Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[Christopher7]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Yes, 400+ feet away.

It's up to you to demonstrate it was not.

I have.

 

[Christopher7]

The context:

"we are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse.".. a rewording of "At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution."

That's what they said. Bottom line, they did not demonstrate their hypothesis.

NIST found what got the ball rolling, and they showed that once it got rolling there was no stopping.
They explained why the towers collapsed.

No they did not!

They claimed that's what would happen. They did not prove it.

You believe everything you government tells you without question. You may if you like but don't claim NIST proved their theory. They did not!

 

[bunnylover]

naw, the Titanic sank because of issues with the metallurgy of the steel and the riveting on the ship, plus the alleged water tight compartments weren't so watertight, were they?

i'm a big fan of the Titanic and I know a tremendous amount about the ship, in fact, I'll share something, on my mother's side, her mother, my grandmother were immigrating from europe and were tickete and booked aboard the maiden voyage,


the family got delayed at the port of hamburg and the missed the sailing from england

I still have 11 first class tickets, from my grandmother's family, from white star lines, in my safety deposit box at my bank in pristine condition

just will hand them down to my own kids and grandkids

Hello, everyone. My name is Ann and I'm Ron Wieck's girlfriend. This is my first post and I'm not here to debate. Ron has told me about Paul Doherty, but I'm not a sock puppet. I'm a real person. Ron is sitting here with me and laughing. He is begging me to ask "bob the analyst" about the survivors of the Titantic. Some of them thought the ship went straight down; others remembered it breaking in half before sinking. What is the significance of that sharp divide in recollections?

Ron has explained what he is driving at. He says that if "skippy" and "junior" aren't good enough, bob's refusal to respond to the Titanic question should provide all the clues anyone paying attention should need.

I enjoy reading the posts here, but I don't like to argue. I will say that nothing in the real world has turned out as the conspiracy people said it would.

 

[NutCracker]

NIST reply to stj911truth
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf
pg 3
NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability.

pg 4
We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.

* * * * *
Bazant:
The high tilt seen on the South Tower top (about 25_ after 4 seconds of fall, NIST 2005) would call for a three-dimensional model of progressive collapse. Why does the one dimensional model give nonetheless a reasonably good match? Probably because the crushing front of compacted debris tends to develop a flat front once it becomes thick enough (Fig. 6e). However, to answer this question fully, a three-dimensional analysis would be required.

You letter points are I already addressed.

Please explain how a perceived shortcoming of the BZ paper implies that NIST did not explain the collapses? Please, take me from the premise to the conclusion in small steps.

Indeed the "lump everything that represent the "official story" together" fallacy.

Please explain how the failure to reproduce some detail, such as the upper block's tilting, of the collapse in scientific papers or computer models implies that when collapse initiated it should have been arrested? Please, take me from the premise to the conclusion in small steps.

Indeed.. the 200% accuracy fallacy.

I note that you thus far haven't begun to build your 0.00% accuracy case yet.

 

[Christopher7]

You are claiming the NIST report was only a theory

I have posted the quotes from NIST and Bazant where they admit that they have not proven their theory.

but insist on shoving your own theory down our throats as if it wins by default. No matter what, if you have a theory about how the WTC fell, and it conflicts with the generally accepted explanation, PROVE IT.

Right now I'm not pushing a theory. I'm just trying to get someone here to be man enough to admit that NIST and Bazant have not proven the Official Collapse Theory.

 

[Christopher7]

Please explain how a perceived shortcoming of the BZ paper implies that NIST did not explain the collapses?

NIST admitted that they did not explain the collapse.

Bazant admitted that to answer this question fully a 3 D model would be required.

 

[twinstead]

You believe everything you government tells you without question. You may if you like but don't claim NIST proved their theory. They did not!

Jesus Christ Chris. There YOU GO AGAIN. Yea. Obviously the only reason we disagree with you is because we believe what the government tells us without question. What else COULD it be, huh?

We don't believe anything without question, and that includes YOU. The NIST's 'theory' is the BEST explanation of the event. They found that once the collapse started, nothing was going to stop it. They described the initiation. This is accepted by practically the entire scientific community of the Planet Earth.

You have a better one? BRING IT ON.

 

[Hellbound]

Hello, everyone. My name is Ann and I'm Ron Wieck's girlfriend. This is my first post and I'm not here to debate. Ron has told me about Paul Doherty, but I'm not a sock puppet. I'm a real person. Ron is sitting here with me and laughing. He is begging me to ask "bob the analyst" about the survivors of the Titantic. Some of them thought the ship went straight down; others remembered it breaking in half before sinking. What is the significance of that sharp divide in recollections?

Ron has explained what he is driving at. He says that if "skippy" and "junior" aren't good enough, bob's refusal to respond to the Titanic question should provide all the clues anyone paying attention should need.

I enjoy reading the posts here, but I don't like to argue. I will say that nothing in the real world has turned out as the conspiracy people said it would.

An excellent point about the reliability of eyewitnesses. I mean, really, how could you miss whether a ship (a rather large, obvious structure) broke in half or not?

Yet with stress, fear, the necessity for immediate rapid decisions, etc., our brain filters out all sorts of things and our perceptions can be significantly altered. It's human nature.

And welcome to JREF, excellent first post

 

[Christopher7]

We don't believe anything without question,

You believe the Official Collapse Theory without any proof.

The NIST's 'theory' is the BEST explanation of the event.

IYO

They found claimed that once the collapse started, nothing was going to stop it.

They did not prove it.

They described the initiation.

True

This is accepted by practically the entire scientific community of the Planet Earth.

False

 

[bunnylover]

An excellent point about the reliability of eyewitnesses. I mean, really, how could you miss whether a ship (a rather large, obvious structure) broke in half or not?

Yet with stress, fear, the necessity for immediate rapid decisions, etc., our brain filters out all sorts of things and our perceptions can be significantly altered. It's human nature.

And welcome to JREF, excellent first post

Thank you for the compliment. As I said, I'm not a debater. I don't know enough about the subject, although Ron has talked me to death on it. He says that I can't give the impression that I'm being a mouthpiece for him, so I probably won't post very often. He does send his love to everyone who knows to whom it's being sent.

 

[NutCracker]

That's what they said. Bottom line, they did not demonstrate their hypothesis.


No they did not!

They claimed that's what would happen. They did not prove it.

You believe everything you government tells you without question. You may if you like but don't claim NIST proved their theory. They did not!

How did they not "demonstrate their hypothesis?" They didn't compute where every piece of debris landed. So? What would be the point? How does that invalidate the conclusion that once the collapse started, there was no stopping?

Crying "they did not" is just a little bit unconvincing. If you believe I am wrong, you should have no difficulty in pointing out where and why I am wrong.

[Shaking head smiley desired here]
Me: believing in arriving at conclusions by building a case by step by step as the evidence dictates the heading. me having a fair amount of understanding of scientific principles and scientific knowledge that mankind acquired over the centuries and giving credit to conclusions that are drawn to what has become the scientific method. Me observing that NIST's conclusions are such conclusions.
You: spouting Mickey Mouse opinions that contradict the available evidence.

I'm not quite sure the blindly believing is on my side of the table.

You might make less of a fool of yourself by resolving the discrepancy between your position and my position by considering the possibility that your position is a fantasy without a basis in reality than me "blindly believing what the government says." Various experts here consistently disagreeing with you might be a hint to you. That your opinions run contrary to the available evidence might be another.

 

[twinstead]

You believe the Official Collapse Theory without any proof.

IYO

They did not prove it.

True

False

In MY opinion? Chris it's not just MY opinion, and you know it.

Chris I didn't see any theory of your own in this post, one that fits the available evidence better than the 'official story'. Did I just read it wrong?

And yes, deny it all you want, but as far as the fact that once the collapse was initiated there was no stopping the collapse, the world's scientific community is in agreement, your incredulous protests notwithstanding.

 

[bill smith]

Good night all

 

[Grizzly Bear]

So can someone remind me again why steel structures can't possibly collapse regardless of the circumstances other than controlled demolition? So far the basis seems to be that if something has never happened before it cannot possibly happen because it's never happened before. And something about steel being utterly invincible to every possible loading conditions. Does that cover everything, or am I missing anything else? How many design principles have been utterly violated so far today?

BTW, another intriguing question I've been curious of asking; If the fact that no steel framed structure has ever collapsed from fire before means that it's impossible because the only time we've seen [sic by CT's] such a thing happen is in controlled demolition, what was the theory when the first ever building to be intentionally demolished was... demolished? Were there kooks back then claiming that buildings could not possibly collapse under any circumstance because no building had ever collapsed ever!?

 

[Shalamar]

So can someone remind me again why steel structures can't possibly collapse regardless of the circumstances other than controlled demolition? So far the basis seems to be that if something has never happened before it cannot possibly happen because it's never happened before. And something about steel being utterly invincible to every possible loading conditions. Does that cover everything, or am I missing anything else? How many design principles have been utterly violated so far today?

BTW, another intriguing question I've been curious of asking; If the fact that no steel framed structure has ever collapsed from fire before means that it's impossible because the only time we've seen [sic by CT's] such a thing happen is in controlled demolition, what was the theory when the first ever building to be intentionally demolished was... demolished? Were there kooks back then claiming that buildings could not possibly collapse under any circumstance because no building had ever collapsed ever!?

Correct. Because if something hasn't happened, it will never ever ever happen. And if it does happen, then it's an inside job.

 

[Christopher7]

How did they not "demonstrate their hypothesis?" They didn't compute where every piece of debris landed. So? What would be the point? How does that invalidate the conclusion that once the collapse started, there was no stopping?

The "conclusion" was just an opinion.

Crying "they did not" is just a little bit unconvincing. If you believe I am wrong, you should have no difficulty in pointing out where and why I am wrong.

I have many times. Here it is again. Do you understand English? They did NOT explain the collapse!

NIST reply to stj911truth
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

pg 3 NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability.

pg 4
We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.

NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers.
NIST’s analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation.

 

[Baylor]

So if Johnny gets laid for the first time on prom night, that means he's still a virgin because prior to prom night, he had never been laid.

 

[Christopher7]

In MY opinion? Chris it's not just MY opinion, and you know it.

Others share your opinion but there is no proof.

Chris I didn't see any theory of your own in this post, one that fits the available evidence better than the 'official story'. Did I just read it wrong?

I am not offering any alternate theories on this thread. I'm just pointing out that the Official Collapse Theory has not been proven.

And yes, deny it all you want, but as far as the fact that once the collapse was initiated there was no stopping the collapse,

That is opinion, not fact.

the world's scientific community is in agreement, your incredulous protests notwithstanding.

That is also your opinion, not fact.

 

[tfk]

chris,

My bad. The falling exterior frame above colliding with the exterior frame below would be breaking the exterior frame apart in both directions as Newton suggests. There was no buildup of floor slabs preventing crush-up of the exterior frame and the top part would have been destroyed after about 10 floors in the north tower and fallen to the side in the south tower.

As to the 45% angle; above and below the point of contact, the exterior wall in intact. The only moving pieces are the ones that just tore each other appart. All the energy is directed downwards and all the pieces are moving downwards. Even if the strike one another, the energy is still mostly downwards.

A model that might explain some of this for ya...

Hold a credit card (or your license) between your thumb & first finger, with the card near the outside edges of your fingers. Slowly bring your thumbs & finger together. Watch what happens.

Even tho your thumb & finger are moving VERY SLOWLY, the card will shoot out VERY FAST in a bunch of different directions. INCLUDING upwards.

Now, did we just violate ole Isaac's laws??

The fingers were moving slowly.
The motion was downward.
The card flew out fast & to the side. Perhaps even upwards.

Do it again. You'll feel wild & devil-may-care violating the laws of the Universe with reckless abandon...

tk

 

[Christopher7]

chris,
Hold a credit card (or your license) between your thumb & first finger, with the card near the outside edges of your fingers. Slowly bring your thumbs & finger together. Watch what happens.

Now try that with a framing section weighing 4 tons.

Do you know the difference between a credit card and a steel framing section?