• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

Marokkaan said:
Can somebody ask LSSBB what the evidence is to supprt the official story? Or answer it for him?
Click to expand...

If you're gonna seriously ask, then define what evidence you require please. Otherwise, give people a good reason to entertain your mockery of your peers.
 
Last edited:
Marokkaan said:
Can somebody ask LSSBB what the evidence is to supprt the official story? Or answer it for him?
Click to expand...

If by Official Story you mean the NIST report, they relied on video evidence, firefighter testimony of where fires were burning, experimentally determined properties of materials, computerized simulations of fires, computer modelling of the building and it's material (based on structural drawings), and so on. Your turn.
 
Marokkaan said:
So for example: computer simulations are the facts?

What happened to the steel, where NIST has no answer about it, are the facts?

I have to think about a christian. He told me Jesus can walk on water. I said do you have proof? He said its a fact, because we can read it in the books..
Click to expand...

According to most truthers people can walk on molten steel.
 
Marokkaan said:
Hmmm, dodging the question and try to mirror the question.

It sounds like a debunkers tactic
Click to expand...

Ya sure, it's the debunkers that use that tactic... Never the 911 cult members that come here to try and convert everyone with delusions they have no evidence for... ya right...:rolleyes:


Clearly you've never cracked open a dictionary and looked up the definition of the word debunk. It's not a bad thing or something to taunt. Doing so only hurts your side more than it helps...
 
Last edited:
sylvan8798 said:
Zeuzzz, the upshot here is that a group of people with many more years of education and experience than you or I (and I was a structural engineer for 7 years) took a long time to "solve the mystery of building 7". Truthers want you to believe that you can just figure it out from looking at a video and using your common sense. You and I can understand NIST's conclusions, but probably not without putting in more effort than the average truther wants us to.
Click to expand...


True, I thought that maybe my physics and mechanics experience could get me through comprehending all this engineering stuff. Maybe it will eventually, but its taking me a lot longer than I expected to understand all the engineering terms and to understand the weight/force distribution relationships, directions and magnitudes. Standard Newtonian mechanics, and other basic mechanical principles, seem to be quite misleading when you start to factor in the complex inhomogeneous structure of the objects in question. I was definitely simplifying things too much before.

Can someone define the terms in these equations I dont know plz!?

I=k²A (I = second moment of area, A= C.S.A)
F=σA (F = Axial Load, A = C.S.A)
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Ran away? Or worked, nursed a cold, came home, watched Boardwalk Empire while my girlfriend fed me some soup and tea.

Take it as fair warning that if you don't wait a reasonable amount of time (about 24 hrs) when taking into consideration time differences, personal lives and work schedules, you will not get any kind of response from me.
Click to expand...

Of course you did. That's why you replied to other posts. At least check your work before you post nonsense.

I could call you a liar but I won't.
 
RedIbis said:
NIST made extraordinary claims in its WTC 7 report and presented two unprecedented phenomena in the history of architectural collapse.
Click to expand...

This is a repetition of lies. There is nothing novel or unprecedented in steel framed building collapsing in fire or steel expanding or contracting with variation in temps.
 
LSSBB said:
If by Official Story you mean the NIST report, they relied on video evidence, firefighter testimony of where fires were burning, experimentally determined properties of materials, computerized simulations of fires, computer modelling of the building and it's material (based on structural drawings), and so on. Your turn.
Click to expand...
video evidence -There is also video evidence of ufo's, So?
- So the truthers have also the same kind of evidence, so?

firefighter testimony So the truthers has also the same kind of evidence, so?

experimentally determined properties of materials - What kind of evidence?

And why they dont have an explanation what happened with the appendix c steel?

- the truthers have also the same kind of evidence, so?

computerized simulations of fires, computer modelling of the building and it's material

- Everybody can manipulate simulations, even better, the simulation showed a lot of errors.

Why do you believe in simulations, while you can not see the data, where you can see the errors in the simulations.

This week, a professor in holland was disqualified because he manipulated his data in experiments. He could do this years he started to do fraud in 1994 until this year.

Do you know why? Nobody could see his raw data. Nobody was allowed by him, to analyze the raw data.

So if we use or logic, this professor showed al those years evidence.....


- the truthers have also the same kind of evidence, so?
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Evidence?
Click to expand...

We look at case studies of other collapses and the understanding that we have of material properties. They are valid providing one establishes that they understand the basic difference between different structural conditions of each example. Keep in mind that many of the circumstances accompanying the collapse of all three WTC buildings were unprecedented as well. What's important is not the number of buildings that have "completely collapsed" but the specific conditions surrounding each case study. THis is what happens to steel when it's exposed to fire, and this is true for small buildings as much as it is for large ones.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Evidence?
Click to expand...

2-409b.jpg


That's just from the sun.

No, it's not a building. But if you were a skyscraper, and that was happening on or about the 12th floor, you're doomed.

g3a.jpg



No, it's not 110 stories, but if it were it would fail the exact same way. With all the weight of 20 or so stories above the severely weakened steel, this would not be a good thing for you.
 
Marokkaan said:
video evidence -There is also video evidence of ufo's, So?
- So the truthers have also the same kind of evidence, so?

firefighter testimony So the truthers has also the same kind of evidence, so?

experimentally determined properties of materials - What kind of evidence?

And why they dont have an explanation what happened with the appendix c steel?

- the truthers have also the same kind of evidence, so?

computerized simulations of fires, computer modelling of the building and it's material

- Everybody can manipulate simulations, even better, the simulation showed a lot of errors.

Why do you believe in simulations, while you can not see the data, where you can see the errors in the simulations.

This week, a professor in holland was disqualified because he manipulated his data in experiments. He could do this years he started to do fraud in 1994 until this year.

Do you know why? Nobody could see his raw data. Nobody was allowed by him, to analyze the raw data.

So if we use or logic, this professor showed al those years evidence.....


- the truthers have also the same kind of evidence, so?
Click to expand...

I don't see the errors in how the simulations were executed, I don't see any proof that anything was manipulated, by firefighter testimony they took where fires were and not someone saying they heard "explosions", and I still don't see anything from you in the way of any credible evidence whatsoever that anyone planted explosives anywhere.

The burden of proof is on you, if you want to convict somebody. You are the one insisting that they have the actual steel to prove their case. I am already convinced that there is credible evidence that the fires led to the collapse. I saw the fires, I saw the collapse, and I see a reasonable explanation for how the fire led to the collapse.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Can someone define the terms in these equations I dont know plz!?

I=k²A (I = second moment of area, A= C.S.A)
F=σA (F = Axial Load, A = C.S.A)
Click to expand...

K is the stiffness factor (dependent on the end condition of the column)
Pinned condiotions at both ends typically have a k-value of 1
fixed end conditions typically have a k-value of 0.5
one end pinned and one fixed has a k-value of 0.7
One end free and one fixed typically has a k-value of 2.0

I = Moment of Inertia of the cross section (in4)- (mm4)

A = cross sectional area

F = is just as the label in your post says... axial load, and can mean bending stress, depending on whether or not you're dealing with a beam condition

I have some old lecture presentations that were used in my college classes a couple years ago that explain more about those. If I find them I'll find a way to send them to you (likely via dropbox link). Will look into your other question shortly
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Interesting, do you know the grade of that steel, the main flammable material in question, and where/when/how it happened? any more case study type information etc.
Click to expand...

No not in this specific case. More importantly I intended this to be a general example in saying that steel will lose it's load carrying capacity when it's exposed to an average office fire. Typically when you follow the temperature curve the strength is reduced by 50% at 1100oF and by roughly 90% at 1800oF. If you want specific case studies manchestor has some you might be interested in glancing at: LINK. Of course I can either do, or find more thorough ones that cover other examples.
 
LSSBB said:
What's the evidence that there was a controlled demolition? Tell me that first. And since you insist on Physical Evidence, that's what we'll limit it to.
Click to expand...

The complete destruction of all three buildings as shown in the videos.

All my life collapse has meant falling down awkwardly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom