Building demolished from the top down.

[triforcharity]

Huh? "heat from the fires" absorbed faster? What are you taking about? It is you who doesn't seem to understand this. A thicker core is capable of absorbing more heat per each degree in temperature change and also has a wider channel to dissipate heat to floors above and below the fire zone.

Please explain to us your claim that heat from similar fires would have been absorbed (allow for such a term) faster in one building than the other if both are made of the same material. Take into consideration I'm talking about dissipating heat away from the fire zone and not about the rate the heat from the fire is transfered to the floor structure.

You still are missing the point completly.

The connections between the floors and the core columns would not conduct enough heat to make a difference either way.

Notice in your heat sink pictures, they use a comparable size COPPER connection to the sink from the heat source. There is a reason for that.

It's called thermal conductivity, and it is quite simple.

 

[Java Man]

4. how do you do all of this with no one noticing?

Simple, I wouldn't. That's the whole point of the video. The more it is proven that less explosives are needed to maintain a sustained collapse the less proving all that you list is needed.

 

[Java Man]

Yes, but the problem is here Java, is that steel heating to a certain temperature with a load of 100 pounds is going to collapse before something with only 50 pounds.

But you see the floor panels weight the same all across the WTC. Load varies on the columns, but that was stated here as not relevant because they were not the cause of the collapse. They were affected by the sagging and the buckling then lead to the collapse. But the sagging, culprit of it all, depends on floor temperature and weight which is the same on both impact points.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Obviously he didn't explicitly state it, but what would you expect he meant but we saw that day! Or are you implying he meant different times from those that actually occurred?

He meant exactly what he said: the tower with damage lower in the structure collapsed sooner that the tower with damage higher in the structure, and that this was excepted. Nothing more, nothing less.

That you insist on reading more meaning into those words than is actually there is nothing more than a symptom of whatever flaw in your brain also results in your seeing conspiracies where none exist.

 

[triforcharity]

The outer colums on the 100th floor carried the same weight as the ones on the 10th? Who ****** knew!?!?!?

 

[Java Man]

He meant exactly what he said: the tower with damage lower in the structure collapsed sooner that the tower with damage higher in the structure, and that this was excepted. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes and I challenged that claim because there is no compelling reason to believe that based on the official report.

 

[triforcharity]

You need an official report to understand that something that is holding a 100 pound weight is carrying more load than something holding a 10 pound weight?

Holy **** there is no hope for you after all.

Go get your crayons.

 

[Java Man]

You need an official report to understand that something that is holding a 100 pound weight is carrying more load than something holding a 10 pound weight?

Holy **** there is no hope for you after all.

Go get your crayons.

I guess it is you who is in bad need of some sort of report to understand that the floor panels (those between the inner core and outer perimeter on which people walked) were not loaded with the weigh of the floor above them. Thus they had the same load on them on floor 78 as they did on floor 98. The columns and core well that's another story altogether. But according to the official report it was the sagging of the floor panels that then pulled the columns that initiated the collapse. But the floor panels heated up and sagged at the same rate in both impact zones because the fire was not distinctively hotter and the floors were under no more load. So the floor in the lower impact zone couldn't have started pulling on the columns faster because it weighted and sagged at the same rate as the other floors in the upper impact zone.

 

[Travis]

I guess it is you who is in bad need of some sort of report to understand that the floor panels (those between the inner core and outer perimeter on which people walked) were not loaded with the weigh of the floor above them. Thus they had the same load on them on floor 78 as they did on floor 98. The columns and core well that's another story altogether. But according to the official report it was the sagging of the floor panels that then pulled the columns that initiated the collapse. But the floor panels heated up and sagged at the same rate in both impact zones because the fire was not distinctively hotter and the floors were under no more load. So the floor in the lower impact zone couldn't have started pulling on the columns faster because it weighted and sagged at the same rate as the other floors in the upper impact zone.

Yeah....except it's the columns that will fail and bring down the building. And when they fail will be dependent, in part, on weight load.

 

[Java Man]

Yeah....except it's the columns that will fail and bring down the building. And when they fail will be dependent, in part, on weight load.

Correct. But the time difference there can not account for the near twice time difference seen in the collapse of the towers. The bulk of the time goes to heating the floors and initializing the sagging.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Correct. But the time difference there can not account for the near twice time difference seen in the collapse of the towers. The bulk of the time goes to heating the floors and initializing the sagging.

In the time you're saving by not phoning any insurance companies because you know perfectly well your arguments are worthless, maybe you could look up imaging effects due to asymmetric removal of supports. Because the damage to WTC2 was highly asymmetric, a greater proportion of the columns were bearing very much less than their design loads, with this loading being transferred to other columns which were therefore bearing much more than their design loads. The result was that many individual columns in WTC2 were closer to the point of failure immediately after impact than those in WTC1, where the damage was more symmetrical. Less accumulated damage due to fire was therefore needed in WTC2 before individual elements began to fail, hence the difference in time from impact to collapse.

Dave

 

[ozeco41]

Plus about twice the weight of building above the impact and fire zone.

 

[aggle-rithm]

If it doesn't matter why did you bring it up? More important than that why are you pulling it out now? Just because you've been measured and found lacking? Were's the taunting now? Typical debunker tactic, what was that you were making fun of? That I was to dumb to realize the evident reasons for twice the time? All the name calling? Where is that now that you're recalling your ill though out statement? And what other ill founded arguments have you put forth or will put forth? Mhhh bad bad bad for you.

Why are you trying to stifle debate on 9/11? What are you hiding? WHO ARE YOU WORKING FOR?!?

 

[aggle-rithm]

I guess it is you who is in bad need of some sort of report to understand that the floor panels (those between the inner core and outer perimeter on which people walked) were not loaded with the weigh of the floor above them. Thus they had the same load on them on floor 78 as they did on floor 98. The columns and core well that's another story altogether. But according to the official report it was the sagging of the floor panels that then pulled the columns that initiated the collapse. But the floor panels heated up and sagged at the same rate in both impact zones because the fire was not distinctively hotter and the floors were under no more load. So the floor in the lower impact zone couldn't have started pulling on the columns faster because it weighted and sagged at the same rate as the other floors in the upper impact zone.

Again, talk to a structural engineer. He'll set you straight.

If you refuse to do this, and just keep spouting your uninformed and overly simplistic guesses about collapse mechanisms, then I can only conclude that you are TRYING TO HIDE THE TRUTH ABOUT 9/11!!! WHY?!?11?!

 

[Java Man]

Again, talk to a structural engineer. He'll set you straight.

If you refuse to do this, and just keep spouting your uninformed and overly simplistic guesses about collapse mechanisms, then I can only conclude that you are TRYING TO HIDE THE TRUTH ABOUT 9/11!!! WHY?!?11?!

Why don't you follow your own advice and talk to a structural engineer before posting what you did without concern for a little prior thought. On top of that don't make fun of people like that, it's not good practice in case your theory comes tumbling down.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Why don't you follow your own advice and talk to a structural engineer before posting what you did without concern for a little prior thought. On top of that don't make fun of people like that, it's not good practice in case your theory comes tumbling down.

At least I HAVE a theory to come tumbling down.

Do you?

No, you don't.

 

[triforcharity]

I guess it is you who is in bad need of some sort of report to understand that the floor panels (those between the inner core and outer perimeter on which people walked) were not loaded with the weigh of the floor above them.

Is that what a floor is? I always thought it was something else. Thanks for the education.

Thus they had the same load on them on floor 78 as they did on floor 98.

Not entirely true. A sky lobby would have less weight than an office floor. But hey, that's (for the most part) correct.

The columns and core well that's another story altogether. But according to the official report it was the sagging of the floor panels that then pulled the columns that initiated the collapse.

Holy **** you got something absolutely correct!! WOOT!!

But, you know what they say about blind squirrels, right?

But the floor panels heated up and sagged at the same rate in both impact zones because the fire was not distinctively hotter and the floors were under no more load.

At the same rate, sure. Not an the same consistancy. But, we'll go with it.

So the floor in the lower impact zone couldn't have started pulling on the columns faster because it weighted and sagged at the same rate as the other floors in the upper impact zone.

Correct again. Holy **** two in one post!!

Again, you are STILL missing the point.

The outer columns that have MORE weight on them will FAIL faster than those with LESS weight on them.

We've said it to you more than a dozen times. Why do you keep missing that?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Again, you are STILL missing the point.

The outer columns that have MORE weight on them will FAIL faster than those with LESS weight on them.

We've said it to you more than a dozen times. Why do you keep missing that?

Indeed. He's not getting that the floor failures were not the ONLY contributors to the collapse. Even if they were, it seems intuitively obvious that it would be easier for the sagging floors to pull the outer columns inward if they are under a heavier load.

But, of course, all this is an attempt at a derail to keep from having to address the hard questions. Yes, I was the one who brought up the "lower damage collapses first" subtopic, but it was to illustrate the point that the generally accepted theory matched what was observed.

If he had followed the point I was trying to make instead of focusing on the content of what I was saying, he would have had the difficult problem of explaining why his notion of "it would take only a small amount of explosives to bring down the towers" did not match what was observed. Where was the shock wave? The loud BANG? How did the explosives survive the plane crash and fire? Etc.

 

[TruthersLie]

Simple, I wouldn't. That's the whole point of the video. The more it is proven that less explosives are needed to maintain a sustained collapse the less proving all that you list is needed.

I love how truthers work.

Ignore the massively complicated issues. Now how about answering 1-3

especially considering that what we know of structural engineering says that all you needed was a jet, fire and time. (over 100 peer reviewed publications which support parts of the whole)

wouldn't it have just been easier to crash a jet into the building?

 

[aggle-rithm]

wouldn't it have just been easier to crash a jet into the building?

Only if you start with the premises and work your way to the conclusion.

We all know truthers don't play that game.