Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

bob the analyst said:
I think the main focus that people over look in the NIST report is a simple plan that is the most germane of any debate or argument

The NIST has never proved their case or their theory.

If the claim that the steel was super heated, if the claim that the box columns were severed, if the NIST claims that the striking jets cause exoskeletal damage upon impact, if the NIST claims that joints were damaged and the load could not transfer

all the NIST has to do is to reproduce, replicate and repeat this, of a jet striking a steel and concrete building, even at a smaller scale....

but the NIST or any other group--do you hear me Popular mechanics-are you listening?

just do a scaled version as a model...numerous scaled versions...do a full sized version if they wish....

but they won't do it because they know beforehand that even if 9/11 was a totally anomaly, it can not happen because science and engineering has proven it can not and will not happen
Click to expand...

Please quote a specific scientific argument from the NIST report and explain in detail, with calculations if necessary, why it is incorrect. Given that you are new, we need to know that you have at least the minimal knowledge necessary to comprehend and challenge such a report and that you are not just blowing smoke up our *** that you were infected with from yet another in a seemingly endless maze of incestuous truther websites.
 
hydro carbon fire, certainly has no affect on steel, as a long time member of the engineering community in the transportaion field, when have you ever seen a car caught on fire or has been burnt on fire?

the steel--chassis-powertrain.steering and suspension all remain whole and intact, despite the fuel tank exploding

you people should be beyond this level or point by now...fire can not and will not harm steel as the wtc saw it


it takes over 4,000 dgerees of consstant and fed temperatures to make steel unstable and this takes numerous hours, over 12 hours in an electric arc, gas or ingot oven.
 
GStan said:
Increasing the font size is a good indicator that a person at least recognizes that they are losing an argument.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I was making a point.

NIST clearly admitted that they did not explain the total collapse. They stopped at collapse initiation.

The collapse initiation has been explained by known scientific principles and the evidence available.
Click to expand...
No it has not. They had to use temperatures higher than the evidence showed to bring the towers to "global instability".


Bazant has a theory based on many assumptions. He does not give a numerical value to z˙. This is the velocity of large steel pieces ejected from the tower.

His is a "theory". It is NOT an explanation.

He admits that it does not explain the collapse of the south tower.

There is no evidence that anything other than the fundamentals of the prevailing explanation need be inserted or investigated to explain it.
Click to expand...
The fact that the government and people like Bazant cannot explain it after 7 years means it cannot be explained using the prevailing hypothesis about the cause of the collapse.

The collapse progression as well has been explained by known scientific principles and the evidence available.
Click to expand...
No it has not!

Once it is determined that the first intact floor met by the falling upper block cannot arrest the collapse, there is no reason to continue on to discover additional minute irrelevant details.
Click to expand...
:D Tell that to Newton.

Braking his laws is a no, no!


You are in denial because you are fanatically attached to the Official Collapse Theory and the Official Conspiracy theory.
 
bob the analyst said:
I think the main focus that people over look in the NIST report is a simple plan that is the most germane of any debate or argument

The NIST has never proved their case or their theory.

If the claim that the steel was super heated, if the claim that the box columns were severed, if the NIST claims that the striking jets cause exoskeletal damage upon impact, if the NIST claims that joints were damaged and the load could not transfer

all the NIST has to do is to reproduce, replicate and repeat this, of a jet striking a steel and concrete building, even at a smaller scale....

but the NIST or any other group--do you hear me Popular mechanics-are you listening?

just do a scaled version as a model...numerous scaled versions...do a full sized version if they wish....

but they won't do it because they know beforehand that even if 9/11 was a totally anomaly, it can not happen because science and engineering has proven it can not and will not happen
Click to expand...


"Science and engineering has proven it can not and will not happen", huh? Hmmm... Looks like somebody needs to go back to the basics.
And once you're through the basics, time to research the common conspiracy fantasy claims before you post them here:
 
bob the analyst said:
I think the main focus that people over look in the NIST report is a simple plan that is the most germane of any debate or argument

The NIST has never proved their case or their theory.

If the claim that the steel was super heated, if the claim that the box columns were severed, if the NIST claims that the striking jets cause exoskeletal damage upon impact, if the NIST claims that joints were damaged and the load could not transfer

all the NIST has to do is to reproduce, replicate and repeat this, of a jet striking a steel and concrete building, even at a smaller scale....

but the NIST or any other group--do you hear me Popular mechanics-are you listening?

just do a scaled version as a model...numerous scaled versions...do a full sized version if they wish....

but they won't do it because they know beforehand that even if 9/11 was a totally anomaly, it can not happen because science and engineering has proven it can not and will not happen
Click to expand...

Welcome bob. I'm sure you will be an amusing contributor.

Everything you said was wrong and it's "they" with a y unless you keep using "the NIST".

Are you related to bob the builder? :P
 
that's all gibberish and nonsense..the world's engineering and scientific community has destroyed everything ion thsoe reports..only a non-thinking, non educated, non-experience trogolpdyte would bring up and used reports that have been proven as being non-factional..come back with something solid and concrete
 
bob the analyst said:
hydro carbon fire, certainly has no affect on steel, as a long time member of the engineering community in the transportaion field, when have you ever seen a car caught on fire or has been burnt on fire?
Click to expand...
Clearly you did not look at the hint I provided.

bob the analyst said:
the steel--chassis-powertrain.steering and suspension all remain whole and intact, despite the fuel tank exploding
Click to expand...
How many of these motor vehicles are supporting loads in excess of tens to hundreds of thousands of tons? You know, like something the size of a building? I suggest you use caution trying to compare a building to a car... they are built in completely different dynamics.


bob the analyst said:
you people should be beyond this level or point by now...fire can not and will not harm steel as the wtc saw it
Click to expand...
When you learn a bit more about real design and structural engineering please feel free to resume this discussion. You're not ready for this level of detail if you're getting the fundamental building principals wrong. Welcome to the forum by the way :)


bob the analyst said:
it takes over 4,000 dgerees of consstant and fed temperatures to make steel unstable and this takes numerous hours, over 12 hours in an electric arc, gas or ingot oven.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, about 1100 delgrees centigrade or roughly 1800 degrees Fahrenheit reduces unprotected steel to less than 10 percent of it's typical load bearing capacity. And it starts losing strength well below those temperatures. Not a pleasant thing to have happen to a building critical support members. I'm afraid you're assertion that it takes 4,000 degrees is quite wrong... Even Christopher knows that steel melts long before that temperature, and giving him props on anything in this thread as a comparison really says something.
 
Last edited:
why would I get back into the NIST report once again? it is old news and the world's engineering community has dismissed it as not being worthy of any more discussion, that is why the NIST has decided to re-do and re-submit their report because of their many false assumptions, unlikelyhoods, unpredictabilities of their their math models, the NISt's refusal to hear of the ASQC steel questions as well as the NIST's refusal from the mentorship of the american society of civil engineering

the NISt knew that they lost face with the respected members of the world's engineering societies and that the crdeibility of the NIST is not what people once thought it was

the NISt has become a nest, a cave for mindless shills, sort of like the warren commission
 
bob the analyst said:
fire retardation or coating is simply a doubling up or a redundancy--it's sort of like that extra coating of rust proofing that a automotive dealer sells to the customer before the customers signs his name on a contract
Click to expand...
If fire can not harm steel, they shouldn't even need the 'dundancy' let alone the redundancy. Are you claiming that not only is there a conspiracy and cover-up of 9/11 for the past 8 years, but that also there is a world-wide conspiracy cover-up the fact that fire-proofing of steel is unnecessary that has remained hidden (except to you of course) for decades? I'm sure you have a source for this claim.

and you are very very wrong about building codes in a generalized way as you di and thanks for the welcome, first posting here and I see that a great many people have not reached the area and level where they need to be on 9/11....
Click to expand...
Do you have a source for your claim about the fire codes?

it only takes a science and engineering level that the average person receives by an age of 10 or 11 years old, if they are half way smart and have cognitive comprehnsion skills and are rwasonably smart in areas of critical thinking to see that 9/11 was a complete and total hoax and that the 9/11 commision report as well as the NIST report is poorly done, has thousands of opinions and other points that are proven false or impossible in theory and in application
Click to expand...
If you really believe this, you are in the right crowd, as truthers have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that their science skills are about equivalent to those of 10 or 11 year olds. Additionally, I was convinced a long time ago that truthers were only half way smart, at best.
 
Hokulele said:
Here we go again with the invulnerable steel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman's_neckties
Click to expand...
I thought bob was attacking the truthy guy? ...

Fire and wood, with steel, the steel… lost.
woodsteelfire.jpg
 
Dave Rogers said:
Also on page 4:
Once the collapse initiated, it is clear from the available evidence that the building was unable to resist the falling mass of the upper stories of the towers.
Click to expand...
That is an opinion!

He has not proven that statement to be true.

He only has a theory.
 
bob the analyst said:
hydro carbon fire, certainly has no affect on steel, as a long time member of the engineering community in the transportaion field, when have you ever seen a car caught on fire or has been burnt on fire?

the steel--chassis-powertrain.steering and suspension all remain whole and intact, despite the fuel tank exploding

you people should be beyond this level or point by now...fire can not and will not harm steel as the wtc saw it


it takes over 4,000 dgerees of consstant and fed temperatures to make steel unstable and this takes numerous hours, over 12 hours in an electric arc, gas or ingot oven.
Click to expand...

Does steel strength remain constant between 0 degrees and 3999 degrees?
 
Wow. Dear bob, if you want to have your bluster be forceful instead of comical, it would be helpful if you knew what you were talking about.

Misplaced arrogance ROCKS!
 
bob the analyst said:
it only takes a science and engineering level that the average person receives by an age of 10 or 11 years old, if they are half way smart and have cognitive comprehnsion skills and are rwasonably smart in areas of critical thinking to see that 9/11 was a complete and total hoax and that the 9/11 commision report as well as the NIST report is poorly done, has thousands of opinions and other points that are proven false or impossible in theory and in application
Click to expand...

Let me guess, you were born in 1999.

I say that based on scientific evidence and your own claims. You have clearly displayed lack of critical thinking, which you yourself agree should be aquired by the age of 10 or 11. Logic dictates you must therefore be less than 10 or 11. You also argue from incredulity like a child.

Despite this, I have a feeling you are at least physically older. Hopefully you can prove yourself mentally older than 10 or 11. Good Luck.
 
there is no rotations, even with the frame shifting, same as with no sagging, bending, no compaction, no expansion, no anywhere in eithe wtc 1 or 2 or wtc7


If fire and impact were the true culprits, a series of joint and rigiity failure, piece by piece, section by section would fall, would fail...not all at once... anyone that's ever been involved in FEA and FEMA ..finite element analysis and failure mode effect analysis knows what the risk and potential for failure is and there is a rating scale up to ten.....

all building designs go through fea and fema and go through this every couple of years
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom