Split Thread Was global collapse of WTC inevitable?

[Architect]

While there are always differences, plenty of buildings which have caught fire match the design of the towers far better than the heavenly simplified one dimensional models that are purported to prove fire brought down the towers.

Name them.

 

[kylebisme]

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.

NIST merely proclaimed that global collapse was inevitable, and nobody has produced even a simulation to come anywhere close to rightly verify that claim.

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.

Some notable examples from the video I'd meant to link (I've fixed the broken link); "heavy duty explosion," "an explosion blew and it knocked everybody over," "huge explosion," "it sounded as if you had a hundred of those Black Cats and you lit them all off at once... it sounded like the finale of the Fourth of July over the East River." It seems you want to tune such reports out as not sounding like explosives capable of bringing down the building while simultaneously arguing that no explosives were needed to bring down the building. Do you not recognise the contradiction inherent to that?

 

[kylebisme]

Name them.

Every steel framed high-rise that's ever caught fire matches the design of the towers far better than the heavily simplified one dimensional models that are purported to prove fire brought down the towers; the former being actual real world buildings rather than highly abstracted theoretical models. How could you imagine otherwise?

 

[carlitos]

So no free body diagram, and no names of other high rises which suffered similar fires. Color me surprised. I wonder how this whole incredulity act serves these guys in real life. Must make things tough at work or school. Imagine speaking to your spouse or partner like that.

 

[Furcifer]

NIST merely proclaimed that global collapse was inevitable, and nobody has produced even a simulation to come anywhere close to rightly verify that claim.

Again with the notion that you need a model to verify something. Where did you get this idea from?

It seems you want to tune such reports out as not sounding like explosives capable of bringing down the building while simultaneously arguing that no explosives were needed to bring down the building. Do you not recognise the contradiction inherent to that?

No, feel free to explain how the reports are contradictory to what would be expected if traditional demolition explosives were used.

Or are you one of these guys who insist the explosives were just there help it along. Just a mild use of explosives, just enough to implicate CD but not really be effective at doing what the fires did anyways?

 

[kylebisme]

Again with the notion that you need a model to verify something. Where did you get this idea from?

I leared it in elementry school, but I'll quote it from here:

The steps of the scientific method are to:

• Ask a Question
• Do Background Research
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
• Communicate Your Results

Note the fourth step in particular.

No, feel free to explain how the reports are contradictory to what would be expected if traditional demolition explosives were used.

Because they weren't traditional demolitions.

Or are you one of these guys who insist the explosives were just there help it along. Just a mild use of explosives, just enough to implicate CD but not really be effective at doing what the fires did anyways?

No, I'm quite sure fires can't do anything of the sort, even traditional controlled demolitions would have left the rubble more intact that what was done to the towers.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Every steel framed high-rise that's ever caught fire matches the design of the towers far better than the heavenly simplified one dimensional models that are purported to prove fire brought down the towers;

That's very nice that you believe real world buildings are "closer" analogues than computer models. But can you name an example, and explain in detail where they are sufficiently good comparables to the the WTC specifically? Can you name them? Can you describe how their structural framing designs are similar? Can you describe how the results might differ based on differences between them?

These are important details you need to be able outline.

 

[kylebisme]

That's very nice that you believe real world buildings are "closer" analogues than computer models.

Not inherently, but what computer model do you believe best depicts fires causing any building to come down anywhere near as quickly and completely as the towers did? Absent anything even close, the differences between the towers and other high-rises subjected to fires are trivial.

 

[Architect]

Every steel framed high-rise that's ever caught fire matches the design of the towers far better than the heavily simplified one dimensional models that are purported to prove fire brought down the towers; the former being actual real world buildings rather than highly abstracted theoretical models. How could you imagine otherwise?

Name them then.

 

[WTC Dust]

Why is it incredible?

If you are designing a bridge or a building or a ships hull you don't make it any stronger than it needs to be, that would be a waste of money, time and resources. People called Engineers do things called Calculations. This lets them work out the minimum they can safely get away with under the rules and regs when they build something. Sometimes things happen to bridges, buildings and ships that are unexpected our outside their design papameters.

When this happens they fall down, collapse or sink.
When this happens there is an investigation to find the cause. Then when the next bridge, building or ship is built the Engineers doing it can take the new information into account and work out the minimum they can safely get away with under the new rules and regs.

Colin CHapman Founder and Designer of Lotus Cars used to say the perfecc racecar should fall to pieces as it crosses the finish line. Anything else was over engineering. He won lots of Grand Prix championships and Le Mans races.
What's so hard to understand?

Buildings and bridges are over-designed to account for rare, but expected weather events. You don't build a something barely sturdy enough for normal use. You build it extra strong, for safety.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Not inherently, but what computer model do you believe best depicts a fires causing any building to come down anywhere near as quickly and completely as the towers did?

If you don't think computer models are sufficient you're more than free to point out examples which you believe most closely model the WTC. All I'm asking is for you to outline which ones, and any limitations that might arise from some details in them being different.

Absent anything even close, the differences between the towers and other high-rises subjected to fires are trivial.

Interesting... So do you think these different structural systems function the same way?

 

[Furcifer]

I leared it in elementry school, but I'll quote it from here:


Note the fourth step in particular.


Because they weren't traditional demolitions.


No, I'm quite sure fires can't do anything of the sort, even traditional controlled demolitions would have left the rubble more intact that what was done to the towers.

Ahh I see, so you think the scientific method is to challenge the accepted and essentially force a "do over".

You've got the right idea, you've just got it backwards. If you want to challenge the fact that the WTC buildings fell due to fires alone feel free to construct a model and prove otherwise.

That's the scientific method.

The fact that you're quite certain fire couldn't do such and such carries as much weight as your certainty of god or that 1 and 1 isn't 2. In 9 years the so called Truth movement hasn't convinced a single person in authority. And we're talking about nailing the US government to the wall for one of the most heinous crimes ever committed against a nations people! I'd personally like to get to the "Truth" if there was even the faintest possibility of exposing Bush and his crooked ways. Unfortunately, there's not even a hint of evidence to support any wronging doing by the government on 9/11 beyond the usual S.O.P. It's so easily debunked only the biggest US haters, that because of their lack of education and experience can claim ignorance on everything they've been told would actually attach their name to the truth movement.

You simply can't have anything to lose by looking like a fool to subscribe to this conspiracy. And that includes politicians who routinely claim ignorance and make fools of themselves!

I mean you could find more politicians willing to legalize cocaine and prostitution for 14 year olds than you can to Controlled Demolition of the WTC by the US government

 

[WTC Dust]

Let me get this straight: ergo's theory is that X pounds of rubble is somehow significantly less destructive than an X pound solid block of the same material?

I'm tempted to ask him to prove his theory by asking him to drop 500 lbs of sand on his head and survive, but I'm afraid that he'd be dumb enough to actually try it.

If the sand was in a bag, it would hurt more than if the sand was free flowing.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

If the sand was in a bag, it would hurt more than if the sand was free flowing.

The impact force deals with the time frame in which all of the "loose particles" for lack of better wording hit over a given surface area. A better way of phrasing it is would you rather get git by 20 pounds of sand over 30 seconds vs the same amount in the span of half a second? In the latter the impact is more analogous with being hit with a solid object.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

If the sand was in a bag, it would hurt more than if the sand was free flowing.

perhaps a little but if its enough to crush you to the ground (and it would be) or crush the next floor down its a moot point. If its a static loading of course there would be no difference at all between the sand in the bag or as loose pile.

 

[triforcharity]

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?

Really? Name them.

 

[triforcharity]

If the sand was in a bag, it would hurt more than if the sand was free flowing.

Do you need to have the math explained to you too?

 

[beachnut]

If the sand was in a bag, it would hurt more than if the sand was free flowing.

What does sand have to do with your 911 delusions? Details please.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

If you hold the scientific method in such high regard (especially step 4 as you listed them above) then why do you ignore over 100 years of experiments involving the reaction of steel structures to fire? Do you think that they were all wrong? Do you think that NIST and others didn't refer to them when looking at the WTC? Do you think that they have no applicability to the buildings? If so, why? If not then why do you think that they should've redone experiments that have already been done dozens (if not hundreds) of times previous by various governmental and private entities from all over the world with the same results every time?

There were some questions that were unanswered regarding the specific type trusses used and experiments were done. Those had to do with the SFRM application and fire resistance though, not whether or not the steel would (not could, would) fail due to uncombated fires. That experiment had already been done and the results were well known. Did you expect them to reinvent the wheel?

 

[1337m4n]

You are not being fair beachnut. Your video completely contradicts their delusions. That's cheating.