Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[bob the analyst]

this has been like trying to find fly feces in a pile a pepper trying to get just one of your shills (NIST advocates) to supply the needed, the demanded paperwork and, test results, analysis, metallurgical reports, pre and post fire, the FEA results, I mean, this is your line of defense, if you are going to take a stand against the side of proven logic of proven engineering, against the line of all building safety, to be so bold as to say that the wtc's design and construction was flawed, then you say all buildings design and construction is flawed


but the funny thing is, whether it's the mandarin tower or a thousand other steel and concrete buildings, none have ever fallen due to a hydro-carbon fire, none ever will


just a hint, it's why high rise office buildings have a steel core construction

and you may have guessed it already as to why buildings are constructed of steel

it's because fire can never harm steel


ta da, take a break kids!

 

[bob the analyst]

airliner impact is different that windows breaking from the heat and high temperatures as I stated

so i will accept your apology

 

[stateofgrace]

prove the mtrics of what purpose a FMEA serves, prove your viability of understanding the design, purpose and application of an FMEA...I believe that an FMEA is nothing more than an acronym to you, a term that was foreign to you, till I brought it up.. I realize that I outted you state of grace as a fake, a phony, a fraud and and pretender, but get over it, I'm sure it happens to you all the time...
go find the Mandarin FMEA for yourself, do you know how to google?

quit being so lazy, do something yourself


afterall, you people stand by the NIST report, I have a hard copy in front of me and no where does it list the FMEA, what probes or discipline was used for analysis of failure mode effect analysis anywhere in the report

I guess your idea of "outing" somebody is refusing point blank to back up your claims. It's Ok Bob we are well used to seeing this form of "outing" around here.

Why can you not shut me up and prove that every building as a FMEA? It’s simple Bob, just Google it and provide me with a link.

 

[DGM]

prove the mtrics of what purpose a FMEA serves, prove your viability of understanding the design, purpose and application of an FMEA...I believe that an FMEA is nothing more than an acronym to you, a term that was foreign to you, till I brought it up.. I realize that I outted you state of grace as a fake, a phony, a fraud and and pretender, but get over it, I'm sure it happens to you all the time...
go find the Mandarin FMEA for yourself, do you know how to google?

quit being so lazy, do something yourself


afterall, you people stand by the NIST report, I have a hard copy in front of me and no where does it list the FMEA, what probes or discipline was used for analysis of failure mode effect analysis anywhere in the report

The report IS the FMEA. You can't be this dense. (that was rhetorical)

 

[bill smith]

And you're calling me disingenuous.

Dave

In none of those do I say explosives were used. I talk about 'other forces at play' I refer to a video where explosions can be heard...and they can if you want to have a look for yourself. Controlled demolition is as close as I came and even then I do not make a case for explosives. 'Blown out' came on the back of the guy who was talking about the compressed air blowing out drywall and suchlike .

It's a shame you didn't put all this wasted labour into the video analysis Dave. By the way we know that that the antenna was 300 feet tall. We have the mark of the collapse initiation point and at around the 2-odd minute mark we have te tip of the antenna passing that point. Do you think we might be able to extrapolate anything out of those pieces of data ?

 

[Shalamar]

and you may have guessed it already as to why buildings are constructed of steel

it's because fire can never harm steel


ta da, take a break kids!

Have you ever been to a ren faire, and watched a blacksmith at work?

 

[Disbelief]

Recall that many times I post not expecting honesty or accuracy from the conspiracy peddler himself, but in order to illustrate to lurkers - of whom a couple or 3 recently delurked, thus demonstrating that they're out there - the tactics and hollow argumentation that truthers resort to.

Bob's an empty avatar. He's got nothing.

You can see that he's not established a single thing beyond his ability to endlessly retail terminology. He's certainly failed to demonstrate that he understands NIST's narrative; as one example, the metallurgy he just asked about is contained in NCSTAR 1-3. But he's not referring to it at all, instead asking us to bring it to him. I'll bet if nobody had pointed this out, he would've claimed it's not there to begin with, thus openly misrepresenting the NIST reports to bystanders who haven't read it. But since I have, he's going to now find some other reason to dismiss it. Anyway, my point in doing this (and I would guess it's Gravy's as well, although that's up to him to say or refute) is simply to show that he's not willing to prove any point, or demonstrate any real knowledge. He's come to strike poses (obviously!). And that's all he's doing. Asking him for substantive commentary clearly underlines his lack of understanding. And that's why I'm posting. If he surprises us and shows he does grasp something about the collapse narrative, then we can discuss specifics. If not, well... we're still stuck at demonstrating his superficiality. Either way, it'll prove illuminating to lurkers/bystanders, and new members.

I understand completely why we should continue to address points, since I was a lurker myself. However, he has already shown that he will not answer questions or back up claims, so asking him repeatedly does nothing but feed him. The vast majority of lurkers will already see him for what he is, so it serves little to no purpose to continue.

I do feel that it is a good idea to point out where he is wrong when he is spouting off (as Dave Rogers just did), but beyond that it is impossible to try and engage him in any real discussion. At least Bill was much more civil, though no less wrong.

 

[bob the analyst]

what are the RPN's of the ST460TS used in the floor anchors if you say the NIST report is the FMEA?

 

[bob the analyst]

OMG shalamar confuses make horse shoes withpouring and rolling steel..---I'll just roll my eyes laughing like the rest of you fine people must also be doing

 

[DavidJames]

prove the mtrics of what purpose a FMEA serves, prove your viability of understanding the design, purpose and application of an FMEA...I believe that an FMEA is nothing more than an acronym to you, a term that was foreign to you, till I brought it up.. I realize that I outted you state of grace as a fake, a phony, a fraud and and pretender, but get over it, I'm sure it happens to you all the time...
go find the Mandarin FMEA for yourself, do you know how to google?

quit being so lazy, do something yourself


afterall, you people stand by the NIST report, I have a hard copy in front of me and no where does it list the FMEA, what probes or discipline was used for analysis of failure mode effect analysis anywhere in the report

Bob: Please learn how to write. Considering your inability to spell, poor grammar and sentence structure, your posts are barely coherent much less persuasive. The odd error here and there is relatively normal, but your posts are early grade school level at best.

Rather then making a case for your cause, you are both embarrassing it and yourself at the same time. Please consider taking some time to think about what you want to say, compose it and then proofread it. If you are actually mentally incapable of doing that, I suggest seeking help.

 

[Dave Rogers]

nor did any glass ever break from temperatures exceeding the needed amoubnt.

See NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, p.292-293, for an analysis showing that 250 windows on floors 92-99 of WTC1 were broken by the airliner impact, and 1,048 by the subsequent fires.

airliner impact is different that windows breaking from the heat and high temperatures as I stated

so i will accept your apology

Just in case anybody thought bob's position was in any way affected by reality.

Dave

 

[DGM]

what are the RPN's of the ST460TS used in the floor anchors if you say the NIST report is the FMEA?

Are you referring to the bolts that secure the trusses to their seats? Your spec. was not used when the towers were constructed by the way.

Please use the "reply" tabs so we know who you are talking to.

ETA: Stop trying to BS your way around. Some of us know what these things are. (and you don't)

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'll just roll my eyes laughing like the rest of you fine people must also be doing

We are indeed, but not for the same reason.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

In none of those do I say explosives were used. I talk about 'other forces at play'

Then substitute your "other forces at play" for explosives and answer all the modified questions. Then maybe I'll pay you some more attention. Won't that be fun?

Dave

 

[bob the analyst]

here's a link to a fmea template, this is what I asked for from you guys since you seem to be in such a complete and thorough knowledge and understanding on why the 3 wtc towers all fell.

I mean, the NIST should have provided a complete report in this fashion

http://systems2win.com/solutions/FMEA.htm

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Have you ever been to a ren faire, and watched a blacksmith at work?

I have him on ignore but I see through the quotes he's still peddling that crap eh?

@ Bob, you're asserting incorrectly one of the most basic properties of structural steel, and you've got guts (or more accurately a huge reserve of ignorance) to still try and pass that off to any professional structural engineer or architect after being reminded several times that you were wrong. You also incorrectly assert that steel framed construction was employed because so is claimed, steel is indestructible to fire. If you were even remotely aware of the practical purposes of the steel framed construction you would be aware that it is employed because of steel's high strength to weight ratio. It's light weight compared with other materials and can sustain considerable loads in relation (References I would suggest you look into: ref one, ref two), thus allowing taller buildings such as the trade centers and the Sears tower. Their drawback however is their vulnerability to high temperatures (which you wrongly assert to have no effect) from fire, hence why they are fireproofed. Once again you're not qualified to levy such criticism in a field you have absolutely no fundamental understanding in, and it's the very reason you've made it to my ignore list. You're other friend "bill" is clearly equally unqualified to comment on such material. Both of you either need to seriously study these concepts, or back out of the argument... no that's not necessary in fact, both of you are giving a fine demonstration to lurkers as it is. Continue so they understand the flaws in your contentions. Examples of ignorance are necessary, even of the most extreme cases

 

[DGM]

here's a link to a fmea template, this is what I asked for from you guys since you seem to be in such a complete and thorough knowledge and understanding on why the 3 wtc towers all fell.

I mean, the NIST should have provided a complete report in this fashion

http://systems2win.com/solutions/FMEA.htm

They did! Why do you have no idea what is contained within the NIST report?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

One last time, Bob. If you fail to address these, you concede that you're dodging substantive discussion, and onto Ignore you will go:

So, you mind supporting your assertion that fireproofing is "crap" with something that's actually solid?

Third time, bob: in your opinion, what caused the steel in these examples to fail?

Fire Safety Engineering and the Performance of Structural Steel in Fires, Building Code Changes

Those FMEA for the Mandarin Oriental hotel, sometime this century would be nice.When you are ready.

 

[tfk]

Ben,

Compressed air absolutely was a component. The air had to go somewhere...

Absolutely correct. Especially considering the large surface areas that are presented by the spandrels. The wind speeds must have been enormous.

A second interesting effect: after the "curtain" of debris from the upper stories had surrounded the lower portion of the building, it actually reduced the distance that lower debris would have been thrown. Tough to quantify, except in a statistical manner.

tom

 

[bob the analyst]

You poor guys, your egos not only got deflated by me, not only punctured by me, they are irrepairable


If you are going to take on the side and to defend a report that has been cast aside by any and all engineers and thinking people of merit, as the NIST report has been flipped aside and laughed at

you need to be able to do 2 things;

1.) be able to understand the how a building is erected and why it is erected the way it is

2.) what kind of design and tests go into a tall structure to keep it from falling due to fires or jet/airplane/earthquake/bombings/weather/natural or unantural forces

you see, all this is done way before hand and it gets proved and it gets tested and verified and repeated and reproduced accordingly

this is how science and engineering and manufacturing/construction works