I'll just take off and concentrate on FDR threads.

Nicepants: I own a car that goes 0-60 MPH in four seconds. I build
cars that go 0-60 MPH in two seconds. I've been around cars that
go 0-320 MPH in four seconds.

I have yet to see a solid vertical object bury itself into the ground due
to gravity.

Please look up impulse and momentum in your fysiks book.

phunk

29th July 2008, 12:25 PM

This makes absolutely no sense? The structure left standing suddenly
decides to break apart? Laterally unrestrained, so it decides to vertically
impale itself into the ground. :rolleyes:

How do you know that it impaled itself in the ground when more than half of its height is hidden in the dust cloud? There is 300 feet of structure that you can't see, that must have collapsed beneath the spire for it to have fallen like it did.

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 12:27 PM

That's OK Jaydee.

I'm not going to debate you (or others on this topic any further).
See you in the FDR thread where a little less speculation can occur.

R-Head - nice times! If you want to PM me, I'll send you some stuff
about my ride and we can chat it up.

Phunk - There is also what appears to be some form of dust, or oxide
trailing behind the steel as it descends. Too strange to be bolts and
welds popping suddenly.

D'rok

29th July 2008, 12:28 PM

I have yet to see a solid vertical object bury itself into the ground due
to gravity.

What's really amusing about this is that even if WTC 1 and 2 were CDs, it would still be gravity doing the work of bringing the buildings down. The only "fyziks" difference is that the necessary support structures would be compromised by demo charges instead of planes/fires.

(Of course, a real CD would be planned in such a way to compromise the building in a more controlled fashion than the attacks, but still...)

roundhead

29th July 2008, 12:32 PM

NIST was looking for indentification marks on the steel they tested. The steel recovery had two purposes:

- Properties were correlated with the design requirements of the buildings to determine if the specified steel was in place in the towers.

- Properties were supplied as input for models of building performance.

The steel that reached higher temperatures weren't identifiable and was not usable for the purposes of the report.

It did not have to melt, and there is plenty of evidence of failure. The images of the perimeter bowing demonstrates this clearly.

They didn't have to find any.

Just for fun, explain the differences between a pot on a stove and structural steel in an office fire. Bonus points awarded for correct math.

The honest answer is, which you avoided, is that the NIST looked dilligently to find ANY steel that reached temps that would weaken it. THEY DIDNT AND COULDNT.

In lieu of the above fact, they again morphed the story to dislodged fireproofing as the culprit.

Because previous lies werent justifiable in relation to OBSERVED TEMPS.

There is a perfect reason why NIST continued to change its story on the collapses.
They dont stand scrutiny, and they are well aware of it.

Thank god we now have a shotgun shot into a box to explain how dislodged fireproofing is the newest culprit.

Just like a common criminal who continually changes his story and whereabouts while being questioned by police, becuase he figures a new lie will finally clear him, so the NIST has went down the same path.
They are unfortunately being asked to stand on an untenable slippery slope, and thus far have found little to no purchase on this slippery slope, which is the "Official lie"...Sucks to be them.

The NIST is exactly this...The poor lawyer being asked to defend for murder a client they are well aware is guilty.

johnny karate

29th July 2008, 12:42 PM

Hey roundhead, if the NIST report is as transparently erroneous and untrustworthy as you allege, why hasn't this glaringly obvious and monumentally significant information been discerned and/or revealed by a single MSM outlet, law enforcement agency, or investigative body on the entire planet?

uk_dave

29th July 2008, 12:43 PM

In lieu of the above fact, they again morphed the story to dislodged fireproofing as the culprit.

Yet again a 'truthers' arrogance blinds them to the stupid things they post.

If the steel couldn't be shown to have reached temperatures hot enough to weaken it, what good was claiming the fireproofing was removed? It didn't make the fires any hotter, did it?

Or maybe you just wilfully misunderstand the information you are presented with.

Let's just clarify something here:
The floor trusses were the most vulnerable to fire as their steel sections were the thinnest.
It was the floor trusses which were seen to have pulled inwards the perimeter columns.
It was this lateral load on the perimeter columns which caused the collumn connections to fail.
It was this failure which caused the lower floor assemblies to be overloaded.
It was failure of the lower floor assemblies which caused the perimeter columns to fail and add to the mass of falling material
It was this which caused the progressive collapse
It was this which left the core columns unrestrained but subject to lateral forces from debris and wind.
It was this which caused the core columns to move out of upright and the failure of the connections between the individual beams making up those columns.

nicepants

29th July 2008, 12:47 PM

Nicepants: I own a car that goes 0-60 MPH in four seconds. I build cars that go 0-60 MPH in two seconds. I've been around cars that go 0-320 MPH in four seconds.

I have yet to see a solid vertical object bury itself into the ground due
to gravity.

Fascinating, but that has nothing to do with the WTC, or the question you asked which was:

-about a steel structure, not a "solid vertical object"

-about the structure telescoping, not "burying itself into the ground"

roundhead

29th July 2008, 12:55 PM

Yet again a 'truthers' arrogance blinds them to the stupid things they post.

If the steel couldn't be shown to have reached temperatures hot enough to weaken it, what good was claiming the fireproofing was removed? It didn't make the fires any hotter, did it?

Or maybe you just wilfully misunderstand the information you are presented with.

Let's just clarify something here:
The floor trusses were the most vulnerable to fire as their steel sections were the thinnest.
It was the floor trusses which were seen to have pulled inwards the perimeter columns.
It was this lateral load on the perimeter columns which caused the collumn connections to fail.
It was this failure which caused the lower floor assemblies to be overloaded.
It was failure of the lower floor assemblies which caused the perimeter columns to fail and add to the mass of falling material
It was this which caused the progressive collapse
It was this which left the core columns unrestrained but subject to lateral forces from debris and wind.
It was this which caused the core columns to move out of upright and the failure of the connections between the individual beams making up those columns.

Pretty funny.I like how you deal with the core columns."Move out of upright":D:D:eek:

nicepants

29th July 2008, 12:57 PM

I'm not going to debate you (or others on this topic any further).

At least he knows that he's in over his head.

Too bad...I was really looking forward to his explanation of his simultaneous use of different meanings of the word "squib".

Hokulele

29th July 2008, 12:59 PM

The honest answer is, which you avoided, is that the NIST looked dilligently to find ANY steel that reached temps that would weaken it. THEY DIDNT AND COULDNT.

No, you missed the point. NIST was looking for identifiable steel. Don't forget, much of the damage to the steel recovered was determined to be the result of the collapse, not necessarily the conditions before collapse. NIST cataloged the steel that showed evidence of several different types of damage, but with no way to tell exactly where the steel was located, it is impossible to determine the exact cause of the damage.

Since there was plenty of other evidence for the fire temperatures, steel showing the effects of those temperatures would have been redundant.

It would be like investigating a car accident, determining the brakes failed, and then saying "Aha! Since you didn't check the status of the rear brake lights, there has to be another explanation."

In lieu of the above fact, they again morphed the story to dislodged fireproofing as the culprit.

Because previous lies werent justifiable in relation to OBSERVED TEMPS.

What lies?

There is a perfect reason why NIST continued to change its story on the collapses.

Sure, additional evidence is always a good reason to change a theory.

They dont stand scrutiny, and they are well aware of it.

Thank god we now have a shotgun shot into a box to explain how dislodged fireproofing is the newest culprit.

Just like a common criminal who continually changes his story and whereabouts while being questioned by police, becuase he figures a new lie will finally clear him, so the NIST has went down the same path.
They are unfortunately being asked to stand on an untenable slippery slope, and thus far have found little to no purchase on this slippery slope, which is the "Official lie"...Sucks to be them.

The NIST is exactly this...The poor lawyer being asked to defend for murder a client they are well aware is guilty.

Since when did the NIST report become a criminal investigation?

As a source of recommendations for improvements in building codes, it only makes sense to investigate possible contributing causes to the collapse in order to update building codes to avoid such failures in the future. In most cases, NIST is tasked to make such recommendations based on any available evidence. They are not tasked to prove beyond all doubt what exactly happened (that is the job of a criminal investigation), but to determine plausible and testable theories that can improve building practices.

And before this gets dragged out again, I do not think the NIST report is perfect in any sense. There are a couple of their code change recommendations I do not agree with, and there have been plenty of other papers and tests done that disagree with some of NIST's findings. However, that does not suggest in any way that they "FAILED" at the task to which they were set.

It is the truth movement that fails to understand the nature of the report, not the report that fails to meet its mission.

Corsair 115

29th July 2008, 01:03 PM

Too bad...I was really looking forward to his explanation of his simultaneous use of different meanings of the word "squib".Yes, it would have been doublethink brought to life.

Mancman

29th July 2008, 01:04 PM

Come on?!

The one I pointed out at 16 seconds into the video.

Are you telling me you can't see it?

What's your explanation of this? How does it drive itself straight down
by gravity?

Are you guys going to wake up, and realize the mess your government
is pushing on you?

The answer is it doesn't drive itself straight down. It actually fell towards the south.

See here:
http://i35.tinypic.com/11hz3vp.gif

Awww.....you were having so much fun as well. :eye-poppi

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 01:08 PM

The answer is it doesn't drive itself straight down. It actually fell towards the south.

See here:
http://i35.tinypic.com/11hz3vp.gif

Awww.....you were having so much fun as well. :eye-poppi

Oh wow, a whole 5 degree tilt to the south! :D

I was having fun, now I'm having much more fun! You just contradicted
everyone else who said it broke and fell straight down!

Love it.

Newtons Bit

29th July 2008, 01:09 PM

"other columns failed from the heat of the fires"

NIST flatly states that 157 of 160 pieces of Steel they tested reached no more than 500 degrees.

Could you reference where in the NIST report that is? I want to read what they wrote.

defaultdotxbe

29th July 2008, 01:10 PM

Oh wow, a whole 5 degree tilt to the south! :D

and how far out of vertical was the core designed to be able to stand?

roundhead

29th July 2008, 01:13 PM

No, you missed the point. NIST was looking for identifiable steel. Don't forget, much of the damage to the steel recovered was determined to be the result of the collapse, not necessarily the conditions before collapse. NIST cataloged the steel that showed evidence of several different types of damage, but with no way to tell exactly where the steel was located, it is impossible to determine the exact cause of the damage.

Since there was plenty of other evidence for the fire temperatures, steel showing the effects of those temperatures would have been redundant.

It would be like investigating a car accident, determining the brakes failed, and then saying "Aha! Since you didn't check the status of the rear brake lights, there has to be another explanation."

What lies?

Sure, additional evidence is always a good reason to change a theory.

Since when did the NIST report become a criminal investigation?

As a source of recommendations for improvements in building codes, it only makes sense to investigate possible contributing causes to the collapse in order to update building codes to avoid such failures in the future. In most cases, NIST is tasked to make such recommendations based on any available evidence. They are not tasked to prove beyond all doubt what exactly happened (that is the job of a criminal investigation), but to determine plausible and testable theories that can improve building practices.

And before this gets dragged out again, I do not think the NIST report is perfect in any sense. There are a couple of their code change recommendations I do not agree with, and there have been plenty of other papers and tests done that disagree with some of NIST's findings. However, that does not suggest in any way that they "FAILED" at the task to which they were set.

It is the truth movement that fails to understand the nature of the report, not the report that fails to meet its mission.

WHat happened at the WTC's was a criminal act. Discarding steel that was an important clue in discovering exactly what happened is in my mind a treasonable offense. I am far from alone in making this correct accusation.

This extremely well respected publication, aptly sums up my feelings on this issue. And its speculation as to what the investigation would turn in to was spot on

By Bill Manning

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

Breach of Rule 4 removed.

Newtons Bit

29th July 2008, 01:19 PM

and how far out of vertical was the core designed to be able to stand?

The columns were likely designed for a P-Δ that would be experienced from a wind event. I can't imagine this being more than one inch between the top and bottom of the column. A 5 degree tilt of a building 208 ft long results in a vertical offset of 18 feet, or 217 inchs and a horizontal offset of 19inches.

That's probably relevant, don't you think?

beachnut

29th July 2008, 01:27 PM

Thank you Jaydee sincerely. Even though we don't see eye-to-eye,
I do respect your civil replies.

On that note, I'll just take off and concentrate on FDR threads.
...
I have yet to see a solid vertical object bury itself into the ground due
to gravity.
Oh no. I took my bb gun out side, shot it straight up, the bb came back only on gravity and buried itself in the ground. Vertical symmetry, oops.

Oh no. Took a steel posts, round, and dropped it (gravity, as fast as free fall, not faster, no slower, no thermite) from a ladder, it buried itself in the ground. It is a vertical column, YES! CASE CLOSED, go try it yourself.

I fear to think of what steel would do from 1300 feet! Ouch.

is this physics, or Fysiks, or FissZAKs.

Einstein says it best, it fits like a T

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Einstein
Good luck, hurry back.

johnny karate

29th July 2008, 01:28 PM

This extremely well respected publication, aptly sums up my feelings on this issue. And its speculation as to what the investigation would turn in to was spot on

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

Glad to see you've finally given up on that ridiculous controlled demolition hypothesis.

WildCat

29th July 2008, 01:28 PM

By Bill Manning

Funny you left the date off that roundhead! It was written before the NIST investigation was even commissioned.

You'll find that Bill Manning got exactly what he wanted in the NIST report. No, he is not a truther.

Hokulele

29th July 2008, 01:30 PM

WHat happened at the WTC's was a criminal act. Discarding steel that was an important clue in discovering exactly what happened is in my mind a treasonable offense. I am far from alone in making this correct accusation.

And you are far from alone in being wrong about that.

It is simply mind-boggling how CTists conflate all government agencies the way they do. The fact that they cannot separate the mission statements of NIST, NTSB, FBI, CIA, etc. never fails to amaze me.

This extremely well respected publication, aptly sums up my feelings on this issue. And its speculation as to what the investigation would turn in to was spot on

You may want to revisit your Membership Agreement.

phunk

29th July 2008, 01:30 PM

Phunk - There is also what appears to be some form of dust, or oxide
trailing behind the steel as it descends. Too strange to be bolts and
welds popping suddenly.

Of course there's dust on it. There was acres of drywall in those buildings that just got crushed in the collapse.

funk de fino

29th July 2008, 01:31 PM

WHat happened at the WTC's was a criminal act. Discarding steel that was an important clue in discovering exactly what happened is in my mind a treasonable offense. I am far from alone in making this correct accusation.

It a shame that all the steel was forensically examined then eh? Before NIST looked at it. Photographed and catalogued. Even steel from WTC7.

Oh and just to repeat this - forensically examined. By investigators.

Turbofan

29th July 2008, 01:39 PM

Oh no. I took my bb gun out side, shot it straight up, the bb came back only on gravity and buried itself in the ground. Vertical symmetry, oops.

Oh no. Took a steel posts, round, and dropped it (gravity, as fast as free fall, not faster, no slower, no thermite) from a ladder, it buried itself in the ground. It is a vertical column, YES! CASE CLOSED, go try it yourself.

I fear to think of what steel would do from 1300 feet! Ouch.

is this physics, or Fysiks, or FissZAKs.

Einstein says it best, it fits like a T

Good luck, hurry back.

Foolish logic. All this time, those steel columns were fixed and standing strong
on their foundation, and on 9/11 they felt enough magic to slide into the
bedrock, huh?

Again with this "dropped" crap. It was a solid length. Nothing fell from space.

You must be reading the NIST report which incorrectly depicts the tower
construction as a floor held by two posts?

It's more like this:
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/911_inner_outer.jpg

This theory about one floor hitting the other like pancakes doesn't account
for the inner core (blue representing 47 core columns), nor does it account
for the perimeter columns.

I really don't understand how the core buckled at a rate of 10 floors per
second; especially knowing the floor sections were tied between core
and perimeter every ~12 feet!

WildCat

29th July 2008, 01:46 PM

Foolish logic. All this time, those steel columns were fixed and standing strong on their foundation, and on 9/11 they felt enough magic to slide into the bedrock, huh?
:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

ElMondoHummus

29th July 2008, 01:47 PM

"other columns failed from the heat of the fires"

NIST flatly states that 157 of 160 pieces of Steel they tested reached no more than 500 degrees.

There is zero evidence any impact zone steel MELTED(or failed from the heat of the fires). NONE.

Show me where in the NIST report they found melted steel from the impact zone?

Give me a minute, i better go check all my pots and pans from my Kitchen, some of those have been subjected to 500 degress of heat way longer than an hour.

Just got back, all my pots and pans are fine.

None of them had to melt to fail. That point has been made time and time again in this forum. Steel loses approximately 40 to 50% of its load bearing capacity at 600 °C, which was reached in the fires, despite your attempt to paint a picture to the contrary. Speaking of which, you're being disingenuous with that 500 degrees figure. Since you're saying that NIST says that, there are only two places I can think of where that came from: The exterior panels test:

Most perimeter panels (157 of 160 locations mapped) saw no temperature T > 250 °C, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire on 13 panels

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf[/size] (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf)

... of which people should note the following: Those were exterior panels (If steel on the edges of the buildings and therefore the edges of the fires got that hot, how hot were the temperatures in the most intense part of the conflageration?).

Or, the only other place I can think of is NCSTAR 1-3:

Similar results, i.e. limited exposure if any above 250 °C were found for the two core columns recovered from the fire-affected floors of the towers, which had adequat paint for analysis. Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.

... in which case, the 250 °C figure (roughly 482 °F, close to the 500 degree figure you gave) is the low end. Read again: "... if any above 250 °C...".

In either case, the "500 degrees" figure you cite was never intended by NIST as being the highest temperature reached at all. It was either the temperature a steel component on the periphery of the fire didn't exceed, or the bottom-most figure for a core column. Either that, or some misquote from a conspiracy peddler; you tell us where you got it from. In either case, it doesn't represent what they say the highest temperatures were.

So what does NIST say those highest temperatures were? They lay it out in NCSTAR 1-5: Up to 1000 °C for periods at a time, and up to 600 °C for the rest of the time the steel members were engulfed in flame. That's degrees celsius, not fahrenheit. I really doubt your stove can reach 500 degrees celsius.

No matter what, your argument fails in that it brings up a total red herring in the steel temperature you cite, as well as failing when you say the steel had to melt to cause collapse. No one's sane is saying that, and only conspiracy peddlers have ever tried to make that claim. The myth of steel needing to melt in order to cause the collapse is such an old argument that it was settled back in 2006. Your response fails to refute my statement.

uk_dave

29th July 2008, 02:03 PM

Foolish logic. All this time, those steel columns were fixed and standing strong
on their foundation, and on 9/11 they felt enough magic to slide into the
bedrock, huh?

You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

The columns are braced by the floor assemblies. Take away the floors and there is nothing to stop the columns from moving.

If you can't grasp that concept, there really is no hope for you.

ElMondoHummus

29th July 2008, 02:08 PM

The honest answer is, which you avoided, is that the NIST looked dilligently to find ANY steel that reached temps that would weaken it. THEY DIDNT AND COULDNT.

In lieu of the above fact, they again morphed the story to dislodged fireproofing as the culprit.

That is blatantly untrue. You make the progress of model refinement as being like the elaborations of a bad liar. That couldn't be further from the truth, although it pretty much nails conspiracy peddlers dead on. NIST's model was built from a study of the recovered debris, and the model changes as more information is uncovered. For example, the progression from pancaking collapse initiation to the whole upper section being involved in a progressive collapse is a refinement.

NIST's search for steel debris was well laid out in NCSTAR 1-3, as well as in the links at Gravy's page on the debris cleanup (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerocleanup%2Cfreshkillssortingopera). Regardless, you have no proof for your charge.

Because previous lies werent justifiable in relation to OBSERVED TEMPS.

What "previous lies"? You're making allegations. Back them up. What parts of the initial story laid forth in places like the FEMA 403 reports weren't justifiable in relation to the "OBSERVED TEMPS". Which, as I pointed out to you in my post above, is something you're misunderstanding.

There is a perfect reason why NIST continued to change its story on the collapses.
They dont stand scrutiny, and they are well aware of it.

They went from pancaking collapse initiation to the progressive collapse model. And that was based on their investigation. What else has supposedly "changed"?

Thank god we now have a shotgun shot into a box to explain how dislodged fireproofing is the newest culprit.

When did they not consider dislodged fireproofing to be a contributing cause?

On top of that, there's a school of thought out there that says the fireproofing didn't have to dislodge for the collapse to occur. Look up in this forum the discussions over Arup's and the University of Edinburgh's fire engineering department's stance on the subject.

Just like a common criminal who continually changes his story and whereabouts while being questioned by police, becuase he figures a new lie will finally clear him, so the NIST has went down the same path.
They are unfortunately being asked to stand on an untenable slippery slope, and thus far have found little to no purchase on this slippery slope, which is the "Official lie"...Sucks to be them.

The NIST is exactly this...The poor lawyer being asked to defend for murder a client they are well aware is guilty.

Again, cite what has changed. We know of the refinement from "pancake" initiation to progressive collapse, but the rest of your charge is more vaporous. You make it sound as though NIST has gone all over the place with their explanation. I've observed none of this from them. But I've seen plenty of it from Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Bermas Rowe and Dylan...

Jonnyclueless

29th July 2008, 02:10 PM

Mancman

29th July 2008, 02:13 PM

I really don't understand how the core buckled at a rate of 10 floors per
second; especially knowing the floor sections were tied between core
and perimeter every ~12 feet!

That didn't happen. You're just wrong. Stop wasting our time.

Grizzly Bear

29th July 2008, 02:17 PM

Foolish logic. All this time, those steel columns were fixed and standing strong on their foundation, and on 9/11 they felt enough magic to slide into the bedrock, huh?

This is beyond question the most delusional Bull*rule10* I have ever heard from you... and also the most hilarious XD

You must be reading the NIST report which incorrectly depicts the tower
construction as a floor held by two posts?
Would you mind linking me to the page where you read this? Knowing your history I don't think I can rely on you for context...

I really don't understand how the core buckled at a rate of 10 floors per
second;
That's because they did not... photographic and video evidence shows that they did not, (you aren't forgetting how much of the cores collapsed AFTER the main event are you). They suffered a local failure at collapse initiation and everything from the failure point and above started coming down... Your question has the makings of a strawman argument...

Grizzly Bear

29th July 2008, 02:22 PM

If you can't grasp that concept, there really is no hope for you.
I linked for him a very basic scenario which I covered in structures classes... to teach him the point... It doesn't seem he is interested...

For the record, the 'equation' I used are provided to illustrate the difference between unbraced load capacity and braced load capacity. The link I gave is by *no measure* intended to replicate or represent the towers only the concept he continually fails at comprehending

ElMondoHummus

29th July 2008, 02:30 PM

Oh wow, a whole 5 degree tilt to the south! :D

I was having fun, now I'm having much more fun! You just contradicted
everyone else who said it broke and fell straight down!

Love it.

There is no contradiction in what he says, what the rest of us says, and what really happened; there's only contradiction in how you attempt to paint the responses. For example, take the Blanchard work I qouted:

ASSERTION #2
“But they fell straight down into their own footprint.”
PROTEC COMMENT: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance.

Any discussion of how the towers fell on 9/11 requires a fundamental understanding of how buildings collapse and an examination of the damage inflicted upon adjacent structures that morning.

A tall office building cannot be made to tip over like a tree. Reinforced concrete smokestacks and industrial towers can, due to their small footprint and inherently monolithic properties. However, because typical human-inhabited buildings (and their supporting elements) are spread over a larger area and are not nearly as rigid, the laws of gravity cause them to begin collapsing downward upon being weakened or tipped off center to a certain point. Blasters are well aware of this and often rely on this principle in designing upper-floor charge patterns to maximize breakage and in predicting debris drop zones.

The collapse of towers 1 and 2 followed this principle exactly. When the impact floors of both towers eventually failed, the upper sections did not simply tumble over onto the street below, rather they tilted while simultaneously collapsing downward.

In short, the towers fell the way they did because gravity would naturally pull the components downward once they were separated from their supports. When the jets hit, they severed columns. Other columns failed from the heat of the fires. The remainder failed from the overload resulting from the previous two types of failures. Once those failures occurred, the upper section came down onto the lower sections. And that leads back to the posts you continue to ignore, the ones describing how the upper section defeated the individual floors' resistance on the way down. No explosives demolition required. This is not too hard to understand.

Does it look like Blanchard and I are saying that everything went straight down? Or were we just describing that gravity pulls the towers down once they lose their internal structural supports? If you'll take the time to actually understand the arguments we're making, we're not saying everything went straight down into its own footprint with no horizontal deviation whatsoever. We're saying that gravity pulls downward. Which is what your original post was asking about: What caused the downward collapse? It was gravity. What else would it be? To presume that the tower should have done anything else would be to presume that it had a rigidity roughly equal to that of a solid object, like a tree. That is not the case.

But, the general downward direction is not a contradiction of MancMan's statement. Everything falls downward in general, but some horizontal spreading is to be expected. And in fact, Blanchard noted this:

With the weight and mass of the upper sections forcing the floor trusses below rapidly downward, there was no way for outer perimeter walls to fall in, so they had to fall out. A review of all photographic images clearly show about 95% of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure, creating a giant “mushroom” effect around its perimeter.

As we now know, significant amounts of heavy structural debris rained down for blocks around the site. Many of the closest WTC buildings were completely destroyed and others heavily damaged. Predictably, the north tower’s collapse caused slightly more ancillary damage than the south tower, as its impact point was higher and thus a larger volume of debris was projected farther from its footprint. Video of the north tower collapse clearly shows a roughly 50-story tall section of the building shearing away intact and laying out towards the west, heavily damaging the American Express Building and others on the adjacent block. Aerial photos taken just after both collapses show massive volumes of debris that impacted WTC 7 (and other buildings to the north), the effects of which were directly responsible for the intense fires within that structure.

These facts indicate that a relatively small amount of structural support debris actually landed straight down within the towers’ footprints, making this event notably dissimilar to a planned demolition event.

So, Blanchard says "down", but does he exclude any "out"? Not when he says things like "Video of the north tower collapse clearly shows a roughly 50-story tall section of the building shearing away intact and laying out towards the west, heavily damaging the American Express Building and others on the adjacent block". Downward direction does not exclude the distribution of segments tilting or debris falling outward.

You need to actually try to comprehend the collapse, and stop being so worried about catching people in supposed contradictions. When you do that, you miss the nuance of the explanations, and you fail to understand the truth of what happened. 5 degrees of tilt of any given section doesn't contradict what anyone's saying about the collapse.

Hokulele

29th July 2008, 02:56 PM

You need to actually try to comprehend the collapse, and stop being so worried about catching people in supposed contradictions.

But, but, that would involve work.

beachnut

29th July 2008, 03:02 PM

Foolish logic. All this time, those steel columns were fixed and standing strong
on their foundation, and on 9/11 they felt enough magic to slide into the
bedrock, huh?

Again with this "dropped" crap. It was a solid length. Nothing fell from space.

You must be reading the NIST report which incorrectly depicts the tower
construction as a floor held by two posts?

It's more like this:
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/911_inner_outer.jpg

This theory about one floor hitting the other like pancakes doesn't account
for the inner core (blue representing 47 core columns), nor does it account
for the perimeter columns.

I really don't understand how the core buckled at a rate of 10 floors per
second; especially knowing the floor sections were tied between core
and perimeter every ~12 feet!
How can you post such tripe?

Solid length? You mean 1300 foot long?

No WTC is more like:
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/WTCexteriorcore.jpg
Then an impact 7 times greater than design. Did you know that? Guess you missed nist or you would be making fewer errors; maybe not.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/WTCexteriorimpact.jpg
Are you just an apologist for terrorist or 9/11 truth? Why is it, the terrorist, who supported the 19 hijacker murderers, are not supporting your FAILED ideas? Could it be UBL is more educated than a standard 9/11 truth false idea spewing member? YES, he is!

Why do terrorist understand 9/11 and take credit, and all you can do is prove failure in physics?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc2impact.jpg

Second impact, at 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impact, your expertise in cars is not giving you a clue for 9/11 issues. Got Physics, do you even understand it?

The floor reached and passed 10 floor per second at about the 52nd floor, below that it reached a peak speed making the drop in 0.072 seconds at the end.

But who expects p4t members to excel at math?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447453ddef493eb8.jpg

You do not understand becaseu you lack physcis, and think the columns were 1300 feet long.
Built slowly, the core was laterally supported by the Shell, by the floors being connect to the two, the core can not stand by itself. The wind would blow it down.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1244745f1cf5a19d62.jpg
Remaining core on 9/11, fell.
NIST has a lot of photos.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/WTCexteriorwallpanal.jpg

Did you read NIST? How much can one floor hold?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/124474626583dcee82.jpg

When you read NIST, take physics, and stop listening to 9/11 truth groups like p4t, who have no theories, you could understand, or begin to understand 9/11. Good luck.

WildCat

29th July 2008, 03:07 PM

It all suddenly makes sense to me where Turbofan is going here - 1000's of missing feet of core columns, telescoping, core columns penetrating bedrock.

Turbofan actually thinks the core columns were rammed 1300 feet into the ground!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I for one am just dying to hear how he thinks the NWO pulled this one off! It's sure to make Judy Wood's space beam look like a tinker toy!

:dl:

ElMondoHummus

29th July 2008, 03:23 PM

But, but, that would involve work.

Hehe... yeah, heaven forbid that ever be required. :D

29th July 2008, 04:13 PM

Because this hasn't been addressed yet.

Nope.

For the third time, it isn't compression. At least not at this stage. It is dynamic pressure. Dynamic pressure means there is no pressurization, per se, but instead it is all based on the fluid's inertia. Air, like everything else, has inertia.

You don't have to tell me it isn't compression, that's what your guys are spinning to explain the jet of debris shooting out the side of the building!

Mackey is quite correct.
Compression is not needed to explain the phenomenon. Dynamic pressure is more than capable of causing the observed effects.

And I now realize I was mistaken in my earlier comment, and that fans and pumps do not require compression to work (usually). Turbofans still do, though.

Again, no. Dynamic pressure. Not static pressure. And there is no "overcoming outside ambient pressure," since the static pressure is the same inside and out...

No, it's not! You just contradicted yourself. The pressure inside the building
will change once the upper level begins to move.

The pressure inside the building would become higher. Gas/Fluids move from
high pressure to low pressure.

Without a differential, fluid/gas flow cannot exist.

Do you understand the difference between dynamic and static pressure?
Mackey is quite kindly trying to explain it to you here. Allow me to re-post what he wrote below, with some emphasis added:

"Dynamic pressure. Not static pressure. And there is no "overcoming outside ambient pressure," since the static pressure is the same inside and out..."

You will note that I italicized the word "dynamic", and bolded the word "static". You will note that the underlined passage refers clearly to static pressure, not dynamic. The two are not the same, and your failure to realize this is telling of your ignorance of the physics of fluid motion.

Below are two Wikipedia links, and (basic) definitions. They are links to webpages which explain, briefly, dynamic pressure and static pressure. I implore you to read them, and if you don't understand them, ask or PM, and someone here will be glad to help you through difficulties of comprehension (provided you show a willingness to learn something).

Dynamic Pressure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_pressure): pressure felt due to fluid motion.
Static Pressure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_pressure#Static_pressure_in_fluid_dynamics) : pressure exerted by stationary fluid. Pay attention to the application of Bernoulli's equation, as well.

Is that right?

R. Mackey stated:

Again, no. Dynamic pressure. Not static pressure. And there is no "overcoming outside ambient pressure," since the static pressure is the same inside and out...

Do you believe the static pressure is the same inside and outside of the building
once gas flow begins? :confused:

I wasn't born yesterday my friend.

As Slayhamlet said, your inability to distinguish between two different phenomena is indicative of your ignorance of the subject.

Please note that you have bolded the same line I underlined above, to highlight that Mackey is referring to two different things here. Static pressure is NOT the same as dynamic pressure.

In fact, they are independant of one another.

It is easily possible to have dynamic pressure building and static pressure remaining the same.
But look at the total pressure.

You are trying to say that P0, 1 = Pstatic + Pdynamic and P[sub]0, 2[/sub ] = Pstatic (with Pdynamic = 0) are the same.

They are not, and Mackey is not saying what your are arguing against.
If I felt you were doing this on purpose, I'd call you disingenuous and ridicule your argument for a strawman. Instead, I hope you will read this post and leanr something, thereby fixing at least one small section of ignorance.

And now I must run, or I will be late for my violin lesson...

pomeroo

29th July 2008, 06:25 PM

Squib = tiny explosives. The jets of debris you see shooting out the buildings
are produced by squibs.

I don't have a source, you'll have to take this explanation and live with it.

Try AE911truth.org for a complete breakdown of squibs and how they're used.

You've been caught lying again. Gage's dolts and charlatans apparently don't understand what the demolition experts keep telling them. In the phenomenon we observe in the videos, the plume of ejecta gradually expands, suggesting the release of compressed air. In an explosion, the appearance would be very different--a big burst that quickly dissipates.

A W Smith

29th July 2008, 06:27 PM

Still waiting for an answer from everyone, especially

- Confuseling
- d'rok 3 times avoiding question
- SDC
- Newtons Bit Admits to avoiding response. Probably not schooled
enough to give a comprehenisve answer to the question
- uk_Dave
- R. Mackey
- Pomeroo
- Nicepants 3 times avoiding question
- Wildcat
- bje
- Mr. Herbert
- Anti-sophist- Beachnut
- Reheat

1) yours is an argument from incredulity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance),

2) you are asserting that the column tree telescoped. And asking us to explain it. This is a false choice logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy)and i will explain why.

3) you are using footage taken from over a mile away. You cannot tell if the columns are buckling toward the camera or away from the camera because you are only seeing two dimensions out of three. Also there is no way to see from this viewpoint if the portion obscured by buildings in the foreground if the core column tree is buckling from lack of horizontal bracing from the perimeter columns which are now absent.

pomeroo

29th July 2008, 06:30 PM

lol

says the "amarican wannabe thinker" that judges religions based on a book he never readed himself.

you was on a TV show about Islam, and you had no clue about islam nor did you read the koran lol.

Irrelevant nonsense. I know much more about Islam than you do. Your fellow liar, the hopeless idiot Heiwa, has run away with his tail between his legs. You have been exposed no less thoroughly. What's keeping you?

If I can decipher your illiterate drivel, you seem to be claiming that I judge Islam on the Koran. I'm sure you think you're making a point, but I can assure you that, as usual, you aren't.

pomeroo

29th July 2008, 06:32 PM

What's your take on the video?

Still waiting for an answer from everyone, especially

- uk_Dave
- R. Mackey
- Pomeroo
- Nicepants
- Wildcat
- bje
- Mr. Herbert
- Anti-sophist
- Beachnut
- Reheat

Stop dodging, start answering.

My take is that we are watching a gravity-driven collapse and you are an ignorant liar.

pomeroo

29th July 2008, 06:37 PM

Wow, you're so good at twisting stuff around. Do you work for the Pentagon?

Replace single solid steel beam with "steel structure".

I'm pretty content with the replies thus far. It really confirms what I
already knew.

This makes absolutely no sense? The structure left standing suddenly
decides to break apart? Laterally unrestrained, so it decides to vertically
impale itself into the ground. :rolleyes:

Go to bed believing all of this! Smile and wave as your stupid government
kills innocent people in IRAQ, AFGAN., and next IRAN.

Oh yeah, those wars were waged without linking proof to 9/11.

Again, I remind everyone that the common denominator for all of these ignorant morons is their hatred of America.

A W Smith

29th July 2008, 07:06 PM

Nicepants: I own a car that goes 0-60 MPH in four seconds. I build
cars that go 0-60 MPH in two seconds. I've been around cars that
go 0-320 MPH in four seconds.

So? I notched tubing and formed body panels and burnt my fingers shaping moly brackets on the belt sander from raw moly plate building one of these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKIx4_0KsvA)in 86 which won the north east division 1 championship in 87. We clinched it at the final race out of division at bowling green where i was the only crew member. And as a clutch guy for another team in 05 and 06 we runnered up at the Southern's in Atlanta both years and won at Lebanon valley. 05 we were #2 in division 1.

The car I built with the owner /driver/ fabricato (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Celko87car.jpg)r came off of my drawing board and was one of only two cars when sold that was upgraded to top fuel. It Was sold to Bobby Lagana from Scarsdale as his first top fuel car. The only other chassis upgraded from top alcohol to top fuel I am aware of was when Billy Williams from Torrence upgraded his alky car to run top fuel.

But what does all this have to do with Fyziks?

Nothing telescoped or you would have seen it in the wreckage aftermath, No one was close enough to see through the dust cloud that was tens of stories high to see the manner in which the core columns collapsed.. its like holding your hand in front of the other and making silhouettes on a curtain in front of a light, without seeing behind the hand in the foreground. there is no available visual data to jump to conclusions. no mater high tall the index finger or the spire was.

pomeroo

29th July 2008, 07:10 PM

pomeroo

29th July 2008, 07:18 PM

The honest answer is, which you avoided, is that the NIST looked dilligently to find ANY steel that reached temps that would weaken it. THEY DIDNT AND COULDNT.

In lieu of the above fact, they again morphed the story to dislodged fireproofing as the culprit.

Because previous lies werent justifiable in relation to OBSERVED TEMPS.

There is a perfect reason why NIST continued to change its story on the collapses.
They dont stand scrutiny, and they are well aware of it.

Thank god we now have a shotgun shot into a box to explain how dislodged fireproofing is the newest culprit.

Just like a common criminal who continually changes his story and whereabouts while being questioned by police, becuase he figures a new lie will finally clear him, so the NIST has went down the same path.
They are unfortunately being asked to stand on an untenable slippery slope, and thus far have found little to no purchase on this slippery slope, which is the "Official lie"...Sucks to be them.

The NIST is exactly this...The poor lawyer being asked to defend for murder a client they are well aware is guilty.

It is amazing the lengths a stupid and dishonest person will go to prop up an absurd falsehood. In your insane fantasy, NIST undermines its own hypothesis, but the agency NEVER GETS THE IDEA TO FALSIFY THE TEMPERATURES IT FOUND. Somehow, thousands of serious researchers are available to confirm the "official" explanation that steel begins to weaken at 400 degrees C, but it doesn't occur to anyone to SIMPLY POSIT HIGHER TEMPERATURES.
You people are the most insufferable morons.

jaydeehess

29th July 2008, 07:45 PM

Built slowly, the core was laterally supported by the Shell, by the floors being connect to the two, the core can not stand by itself. The wind would blow it down.

Actually Beachnut, if the perimeter columns and the floor spans had magically disappeared in an instant leaving only the core intact and pristine it would likely still buckle and collapse even if there was absolutly no wind.

,,,, and it would do so without the requirement that its columns either telescope into themselves nor drive themselves into the bedrock.

GT/CS

29th July 2008, 09:14 PM

OK guys and gals, even though I have TF on ignore I've picked up enough of this to understand why he doesn't get it. TF please correct me if I'm wrong.

If all of you throw away your engineering and physics knowledge and look at this from a very simple point of view (that's not meant to be an insult to TF) it can be difficult to understand what happened to all those vertical columns.

I don't think TF is understanding the horizontal forces that were created by the collapse. He just sees vertical members suddenly missing, so what happened to them? They must have been pile-driven into the ground.

If you can make him understand how the horizontal forces acted on the columns I really think he'd get it. Oh, and it may help to not use 'lateral', or 'connections', or anything similar. Use 'sideways', and 'bolts', and similar terms.

Rememer K.I.S.S.

nicepants

29th July 2008, 09:44 PM

If you can make him understand how the horizontal forces acted on the columns I really think he'd get it.

If Turbofan was currently capable of "getting it", he would have by now. As it stands, his desire to believe in a huge conspiracy prevents him from viewing anything 9-11-related in an objective way. This is evidenced quite clearly in his posts in this thread.

Make no mistake...truthers don't want the truth...they want $truth.

Where $truth = something more interesting than reality which more closely resembles the scenarios they see in movies.

Corsair 115

29th July 2008, 10:37 PM

The columns were likely designed for a P-Δ that would be experienced from a wind event. I can't imagine this being more than one inch between the top and bottom of the column. A 5 degree tilt of a building 208 ft long results in a vertical offset of 18 feet, or 217 inchs and a horizontal offset of 19inches.

That's probably relevant, don't you think?You're using math and technical data! Don't do that, you'll just confuse our resident conspiracists even more than they are already...

Newtons Bit

29th July 2008, 11:10 PM

You're using math and technical data! Don't do that, you'll just confuse our resident conspiracists even more than they are already...

Well, one can hope to confuse them to the side of sanity rather than insanity.

Corsair 115

29th July 2008, 11:17 PM

Well, one can hope to confuse them to the side of sanity rather than insanity. A fair point, and a worthy endeavour, but based on the responses so far from the resident conspiracists, the effort would seem to be in vain.

Minadin

29th July 2008, 11:29 PM

You people are the most insufferable morons.

I think that this statement is rather unfair, as you've apparently not considered the Holocaust Deniers and the Apollo Hoax Moonbats. In my opinion, it's a 3-way race.

Of course, it would be so much easier to differentiate between the groups if there wasn't so much overlap.

DavidJames

29th July 2008, 11:37 PM

If you can make him understand how the horizontal forces acted on the columns I really think he'd get it. Oh, and it may help to not use 'lateral', or 'connections', or anything similar. Use 'sideways', and 'bolts', and similar terms.In additional to echoing what nicepants said, I have to add...

Your kidding right?

You really think he'd get it? You really think he has an open mind and is willing to accept the facts, but he's just confused by the terminology?

uk_dave

30th July 2008, 12:18 AM

You really think he'd get it? You really think he has an open mind and is willing to accept the facts, but he's just confused by the terminology?

'Truthers' have an arrogant over confidence in their own abilities. They may very well excel in some endeavours (or just think that they do)and this seems to give them the ability to believe that they can excel in all endeavours.

So, someone with absolutely no training or expertise in structural engineering, controlled demolition, air crash investigation, fdr analysis, forensic science etc, can, with the help of the internet, believe themselves suitably well informed sufficient to pontificate on such subjects.

Add to this very poor reading comprehension skills (which probably explains why they believe themselves to be experts on so many diverse subjects - they research but fail to understand) and you have a stereotypical 'truther'.

When they fail, their true colours are exposed as they become petulant and argumentative.

DavidJames

30th July 2008, 12:58 AM

'Truthers' have an arrogant over confidence in their own abilities. They may very well excel in some endeavours (or just think that they do)and this seems to give them the ability to believe that they can excel in all endeavours.

So, someone with absolutely no training or expertise in structural engineering, controlled demolition, air crash investigation, fdr analysis, forensic science etc, can, with the help of the internet, believe themselves suitably well informed sufficient to pontificate on such subjects.

Add to this very poor reading comprehension skills (which probably explains why they believe themselves to be experts on so many diverse subjects - they research but fail to understand) and you have a stereotypical 'truther'.

When they fail, their true colours are exposed as they become petulant and argumentative.Well said, I net it out to "ignorance and arrogance".

I often wonder how these people deal with real life. Do they exhibit the same tendencies when the subject is their or their families health? Or legal issues or anything that "normal" people may engage professionals. Do they take this attitude with them on the job. When presenting or discussing important topics or decisions with their managers, do they primarily use arguments from incredulity? Do they source educated and experienced experts or just go by their "gut feelings"?

I'm a professional and work with professionals, it would be a hoot to witness one if these clowns present a technical paper sourced by gut feelings and kook sources. Or present a paper with nothing but questions.

Turbofan

30th July 2008, 08:08 AM

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/see.jpg
This is what you get as the last floor hits at 51 m/s, and over 100 tons of TNT kinetic energy destroy a building (why it looks like 100 1000 pound bombs hit). Gravity, it kills.

What you see is a pile of tower reduced by explosives. You see Beachnut
incorrectly states that floors are dropping and contacting other floors in a
pancake fashion.

What he fails to understand is that the perimeter and core columns are
responsible for maintaining the structure of the tower.

Another myth is that the upper section dropped. This is false, and clearly
shown in the NIST report. NIST outlines the number of columns cut by the
plane. 100% of the interior and exterior columns did not fail. The section
above the impact zone would need to sag/bend/tip gradually in order to
'fall'.

http://procision-auto.com/Tino/911_no_drop.jpg

If the floors failed, then you would still have the perimeter and core columns
securing the tower, or the core remaining:

http://procision-auto.com/Tino/911_floor_stack.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/911_collapse3.jpg

At the base of the collapse, there should have been a large section of
tower remaining to explain the slightest, remote chance of a smaller, less
massive object blowing through 1000 feet of tower at a STEADY RATE.
Beachnut believes the figure reached 10 floors per second at the end
of the 'collapse', however video evidence shows a consistent rate of
descent!

We should have seen several floors at the base to make any of this
controlled demolition seem otherwise

http://procision-auto.com/Tino/911_collapse2.jpg

Again, this is not possible due to the SOLID connection of steel networked
at the core, and exterior columns. This isn't Jenga Beach nut!

R. Mackey:

Yes, static pressure within the tower is equal to the outside pressure.

Yes, dynamic pressure is added to static pressure to arrive at total pressure.

However, the dynamic pressure you are describing only has to overcome
ambient pressure to escape the building. I'm sure you will agree, there
was no form of significant pressure wave entering the building due to a
wind storm?

Therefore, the falling floor in your example would not be able to build
enough pressure against the window with a large opening at the opposite
side

http://procision-auto.com/Tino/911_pressure.jpg

WildCat

30th July 2008, 08:14 AM

So much ignorance, so much arrogance...

nicepants

30th July 2008, 08:47 AM

What you see is a pile of tower reduced by explosives. You see Beachnut
incorrectly states that floors are dropping a...

Are you staying or leaving?

On that note, I'll just take off and concentrate on FDR threads.

We don't mind if you continue to participate in this thread, however if you plan to do so, please address the posts you "waved off" by stating that you were no longer going to debate in this thread. You can start with post #414.

---Somewhat off-topic---

Are you one of those "chemtrail" cters too, Turbo?

http://procision-auto.com/Tino/pft_chem1.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/pft_chem2.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/pft_chem4.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/pft_chem5.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/pft_chem6.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/pft_chem7.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/pft_chem8.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/con_trails.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/con_trails2.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/jet_stream1.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/jet_stream2.jpg

Turbofan

30th July 2008, 09:00 AM

Fascinating, but that has nothing to do with the WTC, or the question you asked which was:

-about a steel structure, not a "solid vertical object"

-about the structure telescoping, not "burying itself into the ground"

Why should I reply to you? You're just as bad as Wildcat for twisting stuff
aronud, just like in your signature.

Those parts in bold are adjectives/verbs to describe the core section and how it reacted
in the video.

Like I said many times before , you are good at picking at trivial points
and overlooking the more important message.

Use any term/word you like for the core columns driving down vertically,
if that makes you feel any better.

I hope this response is good enough for you sir...

EDIT: No I'm not a believer of chemtrails. Those photos prefixed with PFT are
taken from discussions between certain members. The last four are photos I took.
Notice they are labelled "contrail", or "jetstream". I'm more annoyed with the
pollution and the fact that our government wants to ban leaded fuels in race
classes, but they continue to use leaded fuels in their private jets, and
exempt the airline industry.

WildCat

30th July 2008, 09:06 AM

Why should I reply to you? You're just as bas as Wildcat for twisting stuff
aronud, just like in your signature.
Twist what around? You did claim that the core columns "slipped into the bedrock", yes? :rolleyes:

Use any term/word you like for the core columns driving down vertically,
if that makes you feel any better.
It's called "falling", I hope that word isn't too technical for you.

Grizzly Bear

30th July 2008, 09:12 AM

What you see is a pile of tower reduced by explosives.
Such blissful ignorance...

What he fails to understand is that the perimeter and core columns are responsible for maintaining the structure of the tower.
He is understanding that concept quite well. You on the other hand are making false assertions of how the structure should behave post-collapse.

100% of the interior and exterior columns did not fail.
This is purely false and misleading. The exterior columns were shown to be buckling well in advance of collapse initiation. To ignore that you must either be flat-out stupid, or intentionally misleading people to believe in your theory. You know nothing about structural design, or concepts, and your attempts to lecture us on the subject have been utterly miserable.

I'll define it for you:

In engineering buckling is a failure mode characterized by the abrupt failure of structural members that are subjected to high compressive stresses, in which the actual compressive stresses at failure exceed the ultimate compressive stresses the material is able to withstand.

The progressive buckling observed prior to the tower's collapse is far from characteristic of your fantasy explosives, those exterior columns are undergoing plastic buckling.

Name for me a single grade of explosives that can cause gradual deformation of the structural members turbo... or are you unable to provide any?

The section above the impact zone would need to sag/bend/tip gradually in order to 'fall'.
Prove this fallacious claim with math if you are confident that this is to be the expected behavior.

The core columns supported roughly 60% of the gravity loads, the perimeter carried the other 40% (approx.). From where would the structure 'sag'? There is structure in only two regions; the exterior perimeter, and the core.

And you still forgot about this?Columns buckling observed prior to collapse (http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html)

If the floors failed, then you would still have the perimeter and core columns
securing the tower, or the core remaining:

Point 1: Floor failure did NOT INITIATE the collapse sequence. NIST never said it did.

Point 2: You have ZERO concept of structural engineering. Stop pretending that you know. I gave you a sample column design problem to show you the difference between the maximum load capacity of 'braced', and 'unbraced' column lengths. You did not read it, would you rather I haunt you with it repeatedly or that I send you all relevant tables and equations so you can check out the difference yourself through math?

READ (http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/6056/structureskc9.jpg)

however video evidence shows a consistent rate of descent!

Ge, I didn't know you were such a Houdini that you could determine such detail just by looking up a youtube video :rolleyes:. Gravity works with a little physics term called [i]acceleration, so you are saying that there was no acceleration? Constant speed after all requires a net increase in acceleration of ZERO.

We should have seen several floors at the base to make any of this controlled demolition seem otherwise

Really? You expected acre sized 4-inch thick concrete slabs to be neatly piled up with ribbons on top? fyziks is clearly not your strong suit... stop pretending it is...

Again, this is not possible due to the SOLID connection of steel networked
at the core, and exterior columns.
I hope by SOLID you don't mean continuous :covereyes
The structure (the core and perimeter aike) were composed 3-story sections either welded or bolted together. And most came apart at the connections

An inconvenient fact you like to ignore

Jeez... Turbo... stop with the insanity....

Turbofan

30th July 2008, 09:34 AM

The exterior columns were shown to be buckling well in advance of collapse initiation. To ignore that you must either be flat-out stupid, or intentionally misleading people to believe in your theory. You know nothing about structural design, or concepts, and your attempts to lecture us on the subject have been utterly miserable.

All the buckling and stuff, but you don't account for the 47 core columns
in your collapse theory. To ignore that you must be stupid, or dreaming.

In engineering buckling is a failure mode characterized by the abrupt failure of structural members that are subjected to high compressive stresses, in which the actual compressive stresses at failure exceed the ultimate compressive stresses the material is able to withstand.

No, no...more like let "Google" define it :D

Nice search skills you have there
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=buckling+failure+mode&meta=

The progressive buckling observed prior to the tower's collapse is far from characteristic of your fantasy explosives, those exterior columns are undergoing plastic buckling.

And shooting out over 350 feet laterally? :rolleyes: Gravity huh?

Name for me a single grade of explosives that can cause gradual deformation of the structural members turbo... or are you unable to provide any?

The same ones that demo a building in 10 seconds, and launch tons of
steel 350+ feet away...also cutting through other buildings (WTC 7 :rolleyes:)

Point 1: Floor failure did NOT INITIATE the collapse sequence. NIST never said it did.

NIST never did a post initiation analysis. They know they'd expose the
explosives by attempting an explanation.

Ge, I didn't know you were such a Houdini that you could determine such detail just by looking up a youtube video :rolleyes:. Gravity works with a little physics term called [i]acceleration, so you are saying that there was no acceleration? Constant speed after all requires a net increase in acceleration of ZERO.

There was acceleration beyond what should have been decelerated by all
of that WTC steel. Gravity also must work through resistance of
all that WTC steel. You're also forgetting about Conservation of Momentum.

Really? You expected acre sized 4-inch thick concrete slabs to be neatly piled up with ribbons on top? fyziks is clearly not your strong suit... stop pretending it is...

I would expect to see an object with considerable mass reseting at the base
to explain the demolition of the towers in about 10 seconds.

I hope by SOLID you don't mean continuous

I hope by now you would have learned that I don't think the core, or
perimeter columns were continous :boggled:

They are however considered solid.

funk de fino

30th July 2008, 09:42 AM

There was acceleration beyond what should have been decelerated by all
of that WTC steel. Gravity also must work through resistance of
all that WTC steel. You're also forgetting about Conservation of Momentum.

You do not understand the Conservation of Momentum do you?

I would expect to see an object with considerable mass reseting at the base to explain the demolition of the towers in about 10 seconds.

The towers did not collapse in about 10 secs. FAIL again

I hope by now you would have learned that I don't think the core, or perimeter columns were continous :boggled:

They are however considered solid.

Thats go to be a stundie. Something which is not solid is considered solid?

You should run back to the FDR thread, you are making a bigger fool of yourself here than over there (something I thought was not possible BTW)

funk de fino

30th July 2008, 09:46 AM

NIST never did a post initiation analysis. They know they'd expose the explosives by attempting an explanation.

NIST indeed do explain the total collapse, using calculations. The fact you are ignorant to this is not our fault. Try researching a little better.

PS they did not need to use explosives in their explanation or calculations

Turbofan

30th July 2008, 09:55 AM

NIST indeed do explain the total collapse, using calculations. The fact you are ignorant to this is not our fault. Try researching a little better.

PS they did not need to use explosives in their explanation or calculations

No, but they stretched their numbers to make a computer simulation
fail LMAO.

NIST Anaylsis :rolleyes:

Show me YOUR source for the total collapse time of either tower.

funk de fino

30th July 2008, 10:03 AM

No, but they stretched their numbers to make a computer simulation
fail LMAO.

NIST Anaylsis :rolleyes:

You claimed they did not analyse the collapse progression past initiation. They did, they also gave calculations for it. Do you admit you were incorrect?

Show me YOUR source for the total collapse time of either tower.

There is a video shot by someone near the base of one of the towers that nearly killed them. I cannot link the video cause youtube is blocked here but I am sure you can look for it yourself or someone else can link it. In this video the collapse is nearer 15 secs. The only parts which hit the ground in 10 secs were the free falling parts which had been seperated from the structure.

Where is your source that the collapse of each tower was 10 secs. You made the initial claim.

tsig

30th July 2008, 10:08 AM

snip

Use any term/word you like for the core columns driving down vertically,
if that makes you feel any better.

snip.

OK how about "falling"

Turbofan

30th July 2008, 10:31 AM

You claimed they did not analyse the collapse progression past initiation. They did, they also gave calculations for it. Do you admit you were incorrect?

No dude, I don't admit anything. They used bogus calculations, and
poor simulations to explain their theory.

There is a video shot by someone near the base of one of the towers that nearly killed them. I cannot link the video cause youtube is blocked here but I am sure you can look for it yourself or someone else can link it. In this video the collapse is nearer 15 secs. The only parts which hit the ground in 10 secs were the free falling parts which had been seperated from the structure.

Where is your source that the collapse of each tower was 10 secs. You made the initial claim.

"nearer 15 seconds"

Wow, I'll give you that extra 5 seconds! You don't see anything wrong
with that?

Ten seconds was taken from several video sources. YouTube is not
blocked here (you can still link videos).

nicepants

30th July 2008, 10:37 AM

Why should I reply to you? You're just as bad as Wildcat for twisting stuff
aronud, just like in your signature.

Those parts in bold are adjectives/verbs to describe the core section and how it reacted
in the video.

I didn't twist anything around....you asked me a question about a steel structure telescoping, and when I answered it you made a remark about a steel object driving itself into the ground, which is a completely different scenario. It's you who is doing the twisting.

Use any term/word you like for the core columns driving down vertically,
if that makes you feel any better.

The word "falling" would suffice. Telescoping is something entirely different.

Like I said many times before , you are good at picking at trivial points
and overlooking the more important message.

You think the distinction between a solid steel object and a steel structure is trivial? That's probably why you don't understand a lot of what is being discussed....for example:

And shooting out over 350 feet laterally? :rolleyes: Gravity huh?

You know what's weird? I dropped a glass the other day, it fell straight downward, but when it hit the floor and broke apart, the glass shards flew outwards laterally.....I didn't throw it laterally. I wonder how much further laterally the pieces would have gone if it hit with about 2 million times more energy?

Turbofan

30th July 2008, 10:43 AM

Again with this DROPPED BS!

The upper section did NOT drop upon 'initiation' of collapse.

Everything was connected by core and perimeter columns!

Grizzly Bear

30th July 2008, 10:44 AM

All the buckling and stuff, but you don't account for the 47 core columns in your collapse theory. To ignore that you must be stupid, or dreaming.
Thank god I don't ignore the core columns. You saw how the perimeter columns behaved, the core columns are not different. Some were completely severed by the plane impact and others were weakened to at or near their ultimate loads. You're making an argument from ignorance

Nice search skills you have there

Thank you :D
I also have my structures text books...
The fact that you didn't bother to search it yourself until I posted a definition indicates to me that you're selectively lazy. Good job.

And the flame bait is appreciated but failed to meet quality standards required to receive an insult in return.

And shooting out over 350 feet laterally? :rolleyes: Gravity huh?

When you name explosives smaller than truck bombs that can send 70-ton panels 300 ft we'll discuss. But you're blowing hot air :rolleyes:

The planes became 100-ton missiles, and they failed to accomplish the amazing feat your fantasy explosives managed. Congratulations, you proved my point

There was more than enough energy in the collapse alone to do this.

The same ones that demo a building in 10 seconds, and launch tons of
steel 350+ feet away...also cutting through other buildings (WTC 7 :rolleyes:)

Is failure a hobby for you? Do you take pride in quote mining your sources? Do you take pride in using wrong numbers (like your 10-second collapse idiocy)?

Nice answer, you proved me right, you can't answer the question. THankyou for debunking yourself.

They know they'd expose the explosives by attempting an explanation.
In your fantasy maybe, but we adults like to think things in reality. The collapse was straightforward without the need for explosives or controlled demolition to explain it.

I would expect to see an object with considerable mass reseting at the base
to explain the demolition of the towers in about 10 seconds.

You didn't read NIST well at all:

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

<Snip>

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

My suggestion: Pick up some critical thinking skills... because your 10-second collapse time is horribly wrong

I hope by now you would have learned that I don't think the core, or
perimeter columns were continous :boggled:

They are however considered solid.

So steel welded in 36 ft sections is solid, yet not solid? Can you make up your mind?

Grizzly Bear

30th July 2008, 10:52 AM

No dude, I don't admit anything. They used bogus calculations, and poor simulations to explain their theory.

Really? Since you imply that you're so familiar with these calculation can you provide the correct numbers for us? Can you demonstrate to us how they are bogus?

"nearer 15 seconds"

Wow, I'll give you that extra 5 seconds! You don't see anything wrong
with that?
No actually nothing wrong... it renders your 'free fall' claim moot. It would indicate an acceleration of less than free fall (Less than 9.8 m/s^2).

Ten seconds was taken from several video sources.

qLShZOvxVe4
Not in this one....

YouTube is not blocked here (you can still link videos).
He was not referring to the forums...

Turbofan

30th July 2008, 10:54 AM

So steel welded in 36 ft sections is solid, yet not solid? Can you make up your mind?

Your entire post is BS , just like NIST's play on words. Grab a stop watch
and check out any MSM video of the towers exploding. It's not 25 seconds! LMAO

The need to explain the quoted section above highlights your inability to
grasp common terms. The steel itself is solid! The steel lengths welded
together then become solid.

SOme of you morons are trying to spin this to say the length of steel were
1300 feet each LMFAO!

Grow up kids.

Grizzly Bear

30th July 2008, 10:56 AM

Again with this DROPPED BS!

The upper section did NOT drop upon 'initiation' of collapse.

Everything was connected by core and perimeter columns!

When columns buckle and the structure begins to move as a result of the failure it indicates otherwise turbo... And most everything broke at the connections as has been pointed to you countless times

funk de fino

30th July 2008, 10:59 AM

No dude, I don't admit anything. They used bogus calculations, and
poor simulations to explain their theory.

Your lack of research shows. They did not use simulations to explain the total collapse progression. You have not looked at the Deecember FAQ's have you? it explains why, once initiation had occured, the collapse did not stop. They provide clacs for this. Please disprove them.

"nearer 15 seconds"

Wow, I'll give you that extra 5 seconds! You don't see anything wrong
with that?

Ten seconds was taken from several video sources. YouTube is not
blocked here (you can still link videos).

15 secs is nowhere near freefall which is nearer 9 secs. Some of the loose parts fell at freefall, the collapse of the tower was not freefall or anywhere near it.

Grizzly Bear

30th July 2008, 11:08 AM

Your entire post is BS , just like NIST's play on words.
YAWN... in other words you can't answer it so you resort to hand waving... thanks... got it

Grab a stop watch and check out any MSM video of the towers exploding. It's not 25 seconds! LMAO

Just how does
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

turn into saying the main collapse took that long. Are you reading impaired? :eye-poppi

The steel itself is solid!

To clarify your layman say so about the columns they were hollow box columns. Whose cross section looked like so: LINK (http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/core3.jpg)

The steel lengths welded together then become solid.
They were welded together to construct a continuous length yes, but to make them 'solid'.....no

SOme of you morons are trying to spin this to say the length of steel were
1300 feet each LMFAO!
In effect the overall length was close to that... but the individual parts that made up the columns were no longer than 36 ft in length. You are the one claiming that 1300 ft of steel structure should have remained standing... that's a reflection of your physics understanding... which is substantially low

uk_dave

30th July 2008, 11:22 AM

SOme of you morons are trying to spin this to say the length of steel were
1300 feet each LMFAO!

So, if they're not 1300 ft long, what length of steel are you claiming 'telescoped' into the ground?

Turbofan

30th July 2008, 11:33 AM

Really? Since you imply that you're so familiar with these calculation can you provide the correct numbers for us? Can you demonstrate to us how they are bogus?

Read up on D. Griffin and K. Ryan!

qLShZOvxVe4
Not in this one....

I guess all sound stops when the towers stop 'falling' huh?
Sure, don't account for sound delays, and the sounds of pieces spreading
arond the city streets. I guess that goes unheard and quiet as a mouse? :rolleyes:

To clarify your layman say so about the columns they were hollow box columns. Whose cross section looked like so: LINK

Steel is a SOLID !

I can't believe you people listen to each other and think you're god's gift
to engineering.

Steel is not a liquid, or a gas. It's solid. In sections, or welded!

uk_dave

30th July 2008, 11:38 AM

Read up on D. Griffin and K. Ryan!

Ahhhh so you can't then.

Steel is a SOLID you STUPID *********** MORON!
Hmmmmm. As I said in a previous post, 'truthers' tend to get very petulant when their inadequacies are exposed. I suspect you'll be wanting a mod to put you out of your misery.

Newtons Bit

30th July 2008, 11:45 AM

turn into saying the main collapse took that long. Are you reading impaired? :eye-poppi

He's just trolling. Which is why I put him on ignore long ago. He's not here to debate, or to do anything except waste peoples time.

Turbofan

30th July 2008, 11:50 AM

Ahhhh so you can't then.

No, not to their level. Why redo something that is already proven?

Hmmmmm. As I said in a previous post, 'truthers' tend to get very petulant when their inadequacies are exposed. I suspect you'll be wanting a mod to put you out of your misery.

You guys call me a troll? Grizzly is making failed attempts at twisting my
words, and that's fine?

What he's doing is fine by JREF I guess? So what, ban me then. :rolleyes:

If I have to put up with losers like him, I'd rather not be here.

There are countless instances where other members are breaking forum rules, but
they are not getting moderated. Sure, I understand there is some bias, but give
me a break.

DavidJames

30th July 2008, 11:51 AM

Looks to me TF if feeling a lot of heat and is trying to commit suicide by mod.

Minadin

30th July 2008, 11:57 AM

Read up on D. Griffin and K. Ryan!

Kevin Ryan has been shown to be a lying fraud on this very forum. Do a search and you'll find some great information about his failed lawsuit, which was hilariously dismissed with prejudice.

David Griffin is a former professor of what, exactly? It's getting so difficult to keep track of all the completely unrelated fields the 'experts' of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory movement specialize in.

Grizzly Bear

30th July 2008, 11:58 AM

Steel is a SOLID you <Expletive removed for convenience>! I can't believe you people listen to each other and think you're god's gift
to engineering.

Steel is not a liquid, or a gas. It's solid. In sections, or welded!

Got it <Expletive removed for convenience>?

I think I was perfectly well aware that steel is a solid, not a liquid, but I don't know where this became a discussion of the difference between steel being a 'solid', or a 'liquid'.

Your context implied that you were claiming something else and I clarified accordingly... If you were trying to shift this to solid vs liquid argument you should have clarified earlier before getting pissed off to the point of insulting my intelligence... Congratulations, there's a chance you could win the honor of being the first member I put on ignore...

He's just trolling. Which is why I put him on ignore long ago. He's not here to debate, or to do anything except waste peoples time.
I might go ahead and set him on ignore... I just have a high tolerance for talking to stubborn ignoramuses. Maybe Turbofan will be the first to break it... he's approaching that point... I can see why you did it earlier though, he's tempted me a few times to do it sooner XD

What he's doing is fine by JREF I guess? So what, ban me then. :rolleyes:

If I have to put up with losers like him, I'd rather not be here.

There are countless instances where other members are breaking forum rules, but
they are not getting moderated. Sure, I understand there is some bias, but give
me a break.

The difference turbofan is that I am insulting your arguments andaiming my insults purely at your conjecture. I make a conservative effort to avoid making it a personal insult. You directly insulted my intelligence, rather than attacking my argument...

But if it makes you feel like you got more pride then do continue... it's not hurting my feelings....

Turbofan

30th July 2008, 11:59 AM

Looks to me TF if feeling a lot of heat and is trying to commit suicide by mod.

Don't flatter yourself. You are the least of my worries if you don't know
steel is considered a solid! LMFAO!

uk_dave

30th July 2008, 12:06 PM

If the steels weren't 1300ft long, turbofan, what length were they?

nicepants

30th July 2008, 12:13 PM

Steel is not a liquid, or a gas. It's solid. In sections, or welded!

You are the least of my worries if you don't know
steel is considered a solid! LMFAO!

There are many definitions of the word "solid". This should not have to be explained to you.

When we say that the pieces of steel were "not a solid" we're not referring to the phase of matter1, rather we're stating that multiple pieces of steel welded together are not one solid piece5.

sol·id
1. Of definite shape and volume; not liquid or gaseous.

5. Having no gaps or breaks; continuous: That granite countertop is one solid piece.

nicepants

30th July 2008, 12:21 PM

There are countless instances where other members are breaking forum rules, but
they are not getting moderated.

Any specific instances you would like to bring to our attention?

Edit: As Minadin says, that's really mod-territory. The mods here are very fair about applying the rules to all members equally, regardless of opinion.

Minadin

30th July 2008, 12:30 PM

No, not to their level. Why redo something that is already proven?

You guys call me a troll? Grizzly is making failed attempts at twisting my
words, and that's fine?

What he's doing is fine by JREF I guess? So what, ban me then. :rolleyes:

If I have to put up with losers like him, I'd rather not be here.

There are countless instances where other members are breaking forum rules, but
they are not getting moderated. Sure, I understand there is some bias, but give
me a break.

If you feel another member is breaking the rules, you should use the report feature to let the mods know about it (Little triangle symbol with exclaimation point under a poster's avatar area, looks like /!\)

The rules apply equally to everyone regardless of the position you're trying to argue.

Turbofan

30th July 2008, 12:32 PM

Thanks Minadin.

Sorry Grizzly, I'll edit my post.

lapman

30th July 2008, 01:58 PM

The need to explain the quoted section above highlights your inability to grasp common terms. The steel itself is solid! The steel lengths welded together then become solid.Looks like you think that welds have the same tensile strength as the steel itself. Am I correct in thinking that?

funk de fino

30th July 2008, 02:07 PM

Because, not surprisingly, TF is ignoring the last post I made I looked for the NIST explanation for total collapse.

I suspect he is ignorant of them or he would not have made the earlier false claim.

1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

Care to dispute this explanation TF?

This "solid" thing is one of the stupidest things I have seen for ages. Well done TF you have given me a giggle.