• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC Discussion: Core Column Temperature & Failure.

28th Kingdom said:
Concrete columns/pillars from a concrete structure can crumble under weight/pressure (causing a pancaking of the floors) steel columns (like those found in the wtc) cannot crumble or compact down on themselves. Why? Because, you can't push a solid through another solid. Physics 101.
Click to expand...

A steel column weakens considerably when it bends.

That's why we keep talking about the inward bowing outer columns.

Also each steel column is not one piece of steel. It's a series of steel sections held together by many fasteners. If you put a tremendous amount of weight on the column, then the column will tend to fail at the fasteners, forcing the sections one way or another.
 
babazaroni said:
Buckling. You lose.
Click to expand...

NO really...this time you ALL lose. This is straight from the horses mouth.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-RzwmD8uB8g

NIST member straight out says the buildings fell in virtual free fall speeds...even though you all claim the NIST doesn't say that. Also, what we need to do is clearly look at the computer animation NIST has created, showing the sagging trusses...the bowing columns...and the columns failing(breaking). At 1:18 what do we notice? Man, those trusses didn't stay connected to the outer columns after all. Whoopsie.
 
babazaroni said:
Buckling. You lose.
Click to expand...

That's quite a video; I'd never seen it before, and I suspect that most of the 911 "truth" movement never have either.

Classic buckling failure; columns pull in, then finally buckle in completely as the material above comes down. No squibs, no evidence of CD, just a fire weakened and structurally damaged building sucumbing to what we would all expect.

A terrible, terrible thing.
 
28th Kingdom said:
NIST member straight out says the buildings fell in virtual free fall speeds...even though you all claim the NIST doesn't say that.
Click to expand...

The debris fell in free fall, it could not have fallen at any other speed. This has been explained to you(and apparently ignored)...


Also, what we need to do is clearly look at the computer animation NIST has created, showing the sagging trusses...the bowing columns...and the columns failing(breaking). At 1:18 what do we notice? Man, those trusses didn't stay connected to the outer columns after all. Whoopsie.
Click to expand...

http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister2.pdf

Click. Read. Learn.
 
You will all observe that 28th has once again failed to respond to the Edinburgh and Sheffield papers.
 
28th Kingdom said:
NIST member straight out says the buildings fell in virtual free fall speeds...even though you all claim the NIST doesn't say that. Also, what we need to do is clearly look at the computer animation NIST has created, showing the sagging trusses...the bowing columns...and the columns failing(breaking). At 1:18 what do we notice? Man, those trusses didn't stay connected to the outer columns after all. Whoopsie.
Click to expand...


Which is partly why it fell apart idiot.
 
28th Kingdom said:
A solid can punch a hole through another solid...but a solid cannot permeate through another solid.
Click to expand...

And your point, is? The core columns weren't continous, under stress they failed at the joints, the weakest points and came apart in sctions.
 
Architect said:
That's quite a video; I'd never seen it before, and I suspect that most of the 911 "truth" movement never have either.

Classic buckling failure; columns pull in, then finally buckle in completely as the material above comes down. No squibs, no evidence of CD, just a fire weakened and structurally damaged building sucumbing to what we would all expect.

A terrible, terrible thing.
Click to expand...

I've posted the link about 5 times now for 28k to see.

As you say, it shows buckling and no explosions at the moment of collapse.
 
apathoid said:
The debris fell in free fall, it could not have fallen at any other speed.
Click to expand...

"The entire top of the building came down ... pretty much in free fall because of the kinetic energy that was unleashed was just huge." NIST member

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-RzwmD8uB8g - 1:20

I'm sure they did write one thing in the NIST report while saying a completely opposite (and contradictory) thing in person...those pesky Doublespeakers. You've got to be careful...they will try and warp yer mind.
 
Architect said:
You will all observe that 28th has once again failed to respond to the Edinburgh and Sheffield papers.
Click to expand...

To be fair to 28th, he's not just failed to respond to the Edinburgh and Sheffield papers. He's failed to repond to any rational point anyone has made ever.

Ever.
 
28th Kingdom said:
I applaud you for being a truly independent thinker. No one in the scientific world (minus some governmental agencies) including, NIST...concluded (after final analysis) that a pancake collapse was possible in the towers.

You maverick you.
Click to expand...

Check your sources again. I think you will find that NIST stated that the collapse wasn't CAUSED by pancaking, but that doesn't preclude pancaking occuring once the collapse got going. They said nothing about what was or was not possible.

Things that are scientifically impossible are in the vein of "dividing by zero", or "getting more energy out of a system than went into it". No one is going to claim that a certain type of collapse is impossible in ANY circumstance because of the structure, especially if the supposedly impossible thing clearly HAPPENED.
 
Mashuna said:
To be fair to 28th, he's not just failed to respond to the Edinburgh and Sheffield papers. He's failed to repond to any rational point anyone has made ever.

Ever.
Click to expand...

I know, but you'll also recall that I promised to pursue him relentlessley for the 6 weeks or whatever until my knee stitched. :) He gets a day off tomorrow as I've got an investigative arthroscopy, joy of joys.

Actually it's obvious he's got me on ignore, so I'm running on the basis that it help reinforce the picture of him as a complete eejit to everyone else.
 
28th Kingdom said:
"The entire top of the building came down ... pretty much in free fall because of the kinetic energy that was unleashed was just huge." NIST member

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-RzwmD8uB8g - 1:20

I'm sure they did write one thing in the NIST report while saying a completely opposite (and contradictory) thing in person...those pesky Doublespeakers. You've got to be careful...they will try and warp yer mind.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that the NIST member meant the same thing by the term "free-fall" as you do?

Was he talking about the velocity or the acceleration?

How does his statement support your view on what happened?
 
28 IQ said:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5euZtUSxRjY

No buckling - 3:05 - you all lose.
Click to expand...
So the guys are standing there, looking at a column that has been bent into a U shape, and they mention that where it bent, it doesn't have the little buckles on the inside edges that they expected. This in no way is saying that buckling columns are not what precipitated the collapse.

28IQ, it seems your M.O. is to find a word or phrase that gets used in different ways in different contexts, and to see a conspiracy in that. I have to say that it's original!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom