Split Thread Was global collapse of WTC inevitable?

[Architect]

Why would I know this already? Why would the mods care who you are? And if you're claiming to be from Arup, why not just state your name? Are you embarrassed to be a bee dunker?

1. Because MM recently tried to claim that I wasn't an architect, here in the CT section, and it was dealt with at some length. Clearly you're very selective in your reading.

2. Show me where I claimed to be with Arup, please.

3. Because the last thing I can't be arsed with Truthers spamming me at work.

Now, we still seem to be missing you over at the "physics" thread. Is there a reason ypu're so reluctant not to argue your case there?

 

[carlitos]

Could someone please link the 'physics thread?' I've been traveling and missed it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=190451

 

[ergo]

I wish this had any relevance to what happened on 9/11, but aside from the fact that a building falling down due to explosives looks like a building falling down due to sustained fires, there is none. When a building falls down, it looks like a building falling down. The fact is the thunderous sound of explosives is missing from the WTC collapse. Some of you acknowledge this and say they must have been silent, some of you insist the entire population of lower Manhattan just tuned it out. The latter explanation is just ridiculous.

You might have had a point here if there weren't already testimonials as well as video documentation of people, including live news reports at the time, using the word "explosion" to describe what they hear.

Hardly faith and I resent that. I looked into the idea that the collapse need some outside assistance, crunched some of the numbers myself, and came the resounding conclusion that you can't drop an 11 storey building 3 stories onto another building and expect it to hold up.

You can't do it. It doesn't matter how big the building is underneath it, you can't drop a building onto another building like was done on 9/11. It's not even close to possible. If you do the entire building will collapse.

Have you discussed this revelation with any controlled demolition professionals? I think they would be very interested in the implications.

 

[carlitos]

Some "revelation."

 

[ergo]

Go ahead and try that on 80 or 90 floors, carlitos. Or even 40 floors.

And then try to do that with a natural cause like fire. Let us know how it works out.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Go ahead and try that on 80 or 90 floors, carlitos. Or even 40 floors.

And then try to do that with a natural cause like fire. Let us know how it works out.

You don't understand Fire Science, therefore you are clueless!

 

[carlitos]

Perhaps someone could draw a free body diagram of 11 floors impacting 80 or 90 stories vs. 11 stories impacting ... less stories I guess, so that I might understand the forces involved and how they differ.

 

[ergo]

Because there would be no difference between 11 storeys crushing down 80 and 11 storeys crushing down, say, another 11 storeys?

Because you believe that 11 storeys is the critical mass necessary to destroy any height of building?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Ergo, do you believe progressive collapse is impossible?

 

[Furcifer]

You might have had a point here if there weren't already testimonials as well as video documentation of people, including live news reports at the time, using the word "explosion" to describe what they hear.

You might have a point if "explosion" meant "explosives". It doesn't, it means "a very loud noise", but does not begin to describe the source. That's another irrefutable fact that you can only twist on conspiracy sheep. They want to believe "explosion" means "explosives". Most have never had the fortune of being near a CD went it goes off. It's beyond loud, it's Earth shattering. It's explosion with!!! If the guy in the elevator heard an explosion from explosives, he wouldn't describe it as a "thud". The fact that you don't know this is just one of many willful ignorance's we see common among the want to be CD believers.

But you keep trying to tell yourself you know more than the thousands of people that were there that don't question what they heard as anything more than the building falling down. This type of assertions makes CT's look like complete fools, the smart ones at least evoke "thermite".

Have you discussed this revelation with any controlled demolition professionals? I think they would be very interested in the implications.

lol, the guys doing Verinage are "farting in your general direction, you smarty pants, you!".

edit: for the record, I saw carlitos post after I posted this

 

[Furcifer]

Because there would be no difference between 11 storeys crushing down 80 and 11 storeys crushing down, say, another 11 storeys?

Because you believe that 11 storeys is the critical mass necessary to destroy any height of building?

No, again your obvious lack of physics exposes you to ridicule.

It depends on the kinetic energy of the impacting mass. You could actually cause a global collapse of the entire WTC using 1 storey!

Would you like to know more? [click here]

 

[kylebisme]

I wish this had any relevance to what happened on 9/11, but aside from the fact that a building falling down due to explosives looks like a building falling down due to sustained fires, there is none.

Again, you've got squat for examples outside your faith that the WTC buildings fell due to fire to support that claim. There are plenty of high-rises that have been subjected to sustained fires and remain standing or only partially collapsed, but not even a simulation to show fire being able to bring a building down anywhere near as completely or quickly as the WTC buildings came down.

The fact is the thunderous sound of explosives is missing from the WTC collapse... some of you insist the entire population of lower Manhattan just tuned it out.

You are tuning out lots of reports of explosions, a good compilation of some here:

The Verinage demolition technique proves you wrong.

No, my point stands for the Verinage demolition; if they pushed out a lower section of the building, there would be more weight falling, and hence they wouldn't need to push out as large of a section to get a complete demolition.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Again, you've got squat for examples outside your faith that the WTC buildings fell due to fire to support that claim. There are plenty of high-rises that have been subjected to sustained fires and remain standing or only partially collapsed, but not even a simulation to show fire being able to bring a building down anywhere near as completely or quickly as the WTC buildings came down.

No, my point stands for the Verinage demolition; if they pushed out a lower section of the building, there would be more weight falling, and hence they wouldn't need to push out as large of a section to get a complete demolition.

There aren't examples of the WTCs' any where in the world. No buildings can't match the structural supports of the Towers. So how can you compare something that isn't comparable?

The WTCs' fell because of a combination of the damage from the planes & the ignited fuel. The fuel then made everything on those floors burn. We're talking office fires that are out of control. Of course, you're not a firefighter to understand the complex nature of fire, there's firefighters on this forum who knows all about fire & what it can do to steel structures. You are not qualified enough to make a hasty judgement call.

Verinage demolition didn't happen, Tony Szamboti made the same claim & he hasn't given anyone on this forum any evidence to support that theory.

 

[beachnut]

Again, you've got squat for examples outside your faith that the WTC buildings fell due to fire to support that claim. There are plenty of high-rises that have been subjected to sustained fires and remain standing or only partially collapsed, but not even a simulation to show fire being able to bring a building down anywhere near as completely or quickly as the WTC buildings came down.


You are tuning out lots of reports of explosions, a good compilation of some here:




...

One of many dumb videos with moronic claims. You can't prove anything you claim. You use hearsay as your evidence, big time failure.
You have morons saying moronic lies and you fell for it. Sorry, you are wrong about fire, and your sources are idiots; there is nothing you can do to make your delusions true. 9 years of failure, going for 10, you got it made.

A huge explosion near the end, is the tower collapsing, the sound of a building falling. Failure! Sound of collapse, is not sounds of explosives. oops

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

This whole 9/11 Conspiracy Theory is just turning out like the JFK Assasination Conspiracy Theories.

How long do we have before this world is over-run by lunatics, paranoid schizophrentics & stupidity? God, it reminds me of watching that movie called: "Idiocracy"

 

[Furcifer]

Again, you've got squat for examples outside your faith that the WTC buildings fell due to fire to support that claim. There are plenty of high-rises that have been subjected to sustained fires and remain standing or only partially collapsed, but not even a simulation to show fire being able to bring a building down anywhere near as completely or quickly as the WTC buildings came down.

Which is a direct result of them being two of the most unique buildings in the world. You're working with an untestable hypothesis. I may as well say the Whitehouse is indestructible, impervious to missile attack because of it's white paint.

There's nothing to compare them to directly, that's why NIST was tasked with finding out what happened. NIST did a very conclusive job of showing that the fires weakened the structure and global collapse ensued. This was verified numerous times by several independent sources. This is more than enough evidence in the real world. CT's like yourself have made unrealistic expectations of how things should be tested and it's laughable. You have no experience whatsoever in accident investigation or structural engineering. That makes you insignificant. Coming here to the JREF and going on the internet, that makes you feel significant because we entertain you and your delusions. Don't take this personally, I'm just trying to explain to you why you've failed for the past 9 years at accomplishing anything as part of a "movement".

You are tuning out lots of reports of explosions, a good compilation of some here:

No I'm not, I realize people reported hearing "explosions". What you are tuning out, perhaps because you don't know, perhaps because you don't want to know, is that nobody has reported hearing the type of "explosions" you want to hear.

I don't know if you've heard fireworks going off in the downtown of a big city, but these small black powder explosives rock the the sky. People describe these as explosions, and these can be felt. The type of explosives used in CD's are that much louder, especially in the downtown. If explosives were used in the WTC there is absolutely no doubt everyone would know. Everyone. This ignorance of such basic facts about how things really work, at this point 9 years later, is just that, ignorance. You just don't have any clue. This is why people invented thermite, don't you understand that?

 

[Architect]

Again, you've got squat for examples outside your faith that the WTC buildings fell due to fire to support that claim.

With respect, that's blatantly false. We have significant evidence of widespread fire in conjunction with evidence such as the deformation of the external envelope. In contrast, however, we have no evidence of exotic explosive-type materials.

There are plenty of high-rises that have been subjected to sustained fires and remain standing or only partially collapsed

1. Name them. Comparable structures, mind.

2. Partially collapsed? So you admit that collapse is possible then?

but not even a simulation to show fire being able to bring a building down anywhere near as completely or quickly as the WTC buildings came down..

Sorry, but that seems based on severely mistaken assumptions regarding the design and performance of the WTC structures.

 

[kylebisme]

There aren't examples of the WTCs' any where in the world. No buildings can't match the structural supports of the Towers. So how can you compare something that isn't comparable?

While there are always differences, plenty of buildings which have caught fire match the design of the towers far better than the heavily simplified one dimensional models that are purported to prove fire brought down the towers. Again, if the official story for how the towers came down had any basis in reality, if those one dimensional models could be expanded to 3D models to demonstrate as much, but nearly a decade on nobody has even come close to doings as much, have they?

 

[jhunter1163]

Because there would be no difference between 11 storeys crushing down 80 and 11 storeys crushing down, say, another 11 storeys?

No, there wouldn't be any difference. There could be 10,000 stories underneath and the result would be the same. Resistive strength is not additive. The 11-story descending block is falling on the highest floor of the lower block, whether that's the 12th or 79th or 9,988th floor of the building. And if that one single floor can't withstand the dynamic load, it fails and adds its mass to the descending load. Repeat for as many floors as exist below the descending load.