Failure mode in WTC towers

pomeroo said:
I think this qualifies as a concession speech. Having been beaten to a pulp by real engineers, you now want to run through this tired drill for the thousandth time. If, after six years of uninformed shrieking, you still don't understand how the investigation was conducted, you might want to do some reading. (Don't let the italicized word frighten you: of course I'm kidding!)
Click to expand...



You evaded the question. Why am I not surprised? I'll ask you again. How were the before and after DNA samples obtained for the alleged hijackers, and according to you and the present official story the pilots of the planes?

It sounds like you don't have an answer.

However, if you do happen to have a source just cite that. I'll read it.
 
funk de fino said:
He was asking Max yet you answered?

I read a lot of threads on this board. I like ones like this with NB, GU, Appollo, rugwinn, dave r, crazy chainsaw etc etc. I learn from them. then along comes you and heiwa and spoil them with your rubbish which is stupid even to the laymen

You are also a proven liar if i am not mistaken. You get ripped apart on this forum everytime, dont you ever get tired of it?

Tell me one thing using your engineering expertise. Once the initiation of the collapse took place (regardless of how at the moment) Do you believe the tower should have collapsed as it did?
Click to expand...

On what basis do you call me a proven liar? Your reply here is nonsensical and from all appearances you have no business commenting on the worthiness of engineering posts. You have proven yourself to be a ninny.

As for the possibility of a complete collapse of both buildings, if initiations could have occurred, I believe there is a very low probability of that occurring.
 
realcddeal said:
On what basis do you call me a proven liar? Your reply here is nonsensical and from all appearances you have no business commenting on the worthiness of engineering posts. You have proven yourself to be a ninny.
Click to expand...

What is your name and I will see if you are a liar?

Do you know what I do and have done for a living? It may be best to not comment on my engineering skills at the moment.

Is ninny the new truther buzzword?

Realcddeal said:
As for the possibility of a complete collapse of both buildings, if initiations could have occurred, I believe there is a very low probability of that occurring.
Click to expand...

Then your engineering expertise is a poor as I could see it was. Thanks for that demonstration.
 
realcddeal said:
You evaded the question. Why am I not surprised?
Click to expand...


No, I dismissed the question as disingenuous. You are not surprised because you understand perfectly well that you know--or certainly should know--the answer.



realcddeal said:
I'll ask you again. How were the before and after DNA samples obtained for the alleged hijackers, and according to you and the present official story the pilots of the planes?
Click to expand...



And I'll remind you again that several major newspapers published extensive accounts of the investigation that identified the hijackers. The series that ran in The N.Y. Times was particularly thorough. I suppose you want me to spoon-feed you a link? No, you will have to find it.



realcddeal said:
It sounds like you don't have an answer.

However, if you do happen to have a source just cite that. I'll read it.
Click to expand...


I think we all get the idea that you're not asking a serious question.
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
How were the before and after DNA samples obtained for the alleged hijackers, and according to you and the present official story the pilots of the planes?
Click to expand...
If you think about it a little, the potential answers should be obvious. Examine other criminal cases where DNA is used as a guide.
 
Corsair 115 said:
If you think about it a little, the potential answers should be obvious. Examine other criminal cases where DNA is used as a guide.
Click to expand...

The answers are not obvious here. In those other crimes the bodies may not have been obliterated.

If you know the answer to the question please enlighten us. I don't think Ron knows. He seems to have assumed it was all easy to do and said it without thinking. So now he is just evading the question.

The question again is how would the before and after DNA samples be obtained for the 19 hijackers. The next question is were they.
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
The answers are not obvious here. In those other crimes the bodies may not have been obliterated.

If you know the answer to the question please enlighten us. I don't think Ron knows. He seems to have assumed it was all easy to do and said it without thinking. So now he is just evading the question.

The question again is how would the before and after DNA samples be obtained for the 19 hijackers. The next question is were they.
Click to expand...



Well, Ron knows and realcddeal knows that Ron knows, so why are we wasting time? Either you'll read the material you should have read six years ago or you won't. Cut out the aggressive display of inexcusable ignorance. You have been falsely accusing innocent people of heinous crimes and you're too intellectually lazy to learn anything about the subject? Disgusting.
 
Are perimeter columns sideways inhibited?

Realcddeal,

Back to the thread's topic....

Is it your contention that perimeter columns were also sideways inhibited? I can see that parallel to the faces, because of the spandrels. And I can see that with respect to the columns bowing outward, because of the floor truss. But I am not seeing the compensating or inhibiting force for floors pulling inward. Are you saying that the load on the perimeter columns, and the inertia of loaded perimeter, serve to counter any inward pull?

Max
 
Max Photon said:
Realcddeal,

Back to the thread's topic....

Is it your contention that perimeter columns were also sideways inhibited? I can see that parallel to the faces, because of the spandrels. And I can see that with respect to the columns bowing outward, because of the floor truss. But I am not seeing the compensating or inhibiting force for floors pulling inward. Are you saying that the load on the perimeter columns, and the inertia of loaded perimeter, serve to counter any inward pull?

Max
Click to expand...

Yes, and the contiguous connection of the spandrels themselves would have served to counter inward pull. There is a reason that NIST needed a floor sag in excess of 40 inches to cause perimeter column buckling in their computer model.
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
The answers are not obvious here. In those other crimes the bodies may not have been obliterated.
Click to expand...
You're either not thinking hard enough, or your preconceptions of the nature of the events are blinding you to the obvious possibilities. Try again.
 
realcddeal said:
Why don't you comment on the earlier engineering discussion Ryan? That would be more becoming of an engineer than taking a cheap shot at my rhetorical reply to Ron Wieck's rhetoric.
Click to expand...

You're insisting I should reply to a cheap shot with something other than a cheap shot? Do as I say, but not as I do, is that it?

I see little point to entertaining your pseudoengineering arguments. We've been round this twist for a long time. Your belief in the "reality" of "assisted collapses" ultimately boils down to two falsehoods:

1. You insist that the perimeter column bowing did not occur until collapse was underway, rather than tens of minutes before. You believe this despite being shown photographs of it well ahead of time. You refuse to change your mind unless someone provides you a "video," though how a video would be superior to still images is unexplored.

2. You insist that WTC 7 was demolished because you believe you saw a History Channel program in which Larry Silverstein said it was blown up -- for "safety reasons." You cannot produce this program (not that you tried very hard to find it), nobody has seen it but you, and it is utterly contrary to everything else ever written or spoken on the subject.​

These are irreducible delusions. If you cannot accept facts, you cannot accept reasoning based on those facts. Discussion of engineering details with you is futile.
 
Perimeter columns bowed inward well before collapse

For the record, I don't dispute that perimeter columns were bowing inward tens of minutes before collapse. In fact. the bowing started not long after the pressure pulses started. I say the pressure pulses and the bowing were related, that is, the pressure pulses were related to collapse initiation.
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
Yes, and the contiguous connection of the spandrels themselves would have served to counter inward pull. There is a reason that NIST needed a floor sag in excess of 40 inches to cause perimeter column buckling in their computer model.
Click to expand...

This is silly. The spandrels are perpendicular to the inwards pull. They have almost no stiffness in that direction.

The floor sag of 40 inches is from severed columns being held up by the floor trusses. Or do you propose that the severed columns are held up be some magical means?
 
Oh, I see, Realcddeal is an engineer.

OK, I won't ask what sort of engineer.

I'll just ask...

1. How did the 'assisted' collapses start from the impact points of the jets. (It's a good one that. No-one has an answer, but I look forward to an explanation.)

2. How did whoever it was, probably men in sharp suits and dark glasses, no, hang on, guys in boiler suits - about a dozen of them - manage to spend a couple of months on each building preparing it for a controlled demolition from the point of impact. Not easy, I'm sure you'll agree.

3. Why did none of the clean up team - experts in their field, as you'd expect - say "bloody hell, I've got a piece of demolition debris here"? And before you go on about thermite or thermate, no, Jones didn't find what he claimed. Look him and his research up. It's embarrassing.

OK. those are the obvious questions that spring first to mind.

Bananaman.
 
Last edited:
Bananaman said:
3. Why did none of the clean up team - experts in their field, as you'd expect - say "bloody hell, I've got a piece of demolition debris here"? And before you go on about thermite or thermate, no, Jones didn't find what he claimed. Look him and his research up. It's embarrassing.

OK. those are the obvious questions that spring first to mind.

Bananaman.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the Forums.

I should warn you that realcddeal is Tony Szamboti, both contributor to and reviewer of the Journal for 9/11 Studies. As a result, he's unlikely to provide an unbiased assessment of Dr. Steven Jones.

To my ears, on the other hand, these three are all excellent questions.
 
Stop bickering and stay on topic
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
Newtons Bit said:
This is silly. The spandrels are perpendicular to the inwards pull. They have almost no stiffness in that direction.

The floor sag of 40 inches is from severed columns being held up by the floor trusses. Or do you propose that the severed columns are held up be some magical means?
Click to expand...


The perimeter columns were sidesway inhibited due to the floor slab/truss composite beam but they would have bowed inside due to floor deflection. I am not arguing that. I am saying that the contiguousness of the spandrels and their depth, at 52 inches, would have made bowing inward more difficult than in a standard beam column configuration at the perimeter of the building.

NIST says the 42 inch floor sag was from fires and that is what caused the perimeter columns to bow inwardly. That is the floor deflection they applied in their computer model, in spite of the floor assembly fire testing not showing anything like that level of floor deflection. It was justified with a statement that the 42 inch deflection, due to fire weakening of the trusses, was within the realm of uncertainty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom