Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[Christopher7]

chris,

There are hundreds of videos WITH audio available from every possible angle on the internet.

Hundreds?

There is precisely ZERO way that those explosions could have occurred and NOT been picked up on the available videos.

Some of them do have sounds of explosions.

Any explosion associated with CD would be so overwhelmingly loud

Are a demolitions expert? Do you know how much the sound can be muffled? Remember, no one has ever tried to mask the sound of a CD before so you have no idea how much it can be done.

It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.

You just keep telling yourself that lad, and everything will be alright.

 

[bill smith]

I was scanning back through some emails when I came across this, and -although I may well have missed it in the melee - it doesn't appear to have been addressed.

So, to answer the point, no - as far as I can tell the professional community sets considerable store by the NIST findings although there is some minor disagreement (Arup, Edinburgh University) about some aspects of the fire modelling. On that basis I have to ask where you formed this opinion and whether you can provide anything to back it up?

Well I became completely certain that NIST had been coopted at te time of the NIST final report on WTC7. I had had dire suspicions long before that of course but that was the confirmation. Now all of their product and pronouncments are as tainted meat to me. I think Bob mntioned on this forum or perhaps another that NIST has lost the respect of the engineering community worldwide. I was asking him to confirm that.

 

[A W Smith]

it appears Bob melted away when i posed questions to him. Christopher has shirked back away from his 90 degree ejection as well when I asked him how he interpreted a 90 degree "parabola" in a dust cloud for an object trajectory no one can see.

Bob?

1. steel mills
2. "Kobe of Cleveland"
3. grade of steel used at aircraft impact zones
4. number of grades of steel specified/vs ultimately used

Bill;
can you fire up your alter ego and answer those questions? I mean its fairly obvious because of the identical sloppiness of spelling and grammar errors.

 

[bill smith]

Bill, when I read this I am much minded of one of your earlier quotes:



I'd like to focus in particular on this melting away. You see, I've posed a series of questions of the two of you - in all fairness a lot of it is focussed at Bob, who seems to have done a bunk - and you've not responded to any of the substantive points.

I'll forgive Bob for not posting his space elevator work yet (presuambly there's patent and copyright issues with such sensitive work) but I'd really like to two of you to turn your attention to the fire performance issues we've highlighted back.

You've now got information of the actual characteristics of heated steel and, of course, the various standards and codes which recognise this problem. I assume, therefore, that you'll both be able to respond to the substantial problems they present to your own hypotheses.

While you may have adressed qquestions to Bob I am not aware of any that you addressed to me. At least none that I can remember or was perhaps interested in . Give me the post numbers nd I will check them out. I do not intend to have a general discussion on the fire performnce of steel except where it may be germane to my argument of the time.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

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!

When you make the claim that steel is essentially unaffected by fire, the size of the structure is completely irrelevant.

 

[BigAl]

chris,
Hundreds?

Some of them do have sounds of explosions.

Here is a good book for a description of all the imigry captuted at WYC on 9/11: Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11 By David Friend


Here's a description of one archive of 9/11 video.

Video Archive:
http://www.cameraplanet.com/

...images, captured largely by amateurs, are moments from more
than 500 hours of videos and films, the largest collection of raw
visual data from what historians say is the best-documented
catastrophe in history. About 1,700 clips from the collection have
attracted more than a million hits in the three months since they
were put on Google Video.

None of the noises on video are consistent with man-made demolition.

In the 1993 bombing, the noise was heard for blocks around and all throughout the towers. It was equal to about 1,000 pounds of TNT and came nowhere close to causing a sudden collapse like the one that happened on 9/11.

No such explosion was heard or caught on tape on 9/11. There were lots of cameras in operation from moments after the first impact. Even the first impact was caught on three video cameras. There were many 10s of thousands of people withing hearing distance of WTC. I was one of those people.

 

[A W Smith]

Are a demolitions expert? Do you know how much the sound can be muffled? Remember, no one has ever tried to mask the sound of a CD before so you have no idea how much it can be done.

your right that no one has ever muffled a cd explosion before. Reason being you cannot stop the movement of air to do that. You see Chris, Explosives work because of a chemical reaction resulting in a rapidly expanding gas. This gas acts on anything that would restrain it. destroying, cutting or propelling said object. To claim on one hand that an explosive hurled a multi ton object hundreds of feet yet did so without the loud explosive chemical reaction necessary flies in the face of logic. And reveals any such person who would be foolish enough to make such a claim to have a mental deficit.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Do you know how much the sound can be muffled? Remember, no one has ever tried to mask the sound of a CD before so you have no idea how much it can be done.

It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.

You just keep telling yourself that lad, and everything will be alright.

You treat that argument as if sound is the only characteristic of a demolition. You do realize though that with such a proposed unregulated demolition as you're proposing was done sound would hardly be the least of anyone's concerns. This has been talked about before.

You've been clamoring over this notion that 4-ton sections could not have flown out 5... 600 feet with the aid of explosives or something exotic to the collapse, but if what you're claiming is true then it would mean that these explosives created much smaller shrapnel capable of not only traveling further but also faster. You do realize that conventional demolitions already have significant concerns for shrapnel ejection because the lack of preparation for it can result in onlookers being killed don't you? There have been several incidents in the past, and I do believe a couple of specific stories were highlighted by one of the active members here quite recently. Here's an excerpt from implosionworld

While the Sears project and countless others were completed without incident, a female onlooker in Glasgow, Scotland was killed by flying debris, and the next two years saw several American spectators injured by projectiles on various projects.

Then, in July 1997, the industry's worst fears were realized when a 13-year-old girl was killed by flying debris after her family had stopped on the way home from church to watch the highly publicized demolition of an Australian Hospital. The event made headlines around the world - first because of the tragedy, then because of the swarm of lawyers, political figures and others seeking personal gain from the incident - and triggered strong public debate in Australia about the safety of implosions in general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canberra_Hospital_implosion

However, the implosion was a terrible failure. The main building did not fully disintegrate and had to be later manually demolished. But far worse, the explosion was not contained on the site and large pieces of debris were projected towards spectators situated 500 metres away on the opposite side of the Lake, in a location that nobody considered unsafe or inappropriate. A twelve year old girl, Katie Bender, was killed instantly, and nine other people were injured. Large fragments of masonry and metal were found 650 metres from the demolition site.

And remember this particular incident was with a structure much smaller than the trade centers...

And another danger of demolitions which you're forgetting is that the overpressure, particularly from explosives as powerful as those required to make your contention true would have not only resulted in significant window breakage to all surrounding structures, but blast effect injuries to people. None of the surrounding structures experienced significant window breakage globally, and nobody reported injuries consistent with blast events.

I know explosions tend to be your "signal" to scream demolition but far too many other effects that go hand in hand with it are lacking particularly in what many truthers regard as a so called "unconventional demolition"

 

[bill smith]

it appears Bob melted away when i posed questions to him. Christopher has shirked back away from his 90 degree ejection as well when I asked him how he interpreted a 90 degree "parabola" in a dust cloud for an object trajectory no one can see.

Bob?

1. steel mills
2. "Kobe of Cleveland"
3. grade of steel used at aircraft impact zones
4. number of grades of steel specified/vs ultimately used

Bill;
can you fire up your alter ego and answer those questions? I mean its fairly obvious because of the identical sloppiness of spelling and grammar errors.

Grammatical errors. Bob is Bob and I am me.

 

[stateofgrace]

chris,
Hundreds?

Some of them do have sounds of explosions.

Are a demolitions expert? Do you know how much the sound can be muffled? Remember, no one has ever tried to mask the sound of a CD before so you have no idea how much it can be done.

It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.

You just keep telling yourself that lad, and everything will be alright.

So it wasn't thermite then , Chris?

 

[Christopher7]

Are you forgetting already that the structure within the impact area has failed?

No, [FONT=&quot]"When the collapse started and the first impact took place, the weight of all but one of those floors and the rubble from the plane impact was on the exterior and core columns[/FONT]"

When the core in the impact region fails, the loads from everything ABOVE that point are is transferred to adjacent [perimeter] columns; in this case the only medium is through the hat truss, and out to the perimeter columns that are still intact. Now what happens when the columns located in and around the impact region are unable to sustain the new loads?

The top part falls down.

I agree that the floors normally would never sustain such loads under ordinary circumstances, but under a dynamic collapse event you somehow believe that the loads are still perfectly in-line with their respective structural members?

That's what NIST says. [the qualifier 'perfectly' is an overstatement] They say both towers tilted a little and then started falling. That is what we see in the videos.

First, the rubble from the plane impact fell to the first intact floor. When the collapse began, the floor above the first intact floor impacted the first intact floor. The exterior and core columns continued to crushed the columns below and the first intact floor falls on the one below. According to NIST, the upper block stays intact so the floors in the top section are still being supported by the core and perimeter columns as they all fall together putting their combined weight on the columns below.

It did not happen the way NIST proposes in their FAQ which states that:
"[FONT=&quot]Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.[/FONT]"

When I look at videos of the collapse between both buildings I notice two variables; the cores in both WTC 2 and WTC 1 fail after the majority of the collapse for both structures has progressed to street level. Only then do they too collapse; this suggests to me a few things:

• The initiating failure in the core was primarily localized to the impact regions.
• The floor system on all levels, including the perimeter columns failed before the core columns did. This means that the floors exceeded their limits before loads were sufficiently transferred to the core during collapse.

You are looking at the end of the collapse and talking about the beginning of the collapse. This is absurd.

 

[Christopher7]

In the 1993 bombing, the noise was heard for blocks around and all throughout the towers. It was equal to about 1,000 pounds of TNT and came nowhere close to causing a sudden collapse like the one that happened on 9/11.

You are comparing a truck bomb with shape charges. Please.

 

[BenBurch]

Wait wait, nobody trusts the fusible plugs? Geez, they sure as heck aren't teaching us that Ben. Doesn't anyone read ASME section VII in the real World?

I guess you don't have to bead the ends of the firetubes in the crown sheet either, according to bob there's no chance of the flanges getting weakened by the heat until they reach 4000F. Especially rolled and pierced tubes.

BOB: Where are the FMEA's you promised? How do these FMEA's differ from NCSTAR?

LOL. They may be tested and all, but I HAVE read of failures in spite of them. Its sort of like an air bag. Maybe it will save me, but I don't run into things intentionally and depend on that. I don't trust the low water whistle to work, either.

 

[Christopher7]

your right that no one has ever muffled a cd explosion before. Reason being you cannot stop the movement of air to do that. You see Chris, Explosives work because of a chemical reaction resulting in a rapidly expanding gas. This gas acts on anything that would restrain it. destroying, cutting or propelling said object. To claim on one hand that an explosive hurled a multi ton object hundreds of feet yet did so without the loud explosive chemical reaction necessary flies in the face of logic.

You keep saying there were no explosions but many witnesses say that there were. In some of the videos the collapse sounds like a freight train and many witnesses make similar comparrisons. You obsess on large explosions when the videos show hundreds of explosions blowing the towers apart and a great many exterior frame sections being ejected hundreds of feet in all directions. This just cant happen without explosives.

Falling debris cannot eject 4 ton frame sections up to 500 feet laterally. Some here have tried to suggest that these 4 ton frame sections could somehow spring that far but that has been shot down. There is no way to rip a 3 beam section apart from the surrounding sections and have any spring action.

Like or not, that leaves explosives, Deal with it. Stop denying it and whining about noise levels.

 

[Christopher7]

You treat that argument as if sound is the only characteristic of a demolition.

Actually, you guys are the ones obsessed about sound.

You do realize though that with such a proposed unregulated demolition as you're proposing was done sound would hardly be the least of anyone's concerns. This has been talked about before.

On the contrary. They wanted to make it look and sound like a structural collapse.

You've been clamoring over this notion that 4-ton sections could not have flown out 5... 600 feet with the aid of explosives or something exotic to the collapse, but if what you're claiming is true then it would mean that these explosives created much smaller shrapnel capable of not only traveling further but also faster. You do realize that conventional demolitions already have significant concerns for shrapnel ejection because the lack of preparation for it can result in onlookers being killed don't you? There have been several incidents in the past, and I do believe a couple of specific stories were highlighted by one of the active members here quite recently.

This was like no other CD so don't compare it to other CD's.
Smaller debris was ejected up to 600 feet.

And another danger of demolitions which you're forgetting is that the overpressure, particularly from explosives as powerful as those required to make your contention true would have not only resulted in significant window breakage to all surrounding structures, but blast effect injuries to people. None of the surrounding structures experienced significant window breakage globally, and nobody reported injuries consistent with blast events.

You are still in "it can't be because mode" and comparing this to other CD's. You are trying to disprove the obvious.

Think outside the box.

Never mind. You are so fanatically tied to the Official Collapse Theory you can't do that.

 

[Christopher7]

So it wasn't thermite then , Chris?

There is evidence of thermite and explosives.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You are looking at the end of the collapse and talking about the beginning of the collapse. This is absurd.

Why is this absurd? Please enlighten the less astute of us "Official Story Theorists" why the state of the core at this point during the collapse is irrelevant. Does it perhaps ruin the utterly bizarre statements you've been newly asserting?

You are comparing a truck bomb with shape charges. Please.

So instead of thermite you believe these were shape charges that "cut" the columns? In the impact zone? Good god I swear you confuse the living hell out of me... and about half the people on this forum... On top of that you've been arguing explosives capable of launching 4-ton debris... what the heck kind of shape charges do that!?

Actually, you guys are the ones obsessed about sound.

Smaller debris was ejected up to 600 feet.

And you're the one contending that they could have been edited out... Frankly you're really grasping at straws to state that out of the hundreds of videos out there, both obtained by NIST, and posted by people who ended up as bystanders to the event have somehow edited out the sound in their footage... but I'm playing your game anyway... assuming this were in the remotest possibility true... why weren't there mass injuries or deaths reported as a result of shrapnel? Why were there no reports of eardrum damage from blast events? Why isn't the damage to surrounding structures consistent with the overpressure from such a mediocre prepped demolition?

On the contrary. They wanted to make it look and sound like a structural collapse.

There are no words on this planet to describe the kind of straw grasping it takes to speculate at this level?

This was like no other CD so don't compare it to other CD's.

But you are comparing it to conventional controlled demolitions nevertheless?

You are still in "it can't be because mode" and comparing this to other CD's. You are trying to disprove the obvious.

Think outside the box.

Never mind. You are so fanatically tied to the Official Collapse Theory you can't do that.

It's kind of hard to have a coherent argument with a person who tells me not to compare this to other demolitions yet feels that the collapse resembled one enough for it to look like a controlled demolition. It's also kind of hard to have a coherent argument when you argue for thermite one day, imply something requiring super powerful bunker busters the next, and regular cutter charges on the side... Nothing wrong with thinking out of the box, but the arguments you just started pushing are just plain bizarre.... I don't even have the words to describe just how bizarre this has gotten....

 

[BigAl]

You are comparing a truck bomb with shape charges. Please.

Even if true, which it is not, it is irrelevant. 1,000 pounds of explosive didn't begin to bring down a tower and it was heard all over the 16 acre WTC complex.

No comparable or larger explosion was heard on 9/11.

Nobody heard any explosions consistent in intensity or timing with man-made demolition on 9/11.

 

[Furcifer]

You keep saying there were no explosions but many witnesses say that there were. In some of the videos the collapse sounds like a freight train and many witnesses make similar comparrisons. You obsess on large explosions when the videos show hundreds of explosions blowing the towers apart and a great many exterior frame sections being ejected hundreds of feet in all directions. This just cant happen without explosives.

Hundreds of little muffled explosions that blew 4 ton chunks 500 feet laterally. Right.

Falling debris cannot eject 4 ton frame sections up to 500 feet laterally. Some here have tried to suggest that these 4 ton frame sections could somehow spring that far but that has been shot down. There is no way to rip a 3 beam section apart from the surrounding sections and have any spring action.
Like or not, that leaves explosives, Deal with it. Stop denying it and whining about noise levels.

Yes it can. You are wrong.

You're not really qualified to make any credible statements in regards to what did or didn't happen. I'm not sure why you continue to do so. What is your purpose of posting here?

 

[L The Detective]

You are still in "it can't be because mode" and comparing this to other CD's. You are trying to disprove the obvious.

Think outside the box.

Never mind. You are so fanatically tied to the Official Collapse Theory you can't do that.

I don't think that's true. It's just that the "official collapse theory" seems to be the most plausible theory, especially if you look at the big picture.