Building demolished from the top down.

Java Man said:
I though it was the other way around. That the inward pulling was deducted from the models that showed the sagging. That the high temperatures observed (although not really observed but rather inferred) were what lead to the sagging model.
Click to expand...

No, specifically large 'draped' objects were observed through the windows of the towers and observed to increase in the sagging over time. These were identified as most probably being the sagging floors.

In addition the inward pulling was observed and pictures indicate the actual inward distance of that pull.

This is direct observation.

In addition though NIST did conduct a test on a floor system and found that initially the concrete slab expansion pushed outward on the exterior columns but that soon afterwards the truss sags and the whole floor bows and now pulls inwards on the exterior column.

This is experimental evidence that backs up the observation.


Again NISTNCSTAR 1-6
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
Why do you insist in requiring explosives to destroy columns?
Click to expand...

Perhaps because you brought this up:

Java Man said:
Well we can break it into different scenarios. One is the minimal use of explosives. If it is known that only a few floors can initiate a collapse then maybe only one or two in ten need to be rigged. That way you get a nice failsafe setup that ensures collapse even if the airplanes hit the rigged floors. You can just start the collapse on the next upper set of rigged floors. Since those are not clearly visible from the outside it is easy to initiate without bringing undesired attention.
Click to expand...

Clearly, your interpretation of events is evolving. The only thing that is not changing is your conclusion. This demonstrates rather effectively that you have started with a conclusion and are attempting to find a way for the evidence to lead you there.

That isn't how it works.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
The "squibs" are all nice but in the absence of accompanying 140 decibel booms capable of incurring temporary hearing loss to everyone within a quarter mile of the buildings, they seem to be far better explained by the displacement of air inside the building as the debris crashed down from above. Looks like you're back to square one
Click to expand...

Ah but you see you're still applying classic truther theory to a simplified model in which column demolishing charges are no longer required. Like you clearly mention the squibs are better explained by the displacement of air inside the building as the debris crashed down from above.

But those debris I care add are from floor panels deliberately released. They are from floor panels crushing down ahead of the free falling cloud. The only way to explain those squibs as debris crashing down from above and have them ahead of the lead front of the free falling debris cloud is to have released the floors below the impact zone at collapse initiation.

So you see a simpler, less acoustic imposing mechanisms, in which the floors are released explains the lack of loud blasts and the squibs.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Perhaps because you brought this up:
Click to expand...

There is not one instance of the world "column" or even a reference to them in the text you quoted. So I didn't bring the columns to the discussion. Once again I ask the question:

Why do you insist in requiring explosives to destroy columns?
 
Java Man said:
Ah but you see you're still applying classic truther theory to a simplified model in which column demolishing charges are no longer required.
Click to expand...

You've replaced the classic truther theory with another one that is equally unparsimonious.

You're simplified model can become even more simple, and is then more likely to be correct.
 
Java Man said:
Ah but you see you're still applying classic truther theory to a simplified model in which column demolishing charges are no longer required. Like you clearly mention the squibs are better explained by the displacement of air inside the building as the debris crashed down from above.

But those debris I care add are from floor panels deliberately released. They are from floor panels crushing down ahead of the free falling cloud. The only way to explain those squibs as debris crashing down from above and have them ahead of the lead front of the free falling debris cloud is to have released the floors below the impact zone at collapse initiation.

So you see a simpler, less acoustic imposing mechanisms, in which the floors are released explains the lack of loud blasts and the squibs.
Click to expand...

I see. Just a small section of single floor's total area. After all if a very large section of the floor is sent crashing one and this is enough to blow out windows then one would expect large areas of glass to have done so, but if its a small area of floor then the air also has much greater degree of freedom to move to the side and around the entrire storey and would be much less likely to have the force to blow out any windows. Now chunks flying around could of course smash windows but that too would be expected to affect larger areas of glass and without the outward force observed( since it would be occuring AFTER the floor impacts the next lower floor)
 
Java Man said:
There is not one instance of the world "column" or even a reference to them in the text you quoted. So I didn't bring the columns to the discussion.
Click to expand...

Columns were implied in the discussion. Remember the thread topic? There was a video showing how a building could be collapsed by removing a few supports near the top. You argued that this helped the truther cause because explosives could be used in a similar manner to destroy the WTC towers.

In the WTC towers, the "supports" are columns.

Once again I ask the question:

Why do you insist in requiring explosives to destroy columns?
Click to expand...

YOU brought up the possibility that explosives could have been used. How were you proposing they be used, if not against columns?
 
Java Man said:
Actually it proves that a very small set of explosives is actually needed to collapse the structure.
Click to expand...

Please expand on this. How could explosives have been used to collapse the towers?

You have used the word "proves". That means you have systematically worked out how it could have been done using explosives.
 
jaydeehess said:
I see. Just a small section of single floor's total area. After all if a very large section of the floor is sent crashing one and this is enough to blow out windows then one would expect large areas of glass to have done so, but if its a small area of floor then the air also has much greater degree of freedom to move to the side and around the entrire storey and would be much less likely to have the force to blow out any windows. Now chunks flying around could of course smash windows but that too would be expected to affect larger areas of glass and without the outward force observed( since it would be occuring AFTER the floor impacts the next lower floor)
Click to expand...

I've shown in previous discussions that in many controlled demolitions glass panels stay in place and undisturbed even when explosions are being used. So your argument using the windows is hardly relevant. The building didn't have your average kitchen window glass. It was meant to bear huge wind loads from storms.
 
aggle-rithm said:
In the WTC towers, the "supports" are columns.

YOU brought up the possibility that explosives could have been used. How were you proposing they be used, if not against columns?
Click to expand...

Against the considerably weaker floor supports obviously. I though that being a smart debunker you'd caught on by now.
 
Java Man said:
I still have my doubts as by 2006 when the construction started Silverstein had been sitting on 2B for at least a year if not two. A clever man like him can make lots of money from that amount of money. Plus I understand that he's only put 1B into the construction (PA putting down another 1B in bonds). That still leaves him 1B and whatever rent he's reaped already in his pocket for the purpose of generating more business for him. Plus as the building starts to come up the insurance will be obliged to fork out the remaining 2.5B. All this for a tower that's supposed to cost just 3B or so.

I'm also pretty confident he kept the parts that would make him more profit. I don't think a guy like him would say "oh please take whatever you want back, don't mind me". He is a clever man lets not forget that. I'm also pretty confident that he's making a profit from the reconstruction contracts too, directly or indirectly.
Click to expand...

I couldn't be more convinced.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Alright, now we're back to this question:

Why were no explosions observed?
Click to expand...

Because they were too small to be observed. Oh and that's assuming explosives is the mechanism chosen to release the floor panels.
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
I've shown in previous discussions that in many controlled demolitions glass panels stay in place and undisturbed even when explosions are being used. So your argument using the windows is hardly relevant. The building didn't have your average kitchen window glass. It was meant to bear huge wind loads from storms.
Click to expand...

Soooo,, you are promoting the idea that there were explsoives on single truss seats then?

After all if its on more than one or two adjacent trusses then certainly we would expect more widespread window blow outs.

There also seemed to be a rather odd randomness in the loaction of windows that blew out. I suppose that was to mask their nefarious placement.

ohh yeah, its the air pressure of dropping floor sections that did this, a suggestion borrowed from debunking.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
After all if its on more than one or two adjacent trusses then certainly we would expect more widespread window blow outs.
Click to expand...

Why? It's been shown that windows don't necessarily blow out in controlled demolitions.

Plus there are no windows in the core. Blow out all inner connections and some outer connections (to be consistent with your position) and you get floor collapse without blown windows.
 
jaydeehess said:
I notice that Java Man has not bothered to comment on it being pointed out that he was in error as to the subject of inward bowing of exterior columns
Click to expand...

I'm not questioning the inward bowing. That's pretty much on record. And I've seen the pictures with the grids showing the bowing. Now the sagging could be due to broken trusses or as NIST claims "[multi-floor fires] significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns"

What I'm saying is that NIST concludes that the sagging came from the fire. It could have been due to damaged main trusses too. There is no way to conclusively determine it was due to fire by just looking from the outside. The analysis of the columns NIST did lead it to conclude that high enough temperatures were present that allowed for the sagging. But had they not found that some other reason for the bowing would have to be found.

I'd like to add that the temperatures NIST arrived at were determined by rather dubious methods. I've mentioned it before and I'll do it again. NIST determined this based on the argument that the "sample was too small" and it could not rule out possible higher temperatures. But samples exposed to higher temperatures were not actually examined.
 
Java Man said:
I'm not questioning the inward bowing. That's pretty much on record. And I've seen the pictures with the grids showing the bowing. Now the sagging could be due to broken trusses or as NIST claims "[multi-floor fires] significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns"

What I'm saying is that NIST concludes that the sagging came from the fire. It could have been due to damaged main trusses too. There is no way to conclusively determine it was due to fire by just looking from the outside. The analysis of the columns NIST did lead it to conclude that high enough temperatures were present that allowed for the sagging. But had they not found that some other reason for the bowing would have to be found.
Click to expand...

You inadvertantly promote NIST's collapse sequence over any other. Welcome to the fold.

You do understand that if all the evidence ponts one way and although another possibility might be out that with no evidence at all to back other possibilities that the one with evidence is by far the vastly more probable one?


I'd like to add that the temperatures NIST arrived at were determined by rather dubious methods. I've mentioned it before and I'll do it again. NIST determined this based on the argument that the "sample was too small" and it could not rule out possible higher temperatures. But samples exposed to higher temperatures were not actually examined.
Click to expand...

Well blame the designers for not putting in temperature sensors throughout the building's structural steel....

NIST determined the temperature reached by steel samples they had that
-could be positively ID'd as having come from the fire floors
-was not found in the underground fire zone

They ran their FEA simulations and cross referenced the temperatures for those steel samples that was predicted by the sim against the physical steel samples and found that the sim data correellated well with the physical evidence. They then assume that if the sim correllated well in those locations that it most probably did so in other, hotter , locations as well.

Outline your issue with this and how it could have been made more to your liking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom