Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

[Tony Szamboti]

Except some of your "knees" were disturbed by the reality of aircraft impact and fire. Reality is not you're friend on this. Condition in the initiation zone was not "as built". You can't deny this.

Only 15% of the columns were disturbed. To even think that would make a difference is disturbing. The wings never got to the central core columns and we can see that the impacted exterior face remained upright even after having 60% of its columns cut. 85% of the columns in the buildings were intact and would have caused a very significant deceleration if the collapse was natural.

You are groping for straws to maintain your view that the collapses were naturally caused. They weren't. Controlled demolition is what caused the drops of the three buildings and I only say that because the evidence points to it. You on the other hand seem to want to maintain a fantastic belief in something that couldn't happen and have the observations we do.

No deceleration or free fall acceleration means controlled demolition. It really is that simple.

 

[jaydeehess]

You don't need a gap to be created. That is where your thinking goes wrong. The upper and lower knees of the buckled columns will collide.

,,, and now you also see why there is no gap created when columns fold, or buckle. You want it both ways Tony, demand a gap in fire induced column failure propagating at the speed of gravitational load redistribution, and demand no gap in an explosives created column failure.

 

[DGM]

Only 15% of the columns were disturbed. To even think that would make a difference is disturbing. The wings never got to the central core columns.

The fires did not disturb any of the structure? The fact you're trying to sell that is disturbing.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Ape of Good Hope
Is it just me or has this thread taken a turn toward the bizarre?

I'm afraid Tony et al, are going down the same path as PfT and CiT now, and fast approaching Judy Wood, as far as being bizarre, outlandish, and in developing pure fictional scenarios wrt 9/11.

Truther nuttiness is like prime numbers. No matter how large the prime number, there are infinitely many that are higher yet, even if they are currently unknown. It just takes time to find them. The highest prime number yet discovered has held that position for some two years, now.

No matter how nutty the Truther, given enough time there will be one who is even more nutty, just as a prime number higher than the presently highest-known one will be found.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

,,, and now you also see why there is no gap created when columns fold, or buckle. You want it both ways Tony, demand a gap in fire induced column failure propagating at the speed of gravitational load redistribution, and demand no gap in an explosives created column failure.

It is hard to see how you can say I want it both ways. Your thinking is not correct on this and that is the problem here.

I also say the acceleration through the first story is too much for a natural collapse with buckling columns and to add to that there is no deceleration of the column knees after they had buckled and collapsed as alleged by you and others here. They are not incompatible criticisms of the natural collapse notion you and some others here are trying to defend.

 

[jaydeehess]

Only 15% of the columns were disturbed. To even think that would make a difference is disturbing. The wings never got to the central core columns.

You are groping for straws to maintain your view that the collapses were naturally caused. They weren't. Controlled demolition is what caused the drops of the three buildings and I only say that because the evidence points to it. You on the other hand seem to want to maintain a fantastic belief in something that couldn't happen and have the observations we do.

No deceleration or free fall acceleration means controlled demolition. It really is that simple.

I think you meant "and", or perhaps you simply forgot two commas. As written it expresses that "no free fall means controlled demolition".

The observations we do have illustrate nothing that demonstrates explosives usage. Instead all we observe are aircraft impacts and fires, then collapse.

Grammar aside, pray tell what evidence are you referring to for the use of explosives? You have evidence that explosives were installed, or are you simply inferring their usage because you wish to maintain a fantastic belief in a an all powerful extra-governmental organization that seeks to control world events for its own agenda?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I think you meant "and", or perhaps you simply forgot two commas. As written it expresses that "no free fall means controlled demolition".

The observations we do have illustrate nothing that demonstrates explosives usage. Instead all we observe are aircraft impacts and fires, then collapse.

Grammar aside, pray tell what evidence are you referring to for the use of explosives? You have evidence that explosives were installed, or are you simply inferring their usage because you wish to maintain a fantastic belief in a an all powerful extra-governmental organization that seeks to control world events for its own agenda?

How about "no deceleration" or "free fall" of the upper sections of the buildings means controlled demolition. Does that work for you?

You also need to get real about the focused blowouts on the corners as seen in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8

 

[GlennB]

You don't need a gap to be created. That is where your thinking goes wrong. The upper and lower knees of the buckled columns will collide.

The 'knees' of which you speak only exist in Bazant's diagrams:



In reality connections failed or columns ruptured.

We discussed this a few years ago. Your claim was ridiculous then and remains ridiculous now.

 

[jaydeehess]

It is hard to see how you can say I want it both ways. Your thinking is not correct on this and that is the problem here.

I also say the acceleration through the first story is too much for a natural collapse with buckling columns and to add to that there is no deceleration of the column knees after they had buckled and collapsed as alleged by you and others here. They are not incompatible criticisms of the natural collapse notion you and some others here are trying to defend.

Why don't you draw me a picture illustrating a column folding due to heat weakening under load, and show me where the gap gets created?

You know, something starting at about the point of creep induced folding seen in the picture of a WTC 5 column.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The 'knees' of which you speak only exist in Bazant's diagrams:

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/bazanthinge.jpg[/qimg]

In reality connections failed or columns ruptured.

We discussed this a few years ago. Your claim was ridiculous then and remains ridiculous now.

Maybe the center would after a large rotation, but the knees would be there. Your thinking isn't correct either. No wonder you and several of the others are confused and don't get it. It seems I am wasting my time here.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Why don't you draw me a picture illustrating a column folding due to heat weakening under load, and show me where the gap gets created?

You know, something starting at about the point of creep induced folding seen in the picture of a WTC 5 column.

You need to get educated enough to discuss things rationally. Nothing you are saying has any merit.

 

[DGM]

Maybe the center would but the knees would be there. Your thinking isn't correct either. No wonder you and several of the others are confused and don't get it. It seems I am wasting my time here.

Tell us where you're not............(a link will do).

 

[GlennB]

Maybe the center would but the knees would be there. Your thinking isn't correct either. No wonder you and several of the others are confused and don't get it. It seems I am wasting my time here.

I'm not confused and neither are the others.

Connections would fail long before a 90° flex could happen allowing these "knees" to meet. Connection failure would be asymmetric and unpredictable. No knees meeting in axial impact.

 

[DGM]

You need to get educated enough to discuss things rationally. Nothing you are saying has any merit.

You think this is a rational response? I'm thinking of a scenario where the pieces used to connect a vehicle carrying passengers to the road have become disconnected.

 

[jaydeehess]

How about "no deceleration" or "free fall" of the upper sections of the buildings means controlled demolition. Does that work for you?

Nope. You mean to write
No deceleration, or free fall acceleration, means controlled demolition. Or to be even less ambiguous
Free fall acceleration, or no deceleration, means controlled demolition.
OR
No deceleration, and free fall acceleration, means controlled demolition.

Not that anyone here is too concerned about grammar and spelling in their native language, right?

You also need to get real about the focused blowouts on the corners as seen in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8

Squint as I might I do not see 'explosives' in the videos of collapse. I do see air being forced out a a structure that is 90% air by volume.

 

[jaydeehess]

You need to get educated enough to discuss things rationally. Nothing you are saying has any merit.

You really expect knees to form as in Glenn's post above do you?

Why don't we see that in the picture of the buckling column in WTC 5? IIRC beachnut posted it in this thread just a few pages back .

ETA: correction, its pgimeno

Does that look like the alignment in Bazant's limiting model?

 

[DGM]

Squint as I might I do not see 'explosives' in the videos of collapse. I do see air being forced out a a structure that is 90% air by volume.

We must not judge velocity challenged explosives.......................

 

[jaydeehess]

We must not judge velocity challenged explosives.......................

or otherwise challenged objects, be they mineral or biologic.

 

[ozeco41]

You don't need a gap to be created. That is where your thinking goes wrong. The upper and lower knees of the buckled columns will collide.

That is exactly where your "reasoning" falls off the rails Tony.

I cannot help you if you refuse to think BUT....

..I'm stubborn and I am right on the key issues of explanation.

You scenario of "knees" which "collide" continues to presume that one knee is above the other - coming down onto it - there again you create your phantom gap. The central error you continue to make. In reality there was no gap. Let's look at what really happens.

In forming the "knees"* the process of forming knees actually moves the two "ends" past each other. They are already bypassing as part of the process of forming the "knees". By the time the knees have formed they are already past each other.

PLEASE do yourself a favour. Sit down and quietly think through what happens for any one column. Use a stick of plasticine OR Draw it on paper and - as the top load pushes the top end of column down go step by small step through the sequence. How do the bits of the column reshape and realign as the buckling progresses to form "knees"?

Remember that the top and bottom of the column are getting closer together. Overall the column is getting shorter as the top structure load pushes it down to fail in axial overload. Resist the temptation to only consider one factor at a time. So where do the two parts of buckling column go as they bend into "knees"? There is no gap.

And do it for ONE column at a time.

Given the number of years you have harboured your false understanding it will be a big step BUT if you can make that large leap in conceptual understanding for one column it will be a lot easier to build up to more columns.

There will be another step increase in understanding needed at the stage where you start to quantify the engineering from collapse of a single column to incorporate several adjacent columns in a load redistribution setting. The thinking effort becomes easier after that second stage.

BUT stay with the one column first stage of thinking until you get that right - without the need to continue inserting phantom gaps.

The column folds through getting shorter as the load presses down. There is never a gap.


AND: * There may have been other mechanisms BUT they do not change the overall logic. Lets stay with the most obvious one first

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

Is it just me or has this thread taken a turn toward the bizarre?

That may have been my fault as I'm very interested in how those who ascribe to some of these theories develop their belief systems.