The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

tempesta29 said:
Dave, what the hell are you talking about, really? Acceleration itself is a process, by definition. The deformation process that is buckling always involves motion. Not only do you fail at your own game of semantics, you have the nerve to be condescending as well. Congrats.
Click to expand...

Read a physics textbook.
 
tempesta29 said:
Buckling can in fact be characterized by a single acceleration: the downward acceleration of the load beginning at the onset of failure. The buckling itself isn't being measured; it's the acceleration of its associated load.
Click to expand...
Wow..........That's deep!


:rolleyes:



Now care to relate this to your problem at hand? You know WTC7.
 
tempesta29 said:
Sure, AFTER the column fractures then it loses all of its load bearing capacity, so during that process, until that fracturing occurs, the columns still have load bearing capacity, YET in the case of WTC 7, over roughly 8 floors there was no resistance.
Click to expand...
No *measurable* resistance (based on visibly measured acceleration).

tempesta29 said:
There was no load bearing capacity across those floors. Know what will immediately remove all load bearing capacity of a column? Controlled charges. So what fits the bill? Certainly not buckling.
Click to expand...
That's because after Stage 1, the structural failures associated with the collapse had nothing to do with buckling. They were various joint failures.

As soon as the load became dynamic, the structure (built only for static loading) provided no measurable resistance (based on visibly measured acceleration).
 
tempesta29 said:
Buckling can in fact be characterized by a single acceleration: the downward acceleration of the load beginning at the onset of failure. The buckling itself isn't being measured; it's the acceleration of its associated load.
Click to expand...
The observed downward acceleration of the north face associated with column buckling was SLOW. Stop hand-waving that fact away.
 
tempesta29 said:
Once again, buckling occurs when a column begins to fail. Are you claiming that a column can buckle without motion? You're not? Okay, good. Buckling produces motion--always. Nowhere did I claim that failure is a motion. If you want to get into little schoolyard games of semantics, then start another thread dedicated to wasting time.
Click to expand...

You contradict yourself a bit here. In the first sentence you claim that "buckling occurs when a column begins to fail". Then you claim that "buckling produces motion". Since buckling is, by your comment part of column failure and that buckling always produces motion then failure, by your definition, is a motion is well. Then you immediately claim that failure is not a motion. Semantics? Yes it is, but when you make contradictory remarks such as this it is hard to argue with you since we really don't understand what exactly is your POV.

Sure, AFTER the column fractures then it loses all of its load bearing capacity, so during that process, until that fracturing occurs, the columns still have load bearing capacity, YET in the case of WTC 7, over roughly 8 floors there was no resistance. There was no load bearing capacity across those floors. Know what will immediately remove all load bearing capacity of a column? Controlled charges. So what fits the bill? Certainly not buckling.
Click to expand...

A column does not require fracturing to fail. Fracturing can be a result of a failure and fracturing can initiate a failure, such as in a controlled demo, but it is not fundamental in column failure. A column can fail if it overloaded or if the load moves over the centre of gravity.

In the case of 7 WTC evidence of the perimeter columns leaning or buckling is the kink and, on the west side, the lean off the perpendicular. The the west and east were essentially leaning towards and somewhat supporting each other. That is until the west penthouse/interior began to give way and further push perimeter columns off centre to a point where those columns were no longer carrying the weight up the upper portion of the building.

Once that upper load was of the centre of gravity the failure of the columns was inevitable.
 
Last edited:
temp - why are you so stuck on the buckling nonsense?

It's documented that the support beams sheered (ie: disconnected) away from the supports. When that happens, buckling has exactly zero to do with the failing building.
 
dtugg said:
Do you have any examples of many members of the government conspiring together to commit high treason and keeping the secret indefinitely?
Click to expand...

Regardless of anyone's position; This is a stupid question for very obvious reasons.
 
Sabretooth said:
temp - why are you so stuck on the buckling nonsense?

It's documented that the support beams sheered (ie: disconnected) away from the supports. When that happens, buckling has exactly zero to do with the failing building.
Click to expand...

Documented how? You mean it was written down after being assumed? The north face, structurally, is completely intact during collapse. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. The columns that make up the north face, for 2.25 seconds, were unable to resist collapse to any degree. There is no logical reason for this.
 
tempesta29 said:
Documented how? You mean it was written down after being assumed? The north face, structurally, is completely intact during collapse. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. The columns that make up the north face, for 2.25 seconds, were unable to resist collapse to any degree. There is no logical reason for this.
Click to expand...
What about the ~10 seconds before that?
 
tempesta29 said:
Documented how? You mean it was written down after being assumed?
Click to expand...
I'm curious as to how you reconcile this:

NIST "assumed" what world-class experts in the engineering community with their years of experience, direct observation, calculations and FEA told them.

Do you ever drive across a bridge or go into tall buildings? Why do you "assume" that these structures, based on standards set by NIST, will not fail?
 
tempesta29 said:
NIST records the entire north face roofline as descending at gravitational acceleration, meaning all columns failed completely and simultaneously, and did so without delay. Please explain how this result can be achieved without controlled explosives.
Click to expand...
Why do you refuse to read the report?

This is completely erroneous. Stage 1 is a slow curve.

Please explain how this CAN be achieved WITH controlled explosives.
 
tempesta29 said:
The north face, structurally, is completely intact during collapse. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

Piffle.

There's a sodding great kink in it. It's damaged by definition.
 
GlennB said:
Piffle.

There's a sodding great kink in it. It's damaged by definition.
Click to expand...

I misspoke. Obviously the north face isn't perfectly intact during collapse because it's collapsing and is therefore being destroyed. I mean the north face just prior to the onset of collapse. There is nothing to indicate that some structural failure has occurred to the north face columns before its roofline descends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom