Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

Java Man said:
Laughing? Really? You must hire x-engineers. With xray vision or similar skills. How are they going to know the thickness of a steel column from the outside? Drill a hole and find out? Are you paying them like a buck an hour to afford that amount of lost time. Are they going to drill a hole in every column to figure that out? Or just assume all columns are the same?
Click to expand...
What shape do you think structural steel comes in?
 
Java Man said:
More so carlitos, to my understanding, misrepresents the information. As he says "modeling to analyze how the buildings collapsed". Which is a partial truth. According to debunkers here the analysis was made to determine the initial collapse, but the actual fall was not analyzed. So what started the collapse is known. What allowed it to continue in such a vertical manner is not fully analyzed. Actually according to your camp it is practically un-analyzed and just assumed to be so.
Click to expand...

Which is, of course, an even more damning counter-argument to the truther fantasy that the collapse of the towers was precisely engineered to take place in the exact way it did. After literally years of analysis using state-of-the-art hardware and software, NIST were only able to analyse the quasi-static response of the buildings with any accuracy. The dynamic response of WTC1 and 2, they had the sense not to even address; they modelled the collapse of WTC7 and got a result that roughly captured the coarse features, but looked quite different in fine details, as anybody would have predicted. Which just goes to support carlitos's real point, which is that planning this stuff simply can't be done with the level of accuracy that truthers blithely assume, your bizarre derail about blueprints notwithstanding.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
I hate to think how incompetent your engineers are, if they can't even identify which are the major structural members without blueprints to refer to.

Dave
Click to expand...

Considerably more "incompetent" than yours who can figure out such marvelous things as internal composition, thickness and weight just by looking at it. They must belong to some branch of the College of Augurs dating back to ancient Rome.
 
Java Man said:
More so carlitos, to my understanding, misrepresents the information. As he says "modeling to analyze how the buildings collapsed". Which is a partial truth. According to debunkers here the analysis was made to determine the initial collapse, but the actual fall was not analyzed. So what started the collapse is known. What allowed it to continue in such a vertical manner is not fully analyzed. Actually according to your camp it is practically un-analyzed and just assumed to be so.
Click to expand...

Sorry, before answering this I have to be quite clear: do you have any understanding of structural engineering at all?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Which just goes to support carlitos's real point, which is that planning this stuff simply can't be done with the level of accuracy that truthers blithely assume, your bizarre derail about blueprints notwithstanding.

Dave
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

Months and years of FEA to find out the cause of initial failure, which ended up being a particular column in a particular set of circumstances.

The data needed to conduct this analysis included the observations made during building failure.

Comparing "blueprints" to "actual observation of the building failure" in order to come up with a theory whereby the building could be demolished by compromising a few columns is inane.

For the reading-impaired:
  1. WTC7 was hit by flaming debris and set on fire
  2. WTC7 sagged and leaned
  3. People thought it would collapse
  4. It collapsed
  5. Data were observed
  6. Modeling took place
  7. A theory of how the collapse was initiated was presented
  8. A column was identified to have failed first

Before item 4, you could not have known item 8. It wasn't on the blueprints, nor would it have been learned without the data from the collapse itself. It's circular reasoning.

Now, could someone, in theory, have a set of WTC7 plans and spent years conducting FEA to figure out which column to compromise? In theory, yes. Would such an analysis have included the exact locations of debris impacting the building and the exact damage resultant fire occurring after a hijacker crashes a freaking jumbo jet into the building next door? Obviously, no. This is fantasyland stuff, assuming models with a zillion variables have all been carefully crafted to engineer this sinister collapse of an irrelevant building named after an investment bank.

Not to mention the thousands of people that would have to be "in on" the scenario above, which is hand-waved away by conspiracists who cannot think logically. (ETA - also not to mention the fact that, even if the column were known, NIST calculated the minimum epxlosion to compromise even that one column and that was not observed either)

ETA - For simplicity's sake, the above relates to WTC7. A modified version would be true for WTC 1 and 2, with a few minor changes. Chaotic collapse via the compromise of a few structural elements couldn't be simulated without prior knowledge of exactly how plane crash would affect thing. Claiming it could have been is a fantasy.
 
Last edited:
sabretooth47 said:
I am not sure. I will have to look.
Click to expand...

Oh really, why dOn't yOu gO have a lOOK and cOme back tO us.

Here's sOme help

WTCTorchAngleCuts1-full.jpg
 
Java Man said:
First of all I think you meant "relevant", not "relevent". So before taking time to make comments about ESL I'd suggest you take time to proofread your post or use something to check your spelling.

.
Click to expand...


Welll good then, English is in fact your first language I take it.

Then address the point I made, a few pages back now, concerning your contention that the supposed conspirators were concerned about limiting destruction.

jaydeehess said:
Tell me again why persons who can expect up to 50,000 dead (the approx max occupancy of the WTC) would care if that number were instead 75,000 or 150,000 or if instead of 10 totally destroyed structures it was 20 or 30?
Click to expand...

Indeed if limiting destruction were a concern then they would have simply allowed the aircraft impacts and maybe partial collapse(loss of 10 -20 storeys in the towers) with an estimate of an upper bound of 5 buildings destroyed and 5,000 deaths.

What the hell, establishing a grounds for war would only take the combined deaths of those on the planes.
 
Last edited:
Still waiting for some evidence that the explosion sounds that people in the buildings heard was the sound of bodies hitting the ground, as Beachnut claims here from some website that can't be verified.
 
ergo said:
Still waiting for some evidence that the explosion sounds that people in the buildings heard was the sound of bodies hitting the ground, as Beachnut claims here from some website that can't be verified.
Click to expand...

Widely reported in the news of the day. It's mentioned in Report from Ground Zero by Smith (pgs 74 and 124). The sound is captured in Naudet's 9/11 and once you know what the noise is, it's disgusting. It does sound like an explosion, if a small one.
 
daws59 said:
Did'nt I just post that? or am I dreaming?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Instead of dreaming, how's about posting some real evidence that bombs exploded in, at or near the Trade Center. And no similes.

Eta: Oops, sorry, I got confused :o

(Eta 2: But there was no need for the roll eyes)

But then this goes for Ergo...

Ergo, how's about posting some real evidence that bombs exploded in, at or near the Trade Center. And no similes.
 
Last edited:
Bell said:
Instead of dreaming, how's about posting some real evidence that bombs exploded in, at or near the Trade Center. And no similes.

Eta: Oops, sorry, I got confused :o

(Eta 2: But there was no need for the roll eyes)

But then this goes for Ergo...

Ergo, how's about posting some real evidence that bombs exploded in, at or near the Trade Center. And no similes.
Click to expand...

I did because it was unnecessary! :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom