Responding to Gravy's "Triangle" question.

[bofors]

YOU brought up the Triangle fire as an example of why the towers shouldn't have collapsed. YOU. How soon you forget!


Now answer the questions I asked about it. They are exceedingly simple. I even gave you a big hint. Here it is again:

"Please briefly explain the difference in the damage, fires, construction, and fireproofing between the Asch building, where the Triangle Shirtwaist company was located, and the three towers that collapsed on 9/11.

Big hint: 90 West Street."

Can you do it? Are you the Little Engineer that Could, unlike the hideously incompetent Richard Gage and his AE911Truth flunkies?

Then do it. YOU raised the issue, and YOU need to understand why it's so fundamentally important.

So, I am going to look at what Gravy is talking about here and respond to it, as Graby has insisted that I do, here.

[Quad4_72]

So, I am going to look at what Gravy is talking about here and respond to it, as Graby has insisted that I do, here.

So...how bout you get started then...

[Caper]

bofors,

Remember. It's a very honourable thing to admit you're wrong.

[Jonnyclueless]

And remember, using misleading and false claims such as "NIST admits they can't prove why the WTC towers collapsed" and passing off bad opinion as facts such as "NIST is useless" don't count as facts on this forum. It requires more than Woo.

[DGM]

Bofors,
Are you pausing for effect?

[bofors]

The Asch Building: Financing, Design, and
Construction
In November 1899, Joseph J. Asch lent Ole Olsen
$85,000 against a mortgage on 23 Washington Place.14
In December, Asch borrowed $280,000 against the
three lots at 25, 27, and 29 Washington Place, then
conveyed the mortgaged properties to Olsen together
with a one-year construction loan of $105,126.15 Olsen
commissioned Woolley to prepare plans for a ten-story
building for the combined lots that together had a
frontage of 101 feet on Washington Place and 100 feet
on Greene Street. The plans were filed with the
Department of Buildings on April 28, 1900.16 Two
days later, Olsen conveyed the four lots with “the
building now being erected” to Asch for $10,000 cash,
subject to the existing mortgages.17
The building was to be a modern loft structure
with a skeleton frame of iron and steel protected by
terra-cotta fireproofing, passenger and freight
elevators, and electric power for lights and
machinery.18 Because it was only to be 135 feet tall, it
was allowed to have wood floors, wood window
frames and trim, instead of the metal trim, metal
window frames, and stone or concrete floors that
would have been required in a 150 feet tall building.
Sprinklers were not required but there was to be a fire
alarm system as well as a standpipe with hoses on all
the floors connecting to a water tank on the roof. The
plans called for two staircases, one located near the
elevators off the lobby at the western end of the
Washington Place side of the building and the other
off the lobby at the northern corner of the Greene
Street side of the building. The plans also included an
external iron fire escape on the north wall of the
narrow L-shaped light court that extended around a
portion of the north and west sides of the building. On
May 7, the Buildings Department issued an objection
sheet, indicating that an additional line of fire stairs
was required for the building’s area of 10,000 square
feet per floor. The examiner also objected to the rear
fire escape, indicating that it “must lead to something
more substantial than a skylight.”19 Woolley responded
over the next two days, agreeing to correct the
objections and requesting an exemption for the other
stair, arguing that “the building has all open floors, the
staircases are remote from one another, and as there is
a fire escape in the court, it practically makes three
staircases, which, in my opinion, is sufficient.”20 The
exemption was granted and work commenced on the
structure in early June. Excavations revealed
unexpected structural problems-- the footings of the
adjacent NYU Building projected onto the Asch
Building lot. By late June, Asch had dismissed
Woolley and turned the project over to the firm of
Robert Maynicke, an architect-engineer who
specialized in the erection of loft and office buildings.
Julius Franke, Maynicke’s head draftsman, seems to
have been put in charge of the project.21 Construction
was completed in January 1901.22
...
The Triangle Fire37
On Saturday March 25, 1911, about ten minutes
before closing time at 4:45 pm, a fire erupted in one of
the huge piles of scraps stored beneath the cutting
tables on the eighth floor of the Triangle factory.38 The
table, piled high with combustible fabric, began to
burn. Tissue paper patterns suspended from a clothes
line above the table ignited, spreading fire throughout
the room. Several people threw buckets of water on the
flames. A manager ran to the stairwell for a fire hose,
only to realize that the hose had rotted and the water
valve had rusted shut. Soon, the room was engulfed
with flame and smoke. Most of the occupants of the
eighth floor escaped. A few young panic-stricken
women, who had not been able to fit into the elevator
or reach the crowded fire stairs and fire escape, jumped
out of the windows to their deaths.
...


http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/reports/brown.pdf

[Gravy]

Does anyone else suspect that bofors is also the Minister of Pre-Announcement Announcements for Louder Than Words?

[Quad4_72]

bofors honestly, what did that accomplish?

[bofors]

Bofors,
Are you pausing for effect?

Umm, no... I am looking for information about construction of the Asch building and the 1911 "Triangle" fire.

If you have any good links please post them..

[Gravy]

To: bofors
Re: Your post # 6

Please address my questions in your own words.

[Mr. Skinny]

While we're waiting, I'd like to borrow this thread to show my proof of Fermat's last theorum

Cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi. Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet

[bofors]

bofors honestly, what did that accomplish?

It describes the construction of the Asch building in some detail and also discusses the initiation of the "Triangle" fire.

[T.A.M.]

jhc intellectual laziness at its peak.

TAM:)

[bofors]

To: bofors
Re: Your post # 6

Please address my questions in your own words.

Mark, I am working on it.

First, I am collecting information on the Asch building and the fire.

[DGM]

Umm, no... I am looking for information about construction of the Asch building and the 1911 "Triangle" fire.

If you have any good links please post them..
You seemed to know this when you first brought it up. what happened?
Hint: Look at Gravy's hint. 90 West St.

[beachnut]

So, I am going to look at what Gravy is talking about here and respond to it, as Graby has insisted that I do, here.
Gage only repeats hearsay, and you do not even know it. Why? Gage has video with sound removed so other will not know CD has big explosive sounds. Why is Gage just repeating lies of 9/11 truth? When will he come up with real stuff?

Oh, I know, he can't find real stuff, it will ruin his fraud.

[Gravy]

Mark, I am working on it.

First, I am collecting information on the Asch building and the fire.

1. Focus on the questions you want to answer.
2. Collect relevant information.
3. Synthesize.
4. Then post.

This is much easier than you're making it, bofors. You seem to revel in inviting ridicule.

[A W Smith]

The building was to be a modern loft structure
with a skeleton frame of iron and steel protected by
terra-cotta fireproofing

Are you aware that Terra Cotta (http://www.oldhouseweb.com/stories/Detailed/14073.shtml)is the same material used as a flue liner for masonry chimneys?

[bofors]

1. Focus on the questions you want to answer.
2. Collect relevant information.
3. Synthesize.
4. Then post.

This is much easier than you're making it, bofors. You seem to revel in inviting ridicule.

Sorry, I am going to post any relevant information to the Asch building and fire that I find here first.

The Building's Structural Integrity
Probably the most notable difference between the Triangle and Kader fires is the effect they had on the structural integrity of the buildings involved. Even though the Triangle fire gutted the top three floors of the ten-storey factory building, the building remained structurally intact. The Kader buildings, on the other hand, collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures. A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070305145938/www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857100058&nh=0&ssect=1

[bofors]

Are you aware that Terra Cotta (http://www.oldhouseweb.com/stories/Detailed/14073.shtml)is the same material used as a flue liner for masonry chimneys?

Is that what this is all about?

The use of Terra Cotta?

[Gravy]

Sorry, I am going to post any relevant information to the Asch building and fire that I find here first.Do not do that. This is a discussion forum, not your personal clipboard. If you are going to answer the questions, do so in your own words. Quoting limited passages from other sources is fine, within that process.

That is, if you can answer the questions. If you cannot, then please say so. With every post you make, you avoid answering the questions. Now get to it, as you promised.

[bofors]

You seemed to know this when you first brought it up. what happened?

I merely noted that a page describing the Kadar fire mentioned the fact that the Triangle fire building did not collapse.


Hint: Look at Gravy's hint. 90 West St.

Ok... I am going to look at this next.

[A W Smith]

Oh this is comical. I am glad he is ignoring my posts. it becomes more dramatic.


oh hes not ignoring after all.

Bofors. the lack of collapse of the Triangle shirtwaste factory. from fire. steel structure. fireproofing. Terra Cotta fireproofing. A material used to line masonry chimneys. figure it out.

[bofors]

CASS GILBERT'S HISTORIC WEST STREET BUILDING: A REPORT FROM GROUND ZERO

By Barbara Veith

Enshrouded in scaffolding and protective black netting, the 23-story Cass Gilbert skyscraper at 90 West Street stands at the southwest corner of Ground Zero, a silent witness to the tragic events that took place on September 11, 2001 .

Built between 1905-1907, the landmark granite and terra-cotta-sheathed steel structure sustained massive damage when the World Trade Center's south tower collapsed. Falling debris raked the north side of the West Street building, damaging several large sections of the façade, piercing walls and igniting fires on 14 floors that raged for two days. Nearly 1,000 people were safely evacuated from the building, but tragically two perished while trapped in an elevator. Fortunately, the building's steel skeleton and thick terra-cotta fireproofing helped to contain the fires.

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/LM/LM076.htm

[Alareth]

He really isn't very good at this.

[bofors]

Do not do that. This is a discussion forum, not your personal clipboard. If you are going to answer the questions, do so in your own words. Quoting limited passages from other sources is fine, within that process.

Sorry, I did not know that I was breaking this forum's rules.


That is, if you can answer the questions. If you cannot, then please say so. With every post you make, you avoid answering the questions. Now get to it, as you promised.

Mark, I am working on answering your question.

Now, regarding the Asch building construction, it appears the point you are trying to make is that it had some level of Terra Cotta fire-proofing. I am going to look for more information on Asch building's Terra Cotta fire-proofing next.

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh, so is this basically another one of those "these buildings didn't collapse from fire , therefore it must be impossible for the WTC to have collapsed" arguments?

If so, what type of plane his those other structures?

[A W Smith]

He really isn't very good at this.

Well Max Photon couldn't make me laugh. But this guy did. My wifes asking from the other room. "whats so funny?"

[bofors]

Bofors. the lack of collapse of the Triangle shirtwaste factory. from fire. steel structure. fireproofing. Terra Cotta fireproofing. A material used to line masonry chimneys. figure it out.

Yes, I figured that out already.

Is there any more information on the exact terra cotta fireproofing used in the Asch building?

Was it a terra-cotta-sheathed steel structure just like 90 West Street?

[Architect]

Bofors

1. Try books.

2. You seem to be ignoring your other thread.

[Gravy]

Is that what this is all about?


Dear Mr. Short Term Memory,

Here's a reminder of what this is all about:
YOU brought up the Triangle fire as an example of why the towers shouldn't have collapsed. YOU.

Sincerely,
Reality

[twinstead]

I read the link you provided for the Cass Gilbert building, bofors, and for the life of me I can't find any reference to that building being slammed into with a huge, fully-laden airliner traveling more than 500 MPH.

Did I miss something?

[A W Smith]

Bofors. the lack of collapse of the Triangle shirtwaste factory. from fire. steel structure. fireproofing. Terra Cotta fireproofing. A material used to line masonry chimneys. figure it out.

Yes, I figured that out already.

Is there any more information on the exact terra cotta fireproofing used in the Asch building?

Was it a terra-cotta-sheathed steel structure just 90 West Street?

Holy cow. Bofors. you own a house? does it have a masonry chimney? if it does Go into the utility room or basement. find the furnace or water heater. Depending on how old your house is. how does it vent into the chimney? See if you can find the "thimble" It is a terra cotta sleeve that penetrates the masonry. the metal smoke pipe goes into it. It is fireproof. Very fireproof. And HARD like ceramic tile. it is very durable. lasts for hundreds of years. The structural steel in the triangle shirtwaste factory was encased with this. Do I need to go on? Yes i am afraid I do. How much steel in the trade center complex was encased in terra cotta?

[1337m4n]

Do settle down, fellows. bofors is being quite polite and respectful. We ought to be returning the favor, lest we became the equal-but-opposite version of LCF or P4T.

[Hyperviolet]

Bofors, please refrain from starting a thread till you've gathered the neccessary info.

You wouldn't start a thread saying:
This is the thread where i will discuss my reaction to the result of the 2008 election.

It's just completely unneccessary.

The same goes with your Critique of the NIST report. Best read the report, conduct your analysis, and then open a thread with your findings.

[twinstead]

Do settle down, fellows. bofors is being quite polite and respectful. We ought to be returning the favor, lest we became the equal-but-opposite version of LCF or P4T.

You have a point.

My apologies, bofors, if anything I have said hasn't been polite. If so, I will endeavor to resist the urge to be less than polite in the future

[bofors]

"Please briefly explain the difference in the damage, fires, construction, and fireproofing between the Asch building, where the Triangle Shirtwaist company was located, and the three towers that collapsed on 9/11."

Ok, Mark here is the response you requested:

Asch building/1911 "Triangle" fire

Construction - This 135 foot building (apparently 10 stories tall) was completed in 1901. It was a loft structure with a skeleton frame of iron and steel, and wood floors.

Fireproofing - Terra-cotta was used to protect the iron and steel frame.

Fire - Textiles ignited on the 8th floor and the fire spread through out the room via the tissue paper.

Damage - The top three stories were gutted but the building otherwise remained intact.

Comparison to WTC Twin Towers and Building 7

Construction - The Asch is not generally comparable to either the WTC twin towers or Building 7. This is because the Asch building is a product 19th architecture (wood floors, iron in the frame and terra cotta fire proofing), while all three WTC buildings epitomize modern construction techniques and materials. For example, the WTC twin towers used an innovative tube-like archeture (with core collumns). As the opposed to the iron used in the Asch building, the steel components of the WTC twin towers were certified to met ASTM E119, the time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours.

Fireproofing - While the Asch building used Terra Cotta, the WTC twin towers used abestos and Building 7 used "Monokote". Furthermore, the WTC buildings had sprinkler systems installed.

Fires - The impact of airplanes into the WTC twin towers fires ignited fires. These fires burned for about 56 and 85 minutes. WTC Building 7 fires appear to have burned on isolated floors for about six hours. I did not see a report of how long the Asch building fire went on for but I would guess about six hours. The WTC buildings and the Asch building probably has sustained temperatures on near 250 C.

Damage - While the Asch building top three floors were gutted, the actual amount of fire damage to the WTC buildings is unclear because these buildings were demolished before the damage could be assessed.

[technoextreme]

This is because the Asch building is a product 19th architecture (wood floors, iron in the frame and terra cotta fire proofing), while all three WTC buildings epitomize modern construction techniques and materials.
For the time. The WTC buildings during the events of 9/11 did not represent modern construction techniques and materials. They were built thirty years ago. The best example I can think of was that total bridge collapse. No one builds bridges like that anymore for reasons Im sure you can figure out.

[bofors]

Bofors, please refrain from starting a thread till you've gathered the neccessary info.


Look, you could have just ignored this thread until I had finished with response.


You wouldn't start a thread saying:
This is the thread where i will discuss my reaction to the result of the 2008 election.


That is hardly the same, Gravy was demanding that I respond to this "Triangle" topic in several different threads.


It's just completely unneccessary.


I find it very useful to post information in these threads. That way everyone can see the data.


The same goes with your Critique of the NIST report. Best read the report, conduct your analysis, and then open a thread with your findings.

Sorry, but I do not think one needs to read the 10,000 page NIST report to analyze it at this point.

[Pyrts]

CASS GILBERT'S HISTORIC WEST STREET BUILDING: A REPORT FROM GROUND ZERO
Built between 1905-1907, the landmark granite and terra-cotta-sheathed steel structure sustained massive damage when the World Trade Center's south tower collapsed. Falling debris raked the north side of the West Street building, damaging several large sections of the façade, piercing walls and igniting fires on 14 floors that raged for two days. Nearly 1,000 people were safely evacuated from the building, but tragically two perished while trapped in an elevator. Fortunately, the building's steel skeleton and thick terra-cotta fireproofing helped to contain the fires.

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/LM/LM076.htm

Uhm... what does this prove?

The building was not flooded with jet fuel and didn't have a jet rammed into it. Construction techniques and materials were very different.

Looks like you're trying to compare apples to macaws on the basis that they're both alive and some of them are red.

[Redtail]

Sorry, but I do not think one needs to read the 10,000 page NIST report to analyze it at this point.

Why not?

[LashL]

<snip>
Ok, Mark here is the response you requested:


Leaving aside for the moment several factual errors and unsupported conclusions in your post, bofors, you seem to be forgetting something very, very significant in the "Damage" section of your response. Can you guess what it is?

[bofors]

How much steel in the trade center complex was encased in terra cotta?

None. So what?

[bofors]

Why not?

Becuase its quite obvious and fatal flaws are already known.

[e^n]

None. So what?

So it would seem we can establish a somewhat general rule that steel framed buildings are susceptible to collapse due to fire given sufficient damage to fireproofing?

Would you agree with this?

[bofors]

Uhm... what does this prove?

The building was not flooded with jet fuel and didn't have a jet rammed into it. Construction techniques and materials were very different.

Looks like you're trying to compare apples to macaws on the basis that they're both alive and some of them are red.

Hey, I agree with you. This is an "apples to macaws" comparison. I did not bring this up.

No, Gravy insisted that look into the Asch building / Triangle fire case for some kind of compairsion. Your right it is useless.

[bofors]

Leaving aside for the moment several factual errors and unsupported conclusions in your post, bofors, you seem to be forgetting something very, very significant in the "Damage" section of your response. Can you guess what it is?

Sorry, I looked again and I do not see anything significant about fire damage missing.

[LastChild]

Oh, so is this basically another one of those "these buildings didn't collapse from fire , therefore it must be impossible for the WTC to have collapsed" arguments?

If so, what type of plane his those other structures?

I would guess the same kind of plane that didn't hit WTC7.

[Redtail]

Becuase its quite obvious and fatal flaws are already known.

Known by whom and how do they back it up?

[qarnos]

I would guess the same kind of plane that didn't hit WTC7.

So, what kind of building hit those other structures?

[Redtail]

I would guess the same kind of plane that didn't hit WTC7.An F15?

[Unsecured Coins]

you mean a plane didn't hit WTC 7? OMG!! Panic!

[qarnos]

An F15?

You dolt. It was a B-17. ;)

[LashL]

Sorry, I looked again and I do not see anything significant about fire damage missing.

The question that you were purporting to answer, however, was not merely about fire damage. How about trying a more intellectually honest approach to the question instead of inserting limiting factors that did not exist in the question to which you are purporting to respond?

Here is the question that you cited, in case you've forgotten it:

"Please briefly explain the difference in the damage, fires, construction, and fireproofing between the Asch building, where the Triangle Shirtwaist company was located, and the three towers that collapsed on 9/11."

[technoextreme]

I would guess the same kind of plane that didn't hit WTC7.
Wait. Didn't a plane hit WTC or at least parts of a plane? According to Purdue debris did end up flying out the other side of the tower.

[Bell]

I would guess the same kind of plane that didn't hit WTC7.

A no-planer, eh? I now understand why you are LastChild.

[Gravy]

I did not see a report of how long the Asch building fire went on for but I would guess about six hours.

You're a helluva researcher. The fires in the Asch Building were extinguished by the fire department shortly after they received the alarm.

"About twenty-five minutes after the first alarm sounded, the firemen had the blaze under control." Leon Stein, The Triangle Fire (New York: A Carroll & Graf/Quicksilver Book, 1962), p. 135

"It took 18 minutes to control the fire (http://www.goodsearch.com/Redirect.aspx?type=1&url=http://rc12.overture.com/d/sr/?xargs=15KPjg1%2D5St5auwuf0L%5FiXEbqUkwwBnO6zh89vC uNwG9Ze8QFoJfYuPa7By%5FVIXu1m63vZzIOXiaRlOqz2n%5F% 2DUFBCMQVuXGOX5yt2QwNhiaOvjBo1X0%2DZsl6itw9MQeG9QO yzk%2DeKOpa2UeZS9eC8SvcsTiV%5FArK85nZqmgLlKRfjOiQd 17CjkOD80VJc7JfzbWqsbWqD0ScllrhbgYooRndF1hrzzM3dNd 3%5FhsT5O%2DQLvfW4s%5FeuOJdBX1v2sxpnJLe71iogGZkaFp a5u6AjExCbZjcppKWXF3OFHygRVArWvJWSUll577bGRyKSHeIJ 86m%5F8DIz%2DKTLoYEJ6KBoiEbyfRTbfJWBKnje3S%5FUELo3 7qWfnX%2D%5F%2DVGNjIAxI7s30bJAQsgDJ7wpe&yargs=web.jjay.cuny.edu)"

"Although firefighters were able to extinguish the fire just minutes after arriving on the scene, 146 lives were lost. (http://www.goodsearch.com/Redirect.aspx?type=1&url=http://rc12.overture.com/d/sr/?xargs=15KPjg15dSt5auwuf0L%5FiXEbqUkwwBnO6zh89vCuN wG9Ze8QFoJfYuPa7By%5FVIXu1m63vZzIOXiaRlOqz2n%5F%2D UFBCMQVuXGOX5yt2QwNhiaOvjBo1X0%2DZsl6itw9MQeG9QOyz k%2DeKOpa2UeZS9eC8SvcsTiV%5FArK85nZqmgLlKRfjOiQd17 CjkOD80VJc7JfzbWqsbWqD0ScllrhbFYooRndF1hrzzM3dNd3% 5FhsT5O%2DQLvfW4s%5FeuOJdBX1v2sxpnJLe71iogGZkOFpa5 u6AjExCbZjcppKWXFzvRHzhdXVfyjJiWFzFZzt%5FiL0rvEaYg 1oWXyCaObQjKoJAAoKQZuFPq8exWBfD94%5FRyHc5JZLJjnphO JALaYTXRxdAIM7vKECA%2E%2E&yargs=www.nyc.gov)"

See where guessing gets you, John?

So, we have:

No preexisting damage as at the WTC.
Fire protection of heavy terra cotta and cement, unlike the WTC.
Fires did not occur on multiple floors simultaneously, as at the WTC.
Vastly different fuel load from the WTC.
Fires were fought and extinguished in less than 1/2 hour.Please let me know if we now in agreement that:

1) Guessing about these things is a bad idea.

2) The Triangle Shirtwaist fire should not be used to support a claim that the WTC buildings should not have collapsed.

[Quad4_72]

You're a helluva researcher. The fires in the Asch Building were extinguished by the fire department shortly after they received the alarm.

"About twenty-five minutes after the first alarm sounded, the firemen had the blaze under control." Leon Stein, The Triangle Fire (New York: A Carroll & Graf/Quicksilver Book, 1962), p. 135

"It took 18 minutes to control the fire (http://www.goodsearch.com/Redirect.aspx?type=1&url=http://rc12.overture.com/d/sr/?xargs=15KPjg1%2D5St5auwuf0L%5FiXEbqUkwwBnO6zh89vC uNwG9Ze8QFoJfYuPa7By%5FVIXu1m63vZzIOXiaRlOqz2n%5F% 2DUFBCMQVuXGOX5yt2QwNhiaOvjBo1X0%2DZsl6itw9MQeG9QO yzk%2DeKOpa2UeZS9eC8SvcsTiV%5FArK85nZqmgLlKRfjOiQd 17CjkOD80VJc7JfzbWqsbWqD0ScllrhbgYooRndF1hrzzM3dNd 3%5FhsT5O%2DQLvfW4s%5FeuOJdBX1v2sxpnJLe71iogGZkaFp a5u6AjExCbZjcppKWXF3OFHygRVArWvJWSUll577bGRyKSHeIJ 86m%5F8DIz%2DKTLoYEJ6KBoiEbyfRTbfJWBKnje3S%5FUELo3 7qWfnX%2D%5F%2DVGNjIAxI7s30bJAQsgDJ7wpe&yargs=web.jjay.cuny.edu)"

"Although firefighters were able to extinguish the fire just minutes after arriving on the scene, 146 lives were lost. (http://www.goodsearch.com/Redirect.aspx?type=1&url=http://rc12.overture.com/d/sr/?xargs=15KPjg15dSt5auwuf0L%5FiXEbqUkwwBnO6zh89vCuN wG9Ze8QFoJfYuPa7By%5FVIXu1m63vZzIOXiaRlOqz2n%5F%2D UFBCMQVuXGOX5yt2QwNhiaOvjBo1X0%2DZsl6itw9MQeG9QOyz k%2DeKOpa2UeZS9eC8SvcsTiV%5FArK85nZqmgLlKRfjOiQd17 CjkOD80VJc7JfzbWqsbWqD0ScllrhbFYooRndF1hrzzM3dNd3% 5FhsT5O%2DQLvfW4s%5FeuOJdBX1v2sxpnJLe71iogGZkOFpa5 u6AjExCbZjcppKWXFzvRHzhdXVfyjJiWFzFZzt%5FiL0rvEaYg 1oWXyCaObQjKoJAAoKQZuFPq8exWBfD94%5FRyHc5JZLJjnphO JALaYTXRxdAIM7vKECA%2E%2E&yargs=www.nyc.gov)"

See where guessing gets you, John?

So, we have:

No preexisting damage as at the WTC.
Fire protection of heavy terra cotta and cement, unlike the WTC.
Fires did not occur on multiple floors simultaneously, as at the WTC.
Vastly different fuel load from the WTC.
Fires were fought and extinguished in less than 1/2 hour.Please let me know if we now in agreement that:

1) Guessing about these things is a bad idea.

2) The Triangle Shirtwaist fire should not be used to support a claim that the WTC buildings should have collapsed.

OUCH. I think that sums it up.

[Bell]

You dolt. It was a B-17. ;)

Captured by the enemy...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/B17_kg200.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampfgeschwader_200

[Gravy]

Hey, I agree with you. This is an "apples to macaws" comparison. I did not bring this up.

That is a lie:
The "Triangle" fire is yet more evidence that steal buildings do not globally collapse.


No, Gravy insisted that look into the Asch building / Triangle fire case for some kind of compairsion. Your right it is useless.Then explain to everyone why you said,

The "Triangle" fire is yet more evidence that steal buildings do not globally collapse.

Well?

[qarnos]

Captured by the enemy...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/B17_kg200.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampfgeschwader_200

A B-17 with swastikas on it looks just... wrong.

[LastChild]

A no-planer, eh? I now understand why you are LastChild.

Yes as far as I know in no version I've ever heard did a plane hit WTC7. Do you have your own special theory on this?

[Gravy]

Please do not continue this no-plane derail.

[Bell]

Yes as far as I know in no version I've ever heard did a plane hit WTC7. Do you have your own special theory on this?

Ah, sorry, I might have misinterpreted your post:

I would guess the same kind of plane that didn't hit WTC7.

I thought you meant to say "no plane hit WTC7, and that's the same type of plane (thus, no plane) that hit the towers". Rereading your post now, I see it could also mean that the towers where hit by airplanes, but WTC7 was not, thus (I assume) you questioning why 7 fell.

Anywoo, per Gravy's request, let's end this 'no plane' discussion, or take it to another thread, if you feel the need for it.

[LastChild]

Please do not continue this no-plane derail.

I agree. So why don't we cut to the chase? What steel structure has ever suffered global collapse from less the 20% of it being damaged and on fire for only about an hour? And I'm guessing less then 20% which I feel is a generous estimate.

[bofors]

Known by whom and how do they back it up?

Let's talk about the NIST report in this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97192

[Hyperviolet]

Sorry, but I do not think one needs to read the 10,000 page NIST report to analyze it at this point.

Read the 10,000 pages?
No danger of that, Bofors.
You proudly announced that you couldn't be bothered reading any of the NIST report. Instead, you just took Hoffman's word on the subject.


How did you verify Hoffman's conclusions were accurate without even reading the material he was critiquing?

[bofors]

The question that you were purporting to answer, however, was not merely about fire damage. How about trying a more intellectually honest approach to the question instead of inserting limiting factors that did not exist in the question to which you are purporting to respond?


Sorry, but I know the WTC buildings were demolished by explosives. Since the Asch building was not affected by demolitions, my comparison is limited to fire in the damage category.

[NYCEMT86]

Gravy has summed up the differences between the Triangle Factory Fire and the WTC, but I will add a few things of my own.


You can not compare this building to the WTC, since the steel in the WTC was covered by a synthetic fire proofing and drywall, which didn't stand up to the impact of the planes that resulted in direct impingement of fire on those members. The construction used in the WTC is a lightweight design, meaning the steel is lighter and can allow for more heat transfer to flow between members such as in the web members in the trusses.

In the Triangle Factory, they use of terracotta, bricks, and concrete is an excellent fire proofing material, because it doesn't conduct heat very well. These materials covered all of the steel members from the interior to the exterior, so its safe to say that fire would have never impinged directly on the steel. If it wasn't the wooden floors the fire would have been well contained.

The Triangle Factory is pretty much built the same way as the Empire State Building, which in its self contained the fires from the impact of the B-25, but only because they were required to have concrete floors/steel floors. This style of construction is one of the safest styles of construction when it comes to fire resistance.

[LashL]

Regarding some of the factual errors in your post, please see below.


Fireproofing - While the Asch building used Terra Cotta, the WTC twin towers used abestos and Building 7 used "Monokote".

Actually, there was asbestos only in fewer than half of the floors of one of the twin towers. The rest of the steel in that tower, all of the other tower, and WTC7 were fireproofed with SFRM.

You have done no analysis of the difference between the fireproofing materials used in the WTC buildings and the Asch building. Why is that, since your purpose was, supposedly, to compare them in some meaningful fashion?

I did not see a report of how long the Asch building fire went on for but I would guess about six hours.

The fire at the Asch building was extinguished in minutes.

The WTC buildings and the Asch building probably has sustained temperatures on near 250 C.

The fires in the WTC were considerably hotter than 250 C.


Damage - While the Asch building top three floors were gutted, the actual amount of fire damage to the WTC buildings is unclear because these buildings were demolished before the damage could be assessed.


There is plenty of evidence of massive fire damage to the WTC buildings, so a thorough response would have included some reference to it rather than simply saying that it could not be assessed. Even if you cannot quantify it precisely, it seems intellectually dishonest to leave it out entirely. Worse, you have provided no evidence whatsoever in support of your assertion that the buildings were "demolished" if, by this term, you mean intentionally demolished.

As I pointed out previously, the question of damage was not limited to fire damage, and yet you have completely ignored the horrific damage caused to the WTC buildings prior to their collapse. Do you not think that the structural integrity of the buildings prior to collapse had an influence on those collapses?

You raised this topic because you claimed that the Asch building fire was evidence that steel buildings do not collapse. You said this in the context of discussion about the collapse of the WTC buildings, your insinuation being - obviously - that because the Asch building did not collapse, the WTC buildings could not have collapsed as a result of airplane impacts, structural damage, fires, and loss of fireproofing.

Yet, you admit that comparing the two are like comparing apples and macaws.

These two positions irreconcilably inconsistent.

[A W Smith]

Sorry, but I know the WTC buildings were demolished by explosives. Since the Asch building was not affected by demolitions, my comparison is limited to fire in the damage category.
no you don't. thats a LIE! show us how 'you know" they were demolished by explosives?

[Gravy]

Sorry, but I know the WTC buildings were demolished by explosives. Since the Asch building was not affected by demolitions, my comparison is limited to fire in the damage category.I expect your response to my post #60.

[R.Mackey]

Sorry, but I know the WTC buildings were demolished by explosives. Since the Asch building was not affected by demolitions, my comparison is limited to fire in the damage category.

Since you can't back up that statement -- or at the very least, you haven't, despite numerous claims to the contrary -- it appears your reasoning is circular.

I would suggest at this time that you go back to the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and come back with someone who can make a valid argument. It's increasingly clear that you cannot.

[LashL]

Sorry, but I know the WTC buildings were demolished by explosives. Since the Asch building was not affected by demolitions, my comparison is limited to fire in the damage category.

1) You cannot possibly "know" that the WTC buildings were demolished by explosives (unless, of course, you rigged the buildings yourself and about to confess*) since there is no evidence of same.

2) Your "comparison" is lacking in several ways, as has already been pointed out above.

3) Your purported answer to Gravy's question is intellectually dishonest, to the extreme.

4) Your "research" into the events of September 11, 2001 is shoddy, at best.

5) You really should educate yourself on the subject matter before purporting to educate others. Doing so may save you from grave embarrassment in future.

*If you are about to confess, I would advise you to obtain legal advice first.

[Bell]

I agree. So why don't we cut to the chase? What steel structure has ever suffered global collapse from less the 20% of it being damaged and on fire for only about an hour? And I'm guessing less then 20% which I feel is a generous estimate.

The amount of damage is -to certain degrees- not important in regards to the total collapse of the towers. The amount of weight of the part of the building above that damage is. The part of the building that suddenly fell down couple of floors, and which the rest of the building was not able to stop.

I started a thread about the weight and size of the towers in the beginning of this year, to try to get some perspective on the huge numbers of weight and size. You can find that thread here: Scale Model of the WTC (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72005)

[bofors]

You're a helluva researcher.


Look, I spent more than a reasonable amount time looking to the Asch building fire in order accommodate your demands.


See where guessing gets you, John?


Next, I indicated that "I did not see a report" of the fire duration at Asch building. Becuase this is a critical factor, I felt I needed to make an estimate.


2) The Triangle Shirtwaist fire should not be used to support a claim that the WTC buildings should not have collapsed.

Fine. Congraduations, you have convinced me. I hope you are satified.

Now can we please get on to a rational, scientific discussion of the evidence which is relevent to the WTC collapses? Is that even possible here?

[A W Smith]

Fireproofing - While the Asch building used Terra Cotta, the WTC twin towers used abestos and Building 7 used "Monokote". Furthermore, the WTC buildings had sprinkler systems installed.



Wrong. Only the bottom 38 floors of tower one used Blaze Shield type D asbestos.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004ThermalInsulationMethodology.pdf

History of SFRM in WTC Towers
• 1969: Decision to use ½ in. CAFCO® BLAZESHIELD ® Type D
• 1970: CAFCO® BLAZESHIELD® Type D discontinued at 38th floor,
replaced with CAFCO® BLAZESHIELD® Type D/CF
• 1994: Thickness measurements on floor trusses on 23rd and 24th
floors
• 1995: PA initiated study of SFRM thickness during tenant alterations
• 1999: PA established guidelines for SFRM replacement and repair
• Late 90s: SFRM upgraded to 1 ½ in. with CAFCO® BLAZESHEILD®
Type II

[Good Lt]

Fine. Congraduations, you have convinced me. I hope you are satified.

Now can we please get on to a rational, scientific discussion of the evidence which is relevent to the WTC collapses? Is that even possible here?

Why do I get the feeling that A) you don't have an engineering degree, and B) that you have never used the search function here?

[Gravy]

Look, I spent more than a reasonable amount time looking to the Asch building fire in order accommodate your demands.No, you spent a few minutes, post hoc, trying to support a claim you had already made. I found the three fire duration references in 10 minutes. Somehow you were unable to find any.

Next, I indicated that "I did not see a report" of the fire duration at Asch building. Becuase this is a critical factor, I felt I needed to make an estimate.And now you know why that is foolish, right?

I mean, you're schooled in science, aren't you?

Fine. Congraduations, you have convinced me. I hope you are satified. My satisfaction has nothing to do with it. It is your methods and thought processes that are the issue here. If you have learned from your mistakes, I am happy.

Now can we please get on to a rational, scientific discussion of the evidence which is relevent to the WTC collapses?We just did. Somehow, John, you missed it.

We all await your rational, scientific argument. So far you have utterly failed to produce one.

[bofors]

That is a lie:

Then explain to everyone why you said,

Well?

Look, I posted a quote from an article on the Kadar fire that said the Anch building structure survived a fire here as yet another example of steel frame buildings that have survived fires.

I am not lying about the fact that I posted that, I am saying it is you (Gravy) who insisted that I go through this "research" process documented in this thread to get to the point that the builiding had terra cotta fire proofing.

Next time please just say that the Asch building is not a valid comparison to the WTC because of the terra cotta.

[Caper]

Fine. Congraduations, you have convinced me. I hope you are satified.



In my two years of debating truthers or observing debates this is the first time I have ever heard of a truther willing to concede anything.

[boloboffin]

Look, I posted a quote from an article on the Kadar fire that said the Anch building structure survived a fire here as yet another example of steel frame buildings that have survived fires.

I am not lying about the fact that I posted that, I am saying it is you (Gravy) who insisted that I go through this "research" process documented in this thread to get to the point that the builiding had terra cotta fire proofing.

Next time please just say that the Asch building is not a valid comparison to the WTC because of the terra cotta.

You made the claim, and Gravy rightfully requested you do the research to back it up. And you still fouled it up.

It's not just the terra cotta fireproofing. It's the lack of pre-existing damage, and the fires simultaneously on multiple floors, and the vastly different fuel load, and the extinguishing of the fires so quickly.

Why can't you see this?

[rwguinn]

going back to the fireproofing in WTC I and II--
Bofors, Monocote(TM) is a heat shrinking, adhesive Mylar film used to cover model aircraft...
It come in many, many colors, and is definitely not fire retardant...

[bofors]

We all await your rational, scientific argument. So far you have utterly failed to produce one.

Ok, let's try it again.

Before I start though, I want to make clear that I can only explain the proof why the WTC buildings to you. I can not force you to comprehend it. This like being able to lead a horse to water, but not making it able to drink.

Again, there are two critically important issues in understanding the WTC collapses.

(1) The collapes were symmetrical, straight-down, floor-by-floor and otherwise the building did not tip over.

(2) The collapses occured near free fall speed.

Any hypothesis regarding the mechanism of collapse must explain these two distinct characteristics.

Does that make sense to you?

[A W Smith]

Look, I posted a quote from an article on the Kadar fire that said the Anch building structure survived a fire here as yet another example of steel frame buildings that have survived fires.

I am not lying about the fact that I posted that, I am saying it is you (Gravy) who insisted that I go through this "research" process documented in this thread to get to the point that the builiding had terra cotta fire proofing.

Next time please just say that the Asch building is not a valid comparison to the WTC because of the terra cotta.

And what did you learn from this? Do you see how the methodology is different here that at AE911 truth? we don't take Mark Roberts word for it. he just gathers the resources. We practice actual research. Did you see what Mark prompted you to do? You actually had to do a bit of research and not take anyones word for it. You found out for yourself. And because of that. You found..... what?.... TRUTH!! Will you read the NIST report now before you debate it and not have others do the research here for you? Do you fear you will learn something that will contradict your emotion? I want you to think about what happened just now.

[Unsecured Coins]

what doesn't make sense to me is why you think they should have tipped over after they's been standing for over an hour after they got hit. Where was this magical force that was supposed to knock the top of the building off going to come from?

[bofors]

going back to the fireproofing in WTC I and II--
Bofors, Monocote(TM) is a heat shrinking, adhesive Mylar film used to cover model aircraft...
It come in many, many colors, and is definitely not fire retardant...

It is Monokote. See this: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:SVUlGJp68yUJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center+Building+7+%2B+monokote&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=safari

[Gravy]

Look, I posted a quote from an article on the Kadar fire that said the Anch building structure survived a fire here as yet another example of steel frame buildings that have survived fires.

You are well on your way to being the most willfully ignorant 9/11 denier we've seen here. And that is really saying something. For the third time in this thread: you said,
The "Triangle" fire is yet more evidence that steal buildings do not globally collapse.
Do you understand the difference between giving an example of a building that did not collapse in a fire, and using that example to support a claim that steel frame buildings cannot collapse in a fire?

As I explained previously, it is vitally important that you understand how flawed your reasoning is here.

I am not lying about the fact that I posted that, I am saying it is you (Gravy) who insisted that I go through this "research" process documented in this thread to get to the point that the builiding had terra cotta fire proofing.

Next time please just say that the Asch building is not a valid comparison to the WTC because of the terra cotta.John, I asked you to compare several important factors, not only the fireproofing. I repeat:
So, we have:
No preexisting damage as at the WTC.
Fire protection of heavy terra cotta and cement, unlike the WTC.
Fires did not occur on multiple floors simultaneously, as at the WTC.
Vastly different fuel load from the WTC.
Fires were fought and extinguished in less than 1/2 hour.All of those elements are crucial to you understanding the conditions in the WTC buildings. Do you understand this? Please answer yes or no.

[boloboffin]

Again, there are two critically important issues in understanding the WTC collapses.

(1) The collapes were symmetrical, straight-down, floor-by-floor and otherwise the building did not tip over.

(2) The collapses occured near free fall speed.

Any hypothesis regarding the mechanism of collapse must explain these two distinct characteristics.

Collapse of World Trade Towers: What Did And Did Not Cause It? (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%206-22-07.pdf)

[bofors]

You made the claim, and Gravy rightfully requested you do the research to back it up. And you still fouled it up.

It's not just the terra cotta fireproofing. It's the lack of pre-existing damage, and the fires simultaneously on multiple floors, and the vastly different fuel load, and the extinguishing of the fires so quickly.

Why can't you see this?

We all agree that the Asch building is a poor comparison to the WTC (and I never said it was a good one).

Can move on to other topics now?

[beachnut]

Fine. Congraduations, you have convinced me. I hope you are satified.

Now can we please get on to a rational, scientific discussion of the evidence which is relevent to the WTC collapses? Is that even possible here?
Yep. Two jets impacted the WTC towers at high speed. The towers were designed to resist a low speed impact. The impacts on 9/11 were 7 to 11 time greater than the design specification. (engineer stuff)

The impacts were equal to 1300 to 2100 pounds of TNT energy! Big!

Massive damage to the WTC and fire set by 10,000 gallons of jet fuel weakened the WTC towers and they collapsed. So simple; and you are not prepared to disprove it, you have used hearsay. I just use a simple energy model and my assessment is backed independently by the Chief Engineer on the WTC. You have Hoffman, I have the Man in charge.

Factors leading to failure. Massive fires, the design impact speed would have the majority of the aircraft falling to the ground with local fires but no major damage. But on 9/11 the impact flooded the WTC with fuel that was ignited by the Engines, 700C temps, Auto ignition of jet fuel is 450C. There was damage to the fire systems, no effective firefighting due to the impact damage. The reason other building do not collapse is due to firefighting. So please keep the stupid no buildings have fallen crap out. Your own lack of knowledge with structures is a know fact, you failed to show any expertise at understanding steel or even wood structures. I doubt you will be able to understand 9/11 after making major errors about 9/11.

[bofors]

Do you see how the methodology is different here that at AE911 truth?


Yes, but it is not good. People here seem to have no understanding of physics. Rather they get diverted on topics which are irrelevant to understanding the WTC collapses.

Will you read the NIST report now before you debate it and not have others do the research here for you?


Ok, I will look at it just to make some points here.


Do you fear you will learn something that will contradict your emotion?

Certainly not.

[Gravy]

We all agree that the Asch building is a poor comparison to the WTC (and I never said it was a good one).
More intellectual dishonesty. You didn't say it was "a good one?" John, you said it was evidence that steel frame buildings do not collapse from fire.

Why the hell can't a truther ever say, "Oops, I screwed up. I'll be sure to do my homework before making claims about this subject."

[Gravy]

Yes, but it is not good. People here seem to have no understanding of physics. Rather they get diverted on topics which are irrelevant to understanding the WTC collapses.You will be called on your intellectual dishonesty every single time. It is your choice to continue on this childish path or to modify your behavior. Which will it be?

You raised the issue and made the claim. Once again:
No preexisting damage as at the WTC.
Fire protection of heavy terra cotta and cement, unlike the WTC.
Fires did not occur on multiple floors simultaneously, as at the WTC.
Vastly different fuel load from the WTC.
Fires were fought and extinguished in less than 1/2 hour.All of those issues are relevant – and crucial – "to understanding the WTC collapses." Do you understand this? Please answer yes or no.

[bofors]

Do you understand the difference between giving an example of a building that did not collapse in a fire, and using that example to support a claim that steel frame buildings cannot collapse in a fire?


Sure.


All of those elements are crucial to you understanding the conditions in the WTC buildings. Do you understand this? Please answer yes or no.

Yes, I understand that your list of elements indicates why the Asch building is a poor comparison to the WTC.

[A W Smith]

Ok, let's try it again.

Before I start though, I want to make clear that I can only explain the proof why the WTC buildings to you. I can not force you to comprehend it. This like being able to lead a horse to water, but not making it able to drink.

Again, there are two critically important issues in understanding the WTC collapses.

(1) The collapes were symmetrical, straight-down, floor-by-floor and otherwise the building did not tip over.
show us calculations of the energy needed to push the top half of the building over on its side. Compare with the energy needed to crush the trusses and break column connections directly below. show us yout work

(2) The collapses occured near free fall speed.

Any hypothesis regarding the mechanism of collapse must explain these two distinct characteristics.

Does that make sense to you?

I it fell at near free fall speed, Explain why the crush zone could not keep up with the speed of the debris in this video.
wHkotIqGgd4

[mortimer]

Sorry, but I do not think one needs to read the 10,000 page NIST report to analyze it at this point.
Stundied! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3100059#post3100059) I can't believe nobody nominated this earlier... I feel so lucky!

[bofors]

Why the hell can't a truther ever say, "Oops, I screwed up. I'll be sure to do my homework before making claims about this subject."

Oops, I screwed up. I'll be sure to do my homework before making claims about this subject.

[beachnut]

Yes, but it is not good. People here seem to have no understanding of physics. Rather they get diverted on topics which are irrelevant to understanding the WTC collapses.

Ok, I will look at it just to make some points here.

Certainly not.
No, you have zero understanding of physics or you would not be pushing the lies of 9/11 truth. You have made severe errors of facts talking about 9/11. You have ignored reading the posts that show you with sources you are wrong. You post standard 9/11 truth hearsay junk and say no one understand physics. You lack the basic understanding in core areas required to make rational conclusion on 9/11.

Your posts are basic failed 9/11 truth rhetoric, failed.

[A W Smith]

Oops, I screwed up. I'll be sure to do my homework before making claims about this subject.


A question. Is it your contention that an explosive demolition wave followed the building down to increase its speed? if not explain what you believe to be the methodology.

[Quad4_72]

People here seem to have no understanding of physics.

Really. In which posts are you reffering to? Are you not the one who said the building was supposed to tip over? Since we are using physics, let me ask you a question with regards to physics. Where was the force suppose to come from to tip the building over?

[T.A.M.]

Oops, I screwed up. I'll be sure to do my homework before making claims about this subject.

Great. We will see you back here when you have atleast read the executive summaries of the NIST report, plus the full sections of any area you wish to scientifically debate with those here who wish to do so.

See you

TAM:)

[bofors]

show us calculations of the energy needed to push the top half of the building over on its side. Compare with the energy needed to crush the trusses and break column connections directly below. show us yout work

Sorry, I have not found it necessary to make any calculations so far. If you are interested in this topic try looking at this: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf


If it fell at near free fall speed, Explain why the crush zone could not keep up with the speed of the debris in this video.


While I do not believe there is a "crush" zone, I do see that the debris travels faster toward the ground than the demolition wave. I assume that is what you are talking about.

This is because the demoltions were set to go off down the building at constant velocity. The debris accelerates, do to the force of gravity, to the ground until a terminal velocity is reached.

The point is that the speed of the collapse, which is near that of a free-fall, precludes some type of mechanical failure mechanism.

[bofors]

A question. Is it your contention that an explosive demolition wave followed the building down to increase its speed? if not explain what you believe to be the methodology.

As I said above, the demolition wave appears to be near constant velocity.

[T.A.M.]

so near free fall that free falling debris lands quite sometime ahead of the collapse...

TAM:)

[Bell]

As I said above, the demolition wave appears to be near constant velocity.

Divine 'near'? How many seconds?

Remembering that "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" which is in the NIST faq, which I asume you didn't read.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[bofors]

Really. In which posts are you reffering to?


I referring to the general conclusion here, the denial that the WTC building were demolished.


Are you not the one who said the building was supposed to tip over?


If any the WTC buildings had sustained a critical amount of damage to the planes impacts, flying debris and fires, they most certainly would have tipped over instead of disintegrating in the strainght-down manner they did at near free-fall speed.

Since we are using physics, let me ask you a question with regards to physics. Where was the force suppose to come from to tip the building over?

It is the force of gravity acting on an asymmetric structure. It is like sitting on a chair with one and half of its legs removed. The result is that you tip over.

Do you understand now?

[bofors]

so near free fall that free falling debris lands quite sometime ahead of the collapse...

Here is a perfect example of where people here just do not understand what is important, the physics.

It does not matter that the demolition wave was a little slower than free speed. Controlled demolition of WTC buildings is the only explanation that can account for this speed (and NIST fails to come up with one at all).

[Unsecured Coins]

I say again...

what doesn't make sense to me is why you think they should have tipped over after they's been standing for over an hour after they got hit. Where was this magical force that was supposed to knock the top of the building off going to come from?

[Bell]

I referring to the general conclusion here, the denial that the WTC building were demolished.

If any the WTC buildings had sustained a critical amount of damage to the planes impacts, flying debris and fires, they most certainly would have tipped over instead of disintegrating in the strainght-down manner they did at near free-fall speed.

It is the force of gravity acting on an asymmetric structure. It is like sitting on a chair with one and half of its legs removed. The result is that you tip over.

Do you understand now?

:bike:

[Unsecured Coins]

Here is a perfect example of where people here just do not understand what is important, the physics.

It does not matter that the demolition wave was a little slower than free speed. Controlled demolition of WTC buildings is the only explanation that can account for this speed (and NIST fails to come up with one at all).

why doesn't it matter? If all controlled demolitons fall at freefall, and we all know that NEAR free fall is NOT free fall, ego = not a controlled demolition, why wouldn't the speed matter? This quote is as Avery-esqe as "18 if you count the penthouse" remark

[bofors]

Remembering that "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" which is in the NIST faq, which I asume you didn't read.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

If the collapses took minutes, you might have a point. But that is not what happened.

By the way, I have looked at the NIST FAQ.

[Unsecured Coins]

and? I read the cliffnotes for Beowulf. See what I'm getting at with this?

[bofors]

what doesn't make sense to me is why you think they should have tipped over after they's been standing for over an hour after they got hit. Where was this magical force that was supposed to knock the top of the building off going to come from?

I am saying that if these buildings were going to fail from the combination of airplane impact, flying debris and fire, they would have tipped over from the force of gravity acting on an unbalanced structure. Otherwise, I think the buildings should have remained standing.

[A W Smith]

Well see? now your regressing. asking me to read someone else's work. I asked what you believed. OK you say demolition wave I say crush zone.
Explain to me how this "demolition" wave accelerated the fall of the building? if a building starts collapsing and you then set off a demolition immediately below it. How does the debris get out of the way? You would have to set off demolition charges many floors below because the collapse wave will simply catch up due to it accelerating from an earlier start. lets use the stop light example. I have 10 drivers stopped at ten traffic lights. The lights are timed to go off as i accelerate another 32 mph for every light i reach. Each time i reach the next traffic light a driver waiting there starts to accelerate. Do you see the problem? I'm running into the cars (debris) in front of me. And its not helping me in any way that they start moving when I contact their rear bumper.

[Unsecured Coins]

whoooo boy. Where is the energy that supposed to tip the top over coming from? I expect your knowledge in just about everything to come up with a reasonable answer to that

[Tbone]

I am saying that if these buildings were going to fail from the combination of airplane impact, flying debris and fire, they would have tipped over from the force of gravity acting on an unbalanced structure. Otherwise, I think the buildings should have remained standing.

Why would gravity, acting straight downward, push something to the side?

[bofors]

If all controlled demolitons fall at freefall?

They are not at free fall speed, they are near free-fall speed or at whatever speed the demolition engineers set the charges to go off at.

The point is that you want building to collapse as fast as possible, near free-fall speed, so that the building will not tip over.

Again, this is a perfect of example of nit-picking the issues that just do not matter.

[R.Mackey]

Here is a perfect example of where people here just do not understand what is important, the physics.

It does not matter that the demolition wave was a little slower than free speed. Controlled demolition of WTC buildings is the only explanation that can account for this speed (and NIST fails to come up with one at all).

The evidence so far suggests that it is you who don't understand the physics.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2236462) is a simple explanation that I wrote up some time ago, suitable for a junior-high-school level of physics understanding.

For a vastly more sophisticated calculation, please see Bazant, Le, Greening, and Benson (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20did%20%26%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%206-22-07.pdf).

There is no justification for your remarks whatsoever. The only "calculation" ever floated that predicts a slower rate of collapse is that by Judy Wood, and her calculation violates conservation of momentum -- it in fact makes so little sense that it's difficult to evaluate.

And yes, I have a physics degree. Highest Honors, UC Santa Cruz, 1993. And engineering degrees on top of that. If you're making stuff up again, I'll know it.

[A W Smith]

They are not at free fall speed, they are near free-fall speed or at whatever speed the demolition engineers set the charges to go off at.

The point is that you want building to collapse as fast as possible, near free-fall speed, so that the building will not tip over.

Again, this is a perfect of example of nit-picking the issues that just do not matter.


No No No.. this is NOT nitpicking. This is the physics that you claim we don't understand. Yet you post none of your calculations we request.. Will you be honest with us? Thats your dads degree isn't it? After reading the past four posts you made you cant possibly be an engineer. The earlier spelling mistakes. Etc. Its all making sense now.

[Gravy]

Oops, I screwed up. I'll be sure to do my homework before making claims about this subject.Thank you. We expect nothing less.

[Quad4_72]

No No No.. this is NOT nitpicking. This is the physics that you claim we don't understand. Yet you post none of your calculations we request.. Will you be honest with us? Thats your dads degree isn't it? After reading the past four posts you made you cant possibly be an engineer. The earlier spelling mistakes. Etc. Its all making sense now.

You know I never thought about that. I bet the credentials are indeed his fathers. He has displayed no characteristics of an engineer. He has not provided ANY calculations, never once has he used critical thinking OR the scientific method, and he constantly refers us to other nutters work. Plus he keeps stating that things happened the way he thinks they did because he said so. bofors you have been caught.

[bofors]

Explain to me how this "demolition" wave accelerated the fall of the building?

I do not really understand what you are asking me here. The demolition wave caused the buildings fall, it initiated the collapse. I do not think that the building were failling first and then the demolitions started going or something.


if a building starts collapsing and you then set off a demolition immediately below it. How does the debris get out of the way?

Some of the debris gets blown out laterally. Steal beams weighing up to 10 tons were found lodged in near by buildings.

The of the rest debris, which is unsupported, just gets push down from the debris above.


You would have to set off demolition charges many floors below because the collapse wave will simply catch up due to it accelerating from an earlier start. lets use the stop light example. I have 10 drivers stopped at ten traffic lights. The lights are timed to go off as i accelerate another 32 mph for every light i reach. Each time i reach the next traffic light a driver waiting there starts to accelerate. Do you see the problem? I'm running into the cars (debris) in front of me. And its not helping me in any way that they start moving when I contact their rear bumper.

The straight-down debris (the stuff that is not ejected laterally) at the top of the building is almost continuously falling because the demolition wave is that fast. However, the straight-down debris at the top does not quite reach free fall speed because it bumps into straight-down debris from the floors immediately below it which slows it a little, stoping it from accelerating with the full force of gravity.

[bofors]

what.. wha?


Let's try it again.

Controlled demolitions need not strictly fall at exactly free fall speed.

In fact the ones I have seem to fall at constant velocity (as opposed to the increasing velocity due to the acceleration of gravity one observe in a true free fall) and are probably slightly below free fall speed.

The demoltion engineers can control the speed of the fall by setting the timers of the explosives (up to a maximum of free fall speed).

Does that makes sense now?

[cmcaulif]

If the charges(I'm assuming cutter charges) initiated collapse, could you perhaps explain how they and their wiring withstood impact and vibration from the planes, sustained heating from the fires, and compression from the downward displacement of the structure?

[Unsecured Coins]

It'd make a lot more sense if, you know, you'd bring forth to the table something to back up your theories instead of just your opinion on how things should have gone.

[bofors]

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2236462) is a simple explanation that I wrote up some time ago, suitable for a junior-high-school level of physics understanding.


Ok, I will look at this:

9.2 seconds is totally different from what you get if you "add 4-6 seconds." A simple calculation will confirm this.

Suppose we compute the time it takes the roof to hit the ground. Let the acceleration be a, in which case the time it takes to hit can be found using d = 1/2 a t2, where d is the distance the roof has to fall, equal to about 417 meters, and t is the time of the fall. We know d, measure t, and work backwards to get the effective acceleration a.

If the structure absorbs no energy at all, i.e. we get freefall, we should measure a = g. In this case, we should see t = 9.2 seconds.

If the structure absorbs some energy, then a will be less than g, or better expressed as a fraction of g.

Once we have this fraction, we can then estimate how much energy was needed to destroy the structure as it fell. Recall that gravitational energy GPE = m g h, where m is the mass of the structure. But this is the same g. Since the building doesn't collapse with acceleration g, the percentage of the GPE that at any time is seen as kinetic energy is not used to destroy the structure, and the remainder must have been needed to destroy the structure.

In other words, the fraction 1 - (a / g) is equal to the fraction of energy that went into destroying the structure.

From calculations elsewhere, the total GPE of the structure was equal to roughly 160 tons of TNT equivalent.

I've made a table for you that describes, for certain values of collapse time, how much energy went into destroying the structure as it fell:

Collapse time ............... Structural fraction ............. Structural energy
---------------------------------------------------------------------

9.2 seconds ................. 0 ................................... 0
10 seconds .................. 0.15 ............................... 24 tons TNT
11 seconds .................. 0.30 ............................... 48 tons TNT
12 seconds .................. 0.41 ............................... 65.6 tons TNT
13 seconds .................. 0.50 ............................... 80 tons TNT
14 seconds .................. 0.57 ............................... 91.2 tons TNT
15 seconds .................. 0.62 ............................... 99.1 tons TNT

What does this mean?

It means, that "adding 4-6 seconds," far from being materially identical to free-fall, means that as much as 62% of the energy was dedicated to breaking the building.

Even a single second of resistance by the structure means it absorbed more energy than an entire truckload of pure high explosive -- far, far more than could possibly have been planted, under any scenario.

Once again, your "common sense" as you call it, is wrong. And feel free to show where I'm "throwing my hands in the air" and disobeying the laws of physics.

[R.Mackey]

OK, I linked it, and you copied my link -- and I know you found out how to follow the link... So why repeat the full post??

Just read it. And try, if you can, to present this physics that "we just don't understand." I assure you, my grasp of physics is perfectly sound.

[Jonnyclueless]

They are not at free fall speed, they are near free-fall speed or at whatever speed the demolition engineers set the charges to go off at.

The point is that you want building to collapse as fast as possible, near free-fall speed, so that the building will not tip over.

Again, this is a perfect of example of nit-picking the issues that just do not matter.

If that's not a stundie, then all stundies before should be revoked.

[Unsecured Coins]

i already nominated it. I r teh winnar

[beachnut]

Bofo,
Millions of engineers around the world are able to see the WTC failed and fell with gravity only, after failure of the steel to support the damage due to impact and big FIRES. Millions of engineers are not falling for your lies; you and your fellow 9/11 truth people total to 0.00067 percent of all engineers, or so.

If the engineers vote you lost! If we use our brains, you lost! If we use physics, you lost! If we use rational thought, you have lost!

Failure is yours. Good job.

Does this kid understand gravity is the primary energy in a CD also?

[Jonnyclueless]

I imagine it's the spin of the earth that would cause buildings to fall sideways.

[bofors]

Since the building doesn't collapse with acceleration g, the percentage of the GPE that at any time is seen as kinetic energy is not used to destroy the structure, and the remainder must have been needed to destroy the structure.

This is not true.

There is absolutely no reason to think that all of this energy went into destroying the structure. In the controlled demolition, most of this energy would have simply acted to slow the fall of debris and to push debris out laterally.

[bofors]

double post.

[bofors]

So why repeat the full post?

So people can more easily read it.

[beachnut]

This is not true.

There is absolutely no reason to think that all of this energy went into destroying the structure. In the controlled demolition, most of this energy would have simply acted to slow the fall of debris and to push debris out laterally.
Wrong again; the energy of the building falling is the primary energy used to destroy the building in CD! You failed CD101! Gravity is the primary source for destroying buildings, this is one reason falling buildings look like CD, even when there are no explosives used!

[R.Mackey]

This is not true.

There is absolutely no reason to think that all of this energy went into destroying the structure. In the controlled demolition, most of this energy would have simply acted to slow the fall of debris and to push debris out laterally.

Assuming the consequent logical fallacy. There is no reason to assume controlled demolition at this time.

Also a physics error. Where does the energy to "slow the fall of debris" come from?

I repeat, you aren't going to fool me with physics double-talk. Don't try it again.

[tsig]

Umm, no... I am looking for information about construction of the Asch building and the 1911 "Triangle" fire.

If you have any good links please post them..

This is utterly pathetic. You want to argue then ask for links to prove your case.

Shall we come to your house and write your posts?

[Corsair 115]

If the charges(I'm assuming cutter charges) initiated collapse, could you perhaps explain how they and their wiring withstood impact and vibration from the planes, sustained heating from the fires, and compression from the downward displacement of the structure?The above is an excellent question. Kindly let me add a follow up to it:

Why do none of the numerous videos of the WTC tower collapses record the loud and distinctive sounds of demolition charges detonating?

If conventional demolition charges were used to bring down the towers, then every camera within blocks and blocks of the WTC with a working microphone would have clearly recorded the loud and distinctive sounds of those charges going off. For that matter, every person within blocks and blocks would have also clearly heard such sounds. There'd be no mistaking such noises.

So where are the sounds of the charges detonating?

[tsig]

I agree. So why don't we cut to the chase? What steel structure has ever suffered global collapse from less the 20% of it being damaged and on fire for only about an hour? And I'm guessing less then 20% which I feel is a generous estimate.
WTC1 and WTC2

Glad you feel generous, I don't.

Can I cut 20% from your legs and see if you stand?

[tsig]

Sorry, but I know the WTC buildings were demolished by explosives. Since the Asch building was not affected by demolitions, my comparison is limited to fire in the damage category.

I know they weren't.

[tsig]

No No No.. this is NOT nitpicking. This is the physics that you claim we don't understand. Yet you post none of your calculations we request.. Will you be honest with us? Thats your dads degree isn't it? After reading the past four posts you made you cant possibly be an engineer. The earlier spelling mistakes. Etc. Its all making sense now.

Seems to me anyone can scan in a degree and claim it is theirs.

I'm sure there are programs that will allow you to create any certificate you want.

[tsig]

I imagine it's the spin of the earth that would cause buildings to fall sideways.

Jonny you have a new one!

It's the Coriolis force.

[Gravy]

I agree. So why don't we cut to the chase? What steel structure has ever suffered global collapse from less the 20% of it being damaged and on fire for only about an hour? And I'm guessing less then 20% which I feel is a generous estimate.Yes, let's cut to the chase.

Name a skyscraper that suffered severe structural damage to multiple floors, followed by massive, uncontrolled fires on multiple floors, and remained standing.

I await your answer.

[Jonnyclueless]

Jonny you have a new one!

It's the Coriolis force.

Time to update all the science books!

[gumboot]

I do not really understand what you are asking me here. The demolition wave caused the buildings fall, it initiated the collapse.


If the "demolition wave" initiated the collapse, why didn't it appear until after the building started collapsing? The so-called demolition wave is nothing more than the ripped up chunks of building content smashed by a gravity-driven collapse.

The fact that the collapse was initiated by sagging floor trusses pulling in on exterior columns is irrefutable - aside from NIST's exhaustive study, it is plainly and clearly evident in a number of videos and photographs. Let's just be clear on that. You can see the columns bowing inwards and failing at the moment of collapse initiation.

-Gumboot

[technoextreme]

This is not true.

There is absolutely no reason to think that all of this energy went into destroying the structure. In the controlled demolition, most of this energy would have simply acted to slow the fall of debris and to push debris out laterally.
Why the [Rule10]ing hell would the explosives push the materials out sideways?
I agree. So why don't we cut to the chase? What steel structure has ever suffered global collapse from less the 20% of it being damaged and on fire for only about an hour? And I'm guessing less then 20% which I feel is a generous estimate.
I believe there are 20 different bridges that have done what you ask.

[e^n]

This is not true.

There is absolutely no reason to think that all of this energy went into destroying the structure. In the controlled demolition, most of this energy would have simply acted to slow the fall of debris and to push debris out laterally.

Bofors, I am not a physicist, engineer or other trained professional, however I can see how you've been misled.

Instead of presenting you with calculations and results, I propose you carry out a very simple calculation. Assume there are 110 plates each with 1/110th the mass of the towers, each is suspended (417/110)m apart and will fail immediately upon impact. How long would it take from the first plate being released to the stack of plates hitting the ground?

[bonavada]

what doesn't make sense to me is why you think they should have tipped over after they's been standing for over an hour after they got hit. Where was this magical force that was supposed to knock the top of the building off going to come from?

EBn4vDoBuqU

BV

[Unsecured Coins]

i feel so much more smartr now. Thanks!

[Dave Rogers]

Again, there are two critically important issues in understanding the WTC collapses.

(1) The collapes were symmetrical, straight-down, floor-by-floor and otherwise the building did not tip over.

No they weren't. All three collapses featured significant visible rotations during the fall. These are documented in the NIST report, which you would know if you had read it.

(2) The collapses occured near free fall speed.

No they didn't. The difference between collapse times and free fall times have been remarked upon here. Several people have calculated expected gravitational collapse times for all three collapses based on the following contributions:
(a) Downward acceleration due to gravity,
(b) Loss of kinetic energy due to conservation of momentum and
(c) Upward force due to resistance of the structure.
The results are invariably in agreement with the observed collapse times unless wildly unreasonable assumptions are made.

Any hypothesis regarding the mechanism of collapse must explain these two distinct characteristics.

There is no need for any such hypothesis to explain characteristics that the collapses did not possess.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

As I said above, the demolition wave appears to be near constant velocity.

Can you give an explanation of the observations and line of reasoning on which you base that conclusion? If, as seems usual for you, it's no more than a guess, then you have no business using it as a piece of evidence in a serious scientific debate.

Dave

[Mancman]

I do not really understand what you are asking me here. The demolition wave caused the buildings fall, it initiated the collapse. I do not think that the building were failling first and then the demolitions started going or something.


Wrong. The collapses were initiated by the failure of perimeter walls which were visibly bowing inward due to the pull of sagging floor trusses:

Clearly visible here:
K8dX3foxozQ

This footage confirms the NIST hypothesis for collapse initiation.

[bonavada]

The above is an excellent question. Kindly let me add a follow up to it:
Why do none of the numerous videos of the WTC tower collapses record the loud and distinctive sounds of demolition charges detonating?
If conventional demolition charges were used to bring down the towers, then every camera within blocks and blocks of the WTC with a working microphone would have clearly recorded the loud and distinctive sounds of those charges going off. For that matter, every person within blocks and blocks would have also clearly heard such sounds. There'd be no mistaking such noises.
So where are the sounds of the charges detonating?

this is the ONE question that flummoxes each and every adherent to twoofdom. it is unanswerable.
no moot point here. move along.....

BV

[rwguinn]

You said that they were constant velocity--not accelerated here
Let's try it again.

Controlled demolitions need not strictly fall at exactly free fall speed.

In fact the ones I have seem to fall at constant velocity (as opposed to the increasing velocity due to the acceleration of gravity one observe in a true free fall) and are probably slightly below free fall speed.

The demoltion engineers can control the speed of the fall by setting the timers of the explosives (up to a maximum of free fall speed).

Does that makes sense now?
Yet earlier, you said

Ok, let's try it again.

<<snip>>
(2) The collapses occured near free fall speed.

Any hypothesis regarding the mechanism of collapse must explain these two distinct characteristics.

Does that make sense to you?

anybody see any consistency here (Besides "Strike 3"

It is Monokote. See this: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:SVUlGJp68yUJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center+Building+7+%2B+monokote&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=safari

Hey!
You actually did some research! Ya got me there!

[Alferd_Packer]

For that matter, every person within blocks and blocks would have also clearly heard such sounds. There'd be no mistaking such noises.

So where are the sounds of the charges detonating?

From personal experience, I can tell you that everyone would have felt the shockwaves from the explosives hitting thier chest cavities as well.

A Port Authority captain yelled at Lim to get moving, but he said, “You go ahead,” and he, too, put an arm around Harris, helping to carry her to the fourth floor.



That was when the wind started, even before the noise. “No one realizes about the wind,” says Komorowski.



The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet. “I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.


http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/

"Where's the Earth shattering KaBOOM?"

[Alferd_Packer]

Let's try it again.

Controlled demolitions need not strictly fall at exactly free fall speed.

In fact the ones I have seem to fall at constant velocity (as opposed to the increasing velocity due to the acceleration of gravity one observe in a true free fall) and are probably slightly below free fall speed.

The demoltion engineers can control the speed of the fall by setting the timers of the explosives (up to a maximum of free fall speed).

Does that makes sense now?


That only makes sense to the naïve, ignorant, or insane.

Think about this for a second.

You claim that the demolition team is going to wire the building so that there is a significant time gap between sets of charges going off.

So, it the timing is off slightly, you risk damage to the detonation control wires, and thus risk having to deal with unexploded charges in this huge pile of rubble that you now have to clean up.

Is that your theory?

[LastChild]

Yes, let's cut to the chase.

Name a skyscraper that suffered severe structural damage to multiple floors, followed by massive, uncontrolled fires on multiple floors, and remained standing.

I await your answer.

Here's a plane crash into a building and a gas station

Plane Crash Kills 115 In Iran
Plane Loaded With Journalists Slams Into 10-Story Apartment Building
"It was like an earthquake," said Reza Sadeqi, a 25-year-old merchant who saw the plane hit the building. He said he was thrown about nine feet inside his shop by the force of the crash.
"I felt the heat of the fire caused by the crash. It was like being in hell," he said. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/06/world/main1099216.shtml

Here's a building hit by three missiles

NATO jets struck the 18-story high-rise building
A pall of smoke rises from a burning building in New Belgrade after it was hit by NATO air-strikes early Wednesday April 21 1999. NATO jets struck the 18-story high-rise building housing offices of the ruling SPS-Socialist Party of Serbia and three local TV and radio stations. At least three missiles hit the building known as Business Center "Usce", located across the Sava river, foreground, from the heart of the capital.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~craigg/g4c/NATO-help.htm

Here's a building that had fire and an explosion

The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html


The only point trying to be made right here is that although you will never find comparisons that exactly fit something that happen 3 times on 9-11 there are better comparisons to be made then a 4 story toy factory that was already under repair from a previous fire. In the end I don’t see how it helps your case Gravy that nothing can be found that really compares to the results from the WTC damage and fires. It can't be found because it doesn't happen the way we have all been told it happened. Never has before and never will again.

[pomeroo]

Let's try it again.

Controlled demolitions need not strictly fall at exactly free fall speed.

In fact the ones I have seem to fall at constant velocity (as opposed to the increasing velocity due to the acceleration of gravity one observe in a true free fall) and are probably slightly below free fall speed.

The demoltion engineers can control the speed of the fall by setting the timers of the explosives (up to a maximum of free fall speed).

Does that makes sense now?


Yes, it makes perfect sense to conclude that you do not have a degree in engineering.

[Jonnyclueless]

So according to Last Child, if something has never happened before, then it cannot happen. Thus nothing has ever happened since everything had to happen for a first time and thus negating our very existence. Nice job there Einstein.

[A W Smith]

So according to Last Child, if something has never happened before, then it cannot happen. Thus nothing has ever happened since everything had to happen for a first time and thus negating our very existence. Nice job there Einstein.

Which is why they can't believe man landed on the moon:)

[rwguinn]

So according to Last Child, if something has never happened before, then it cannot happen. Thus nothing has ever happened since everything had to happen for a first time and thus negating our very existence. Nice job there Einstein.

Well--as for existence, I'll paraphrase Robert a Heinlein:
"I'm always here, but sometimes you go away."

[Jonnyclueless]

And those silly scientists keep telling us life on earth could be destroyed by a large asteroid impact. Yeah right. Let's see one example where this has happened before.

(Let's not spoil this with the dinosaurs)

[technoextreme]

The only point trying to be made right here is that although you will never find comparisons that exactly fit something that happen 3 times on 9-11 there are better comparisons to be made then a 4 story toy factory that was already under repair from a previous fire. In the end I don’t see how it helps your case Gravy that nothing can be found that really compares to the results from the WTC damage and fires. It can't be found because it doesn't happen the way we have all been told it happened. Never has before and never will again.
Nope.:):)
oHMhb69w4X0
How about buildings set on fire by Iraq in Kuwait? Took me five minutes to find buildings that exhibit the same type of damage caused by the fire. Some of them collapsed solely due to fire and only fire. By your idiotic logic it couldn't have happened.
Posted in the Abstract:
Technical data on material behavior was documented to show the changes in material properties under actual field conditions for other scientists to benefit from the Kuwaiti experience. The inspected structures showed fire damage ranging from heavy smoke to major destruction, such as distortion, buckling, and collapse of structural steel frames, disintegration of reinforced concrete, yielding of steel reinforcements within concrete (causing large deflections), and buckling of structural elements, as well as damage to a variety of interior elements. The different effects resulted in reduction in the integrity and strength of the affected Kuwaiti structures.

[Alareth]

I agree. So why don't we cut to the chase? What steel structure has ever suffered global collapse from less the 20% of it being damaged and on fire for only about an hour? And I'm guessing less then 20% which I feel is a generous estimate.


Would you please give one example of a building anywhere in the world cunstructed in the same manner as WTC 1 and 2.

I'll save to the trouble (Not that I believe you would do the research anyway) and tell you that you can't.

The WTC twin towers were UNIQUE structures, you cannot compare them and the way they responded to the damage done with any other building.

There is nothing amazing or strange about them failing. It is a testament to their design that they managed to stand as long as they did after the impacts.

[LastChild]

Would you please give one example of a building anywhere in the world cunstructed in the same manner as WTC 1 and 2.

I'll save to the trouble (Not that I believe you would do the research anyway) and tell you that you can't.

The WTC twin towers were UNIQUE structures, you cannot compare them and the way they responded to the damage done with any other building.

There is nothing amazing or strange about them failing. It is a testament to their design that they managed to stand as long as they did after the impacts.

So then why bring up toy factories or highway collapses?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So then why bring up toy factories or highway collapses?
Because they are direct counter-examples to the CTist canard of "fire doesn't melt/weaken steel"

[technoextreme]

So then why bring up toy factories or highway collapses?
Because people like you refuse to believe that it's happened before. Because people like you espouse the wonderful ability of metal to conduct heat which means that bridges would never collapse.

[LastChild]

Nope.:):)
oHMhb69w4X0
How about buildings set on fire by Iraq in Kuwait? Took me five minutes to find buildings that exhibit the same type of damage caused by the fire. Some of them collapsed solely due to fire and only fire. By your idiotic logic it couldn't have happened.
Posted in the Abstract:

"The inspected structures showed fire damage ranging from heavy smoke to major destruction..."

The inspected structures? What structure of the wtc was left to inspect?

[LastChild]

Would you please give one example of a building anywhere in the world cunstructed in the same manner as WTC 1 and 2.

I'll save to the trouble (Not that I believe you would do the research anyway) and tell you that you can't.

The WTC twin towers were UNIQUE structures, you cannot compare them and the way they responded to the damage done with any other building.

There is nothing amazing or strange about them failing. It is a testament to their design that they managed to stand as long as they did after the impacts.


"Harmon says that the World Trade Center building design is known as a tube structure. It consists of lots of small, closely spaced columns that resist two sets of loads, vertical and lateral. Harmon worked on the analysis of the Standard Oil Building in the early 1970s, an 87-story structure that is in some ways similar to the World Trade Center. The Sears Tower in Chicago also is similar in design and was built in the same era. All three buildings are designed as structural tubes."

Harmon expressed incredulity that the buildings collapsed, speculating that it was due to the melting of the fire.

"I was utterly shocked that the buildings actually collapsed," he says. "I can't imagine that whoever did this thought the buildings were going to totally collapse."

http://news-info.wustl.edu/News/nrindex00/harmon.html

[Jonnyclueless]

And Harmon was right, they didn't think the buildings would collapse.

And the WTC despite your attempts to mislead others with selective quoting, is not the same design as others. You are preying on the term "similar" from the quote in hopes it will be interpreted as the same.

[technoextreme]

"The inspected structures showed fire damage ranging from heavy smoke to major destruction..."

The inspected structures? What structure of the wtc was left to inspect?
Your refutation doesn't work because they inspected multiple buildings. It doesn't matter that how many collapsed but only that one did. They said buildings collapsed due to fire.

[LastChild]

Your refutation doesn't work because they inspected multiple buildings. It doesn't matter that how many collapsed but only that one did. They said buildings collapsed due to fire.

It does matter especially if the entire building was on fire for hours. Do you have any of this information? This was hardly the case in any of the WTC buildings where most of the structure of all the WTC buildings were not damaged or on fire.

[LastChild]

And those silly scientists keep telling us life on earth could be destroyed by a large asteroid impact. Yeah right. Let's see one example where this has happened before.

(Let's not spoil this with the dinosaurs)

Well what is your point? Have asteroids never hit the earth?

[JimBenArm]

Well what is your point? Have asteroids never hit the earth?
I want a YouTube video proving they killed the dinosaurs! Otherwise, you're just another twoofer shill!

[tacodaemon]

I wonder if there's big bux out there for whoever can come up with a cheap spray-on version of brick/terra cotta fireproofing.

[Gravy]

Here's a plane crash into a building and a gas station...Not a skyscraper. Building not hit by fuselage. Concrete building. Example rejected.

Here's a building hit by three missiles...Concrete building. Example rejected. (Interestingly, this Belgrade building was the target of a failed 1970 plot by a Serb national to hijack a 747 out of Chicago and crash it into the building.)

Here's a building that had fire and an explosion...No preexisting damage. Fire was fought. Example rejected. (I thought the only explosions in fires were from bombs???)

In the end I don’t see how it helps your case Gravy that nothing can be found that really compares to the results from the WTC damage and fires.That's because you can't find anything that compares to the WTC damage and fires. What about this concept do you not understand?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip> This was hardly the case in any of the WTC buildings where most of the structure of all the WTC buildings were not damaged or on fire.
That is a highly disingenuous statement. The percentage of the WTC Towers' over structure that was damaged or on fire is only part of the story; that the damage and fire was localized in such a manner as to cause structural failure can not be left unsaid. By your statement I tree that has been chewed through by a beaver shouldn't fall over because most of its "structure" is undamaged.

[Gravy]

I wonder if there's big bux out there for whoever can come up with a cheap spray-on version of brick/terra cotta fireproofing.You may be interested in this article and graphic (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/woundedbuildingsoffersurvivallessons) that covers the difference between the construction and fireproofing between WTC 7 and 90 West Street (closely-spaced columns, terra cotta fireproofing).

[BillyRayValentine]

I agree. So why don't we cut to the chase? What steel structure has ever suffered global collapse from less the 20% of it being damaged and on fire for only about an hour? And I'm guessing less then 20% which I feel is a generous estimate.

You are wrong. Studies have established that a 17.64% damaged-and-on-fire to intact ratio would be the tipping point.

Either that or your whole "what % was damaged" point is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. It's so cosmically stupid, in fact, that the only possible conclusion is that you're another young'un gone astray, an angry kid intoxicated by the idea of standing tall against the man.

Go get'em cowboy.

[LastChild]

Not a skyscraper. Building not hit by fuselage. Concrete building. Example rejected.

Concrete building. Example rejected. (Interestingly, this Belgrade building was the target of a failed 1970 plot by a Serb national to hijack a 747 out of Chicago and crash it into the building.)

No preexisting damage. Fire was fought. Example rejected. (I thought the only explosions in fires were from bombs???)

That\\\\\\\'s because you can\\\\\\\'t find anything that compares to the WTC damage and fires. What about this concept do you not understand?

Yes I did find valid comparisons to the fires and damage of the WTC. I just can\'t find a comparison to the collapses that occurred three times on 9/11 nor will you ever be able to. Nice attempt at trying to move the goal posts there. You\'re dishonest Gravy.

Welcome to ignore.

[Alareth]

I just can\'t find a comparison to the collapses that occurred three times on 9/11 nor will you ever be able to.

Unique outcomes related to singularly unique circumstances.

[LastChild]

You are wrong. Studies have established that a 17.64% damaged-and-on-fire to intact ratio would be the tipping point.

Either that or your whole \"what % was damaged\" point is one of the dumbest things I\'ve ever read. It\'s so cosmically stupid, in fact, that the only possible conclusion is that you\'re another young\'un gone astray, an angry kid intoxicated by the idea of standing tall against the man.

Go get\'em cowboy.


Tipping point to what? Global collapse to dust in an hour? I don\'t think so.

[Calcas]

Tipping point to what? Global collapse to dust in an hour? I don\'t think so.

LastChild, why do you need to use a proxy here? The "\\\\" are a dead givaway. I can't see any reason for it as this site shouldn't be unavailable from any place I can think of.

It's also coincidental that you joined the day after Zensmack's most recent sock was banned.

Hmmmm....

[rwguinn]

Yes I did find valid comparisons to the fires and damage of the WTC. I just can\'t find a comparison to the collapses that occurred three times on 9/11 nor will you ever be able to. Nice attempt at trying to move the goal posts there. You\'re dishonest Gravy.

Welcome to ignore.

and you're either a liar or something pitiable.
take a chain, with 1000 links in it. Now, lower your your car over a cliff, using the chain. By damaging only 1/10 of 1% of the chain, I can destroy your car.
Understand now?

Welcome to ignore, yourself

[Gravy]

Yes I did find valid comparisons to the fires and damage of the WTC. I just can\'t find a comparison to the collapses that occurred three times on 9/11 nor will you ever be able to. Nice attempt at trying to move the goal posts there. You\'re dishonest Gravy.

Welcome to ignore.The poor child somehow didn't notice that the whole point of this thread was to demonstrate how to determine what are valid comparisons to the unique WTC structures, damage, fires, and firefighting. He really should go back and review my responses and challenges to bofors. In history, three steel-framed skyscrapers have sustained such damage and unfought fires. All collapsed.

Just another intellectually dishonest denialist.

[Jonnyclueless]

Well what is your point? Have asteroids never hit the earth?

The fact that you don't know is pretty much the point Zen.

[LastChild]

and you're either a liar or something pitiable.
take a chain, with 1000 links in it. Now, lower your your car over a cliff, using the chain. By damaging only 1/10 of 1% of the chain, I can destroy your car.
Understand now?

Welcome to ignore, yourself

Yeah that's about as valid a comparison as a highway overpass

[LastChild]

LastChild, why do you need to use a proxy here? The "\\\\" are a dead givaway. I can't see any reason for it as this site shouldn't be unavailable from any place I can think of.

It's also coincidental that you joined the day after Zensmack's most recent sock was banned.

Hmmmm....

Is that what that is? I don't know I'm at work and I keep getting knocked off.

Zensmack? no

[technoextreme]

Yeah that's about as valid a comparison as a highway overpass
Your wrong. Bridges are very useful in debunking a few of the idiotic pseudoscience crap. Namely, the rational that steel without fireproof wouldn't do anything.

[rwguinn]

Your wrong. Bridges are very useful in debunking a few of the idiotic pseudoscience crap. Namely, the rational that steel without fireproof wouldn't do anything.
Yep--
And things can't fail catastrophically when only 10 or 20 or 25 or whatever percent is damaged...

[Newtons Bit]

Yeah that's about as valid a comparison as a highway overpass

No, rwguinn made an extremely apt analogy. The entire building acts as a whole, and though some of it is redundant (the exterior columns), the interior columns are not.

Load redistribution from severed non-moment connected columns is poor. I don't understand why truthers neither understand this concept, nor the fact that engineers assume that there will never be a complete loss of a column in normal buildings.

[tacodaemon]

You may be interested in this article and graphic (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/woundedbuildingsoffersurvivallessons) that covers the difference between the construction and fireproofing between WTC 7 and 90 West Street (closely-spaced columns, terra cotta fireproofing).


Great article, thanks. I'm glad the Asch building came up in this thread too since I'm interested in it as well. (It's right by Washington Square and used by NYU now, if I remember right.)

It's sad that even though people 100 years ago understood that structural steel had to be fireproofed, the word still hasn't sunk in with the truthers.

[A W Smith]

Yes I did find valid comparisons to the fires and damage of the WTC. I just can\'t find a comparison to the collapses that occurred three times on 9/11 nor will you ever be able to. Nice attempt at trying to move the goal posts there. You\'re dishonest Gravy.

Welcome to ignore.

Like ignore is something new from truthers like yourself? You have been ignoring for six years. Please spare us your indignation.

[technoextreme]

Load redistribution from severed non-moment connected columns is poor. I don't understand why truthers neither understand this concept, nor the fact that engineers assume that there will never be a complete loss of a column in normal buildings
Because it doesn't happen that often. Engineers do not typically design with freak occurances in mind.