WTC Discussion: Core Column Temperature & Failure.

[twinstead]

People! 28th KingTroll is trying to act like the next Christophera, talking about doublethink, how we don't understand the truth, we can't answer his questions, and how he is able to percieve all the YouTube evidence, while we cannot.

Sigh. Two more casualties of the YouTube generation.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Now, I know you won't, but could you please explain how a building collapse sucks smoke into the building?

Or were you just sucking in some dope smoke while you wrote this?

So you don't see the smoke that is going inwards? Even if you say the building is going inward...why would the smoke (which is on the outside of the building) move inwards with the outer columns? Go stand in front of a door...and push it open away from you. Notice how the air current is coming towards you...even though the door is moving away from you?

So if the outer columns are moving inward...than the air should push the smoke in the opposite direction i.e. outwards. Trust me...it's an optical illusion.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

That's where I've heard that before. I knew it sounded familiar.

Do these people all read from the same paranoid's handbook?

well considering jessicarabbits sordid history i think they might all have the same paranoid brain

 

[Mancman]

I'm glad you presented this...thanks. This is a complete optical illusion. What you are seeing is the smoke being sucked inward, right as the building starts to collapse. It makes it look like the building just caved inward, but notice the white side of the tower right below the smoke. It never moves inward.

The entire piece of the building (that you think you see caving inward) is completely covered in smoke...the smoke gets sucked inwards...so it makes it look like the building was sucked inward...but again, you never see any part of the white exterior going in.

You are 100% wrong.

 

[gumboot]

If the internal (horizontal floors) were removed with a pancaking, than at best, the core and perimeter columns, would fall over to the side...from instability...but they certainly wouldn't or couldn't collapse down upon themselves (telescoping) in a sequential progression from top to bottom without being cut with something like therma/ite.

Have you actually read my summary of the collapse? I have given it to you THREE TIMES!!!

What you described above is WHAT HAPPENED!!!

The exterior columns peel away to the side, and the floor trusses collapsed down upon each other, leaving the core standing.

WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU HAVE TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING?

-Gumboot

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Go stand in front of a door...and push it open away from you. Notice how the air current is coming towards you...even though the door is moving away from you?

bad analogy, as this depends on relative air pressures on either side of the door, if the pressure is lower outside the door air will rush out, if its lower inside air will rush in, if its the same, air will move out, but not as quickly (sicne its just being pulled by a relative low pressure area formed by the moving door, a corresponding high pressure area exists on the other side of the door as it moves)

 

[28th Kingdom]

well considering jessicarabbits sordid history i think they might all have the same paranoid brain

Hey buddy, you ain't getting away from the point of the trusses disconnecting from the outer columns...because you said that's the whole thing that separates a pancake collapse from a non-pancake collapse. NIST's video clearly shows the trusses break away from the outer columns. So what is your answer to this?

Thanks.

 

[gumboot]

What you are saying is that by looking at video and photographs...we can't determine the angle at which the upper mass on WTC 2 is tilted. We're not talking about colors now...so you can't hide behind some weak excuse like the contrast on the television is off. We're talking about using our eyes (lord I know...we're jumping into the land of speculation and non-science by doing this) to visually access the angle at which an object is tilted.

CTers only use images from angles that exaggerate the degree of tilt. NIST calculated the degree of tilt by observing multiple vidoes and photographs from every angle.

Clearly you lack the photographic interpretation skills to realise that different angles will give you drastically different perspectives on an identical event.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Hey buddy, you ain't getting away from the point of the trusses disconnecting from the outer columns...because you said that's the whole thing that separates a pancake collapse from a non-pancake collapse. NIST's video clearly shows the trusses break away from the outer columns. So what is your answer to this?

I know you've already been told this, but I'll tell you again.

NIST's analysis was of the COLLAPSE INITIATION. Therefore when they make statements that the collapse was not a pancake collapse, they are talking about the COLLAPSE INITIATION.

In other words, the collapse did not start with a floor truss failure causing a floor truss to fall onto another.

Indeed, floor truss failures DID occur prior to global collapse and these DIDN'T cause a global pancake collapse, which only PROVES that a pancake collapse could not possibly have caused the global collapse.

Global collapse was caused by EXTERIOR COLUMN FAILURE. Got it? The trusses remained attached to the exterior columns. Trusses sagged. Sagging pulled exterior columns inwards. Exterior columns failed.

Seriously, why is it you are utterly incapable of understanding this VERY simple sequence of events?

-Gumboot

 

[Horatius]

So you don't see the smoke that is going inwards?

No, I don't. Like every other Ctist we've seen, you look at a video and see things that simply aren't there. You see things, in fact, that are the exact opposite of what's there.

Do I need to dig up the video you posted of the Madrid hotel fire, where they say it didn't collapse, just as they show the video of it collapsing? Same thing.

Since all you do is look at and post videos, one would hope that you could learn to do it better than this.

Too much dope, I guess. Melted your brain, just like my Dad always said it would.

 

[28th Kingdom]

bad analogy, as this depends on relative air pressures on either side of the door, if the pressure is lower outside the door air will rush out, if its lower inside air will rush in, if its the same, air will move out, but not as quickly (sicne its just being pulled by a relative low pressure area formed by the moving door, a corresponding high pressure area exists on the other side of the door as it moves)

My example was perfect. The air pressure of both spaces i.e. inside window/outside window - can determine (by itself) which way the air flows i.e. inwards/outwards. This is without the variable of a moving object i.e. swinging door.

You factor in the door, and it doesn't matter the air pressure of each space, the air current will ALWAYS move around the object i.e. the opposite direction. I've just scientifically debunked the biggest piece of visual evidence you have for a buckling of the outer columns.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Hey buddy, you ain't getting away from the point of the trusses disconnecting from the outer columns...because you said that's the whole thing that separates a pancake collapse from a non-pancake collapse. NIST's video clearly shows the trusses break away from the outer columns. So what is your answer to this?

Thanks.

i cant see your youtube video because im at work (why NIST would host their video on youtube is beyond me, do you have a primary source?)

at what point do the trusses break from the perimeter columns? before or after the collapse starts? were the connection broken by a downward force from gravity or an inward force by bowing? did the trusses also strip off of the core columns?

 

[Lurker]

At the sake of sounding like a genius...you could hammer an asteroid from outer space straight down on one of the (undamaged) twin towers...and it would not cause a chain reaction of floor failures from top to bottom. If anything, it would drill the vertical columns into the ground like a nail.

Hmm, I wonder why when I buy nails they are not hollow then?

Lurker

 

[28th Kingdom]

No, I don't. Like every other Ctist we've seen, you look at a video and see things that simply aren't there. You see things, in fact, that are the exact opposite of what's there.

Do I need to dig up the video you posted of the Madrid hotel fire, where they say it didn't collapse, just as they show the video of it collapsing? Same thing.

Since all you do is look at and post videos, one would hope that you could learn to do it better than this.

Too much dope, I guess. Melted your brain, just like my Dad always said it would.

Madrid didn't collapse...pieces of the building collapsed off of it....but after the fire was put out...there was still a very large structure that was standing. Thus, the building did not collapse. You know, like...the building is like you know the entire thing...and so the building didn't collapse...if a hurricane knocks off the side of a building...does that mean the building collapsed?

It's like I'm talking to the wall over here.

 

[Mancman]

My example was perfect. The air pressure of both spaces i.e. inside window/outside window - can determine (by itself) which way the air flows i.e. inwards/outwards. This is without the variable of a moving object i.e. swinging door.

You factor in the door, and it doesn't matter the air pressure of each space, the air current will ALWAYS move around the object i.e. the opposite direction. I've just scientifically debunked the biggest piece of visual evidence you have for a buckling of the outer columns.

Totally irrelevant. The columns buckle inward. Anybody with eyes can confirm this. You are an embarrasment.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

My example was perfect. The air pressure of both spaces i.e. inside window/outside window - can determine (by itself) which way the air flows i.e. inwards/outwards. This is without the variable of a moving object i.e. swinging door.

You factor in the door, and it doesn't matter the air pressure of each space, the air current will ALWAYS move around the object i.e. the opposite direction. I've just scientifically debunked the biggest piece of visual evidence you have for a buckling of the outer columns.

no comment, this is just stupid, unless you think youve debunked osmosis

BTW, i feel this is one of the better bits of evidence for buckling of perimeter columns:

 

[Mancman]

Madrid didn't collapse...pieces of the building collapsed off of it....but after the fire was put out...there was still a very large structure that was standing. THUS, the building did not collapse. You know, like...the building is like you know the entire thing...and so the building didn't collapse...if a hurricane knocks off the side of a building...does that mean the building collapsed?

It's like I'm talking to the wall over here.

Yeah, the steel frame collapsed but the concrete core didn't.

What conclusions, if any, might we draw from this?

 

[28th Kingdom]

i cant see your youtube video because im at work (why NIST would host their video on youtube is beyond me, do you have a primary source?)

at what point do the trusses break from the perimeter columns? before or after the collapse starts? were the connection broken by a downward force from gravity or an inward force by bowing? did the trusses also strip off of the core columns?

The trusses disconnect right when the outer columns break...just like I visualized....because that is the only thing that makes sense. Of course, the simulation ends right at that point, because...for NIST to show us what this miracle non-pancake collapse looks like...would be pure cinematic gold.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Yeah, the steel frame collapsed but the concrete core didn't.

What conclusions, if any, might we draw from this?

that the WTCs concrete core shouldnt have collapsed of course

and it didnt, its still there, its just invisible

 

[rwguinn]

I have examined the evidence, and scientifically proved that 28socks is a spider monkey from Northern Iberia.