• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

3bodyproblem said:
Oh really? Care to explain how you arrived at "seven feet or so"?. I bet you don't even have a clue. I bet you don't even know what you are talking about here. I bet you are a total ignoramus when it comes to physics. I bet even under controlled conditions, you need to eat with a spoon. cuz...

My dick is like supersize
Your dick look like two fries
My dick more mass than the Earth
Your dick half staff (it needs work)

Blame Mickey Avalon :D
Click to expand...

Actually...

I eat peas with honey
I've done so all my life
I know it sounds quite funny
but it keeps them on the knife.
 
Another consideration that leads inevitably to the conclusion that a top-down gravitational collapse of the towers would be impossible is the fact that the columns tapered, and the steel supporting the structure and resisting the falling rubble would become thicker as the collapse progressed. The steel in some of the core columns was 5" thick near the bottom.

Let's suppose the towers had been 1010 floors high, so that after 110 floors had collapsed, about nine-tenths of the building remained standing below the collapse front and the steel in the columns was getting thicker and thicker. If the steel was 5" thick at the 900th floor, how thick would it be near the ground? Would the collapse still progress all the way down to the ground or would it be arrested at some point? Would the towers have collapsed even if they'd been 2 miles high? Has Dr. Greening done the maths?
 
bill smith said:
What about ' Mackeyite ' ? Although I generally use that title to describe a follower of the great Ryan Mackey just as I use ' Wiekling ' to describe a follower of the not-so-great Ron Wieke.
Click to expand...
Hi Bill,

I never noticed that you had hoards of followers yourself, infact I aint even seen another truther back you up. You are a total loon my man, several grapes short of a bunch.

You only need one picture, one piece of Video showing the huge fires to debunk the idea that they were only small and insignificant. I've seen plenty on this thread. How can you possibly see your argument as sustainable.
 
bardamu said:
Another consideration that leads inevitably to the conclusion that a top-down gravitational collapse of the towers would be impossible is the fact that the columns tapered, and the steel supporting the structure and resisting the falling rubble would become thicker as the collapse progressed. The steel in some of the core columns was 5" thick near the bottom.

Let's suppose the towers had been 1010 floors high, so that after 110 floors had collapsed, about nine-tenths of the building remained standing below the collapse front and the steel in the columns was getting thicker and thicker. If the steel was 5" thick at the 900th floor, how thick would it be near the ground? Would the collapse still progress all the way down to the ground or would it be arrested at some point? Would the towers have collapsed even if they'd been 2 miles high? Has Dr. Greening done the maths?
Click to expand...
You have to remember that even if the columsn get thicker, you have the whole rest of the building falling down, every collapsed floor adds to the total mass crushing down on the floor below. Once that thing got going nothing could stop it.
 
bardamu said:
Another consideration that leads inevitably to the conclusion that a top-down gravitational collapse of the towers would be impossible is the fact that the columns tapered, and the steel supporting the structure and resisting the falling rubble would become thicker as the collapse progressed. The steel in some of the core columns was 5" thick near the bottom.

Let's suppose the towers had been 1010 floors high, so that after 110 floors had collapsed, about nine-tenths of the building remained standing below the collapse front and the steel in the columns was getting thicker and thicker. If the steel was 5" thick at the 900th floor, how thick would it be near the ground? Would the collapse still progress all the way down to the ground or would it be arrested at some point? Would the towers have collapsed even if they'd been 2 miles high? Has Dr. Greening done the maths?
Click to expand...

Please work that out quantitatively. Equations please. The above analysis is qualitative and therefore pretty useless to support a conclusion that is quantitative.

Please take into account that the amount of kinetic energy available for collapse progression scales with the SQUARE of the distance d the collapse front progressed. As the amount of kinetic energy per unit of mass that is available is proportional to d AND the amount of falling mass is proportional to d.


You need to show that the steel becoming thicker with d outweighs Ekin = c * d2.


Good luck.
 
NutCracker said:
Please work that out quantitatively. Equations please. The above analysis is qualitative and therefore pretty useless to support a conclusion that is quantitative.

Please take into account that the amount of kinetic energy available for collapse progression scales with the SQUARE of the distance d the collapse front progressed. As the amount of kinetic energy per unit of mass that is available is proportional to d AND the amount of falling mass is proportional to d.


You need to show that the steel becoming thicker with d outweighs Ekin = c * d2.


Good luck.
Click to expand...

Since all or nearly all of his 1010 floors would still have been the SAME floor composition (4" slab on metal deck over long span joists) the floors would have collapsed just like WTC. And like WTC, some of the lower columns would have survived the initial collapse front to remain standing for at least a brief period. Some columns may have survived this secondary effect to higher levels, stripped of their floor slabs, simply because they had larger l/r ratios and didn't collapse under their own weight.
 
BadBoy said:
You have to remember that even if the columsn get thicker, you have the whole rest of the building falling down, every collapsed floor adds to the total mass crushing down on the floor below. Once that thing got going nothing could stop it.
Click to expand...

Sure there was almost no rubble in the footprint of WTC1. Didn't 15 people walk away in perfect safety from the middle of the footprint after the collapse ?

That makes it all the more interesting that we actually saw the Tower falling for the most part straight down. So where the heck did it all go ? Half a million tons....just gone ?
 
Last edited:
bardamu said:
Another consideration that leads inevitably to the conclusion that a top-down gravitational collapse of the towers would be impossible is the fact that the columns tapered, and the steel supporting the structure and resisting the falling rubble would become thicker as the collapse progressed. The steel in some of the core columns was 5" thick near the bottom.

Let's suppose the towers had been 1010 floors high, so that after 110 floors had collapsed, about nine-tenths of the building remained standing below the collapse front and the steel in the columns was getting thicker and thicker. If the steel was 5" thick at the 900th floor, how thick would it be near the ground? Would the collapse still progress all the way down to the ground or would it be arrested at some point? Would the towers have collapsed even if they'd been 2 miles high? Has Dr. Greening done the maths?
Click to expand...

The column strength does not matter. The weak points were the floor to column connections for the perimeter columns, and the column-to-column splices for the core ones. We've told you before: The failure modes in the main towers collapses involved the failure of the floors at their connections to the columns as well as the column connections to each other. We see this in the debris that was recovered. The splices between the floor trusses and the perimeter panels failed when the debris hit. This is demonstrated by the condition of the recovered truss seats:

NCSTAR 1-3 said:
The failure mode of spandrel connections on perimeter panels differed above and below the impact zone... Below the impact zone, it was more common for the spandrels to be ripped off from the panels. (This) may be due to shear failures as the weight of hte building during collapse came down on these lower panels.

... In both towers, most of the perimeter panel floor truss connectors (perimeter truss seats) below the impact floors were either missing or bent downward...

... In the recovered floor trusses, a large majority of the electric resistance welds at the web-to-chord connections failed. Failure of the connection between the floor truss and perimeter panel floor truss connectors was typically a result of the tab plate weld and bolt failure.
Click to expand...

This compromised the floors and pulled them downward, causing core columns to sever at their splice connections. At no time during the collapse were the columns able to resist in purely the vertical direction to begin with. Given the layout of the columns - arrayed around the perimeter, and forming an interior "tube" for the core - the majority of falling debris hit the floors themselves. They had to; they were not intact as a solid mass, and the majority of area available were the floors, not the cross sections of the columns. Once you overload the floors, you sever their connections to the perimeter columns and create an out-of-axis force on the core columns, pulling them inward and down and severing those where they connect to each other. At no time did the collective force of the upper sections spend itself on the columns alone, and at no time was this force on the columns purely vertical. On the contrary, most of it was well off the vertical axis. Because of this, it is moot to discuss the strength of the columns increasing as you get close to the ground. At no time were the collapse forces manifesting in a direction where the increasing colulmn cross sections mattered.

You need to study the collapse mechanisms and understand the failure modes. Your post once again betrays a complete lack of understanding about how the towers actually collapsed.
 
Last edited:
bardamu said:
They fell straight down, but the explosions blew debris well outside of the footprint.
Click to expand...

Explosions. GREAT.

Please provide any video evidence of explosions. Any explosions capable of "blew"ing "debris well outside the footprint" would be EASILY observable, and clearly audible on ALL of the videos from ground zero. Please provide any.

Any explosion capable of "blew" ing debris "well outside the footprint" would have thrown shrapnel across manhattan. It would have killed anyone who wasn't killed in the collapse, and would have shattered ALL of the windows within several hundred feet.

It should be reallllllllly easy to prove. Provide me with the medical reports showing hundreds of people hit by shrapnel... or with ruptured eardrums.
 
Last edited:
bardamu said:
Another consideration that leads inevitably to the conclusion ... <snipped as this is a derail attempt>
Click to expand...

No no no.

Bad truther. STay on topic. You were asked a simple question, and have tried to dodge around it. Stay on topic.

Did the towers (or wtc7 for that matter) fall into their own footprints.

It is an easy question, of which you tried to dodge by saying (paraphrasing)"they fell into their own footprint except for the stuff that was ejected by explosives ouside of their footprint."

that isn't answering the question. It is a dodge. Simple questions should have simple answers. Did they fall into their own footprints? Yes or no?
 
I missed it.
To me Dolomite is the stuff/calcium used to harden water in evaporation/desalination plants.:)
 
Isn't Dolomite that odd-tasting stuff made of yeast extract they put on toast in Australia?

Oh wait. That's Vegemite. Never mind
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom