• 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.

Failure mode in WTC towers

Heiwa said:
Another question is, of course, what happens when you load a floor on a floor? Answer is, that only the weakest part breaks!
Where is the weakest part? At the bolted floor connection to a column or at mid-length between the columns?
In the first case the bolts shear off at one side and the floor hangs on to the other side columns. The potential energy will be directed sideways out of the way down. In the second case the floor collapses at mid-length and hangs on at the columns both sides. The potential energy drops through a hole in the middle of the floor.
Nist suggests that all bolts - on both the outer wall and the inner core side - shear off simultaneously. No evidence for that of course. Etc, etc.

I sometimes wonder what monkey wrote the Nist reply!
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

I wonder why builders don't just install small drains to let the potential energy flow out? Then their buildings could never collapse!

Now, really. I'm not a big fan of the whole "stundies" thing (it's too much of a stretch, for an honest person, to sign a stundie nomination "respectfully,..."). However, Heiwa, I'll respectfully point out that you really do need to clarify your understanding of basic physics concepts, if you want to make any progress in the pretending-to-be-an-engineer business.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
(emphasis added)

I wonder why builders don't just install small drains to let the potential energy flow out? Then their buildings could never collapse!

Now, really. I'm not a big fan of the whole "stundies" thing (it's too much of a stretch, for an honest person, to sign a stundie nomination "respectfully,..."). However, Heiwa, I'll respectfully point out that you really do need to clarify your understanding of basic physics concepts, if you want to make any progress in the pretending-to-be-an-engineer business.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Someone who doesn't have him on ignore should post that one to the stundies. It has the wondeful flavor of
"Hell, Maw, we kin git into town--thet thare tare is only flat on the bottom!"

Heck--just because that shelf is broken in the middle don't mean we can't put books on the ends of it, right?
 
Myriad said:
(emphasis added)

I wonder why builders don't just install small drains to let the potential energy flow out? Then their buildings could never collapse!

Now, really. I'm not a big fan of the whole "stundies" thing (it's too much of a stretch, for an honest person, to sign a stundie nomination "respectfully,..."). However, Heiwa, I'll respectfully point out that you really do need to clarify your understanding of basic physics concepts, if you want to make any progress in the pretending-to-be-an-engineer business.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

You have the patience of a Saint. I say Saint because I have seen you tested in this thread, and it's a miracle you haven't cracked.

In Admiration,
3BP
 
einsteen said:
RW got me on ignore but I think he is right with that. That thing is attached to the hat truss which is a very rigid thing that falls, however if the core fails first I believe it is still consistent with the outside behaviour. And that is also what Mike Newman says in the phone call

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/nist_042707.mp3

I'm not sure if that is their latest theory but it makes sense.
Click to expand...

I downloaded the interview last time you brought it up einsteen a few days ago, but never got around to listen to it. Since you brought it up again today I forced myself to listen to one more of Jeff Hill's clueless telephone interviews.

The fact is that Michael Newman is mixing together the core and the floor trusses response to the fire in this interview. As I pointed out to you earlier, the core sagged due to heat weakening and transferred weight through the hat truss to the perimeter columns. But the core did not pull the floors down. For WTC 1 NIST estimated the shortening of the core columns to be on the average 2 inches at 100 minutes after impact in their simulation. That is insignificant compared to a pull in of more that 50 inches of the exterior south wall. It was the floor trusses themselves that sagged and pulled on the heat weakened exterior columns.

Michael Newman is a microbiology graduate working as a media relations director for NIST. So this is a case of a media contact mixing up things he has been told by the experts. As he repeatedly said in the interview, he is not an expert on this, he did not take part in the investigation, he had only spoken with the experts. And it is more than two years since NIST published their final report, it is understandable that he has become a bit rusty on this since.

He also says that NIST stands by its findings. So I recommend that you read what NIST says in NIST NCSTAR 1-6 chapter 9 to get the correct version on this from NIST. There is no new theories here.
 
Last edited:
bofors said:
If you are serious about debunking the demolition theory, why don't you start answering my questions instead of posting crap like this?
Click to expand...

"It couldn't have fallen like the gubmint said, it had to be by some new fangled demolition" is not a theory.

Please present a theory for debunking. A theory, not a story, or a fairytale or a poem or a 3rd person narrative (I'm looking in your direction Max Photon) or hand waving.
 
Max Photon said:
No one has even proposed any way to replicate this with explosives.

I have proposed a way to replicate this with deliberate heat-weakening.
Click to expand...


Yes, but your proposal was shown to be idiocy by posters who are much smarter and more knowledgeable than you. You are incapable of learning, but the rest of us found out that thermite does not behave at all the way you'd like it to.
 
GregoryUrich said:
A real engineer would like to see your hypothesis supported by mechanical priniciples as opposed to a "jroofer" photo/video accompanied by conjecture.
Click to expand...


Those of us who lack an engineering background wonder why the twoofer pretend-engineers seem to know so much less than the real engineers. Mackey raises a point that is comprehensible to everyone: given the observable inward bowing, how would explosives produce such an effect?

C'mon, stretch those imaginations. All of you frauds have screamed about explosives, in the absence of a shred of evidence, for years. Explain how powerful blasts pulled the exterior columns inward.
 
Gravy said:
You do? Excellent! Then you can explain how the work could have been done and survived. Proceed, Mr. Szamboti.
Click to expand...

It is entirely plausible that thermite could have been used to heat weaken columns in the collapse zone and that it would have survived the aircraft impacts. I will use the North Tower situation to answer your questions.

There is evidence that fireproofing was upgraded in pretty much just the aircraft impact areas in the two years just prior to Sept. 11, 2001. The work could have been done at that time and wouldn't be questioned. Of course, someone in maintenance and security would have to be in on it.

As for survival:

Thermite ignites at 2200 degrees F, which is well beyond the reach of fire temperature.

The North Tower collapse started at the 98th floor, which had little aircraft impact damage and essentially no core column damage. The key would have been to put it on several floors where the aircraft was expected to impact and then to initiate the collapse in an area just above the heavy damage.
 
pomeroo said:
Those of us who lack an engineering background wonder why the twoofer pretend-engineers seem to know so much less than the real engineers. Mackey raises a point that is comprehensible to everyone: given the observable inward bowing, how would explosives produce such an effect?

C'mon, stretch those imaginations. All of you frauds have screamed about explosives, in the absence of a shred of evidence, for years. Explain how powerful blasts pulled the exterior columns inward.
Click to expand...

When the core columns are destroyed, very possibly via heat weakening, they would pull on the perimeter walls through the floors.
 
Last edited:
Apollo20 said:
Rwguinn:

Just this morning you told realcddeal that: "You are now throwing out stupid--if not moronic-- ideas. The antenna did not drop first. Only an idiot will believe that."

Well, rwguinn, please remember that the well respected publication CIVIL ENGINEERING gave, (in Volume 72, page 40), one of the first professionally based assessments of exactly how WTC 1 started to collapse:

"At 10:28:31 A.M. EDT, WTC 1 began to collapse. Future review of videotapes of the event will reveal that the television transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building."

So, rwguinn, I think you owe RealCDdeal an apology,...after all are you not meant to be a CIVIL engineer.... so, PLEASE, live up to that title and BE CIVIL!
Click to expand...

I would just settle for a little evidence from Mr. rwguinn for his statements that the antenna did not drop vertically at first. Every video I have watched shows this happening and it finally falls to the side.
 
realcddeal said:
When the core columns are destroyed very possibly via heat weakening they would pull on the perimeter walls through the floors.
Click to expand...


Hold on. You claim to be an engineer. Max is what he appears to be: a silly guy who makes up silly stuff without having the slightest idea of what he's talking about. You are now attempting to resurrect Max's ridiculous thermite fantasy? Thermite doesn't behave the way Max wants it to. That's why real demolition professionals don't use it. There is precisely zero evidence for the use of thermite at the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks. The real scientists, engineers, and people with some background in explosives have explained why thermite is unsuitable for the task Max has assigned to it. He is incapable of learning--are you?
 
realcddeal said:
I would just settle for a little evidence from Mr. rwguinn for his statements that the antenna did not drop vertically at first. Every video I have watched shows this happening and it finally falls to the side.
Click to expand...
If you had the skill to fix your paper, I am sure you could have the skill to figure out rwguinn is correct. Did you fail to read and comprehend the posts?


realcddeal said:
It is entirely plausible that thermite could have been used to heat weaken columns in the collapse zone and that it would have survived the aircraft impacts. I will use the North Tower situation to answer your questions.

There is evidence that fireproofing was upgraded in pretty much just the aircraft impact areas in the two years just prior to Sept. 11, 2001. The work could have been done at that time and wouldn't be questioned. Of course, someone in maintenance and security would have to be in on it.

As for survival:

Thermite ignites at 2200 degrees F, which is well beyond the reach of fire temperature.

The North Tower collapse started at the 98th floor, which had little aircraft impact damage and essentially no core column damage. The key would have been to put it on several floors where the aircraft was expected to impact and then to initiate the collapse in an area just above the heavy damage.
Click to expand...
Get with Max, you have not moved to fantasy central. Pure stupid stuff now flows freely. Did you read your paper? It sucks, there is not one thing correct in it. Why?

BTW, there is not real good way to insure the termite is fused correctly, hard to light. It would take over 24,000 pounds of the stuff and it would probably just get cold and fuse with the steel. LOL

Tony, run the numbers, jet fuel alone has ten time the energy per pound than thermite; how stupid do you have to be to believe an insane physics professor who made it up 4 (FOUR) years after 9/11. Nut idea there.
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
It is entirely plausible that thermite could have been used to heat weaken columns in the collapse zone and that it would have survived the aircraft impacts. I will use the North Tower situation to answer your questions.

There is evidence that fireproofing was upgraded in pretty much just the aircraft impact areas in the two years just prior to Sept. 11, 2001. The work could have been done at that time and wouldn't be questioned. Of course, someone in maintenance and security would have to be in on it.

As for survival:

Thermite ignites at 2200 degrees F, which is well beyond the reach of fire temperature.

The North Tower collapse started at the 98th floor, which had little aircraft impact damage and essentially no core column damage. The key would have been to put it on several floors where the aircraft was expected to impact and then to initiate the collapse in an area just above the heavy damage.
Click to expand...
Who or what flew the planes?
 
DGM said:
Who or what flew the planes?
Click to expand...


Just in case he missed it, we're curious about the word "expected" in the line containing the phrase "where the aircraft was expected to impact."

What were these "expectations" based on?

In case you need to hear it again--


WHO FLEW THE PLANES???

de planes, de planes, de planes, de planes, de planes, de planes, de pla...
 
pomeroo said:
Hold on. You claim to be an engineer. Max is what he appears to be: a silly guy who makes up silly stuff without having the slightest idea of what he's talking about. You are now attempting to resurrect Max's ridiculous thermite fantasy? Thermite doesn't behave the way Max wants it to. That's why real demolition professionals don't use it. There is precisely zero evidence for the use of thermite at the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks. The real scientists, engineers, and people with some background in explosives have explained why thermite is unsuitable for the task Max has assigned to it. He is incapable of learning--are you?
Click to expand...

Ron, are you trying to say that the columns could not be weakened with the use of thermite? It doesn't matter whether or not it is used in everyday demolitions. Thermite wouldn't be as efficient as explosives and since legal demolitions wouldn't require stealth, they would just use explosives. Thermite was developed for stealth for use by the military where artillery could be destroyed/disabled without any noise.

What about the molten metal in the rubble? Do you deny that it was there or do you have another explanation for its existence?

Why did NIST only get a few core columns from the fire affected areas?

I am not incapable of learning and have learned in the last two years that there was more to 911 than we have been told. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything but strawman or very weak arguments used in attempts to refute the evidence that the collapses of the towers were due to demolitions. This includes the NIST FAQs on this subject.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Who or what flew the planes?
Click to expand...

I am only going to talk about the buildings as that is the subject of this thread. There is plenty of plausible speculation on what was done with the planes and I am sure you know where to find it.
 
Last edited:
pomeroo said:
Just in case he missed it, we're curious about the word "expected" in the line containing the phrase "where the aircraft was expected to impact."

What were these "expectations" based on?

In case you need to hear it again--


WHO FLEW THE PLANES???

de planes, de planes, de planes, de planes, de planes, de planes, de pla...
Click to expand...
How do you get terrorist pilots to hit the damn building where you want? Thermite, is hard to fuse and light. Why use thermite when you have 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, TEN times more energy per pound than explosives or thermite? Who is dumb enough to come up with this stupid stuff? I want a rebate on my taxes to education on Tony, and other posters of woo! (property taxes wasted)
woodsteelfire.jpg

Fire and steel; steel lost. Does Tony understand steel is not good in fire? It is cheap and strong, but fails quickly in fire.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom