Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[NutCracker]

-Beachnut shifted the burden the burden of proof unto himself by saying that a scientifically carried out analysis was 'a fraud' without giving adequate reason.or examples of same. Therefore if he cannot motivate his claim with evidence it will point to the analysis being correct and by extension that 9/11 was an inside job. With me so far.....?

I agree that people occasonally use the word 'explosion' somewhat incorrectly but this will seldom occur in the ranks of expert professional firefighters and never in such numbers in the space of an hour or two on a single day. 118 firefighters reported exploions that day and testified to them. Not trivial explosons either but explosions they clearly thought had something to do with the collapse. 'That friggin' noise.....pop-pop*pop-pop-pp like you hear when they bring a building down'. 'We saw low-level flashes and then the building started to come down' ''Threw me 40 feet and I was covered with hat white ◊◊◊◊' 'flashes going up and down and all around the building' Lots more like that.

As you can see in the video the sounds of explosions were beautifully recorded and combined with 118 sworn statements of explosions from expert firefightrs we can say that the case is proven.

Your rebuttal is hereby rejected for the reasons given above .

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

Restating your position that is rebutted by the very post your reply is supposed to be a rebuttal to doesn't help to increase your credibility. It was already explained to you why the video is a fraud. You explicitly stated that failure to explain why the video is a fraud will lead you to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. Given that you failed to supply one iota of evidence in support of your favoured conclusion this is shifting the burden of proof and false Dilemma in the space of a few sentences. Rephrasing those sentences doesn't make the fallacies go away.

I see.. ordinary people use the word "explosion" to describe a variety of events but fire fighters instantly draw a scientifically correct conclusion and express themselves after a such a disaster with scientific rigor. I wonder why they didn't use the word "detonation" than, which is the technically correct term to describe high explosives going boom.

Let us see:
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/14009868/detail.html
http://www.firerescue1.com/line-of-duty-deaths/393008-l-a-firefighter-killed-in-explosion/

Nope. It appears firefighters use the word "explosion" to describe such an event as a gas bottle exploding as well.

It is clear, when we read the firefighters' testimony, that they where describing the events they witnessed and where using simile.

Your insistence that their testimony is proof of the use of explosives, where it is, as explained, not , and your bragging about how 118 sworn testimonies proves the use of high explosives, where it does not, only shows that you want the word "explosions" to mean what you want them to mean.

And no, the sound of explosions is absent from the video, just a roaring, rumbling sound is to be heard, even from yours. It is unclear to me how you can put forward a piece of evidence in support of your contention where it actually contradicts it.

 

[Architect]

Yoo hoo, Bob.......still waiting for these space elevator details. In the interim, mate, you seem to be avoiding my "fire and steel" post - is there a reason for that?

You'll also notice that Chillzero is hovering about. Have you checked my credentials with her yet? Can I expect that apology you owe me?

This is great fun, so it is!

 

[Architect]

Just to remind you, Bob, we're waiting for your response to this message:

I'd like you to tell me if there are any errors that I make. And be specific.

Testing Criteria

Firstly, the lay reader may be interested to learn that there are, of course, formal standards to test the fire performance of structural steelwork.

The general procedures used for determining the fire resistance of load-bearing elements of structure are specified in BS476 series. In assessing the performance of fire protection materials the relevant parts are:

Part 20 Method of determination of the fire resistance of elements of construction (general principles)

Part 21 Method of determination of the fire resistance of load-bearing elements of construction

Whilst BS 476 Part 20 is concerned with general principles and covers requirements which are common to the other parts of BS 476, the BS 476 Part 21 fire resistance testing covers load-bearing elements of construction, such as steel beams, columns or walls, whilst BS 476 Part 22 fire resistance tests are intended for non load-bearing elements of construction.

(snip)

 

[A W Smith]

The object is about 100 feet from the tower. It is falling as it moves away at 72 mph. Do you know what a parabola is? Watch the video again and listen to what Chandler says about where the object left the building.

Can you identify the object inside the dust cloud specifically? To the point where it left the building? No you cannot Chris. You are making assumptions.

The object is moving away from the building at 72 mph!

no it is not. it is falling at 72 mph average. Chandler doesn't know specifically where the object began its fall. He is plotting a segment mid flight and assuming free fall. Which wouldn't be unexpected anyway because the object isn't encountering any falling resistance except aerodynamic drag during chandlers plotted segment

The energy created by gravity cannot be redirected to hurl 4 ton objects at 72 mph sideways.

again. it is not going sideways. you yourself freely admit a parabolic fall

The 'flicker factor' is absurd. tfg does not explain how the potential stored energy is used to eject 4 ton objects laterally.

Ever jack a building or structure and have the jack post kick out in all of your carpentry career Chris? No its not absurd at all.

 

[bob the analyst]

skippy, is there a reason why you are being so evasive or is it just your nature to clam up when you are cornered like this? Normally, this is what we call being turtled, you stick your head and you neck back into your shell, as you have done and wait for the pursuer to leave it's prey, as I will leave you.

 

[Architect]

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

Evidence? Come on Bob, take a few minutes off of (a) my apology (b) digging out the space elevator designs (c) responding to the detailed post re: fire performance. Tell us where you get 90% from. Let's see the proof.

 

[Architect]

skippy, is there a reason why you are being so evasive or is it just your nature to clam up when you are cornered like this? Normally, this is what we call being turtled, you stick your head and you neck back into your shell, as you have done and wait for the pursuer to leave it's prey, as I will leave you.

You're being ironic, right?

 

[Christopher7]

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.

Plausible may work for you but it it is not proof.

Until I saw the implosion of WTC 7 I did not question the collapse of the Trade Towers either. After looking at these collapses closer, I don't believe the Official Collapse Theory.

The point here is, the Official Collapse Theory is just that, a theory. It has not been proven.

 

[Architect]

Aye, right. Of course not, Chris. Tell you what, son, why not have a look at my note about fire resistance in steel structures and tell me where it goes wrong.

 

[Shalamar]

This is Bobs Normal claim. He has his cheerleader here, Bill, and even C7 has distanced himself from Bob as far as he can get. He points and laughs at people who have the correct answers, because he knows that his answers are correct.

I think that Bob can NOT be proven wrong. He refuses to admit it, for that would be weakness.

He does believe that 2 + 2 = orange.

 

[Architect]

Evidence? Come on Bob, take a few minutes off of (a) my apology (b) digging out the space elevator designs (c) responding to the detailed post re: fire performance. Tell us where you get 90% from. Let's see the proof.

Come on, Bob.....we know you're not really gone. You can do it! Back up your arguments!!

 

[A W Smith]

Robert the Steel Mill Tourist

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

Still dancing Bob? No answers yet? Its a bit more difficult to debate here in the midst of architects, engineers and builders instead of you tube comment boxes Bob. You are clinging to your assertion that steel doesn't lose strength up to 4000 degrees F? When i directly point out to you a study of structural members subjected to heat far below that temperature? ill post the link for you Again bob.

ftp://www.stahlbau.uni-hannover.de/Publizierungen/Brandschutz/FSJ_10-1986.pdf

 

[Architect]

This is Bobs Normal claim. He has his cheerleader here, Bill, and even C7 has distanced himself from Bob as far as he can get. He points and laughs at people who have the correct answers, because he knows that his answers are correct.

I think that Bob can NOT be proven wrong. He refuses to admit it, for that would be weakness.

He does believe that 2 + 2 = orange.

But in all fairness, he designs space elevators. That must be a pretty tough job.

 

[Architect]

Still dancing Bob? No answers yet? Its a bit more difficult to debate here in the midst of architects, engineers and builders instead of you tube comment boxes Bob. You are clinging to your assertion that steel doesn't lose strength up to 4000 degrees F? When i directly point out to you a study of structural members subjected to heat far below that temperature? ill post the link for you Again bob.

ftp://www.stahlbau.uni-hannover.de/Publizierungen/Brandschutz/FSJ_10-1986.pdf

Nonononono. Look at that paper! It talks about something called celcius!! It's part of the conspiracy, you fools!!!!! 2+2=Orange!!!!!!

 

[NutCracker]

NIST admitted that they did not explain the collapse.

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

Err... how does a perceived shortcoming of the BZ paper imply that NIST didn't explain the collapse?

Quote mining to state the conclusion as if it where a fact does not help you. It has been demonstrated to you that NIST did in fact explain the collapse. If you disagree with the explanation provided you should be able to point out where and why it is inadequate. Do so. Restating your rebutted objection ad-nausium does not help you there.

 

[bob the analyst]

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?

yes, it was a unanimous concesus all around, a very light and unstrudy building, possibly steel, maybe alunimum, perhaps tin, specific materials unknown, size appeared very small in comparison, say, to the ***** wtc structures!
In fact, a lot of people were saying that that have a rv, a camper or a motor home bigger in size that the building or hut in the photos

 

[Architect]

Just point us to the posts then, Bob, because we're calling you on it.


ETA - let's call that (e) on the list of things you've got to respond to. For ease of future reference and all that.

(a) my apology and a concession that yes, I am qualified in this field

(b) digging out the space elevator designs

(c) responding to the detailed post re: fire performance.

(d) tell us where you get 90% from. Let's see the proof.

 

[Christopher7]

It is clear, when we read the firefighters' testimony, that they where describing the events they witnessed and where using simile.

Clear?

This is abject denial and only goes to prove that you will reject any evidence that supports explosions.

You have seen the videos where firefighters say there were explosions.

Your assertion that they don't know what they are talking about is outrageously disrespectful.

Who the hell do you think you are to say all these firefighters are using similes?

 

[bob the analyst]

But in all fairness, he designs space elevators. That must be a pretty tough job.

yep skippy, I design space elevators as much as you are an architect


and we know neither one of us is either a space elevator designer nor an architect


that's what's great about the internet, isn' it skippy? people like you can claim to be anything they feel like making up they are at any given momebnt in time


but no regrets for you skipppy, you were just pretending and we all had a riot making fun of your vivid imagination,

I speak for everyone here and wish you all the best of luck on your next fairy tale and imaginative career that you pretend to have next time around

 

[Shalamar]

yes, it was a unanimous concesus all around, a very light and unstrudy building, possibly steel, maybe alunimum, perhaps tin, specific materials unknown, size appeared very small in comparison, say, to the ***** wtc structures!
In fact, a lot of people were saying that that have a rv, a camper or a motor home bigger in size that the building or hut in the photos

So you are a unanimous consensus? 2+2 equals orange? Really?