Building demolished from the top down.

Java Man said:
Yes and I challenged that claim because there is no compelling reason to believe that based on the official report.
Click to expand...

You mean if you ignore the NIST report. You don't accept the engineering analysis from the report, assuming you've both read and understood the analysis.

What makes you so sure you're qualified to understand the engineering? From what I've seen so far, you're trying to oversimplify the issues you're considering and you're skimming over most of the rest. This is not promising.
 
Java Man said:
I never compared the heat conductivity of "a COPPER heat sink in a PC to a STEEL box". I brought the images up to show how a narrow piece of metal can be used to carry heat away effectively, thus showing that the support connectors would transfer heat from the floor to the columns. Surely not as good as copper, but not as bad as wood either. So the point of heat transfer should be at least considered. Not brushed away in a typical debunker hand wave.
Click to expand...

Not even close. There is a reason electrical wires that carry high loads of electricity are typically made from copper. More energy transfer.

And yes, you did compare it to the connections in the WTC, which are TINY in comparison to a typical heat sink.

It would be like making that heat sink you posted a picture of 10 x's it's size, but leaving the copper cable the same size, and then loading it with 10 x's as much heat as it was designed to handle.

It's flawed, any way you think about it.
 
Java Man said:
I understand it enough to counter your wild claims. You'd be a very successful truther.
Click to expand...

Assuming all my "wild claims" are false, how does that demonstrate that anything other than structural damage and fire were responsible for the collapse of the WTC towers?

It would help if you would present a hypothesis that fits the evidence better than the generally accepted one. Until then, we'll go with the one we've got.
 
Java Man said:
The damage is as you say "more asymmetrical", but it is also closer to the perimeter wall which is also less damaged than the WTC 1 perimeter.
Click to expand...


Wait, wait, wait... you consider 3 heavily damaged columns and 1 failed column to be more damage than 2 heavily damaged columns and 4 failed columns?
 
Java Man said:
Depends on how much load those columns were meant to hold.
Click to expand...


So... you don't know that bit of information, yet you stated definitively that WTC2's perimeter was less damaged than WTC1's perimeter? What made you think that was OK?
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
So... you don't know that bit of information, yet you stated definitively that WTC2's perimeter was less damaged than WTC1's perimeter? What made you think that was OK?
Click to expand...

It's in the NIST report, I posted the reference links. Re read the thread and get up to speed on what's being discussed.
 
Java Man said:
Actually if you multiply damaged column count times ksi you come up with the conclusion that there were more ksi's removed (so to speak) from WTC 1 than 2.



50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 100 Total ksi removed
WTC 1 150 1485 1020 325 0 0 0 0 0 0 2980
WTC 2 50 330 780 1040 140 75 80 0 180 100 2775

So there was more damage done to the tower that fell later. This goes against many of the assumptions thrown out here against my arguments.
Click to expand...

I do note that your response to my last post ignored the idea that the loading on each building was much differently placed immediatly after impact and through the periods between impacts and collapse.
A simple example of this effect can be seen in the game Jenga.
It is quite possible to remove two of the three blocks that make up each level, just make sure they are on oppsite sides. Removing a side block and the center block will remove the exact same amount of load bearing capacity yet in the later case the you get collapse.

In the towers the effect of the impact on WTC 1 was more centralized and the structure was better able to redistribute the total load more evenly to the remaining elements than the off center hot on WTC 2.

Further to this the building exterior was sqaure but the core area was rectangular and while one aircraft hit against the long side of the core, the other hit into the short side.

So in the immediate aftermath of the impact both structures suffered quite different load redistributions.
I note also in NISTNCSTAR1-6 that WTC 2 is shown to have more core columns suffuring 'heavy' or 'severed' damage than in WTC 1.
Didn't WTC 1 get hit more solidily AT floor level than WTC 2 thus allowing aircraft debris greater velocity when it impacts the core columns?

Significantly WTC 2 lost a corner column. WTC 2 was leaning significantly more than WTC 1 which disallowed the same ability to redistribute loads as WTC 1 was capable of.

You make much of the fact that the columns got thicker and stronger towards the ground. At what floors did they change?
 
Seems JM is trying to say that the details of the collapses should more closely match the details of when the structures were hit and the size of the core columns but is trying to ignore the fact that other details of the impacts come into play as well.
 
Java Man said:
Are you denying that airplanes were crashed into the buildings?
Click to expand...

So reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit... got it.

According to the vast majority of structural engineers around the world (looking at the literature about 100 peer reviewed papers which support parts of the entire NIST report vs 0 for any truther, in any language, in any country which says NIST is wrong) support the idea that fires caused the collapses.

Fires caused by jets striking the towers.

Yet in your world, it is necessary to have jets strike the towers, have super duper explosives/thermite/pixie dust on the floors that the jets struck, and to then have these mysterious/magical/incredible devices
a. survive the impact
b. survive the ensuing fires
c. then be able to detonate and bring down the towers.

So my question stands. Wouldn't it be easier just to crash a huge jet into them at about 500 mph and let the towers burn?
 
jaydeehess said:
A simple example of this effect can be seen in the game Jenga.
It is quite possible to remove two of the three blocks that make up each level, just make sure they are on oppsite sides. Removing a side block and the center block will remove the exact same amount of load bearing capacity yet in the later case the you get collapse.
Click to expand...

Working on the same Jenga example and based on the argument presented by another member here who said that the removal of one structural element cancels the diametrically opposite one as well I can add the following.

Removing one side as in the case of WTC 1 effectively removes the loading capacity of the other diametrically opposite side (based on the other members comment). That's like leaving the Jenga with just the center piece.

Removing the structural elements of one corner eliminates the loading capacity of the opposite corner, but the two other corners are left intact. A a bit like playing with a Jenga that allows you to remove half bricks. Half one brick remains on one side, the center brick remains whole and half the opposite brick remains too. This is more stable than having just the center piece.

So once again we can see that there is less and less reasons to expect the WTC 2 tower falling first. At least based on your Jenga example.
 
TruthersLie said:
and to then have these mysterious/magical/incredible devices
a. survive the impact
b. survive the ensuing fires
c. then be able to detonate and bring down the towers.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily survive the impact. Just not detonate prematurely upon impact would be a simpler requirement. Something easily achievable by requiring a mixture prior to detonation. Unmixed base elements would just burn up harmlessly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom