Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

BenBurch said:
That's a lie you just said there Chris. You did not ever read the NIST report. You don't really know what it said or why. You are parroting others who also did not understand what they read.
Click to expand...
You haven't got a clue what you are talking about. This quote is not from the NIST report:

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.


That's pretty straight forward yet people here are so deep in denial it just doesn't get thru.
 
Christopher7 said:
A CD is a gravity collapse.

However, gravity cannot hurl 4 ton frame sections up to 500 feet laterally. Many here try to rationalize how this could happen. Some fully understand how silly these rationalizations are, pull out all the stops and site the fist on BigMac hypothesis.
Click to expand...
Yes it can! The lateral component of energy for a 4-ton frame to move 500 feet laterally is only 0.000155 ton of TNT, or 0.3 pounds of TNT energy! This is hilarious as you spew lies, hearsay, and fantasy. Funny cause you have no clue what you are saying. Not a single number have you supplied to support any of your delusional nut case ideas.

To repeat “a gravity collapse cannot propel a small piece’’, yes 4 tons is a small pieces of the WTC, 500 feet is pure stupid.

0.3 pounds of TNT, only 647,946 joules for the lateral component of energy. This make your statement pure junk. Please stop posting these idiotic statements, you are destroying all know engineering standards. How can you make up such dumb junk?
The gravity collapse had over 839,452 times more energy to give up.

Yep, a CD primary energy is due to gravity, but real CD shape the desired result. There is no way the WTC would have been taken down with CD due to the energy involved in such a collapse. You should take physics, you would not be making such stupid statements and lack total understanding of the WTC collapse initiated by 10 terrorists on two planes designed to kill Americans just because they could kill us. You are trying hard but failing to apologize for terrorist who killed fellow Americans and you don't care if you are spewing lies as you fail. The terrorists were more competent in their mission at 75 percent than you are at what ever you are doing at 0 percent.

You should run the numbers before you post your woo.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Yes it can! The lateral component of energy for a 4-ton frame to move 500 feet laterally is only 0.000155 ton of TNT, or 0.3 pounds of TNT energy!
Click to expand...
There's one small problem in your calcs.

There's no way that falling debris can hurl 4 tons 400 feet sideways. Gravity does not make 90 degree turns.
 
You are being an ass, Chris. NIST did not model it in detail.

The reason being that no computer on the planet could model it in detail.

For one thing the initial conditions are unknown and unknowable in precise detail because those firefighters who got up there and saw it did not live to tell us exactly which beams were broken, and exactly how much fireproofing remained.

And once a chaotic system enters full failure its exact playing out is subject to great sensitivity on initial conditions.

But what we engineers do every day in analyzing failures and potential for failures is to attempt to define initial conditions close enough to what happened, or what might happen to give us insight into how the failure happens and what we could have done or can do to prevent the failure or delay it or ameliorate it to an extent.

What they found, and everybody else found who bothered to do the calculations in an honest manner is that the damage that existed that we know about, and the fires that existed that we could detect were sufficient to cause a failure where the top part of the building broke free of its supports and began to fall.

Then they computed, and many others did as well, how much residual strength exists in the still attached parts of the building that top part fell into, and in the case of each of the towers that residual strength was insufficient to "catch" that much weight. And so floor by floor the building fell.

As it fell there was a very chaotic set of processes happening; asymmetrical forces and buckling forces applied with extreme rapidity, and compressed air generated by the falling mass pushing down into the remaining tube of the building. The compressed air alone would have been enough to push the wall assemblies away, but there were many asymmetrical forces applied as materials and assemblies failed.

None of this even needs explanation to an engineer.

And none of this is ever explicable to you truthers it seems.

Did you all flunk high school physics?

So, NIST modeled the collapse far enough to ensure that it could begin and could not stop, and beyond some simple calculations they left it there. Their mandate was finding out how this sort of thing could be prevented in the future and their work has already changed building codes around the planet.

So, stop with the extraordinarily stupid refrain that "NIST didn't model it." Nobody could - even in principle. But no competent engineer doubts that what they did model explains everything that happened.

Now, go do your homework.
 
Chris, can you draw a picture of the path you think one of these 4 ton sections followed? I'm curious where the 90 degree turn is.
 
chris,

Christopher7 said:
Now try that with a framing section weighing 4 tons.
Do you know the difference between a credit card and a steel framing section?
Click to expand...

Yeah, chris, I do know the difference. You see, I'm a mechanical engineer with over 30 years experience in product design. And I've designed hi tech equipment that's gone from the Marianas Trench to Jupiter.

And I'll tell you this for absolute certain.

In the context of the discussion at hand, the ability to store energy in a long slender elastic material, the difference between the two is ...

... not a damn thing.

tk
 
Chandlers dots expose Chris sarns as a lying fool.

Christopher7 said:
So you think the flicker factor could hurl 4 ton frame sections up to 500 feet laterally.

Could you elaborate on this silliness?
Click to expand...

Christopher7 said:
A CD is a gravity collapse.

However, gravity cannot hurl 4 ton frame sections up to 500 feet laterally. Many here try to rationalize how this could happen. Some fully understand how silly these rationalizations are, pull out all the stops and site the fist on BigMac hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Christopher7 said:
There's one small problem in your calcs.

There's no way that falling debris can hurl 4 tons 400 feet sideways. Gravity does not make 90 degree turns.
Click to expand...

Not sideways Christopher. You are a liar and a deluded old fool, Chandlers dots do not show a 90 degree lateral ejection.

chandlersdots.jpg
 
Chris,

Now you please answer something for me.

You've been jabbering about how downward motion couldn't be translated into horizontal motion. As though it were some newtonian law.

I just gave you a concrete demonstration of how motion in one direction could be EFFORTLESSLY turned into motion in a different direction.

I just gave you a concrete demonstration of how slow motion could be EFFORTLESSLY translated into fast motion.

A teeter totter with an off-centered fulcrum can translate slow speed into fast speed.

The best model that I can think of for the debris pile would be a rock avalanche. If you've ever seen one (& even if you haven't), the wavefront moves down the hill at a specific speed. But shooting out of the mass will be rock that are moving far, far faster than the average speed. There is a distribution of speeds in ANY chaotic process.

Are you willing yet to concede there is nothing to prevent a distribution of speeds from occurring in the collapse? Or are you blind to the concepts of statistical variation?

tk
 
tfk said:
bill,

Explain to me YOUR theory of exactly what happened to allow the antenna to descend. Explain why that you are continuing to advance this theory, even tho others have pointed out that this is simply an optical illusion that is falsified from videos taken from different direction.

Please also explain exactly your theory of the sequence of events that accounts for this - and all other - evidence.

That's MY comment. its YOUR "gotcha". YOU develop it into a self consistent theory.

tk
Click to expand...

I asked him the same,some 7 pages ago.

stateofgrace said:
Is there some reason you are incapable, or unwilling to analyse the video yourself? Maybe after you have analyzed it you can tell everybody the ramifications of the said analysis.

Please proceed.
Click to expand...

bill smith said:
I certainly will do that...but I thought you would all like to brainstrorm it in order to get to the Truth ? Brainstorming is so productive.
Click to expand...

Bill did say he would certainly do that.

Bill,what are you waiting for?
 
I've been watching this thread for a few days, but held off participating as it descended into little more than a 10 way slanging match. You should all be ashamed of yourselves - Bill and Chris for failing to produce any meaningful analysis, for dressing-up the most minor of issues in emotive (and frankly incorrect) language such as "hurling", for culpably misrepresenting other material ("ninety degrees"), and above all for failing to respond to substantive technical points put to you. Many of the rest of you have done exactly what Laurel and Hardy Bill and Chris have wanted and allowed their pig-headed ignorance to draw you into a playground shouting competition.

A few of you have continued to post very good, very productive critical responses, but you have to ask yourself "why?". Chris, Bill, and (somewhere on a ski slope) Heiwa aren't interested in a meaningful discourse. They deliberately ignore criticisms of what are usually fundamental issues. They are incapable of analysing data and evidence sensibly. Excessive weight is attached to anything which apparently contradicts NIST, whilst other papers that support the latter are wholly ignored.

I've got a four year old. Frankly, it's easier and more productive to argue with him.

The only thing this thread is now doing, IMHO, is showing to any lurkers who are daft enough to read it that many of Truther chums (cough) are so far beyond the pale as to be consigned to the dustbin.

[/rant]
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
The "conclusion" was just an opinion.

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.
Click to expand...

Restating a claim ad nausium, without an argument as to why the claim holds true gives the distinct impression that the person stating the claim is convinced the claim is true but has got nothing to back it up, ie the person holds a belief.

If they didn't explain the collapse, as you claim, it should be easy for you to explain why they did fail to explain the collapse. Explain it to me.

Redoing your quote mining has the same quality.

I addressed these quotes already in #1497, giving me doubts the lack of comprehension of the English language is sitting on my side of the table, as you claim. If you disagree with #1497, please point out where and why it is wrong.
 
Does anybody want to give n opinion on the video I post here ? This is an analysis the sworn testimony of 503 9/11 firefighters taken in he days weeks aand months after the attacks. There can be no doubt as to the autenticity of the statements as all 12,000 pages are available online. Equally there can be no doubt that a more expert group of witnesses would be hard to find. Can anybody comment on why they think the 9/11 Commission ruled all of this evidence inadmissable ?

I suspect that this post may be met by a wall of silence. In that event I think we can all draw the obvious conclusion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study
 
Last edited:
Bill

It's patently obvious that you're not interested in any meaningful assessment or appraisal of evidence. You have wholly disregarded any contrary material put to you, hand-waving away anything which contradicts what are clearly very strongly held - but ultimately flawed - personal beliefs in and around the collapse of the World Trade Centre. The obvious conclusion, if there is one, is that you're just wasting our time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom