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

[Miragememories]

Makes sense to me, looking at the structural drawings. Makes more sense than undetectable explosive equipment, inaudible explosives, thermite that dogs couldn't smell and only exist if you look at a chemical experiment just right and suspend disbelief on chain of custody and insufficient energy release, a crew of instigators that can't be found and don't say a peep, a supply chain of materials and money for the operation that haven't been uncovered, all to intentionally demolish a building several hours after it caught fire from a nearby plane crash and collapse of a skyscraper.

Looking at your affirmative response LSSBB I am reminded of a famous quote by a banker named David Hannum, something like; "There's a sucker born every minute".

MM

 

[sheeplesnshills]

No I am not a structural engineer, but, I have taken structural engineering in college.

I scored my highest marks in that subject.

Given that you are a proven liar, and your complete ignorance of the subject, you'll perhaps forgive us if we don't believe you.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Okay, we are in agreement that large buildings are not filled with solid material. That was a brilliant observation Grizzly Bear and I'm sure the stoners out there will appreciate the clarification.

And would you also agree that only stoners would think cardboard boxes are appropriate models?

If the loads are off kilter on these parts (AKA eccentric, and unevenly redistributed), I expect an off balance look to any ensuing collapse. Duh!

"and off balance look"?????? care to define what that means? and why you think its relevant?

Tipping over is what you might expect if a building lost its structural integrity on the majority area of one side or the other.

LOL, No you wouldn't (thanks for proving by the way that you did not study structure engineering!) it would only tip over if the building had tremendous rigidity and and very strong joints. You seem to keep missing the point that the only major force on the building was gravity and it only acts straight down.

Hmm..column 79, followed within a second, according to the NIST, by columns 80 and 81. Sounds like the east side should have started collapsing. But. If this was part of global collapse initiation, than the rest of the building should have eventually joined in. Hmm. That would lead to an expectation of a topple to the east, the side that failed first.

Nope, see above. The rest of the building has enormous inertia and with the only force acting straight down it would simply fall apart....and down.

Oh I get it. You expect the fools in the audience to believe that column 79 failed over 6 floors, dropping the east penthouse below the roof, that columns 80 and 81 failed within a second of each other, that the external structure remained apparently unaffected, and meanwhile the whole inner core of WTC7 proceeded to fail while the exterior shell exhibited nothing more than some window breakage on the upper northeast face. Finally, by an act of God I guess, the remaining external peripheral structure, amazingly, let go, at all points, at the very same time, for at least 2.5 seconds.

No we expect the intelligent folks to get the above....the fools already think it was CD.

Yes, I think you'd better provide a good reason why anyone should pay attention to what you're arguing.

Why? the sane part of the world already believes it or doesn't care to worry about it, Its the twoofers that have to argue a case and so far they are just one big fail.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You make a terrible assumption when you purposely assume that people are unwilling to educate themselves on topics that hold great interest for them.

On the contrary, when it shows that the people I'm having a conversation with do not know the basics involved in the topic of discussion, it's a darn good indication that said person has not researched the content, cannot motivate him/herself to understand it, or is incapable of it. Your critique of the NIST commentary is an example that I've hilighted several times, and "skepticism" doesn't describe it properly. You were biased and took their edits as a measure of ill-intent; never offering any evidence or discussion to prove it.

You make another bad assumption when you dismiss the intrinsic wisdom that lies in "common sense".

You appear to be advocating, forget the wisdom life has taught you and let the experts tell you what to think.

Life has essentially shown that common sense is not so common. For an argument to hold true on logic it's premise and assumptions must hold up as well. If the premise is hidden or not fully understood then the arguments fails. Remember it was "common sense" in the middle ages that earth was flat, and the sun, and galaxies orbited it, rather than the other way around. Reality bites like a female dog.

Unfortunately, WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7 were NOT BRIDGES!

You said that you expect "off kilter" damage to result in a tipping motion of the entire building. Only if it's rigid enough to hold it's form in the process. Because the buildings were more like assemblies, with interconnected pieces a large square footage, and long spanning beams, they weren't rigid enough to withstand a complete roll over like your failed demolition example of a concrete building in Turkey. The towers were designed for wind loads across the facade, not for the weight of the building rotating about a single point. We call that eccentric loading of the columns, and bolted the connections between structural members cannot withstand that. You completely missed his point.

Looking at your affirmative response LSSBB I am reminded of a famous quote by a banker named David Hannum, something like; "There's a sucker born every minute".

MM

"All things and all people in life have to sink or swim on their own merits, not their reputation; that just as a wise man can say a foolish thing, a fool can say something wise." - Vincent Bugliosi

 

[Zeuzzz]

And would you also agree that only stoners would think cardboard boxes are appropriate models?

[qimg]http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/BoxBoy.jpg[/qimg]

That picture is hilarious. Is that really gage?

Even if it is, i very much doubt that saying that he thinks "cardboard boxes are appropriate models" is in anyway a valid criticism. Even prestigious scientists (Feyman, etc) occasionally simplify science for the average layman.

*slightly winces at the academic implications of the comparison just made*

 

[beachnut]

That picture is hilarious. Is that really gage?

Even if it is, i very much doubt that saying that he thinks "cardboard boxes are appropriate models" is in anyway a valid criticism. Even prestigious scientists (Feyman, etc) occasionally simplify science for the average layman.

*slightly winces at the academic implications of the comparison just made*

That is Gage, not sure if he is nuts, or a smart person who knows he is a liar, but takes his $300k+/yr non-profit business a serious effort to make a living off of idiots who fall for his lies. Albeit the idiots might be very smart people, temporarily acting like morons on 911 issues.

Gage is not an engineer, he is a conspiracy nut, an internet snake-oil salesman, or a smart businessman, who found a fringe market, and he is taking advantage of those suckers/customers born every minute, or in Gage's scam he is getting about one moron every 32 hours and 51 minutes to sign his petition of woo.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That picture is hilarious. Is that really gage?

Yeah, during his debate with Mark Roberts if I recall. I can appreciate simplification but he went way beyond the scope at which it'd be validly applicable. Card boxes cannot model what a building would behave like in real application and his "demonstration" wrongly tries to imply that it's a quality of every building. Try to think about why designers try to prevent collapse in the first place, it's not so simple as visually demonstrating with boxes, let alone with an over-simplification that doesn't define any boundaries to it's assumptions.

 

[A W Smith]

That picture is hilarious. Is that really gage?

Even if it is, i very much doubt that saying that he thinks "cardboard boxes are appropriate models" is in anyway a valid criticism. Even prestigious scientists (Feyman, etc) occasionally simplify science for the average layman.

*slightly winces at the academic implications of the comparison just made*

at 24 minutes and 50 seconds in

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-459844559898426929#24m50s

 

[Zeuzzz]

at 24 minutes and 50 seconds in

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-459844559898426929#24m50s

LOL. *gage drops carboard boxes* "you can see these technical papers on our website."

Anyone got a link to the technical papers dealing with the physics of carboard box pancake collpases?

If I am not mistaken the above footage is the first ever occurance of carboard box pancake collapses, so any theory to explain how they may have happened is, by deafault, massively false.

.........

 

[Drs_Res]

Yeah, during his debate with Mark Roberts if I recall. I can appreciate simplification but he went way beyond the scope at which it'd be validly applicable. Card boxes cannot model what a building would behave like in real application and his "demonstration" wrongly tries to imply that it's a quality of every building. Try to think about why designers try to prevent collapse in the first place, it's not so simple as visually demonstrating with boxes, let alone with an over-simplification that doesn't define any boundaries to it's assumptions.

Gage video:

Both the embedded video and the link to YouTube go to the pertinent spot in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45Imd5i7IGo#t=23m58s

 

[Zeuzzz]

I almost feel sorry for gage for doing this. Its more the way he did it than the point he was trying to prove, however.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I almost feel sorry for gage for doing this. Its more the way he did it than the point he was trying to prove, however.

I'm fairly certain he had little to no choice. There likely weren't very many less idiotic means of "proving" his point...

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Gage video:

Both the embedded video and the link to YouTube go to the pertinent spot in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45Imd5i7IGo#t=23m58s

Good God man what are you trying to do to me!? Make my IQ drop like a rock?

 

[Xero]

So sylvan you prefer hypothetical fantasy scenarios without any real example to something that might have a basis in reality?

Well I hate to disappoint you but if you are going to pose a scenario, you need to describe it.

Otherwise you are asking me to give a reply to an imaginary question that could be anything but you don't know what.

MM

Oh the irony.

 

[Oystein]

I almost feel sorry for gage for doing this. Its more the way he did it than the point he was trying to prove, however.

He spent time preparing for that debate. He (or a friend) went to some length of effort to construct these cradboard boxes for the presentation. It wasn't ad-hoc.
So Gage must believe in one of the following two, and I don't really see a third possibility:

1. He either thinks this model is actually good proof, if not the best, to show that a building could not collapse at 70% or so of g
2. He knows already that the demonstration is foolish, but hopes to fool some members of the audience

Case 1 would show his incompetence at assessing structural engineering problems and immerdiately throw grave doubts upon ever claim ever made by the man. It would be pointless from the start to discuss collapse with such an imbecile
Case 2 would establish as fact that Gage is a liar and a fraud, making debate with him even more pointless.

 

[NoahFence]

I suggest you learn the language before you jump to your lame observations.

MM

The building would not look "off balance". There would be nothing to indicate an "ensuing" collapse, if it went down the way you people say it did.

PERIOD.


I know the language very well, thank you. I'm sorry you blasted your own idiotic theory out of the water inadvertantly. Perhaps if you stuck to what actually happened, that wouldn't be an issue for you.

 

[Animal]

Okay, we are in agreement that large buildings are not filled with solid material. That was a brilliant observation Grizzly Bear and I'm sure the stoners out there will appreciate the clarification.

If the loads are off kilter on these parts (AKA eccentric, and unevenly redistributed), I expect an off balance look to any ensuing collapse. Duh!




Brilliant deduction Sherlock.

Tipping over is what you might expect if a building lost its structural integrity on the majority area of one side or the other.

It would be expected by those ignorant of building structures, especially that of steel frame structures.

Hmm..column 79, followed within a second, according to the NIST, by columns 80 and 81. Sounds like the east side should have started collapsing. But. If this was part of global collapse initiation, than the rest of the building should have eventually joined in. Hmm. That would lead to an expectation of a topple to the east, the side that failed first.

An expectation only for those ignorant in the structural properties of a steel frame building.

And how Grizzly Bear does that pathetic example illustrate what was observed with WTC7?

Oh I get it. You expect the fools in the audience to believe that column 79 failed over 6 floors, dropping the east penthouse below the roof,

The failure of a building column, unsupported laterally for 6 floors, when it was designed to be laterally supported on every floor, is not a surprise to anyone with a slightest knowledge of building structures.

that columns 80 and 81 failed within a second of each other, that the external structure remained apparently unaffected, and meanwhile the whole inner core of WTC7 proceeded to fail while the exterior shell exhibited nothing more than some window breakage on the upper northeast face. Finally, by an act of God I guess, the remaining external peripheral structure, amazingly, let go, at all points, at the very same time, for at least 2.5 seconds.

Talk about making your Saturday morning cartoon a reality Grizzly Bear..wow!

Yes, I think you'd better provide a good reason why anyone should pay attention to what you're arguing.

Too funny.

MM

Argument from ignorance noted

 

[Miragememories]

"No I am not a structural engineer, but, I have taken structural engineering in college.

I scored my highest marks in that subject."

"Given that you are a proven liar, and your complete ignorance of the subject, you'll perhaps forgive us if we don't believe you."

Liars like yourself are usually the first to make that claim of others.

Unlike you, I do not knowingly tell lies, which is not to be taken as meaning I don't make the occasional factual mistake.

But again, unlike you, if someone shows me legitimate proof of a misstatement, I will attempt to make the proper correction.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

Unlike you, I do not knowingly tell lies

How about you kowingly tell us how the entire day went down in your opinion, including Shanksville and the Pentagon on that other thread....

 

[NoahFence]

WTC 7 was an irrelevant structure, brought down just like the other 1/2 dozen or so buildings in lower Manhattan that day.

Sorry, that's the blunt, honest truth.