Why do you still believe that a collapse due to fire wouldn't be possible?

[Derek Johnson]

LIE! You have no clue. The rubble from the WTC was tons of STEEL, like the elephant and the feather, you don't know physics.

The time for collapse based on momentum is just over 12 seconds - this is physics and you don't grasp physics do you make up a moronic wood analogy when the WTC towers are made of steel. FAIL

Why expose your complete ignorance using failed dolts as your source? Fire did it you can't grasp reality of fire, you post more delusions to support your failed physics, and prove it!

Your good estimate is based on your lack of knowledge of physics; this is funny, too bad you can't figure and out and think you are smart at this.

Fire is the topic, I would avoid your moronic physics analogies in the future. wow

who Stundied this?

wow, the post above is more failed physics; you have no clue. wow

if you bring up physics, you need to know physics. Wow

Do you know physics beachnut? If so, why have you held back for sooooo long?

Just asking...

 

[excaza]

Hmmm, so I guess if you were to burn a campfire all night in morning the remaining ash would weigh the same as all the wood you threw on the fire huh? fascinating

If you capture the CO₂ as well, then yes, it would. But combustion isn't the same as a collision, nor is it the same as melting, so your analogy doesn't really work on any level.

 

[Carlos]

You don't know that. It might have just been water from WORKING sprinklers running down the stairs.

Was the plumbing made of adamantium?

 

[TJM]

You don't know that. It might have just been water from WORKING sprinklers running down the stairs.

Yet the fires burned uncontrolled.

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

If you capture the CO₂ as well, then yes, it would. But combustion isn't the same as a collision, nor is it the same as melting, so your analogy doesn't really work on any level.

So then why did NIST go to the trouble to try and measure the mass lost as result of the fire? Don't you even know your own story?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It turns out that "Jolt Talk" has some convincing arguments along with the time period I'm interested in. If there is no jolt/s at the start of the collapse then surely there wasn't the gravitational/fire collapse as told in the original story.

The "jolt" speak is a bastardized literal application of a limiting case model whose scope examines an extreme case biased in favor of collapse arrest. When people try to apply an idealized model to a non-idealized reality as if the former were reality instead I don't pay much attention to them. What's the point of the discussion if you're not able to read and understand the documentation you cite?

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

Was the plumbing made of adamantium?

I would imagine it was made of something that could at least do well in a fire complete with backup systems.

 

[TJM]

I would imagine it was made of something that could at least do well in a fire complete with backup systems.

What backup systems?

 

[fuelair]

Truthers,

Consider these two statements:

A - Fire can bring down steel structures buildings like Twin Towers.

B - The Twin Towers collapse was a controlled demolition.

It is quite possible to believe that both statements are true. If you believe that "B" is true you don't need to believe "A" is false.

In other words, if you believe there is sufficient evidence that explosives were used in the towers, it does not mean that you have to believe that the collapse due to fire would be impossible.

So what are the arguments that support the claim that fire can not bring down buildings?

Before answering, let me remind you some facts:

1 - Steel does lose strength at high temperatures.

2 - The fire protection were removed from the truss on the floors where the impact occurred.

3 - It is not necessary to remove all fire protection to make the structure susceptible to fire.

4 - The failure of a structural element can cause the failure of others.

5 - Progressive collapse does exist.

This thread is not about evidence of controlled demolition nor NIST findings. It's about arguments that support the claim the towers (WTC 1 and 2) couldn't have collapsed due to fire.

Because they are dumber than rocks pretty well covers it.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

The "jolt" speak is a bastardized literal application of a limiting case model whose scope examines an extreme case biased in favor of collapse arrest. When people try to apply an idealized model to a non-idealized reality as if the former were reality instead I don't pay much attention to them. What's the point of the discussion if you're not able to read and understand the documentation you cite?

idealized meaning the model was based on a video that wasn't close enough or what?

 

[Patriots4Truth]

It turns out that "Jolt Talk" has some convincing arguments along with the time period I'm interested in. If there is no jolt/s at the start of the collapse then surely there wasn't the gravitational/fire collapse as told in the original story.

Jolt Talk youtube part 1
Jolt Talk youtube part 2

It appears that there was no jolt/s. I smell explosives

I understand these youtubes perfectly Grizzily Bear. What part of them is idealized?

 

[Carlos]

I would imagine it was made of something that could at least do well in a fire complete with backup systems.

what about the explosion?

 

[excaza]

So then why did NIST go to the trouble to try and measure the mass lost as result of the fire? Don't you even know your own story?

Reading comprehension isn't your forte, is it?

 

[T.A.M.]

I'm sorry if I somehow misled you. I'm only interested in the speed/acceleration of the collapse up to when the collapses reached that steady drop rate around freefall speed.

-------------------------

It turns out that "Jolt Talk" has some convincing arguments along with the time period I'm interested in. If there is no jolt/s at the start of the collapse then surely there wasn't the gravitational/fire collapse as told in the original story.

Jolt Talk youtube part 1
Jolt Talk youtube part 2

It appears that there was no jolt/s. I smell explosives

Well I smell something besides explosives...nuff said.

TAM

 

[TexasJack]

It appears that there was no jolt/s. I smell explosives

The dogs that are trained to smell explosives sure didn't.

 

[Longfellow]

I believe there is a reason why it has taken a while for everything to be published. The timing has to be right for a case as huge as this one.

You keep telling yourself that, Patriots4Truth, just as you've been telling yourself for who knows how long. "The timing has to be right". Tell yourself that every month from now until next September when it will be 10 years since the attacks. Tell yourself that until the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th anniversaries come and go. Keep telling yourself that. "The timing has to be right".

Even if someone were able to codify the many disparate theories of the '911 truth movement' down to one coherent narrative (which hasn't happened yet) the eponymous 'movement' will never be more than the fringe of the fringe of the fringe. I'd like to think that you and your ilk will eventually fade into obscurity but that may well be optimistic to the point of foolishness.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

idealized meaning the model was based on a video that wasn't close enough or what?

Video = reality = non-ideal, non-axial impacts = more optimistic to collapse progression = smaller "jolt"

Bazant simplified limiting case model = model = ideal, axial end to end column impacts = more optimistic to collapse arrest = larger "jolt"

 

[Patriots4Truth]

If there was no statistically significant jolt during the first 1st floor of collapse, 2nd subsequent floor collapse, 3rd subsequent floor collapse OR 4th subsequent floor collapse for each building then we would need information on why a certain floor or floors of the initial pancaking didn't cause any significant jolt (to determine a significant jolt size we would need to look at the initial jolts in the collapse of other steel framed buildings - perhaps those of Vérinage collapse).

The initial period of collapse is most important (in Jolt CT) because that is when the controlled demolition would most likely have gone off. It is also the period where there would be the greatest resistance coming from the upward force of the "bottom block" of each WTC building. You would expect to see small to large jolts unless entire floor/s were "vaporized" allowing the "upper block" to miss contact with the top floor/s of the bottom block.

So in theory, the jolt test would be good to figure out whether there was a controlled demolition of the "floor vaporizing" variety.

 

[Architect]

Did someone suggest that the floors vapourised? Really? I mean, seriously?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

If there was no statistically significant jolt during the first 1st floor of collapse, 2nd subsequent floor collapse, 3rd <<snip for brevity>> It is also the period where there would be the greatest resistance coming from the upward force of the "bottom block" of each WTC building.

It's not a difficult concept; axial load into an eccentric load.

I get the impression you didn't even read the post you responded to. You just locked on to a single word and assumed, then jumped into fantasyland with floor vaporization.