Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

Keep it civil. Focus on the topic at hand, and stop bickering.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
My how the pages fly by.

Buried in the fast and furious fray is the inconvenient truth that:


NIST did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.

Bazant did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.

Some have tried to double talk around these facts and failed.

The Official Collapse Theory has NOT been proven. It is just a theory.
 
bob the analyst said:
i dunno skippy, the building to me, appears to be in the area of 10 to 15 feet long, shed size, such as in your backyard, where you keep your lawnmower, snowblower, leaf blower, maybe a roto-tiller, rakes, shovels, etc.
Click to expand...

Are you being serious, Bob? Or are you just messing with me? The article seems to say that it is a warehouse, which I think is a lot bigger than a shed. Plus, in the picture, you can see a picture of a fire truck in the foreground, with the building in the background, so the building is clearly pretty big. I mean, it's not a tall skyscraper, but it's not a shack either. Probably the size of your local home depot.

So Bob, seriously, don't you think that's a pretty good example of a steel structure that can be collapsed by fire? Be honest with me now, what do you think...
 
bob the analyst said:
good for you, great find, do you understand wht this chart means and what it says...you see, the steel would have to start looking in this fashion as it broke down, in an element basis,
Click to expand...
ROFLMAO What? Total word salad! Bob- you don't even know the name of this very famous and well known graph let alone what it means.

The steel would have to start looking in this fashion as it broke down? hahaha - what does this mean and how does it relate to the curve (that's a hint btw) I have produced. You have no idea what this graph represents and why it is used.

bob the analyst said:
I know this is very deep and very technical for a layman or someone like you that is very inexperienced in steel workings, design, chemistry, but I still have hope to straighten and enlighten people like you that have a biased and tunnel visioned approach to the wtc collapse

helpful Bob
Click to expand...
Lol - quality, yeah you go Bob! You tell 'em sunshine! You don't even know what that graph is what it represents and why it is used yet you have the gall to call someone else a layman!

In your own time Bob a job, please explain briefly what that graph is and why it's used. After all it should be a cinch for such a technically profound experienced engineer as your good self to show these laymen up.

I'm gonna show this post to work colleagues come Monday to brighten up their week.
 
bob the analyst said:
i dunno skippy, the building to me, appears to be in the area of 10 to 15 feet long, shed size, such as in your backyard, where you keep your lawnmower, snowblower, leaf blower, maybe a roto-tiller, rakes, shovels, etc.
Click to expand...

Stop lying. It was a large warehouse. I have given you the links.
 
A W Smith said:
Did you just say that steel doesn't lose strength all the way up to 4400F? Are you a fool bob?

ftp://www.stahlbau.uni-hannover.de/Publizierungen/Brandschutz/FSJ_10-1986.pdf
Click to expand...
you see, on numerous times I have had the opportunity to visit the steel milss where the wtc steel originated from, where it was poured, where it was rolled, what the chemistry and metallurgical make-up of what the steel was, for the center support beams and other steel used...so you may want to call this inside information, an insider advantage if you will, but, furnaces-blast furnaces-electric arc or gas--

run well over 4000 degrees F. I realized that you have never been in a steel mill in your life or will ever have the chance to visit a steel mill, what it takes to produce steel..so untill you get the opportunity to go to a steel mill, you can just take my advice on this
 
BenBurch said:
:parrot:
Click to expand...
Yes, I am parroting what NIST and Bazant said.

NIST:
" NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers."

Bazant:
"to answer this question fully, a three-dimensional analysis would be required."
 
Last edited:
L The Detective said:
Are you being serious, Bob? Or are you just messing with me? The article seems to say that it is a warehouse, which I think is a lot bigger than a shed. Plus, in the picture, you can see a picture of a fire truck in the foreground, with the building in the background, so the building is clearly pretty big. I mean, it's not a tall skyscraper, but it's not a shack either. Probably the size of your local home depot.

So Bob, seriously, don't you think that's a pretty good example of a steel structure that can be collapsed by fire? Be honest with me now, what do you think...
Click to expand...
everyone here agreed that it looked like a tool shed, yard shed or a very small pole barn at best
 
Christopher7 said:
My how the pages fly by.

Buried in the fast and furious fray is the inconvenient truth that:


NIST did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.

Bazant did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.

Some have tried to double talk around these facts and failed.

The Official Collapse Theory has NOT been proven. It is just a theory.
Click to expand...

What kind of proof were you looking for? I am not an expert on construction by any means, but their explanation seems plausible enough for me.
 
Sunstealer said:
ROFLMAO What? Total word salad! Bob- you don't even know the name of this very famous and well known graph let alone what it means.

The steel would have to start looking in this fashion as it broke down? hahaha - what does this mean and how does it relate to the curve (that's a hint btw) I have produced. You have no idea what this graph represents and why it is used.

Lol - quality, yeah you go Bob! You tell 'em sunshine! You don't even know what that graph is what it represents and why it is used yet you have the gall to call someone else a layman!

In your own time Bob a job, please explain briefly what that graph is and why it's used. After all it should be a cinch for such a technically profound experienced engineer as your good self to show these laymen up.

I'm gonna show this post to work colleagues come Monday to brighten up their week.
Click to expand...
the charts and graphs correctly show what the JIST report failed to convey to the public, that the heat and temperatures did not corrupt the steel to the need point of failure...this is what this whole 9/11 and wtc charade is all about and why 90% of common, everyday people, engineers and scientists alike, tradesmen, welders, technicians, firemen, pilots, health care workers, and more skills all see the NIST report as incomplete and ficticious
 
bob the analyst said:
everyone here agreed that it looked like a tool shed, yard shed or a very small pole barn at best
Click to expand...

They did? Sorry Bob... I must have missed that. I admit I skimmed through part of this thread, so maybe I missed some replies.

Never the less, it is in fact a warehouse. Read over the story yourself if you don't believe me.

So in light of that, do you mind if I ask what that means regarding your assertion that steel structures cannot globally collapse? Cause, to me it seems to indicate that in some cases, they can. What are your thoughts on that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom