Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

bob the analyst said:
funny how funk de fino acts in a patronizing and parochial way, but yet we he is put to task, he sort of just sits there, afraid to move into a discussion sort of like a frightened rabbit, a frozen bunny.
Click to expand...

Is that so Bob? That would be a lie then becuase I am answering C7 and you are ignoring my posts.

see below again.

 
Dave Rogers said:
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
Click to expand...

Why would I argue about explosives when I have avoided bringing them into the equation up till now ? If you don't want to argue a certain subject Dave you should just say so instead of looking for excuses not to discuss it. This is an entirely transparent methodology.

So I am saying that the up close clear video trumps the far away unclear video in terms of whether the top of the building rotated. The clear video shows no rotation, which means no walking of the top section which in turn means no kneeling core columns. So how then were he core columns severed ? By what mechanism ?
 
Last edited:
bob the analyst said:
... it's because fire can never harm steel ...

ta da, take a break kids!
Click to expand...
This is most idiotic childish statement I have heard today and I am baby-sitting 1, 3, 5 year olds. You are not doing very well at breaking past fantasy and junk science.
woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg

Are you always wrong on 911? A kind of divining rod for stupid ideas.
 
Last edited:
You guys all show place me on ignore, it's obvcious that I am talking down to you, you aren;t in my league or my level, you only pose questions on non-sensical value that are never germane to the topic at hand, such as lMondoHummus, but that's ok, he knows he's know gifted enough to get into the ring like me, he just dances around on the outside of the ropes as we expect him to do so

so, why stay here when I pose easy, mostly non-scientific questions and you guys get all hysterical, all upste, all shaking with anger?

maybe they are other topics on this site and forum that don't require common sense, engineering thinking, pragmaticism that you could all fly off to.
 
It's hilarious how he keeps trying to act like he knows anything at all about engineering, but doesn't know that steel loses most of it's strength waaay below its melting point. What was that he said about 4000 degrees?

Stop googling for engineering terms and go back to school bob.
 
bob the analyst said:
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
Click to expand...

I do, I've been building them for 30 years

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
Click to expand...

See above:
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
Click to expand...

No kidding. Can you explain why an industry controlled by cost would waste money fire proofing steel if it didn't need to be? Your pathetic. (my engineer wants me to thank you for the laughs)
 
beachnut said:
This is most idiotic childish statement I have heard today and I am baby-sitting 1, 3, 5 year olds. You are not doing very well at breaking past fantasy and junk science.
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg[/qimg]
Are you always wrong on 911? A kind of divining rod for stupid ideas.
Click to expand...
prove that you are showing steel in your photograph, it looks more like aluminum channel
 
bob the analyst said:
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
Click to expand...

Hi Bob. Your range of kowledge is vast . You are cutting a dash- and a swathe. lol
 
Grizzly Bear said:
I wonder how this bridge ended up in this condition...

I wonder how this ended up in such terrible condition... could it be that steel is not indestructible to fire as Bob claims otherwise?

And what happened here?

And what caused this column to buckle?

I suspect bob doesn't want to know the answer to that because it might shatter his fantasy.... :)
Click to expand...
yet not once did any of those building whre the steel was used collapse at any time...son, if you are going to argue with someone, please do not be your own worst enemy when you try and bring very lame evidence forward


wow, you are really easy kid to beat to the punch
 
This has turned into one of the weirdest threads I've ever read at JREF.

I feel like at any moment Mackey is going to pop in and reveal that he asked two sixth-graders to bombard this thread with stupidity just to prove some psychological point related to his "future responses to the truth movement" poll. Perhaps his instructions to them included:

1) do not answer a question, under any circumstances
2) do not source anything, under any circumstances
3) change the subject frequently
4) use puncuation sparingly
5) spel lotz of werds rong
6) act like your pwning everyone, all the time

C'mon Mackey, off with the mask! We get it now that there is no way these two can be legit.
 
bill smith said:
Hi Bob. Your range of kowledge is vast . You are cutting a dash- and a swathe. lol
Click to expand...
lmao, when does the first line or A line players get here Bill? it's like all I have been able to do is throwing soft for batting practice and they can't hit even the blooper pitches.

Surely, There has to be some people in here or other venues/message boards that actually have some hands on building, engineering or materials experience that believes and trusts the NIST report, somewhere in the world.
 
bob the analyst said:
yet not once did any of those building whre the steel was used collapse at any time...son, if you are going to argue with someone, please do not be your own worst enemy when you try and bring very lame evidence forward
Click to expand...

http://flickr.com/photos/cwalker71/433673284/

See the sky through that mess of steel? There's nothing above the beams, no load except their own weight, and a fire did that.

Steel is HORRIBLE in fires. Seriously, talk to a firefighter.
 
I undertand Gtsan's personal angst, here i enter yesterday, new here, but reverred and honored across the internet on numerous sites, I always take time to not oly point out why a person is wrong in accepting the NIST report, but why they are wrong and where they went wrong


for example, I explained why basic fact that the NIST failed to use a common and highly regarded FMEA, all engineers or all disciplines always utilize one.

Yet the NIST either failed to use one or would not publish the one that they used because it contradicts their political findings

granted to begin with, it is estimated that 1/3 of American adults may have actually believed that a fire could knock down a steel and concrete structure, mostly because 2.3's knew better, but 1/3 of the population was sort of doped up in hysterics

But as people have become engaged and more educated, less than 20% of Americans still believe that al qaeda and it's untrained, unlicensed and having pilots without FAA certifications and accredidations flews planes into the WTC and Pentagon and that fire and collision cause those buildings to collapse neatly
 
GStan said:
This has turned into one of the weirdest threads I've ever read at JREF.

I feel like at any moment Mackey is going to pop in and reveal that he asked two sixth-graders to bombard this thread with stupidity just to prove some psychological point related to his "future responses to the truth movement" poll. Perhaps his instructions to them included:

1) do not answer a question, under any circumstances
2) do not source anything, under any circumstances
3) change the subject frequently
4) use puncuation sparingly
5) spel lotz of werds rong
6) act like your pwning everyone, all the time

C'mon Mackey, off with the mask! We get it now that there is no way these two can be legit.
Click to expand...

Maybe Heiwas asked his kids to keep the thread going while he's away.
 
bob the analyst said:
yet not once did any of those building whre the steel was used collapse at any time...son,
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you however, you've been forced to acknowledge that your claim that "fire does nothing to steel" was nothing more than either a shallow lie, or a demonstration on epic ignorance :)

And now you're extending to the first time in history argument. I'm sorry, but engineers don't place confidence in structural integrity based on the concept that never before equates to never will, in particular given that engineers are well aware of the dangers posed by weakening of the material under high temperatures. The trade centers proved this beyond any doubt, if the kader toy factory and others failed to do so previously


bob the analyst said:
if you are going to argue with someone, please do not be your own worst enemy when you try and bring very lame evidence forward
Click to expand...
Before lecturing me with such a condescending remark you should be focusing on your assertion that it takes 4,000 degree temperatures just to make steel unstable -- not melt -- but unstable. That's one of the most hilariously ignorant statements I've ever heard, cutting a close second to your assertion that steel is indestructible. :D
 
Last edited:
phunk said:
http://flickr.com/photos/cwalker71/433673284/

See the sky through that mess of steel? There's nothing above the beams, no load except their own weight, and a fire did that.

Steel is HORRIBLE in fires. Seriously, talk to a firefighter.
Click to expand...
can you prove that this building wasn't deconstructed? that it wasn't hit by large pneumatic or hydraulic devices? it's ludicrous to say that fire impacts steel

do you know why buildings, high rise offices or apartments aren't made out of wood construction and framing

go ahead and take a guess and now, it isn't cost realted

c'mon big boy supply us with an answer, take you best shot

why are buildings, high rise offices or apartments, why aren't they made out of wood construction and framing instead of the common steel?
 
bob the analyst said:
But as people have become engaged and more educated, less than 20% of Americans still believe that al qaeda and it's untrained, unlicensed and having pilots without FAA certifications and accredidations flews planes into the WTC and Pentagon and that fire and collision cause those buildings to collapse neatly
Click to expand...

Your high! Show your source for this claim. (please don't show a picture of your arse :D)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom