triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Citation required.
Squaking seagull flys in, ****** all over the place, and ignores all call to stop ******* all over the place.
Yeah, that's pretty much C7's posts.
Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr
- Thread starter chrismohr
- Start date
- Status
Citation required.
Squaking seagull flys in, ****** all over the place, and ignores all call to stop ******* all over the place.
Yeah, that's pretty much C7's posts.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
C7 said:
2. What were the main objectives of the investigation?
The specific objectives of the NIST WTC investigation were to:
- determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft, and why and how WTC 7 collapsed
There's nothing there about stopping at collapse initiation.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Why did you use such a low value for the starting point? Why not a much more realistic temperature of 1,800 deg. F?
Why almost 500 deg. lower than an average fire burns at?
I mean, hell, if you wanted to be even remotely accurate, go with a Temp of 1550 or so, and see what you get there.
Based on a figure of 1,800 ( a much more realistic number) I get a expansion of 8.53 inches.
However, this is the EXPANSION. How much would that translate to sag relative to the nominal length of the beam?
Maybe DaveThomas could help you out with the math.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Sadly from one perspective the NIST objectives can be interpreted to suit C7's distortions.
NIST had four objectives. This is the relevant one:
The relevant professionals read that as NIST did:
There was an initial stage which started the collapse and we need details to understand it. BUT once started global collapse was inevitable and we don't need to describe that in detail.
The validity of that interpretation lies in the simple question "what benefit is there to engineers designing future buildings if we describe the global collapse in detail?" The answer to that is "None!"
The test for C7 is to specify what benefits would accrue to engineers designing future buildings if NIST had detail explained the global collapse.
The reality is that nothing in the NIST objectives required NIST to investigate any bit of nonsense that the so called truthers may raise.
EDIT: I'm typing too slow -- C7 beat me to the post - but I have identified where, true to form, C7 continues to distort the situation. His problem not mine.
Last edited:
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
There's also nothing there about explaining how the collapse progressed either.
This source debunks your claim. As usual.
Why did it collapse?
Fire caused thermal expansion.
How did it collapse?
Expansion of critical beams caused them to become unseated, allowing Column 79 to be left with no lateral support over many floors, which caused the cascading failure .......
See what I mean? Seagull **** is everywhere.
Stop it.
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
If buildings could be weakened as the 9/11 buildings were said to have been on 9/11 with a total destruction into a basic footprint there would be no need for controlled demolitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_second
I'm sure if you had that puppy in your study you could program it to verify the strategic assignment of energy required to demolish a tower or two or three without explosives.
BUT it hasn't been done because it is an impossible scenario.
ozeco41
Philosopher
I won't debate him - or rather I recognise that he will not discuss.
HOWEVER: A HINT.
He is treating the situation as if it only involves one factor - viz linear expansion/contraction. That is not reality so don't waste effort debating his "one factor" approach.
Cheers.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Well, unless you can account for every single variable that fires experience every second, it's highly inaccurate. HIGHLY.
I estimate, that a fire has, in one minute (60 seconds) a possibility of about 60,000 variables. Can you accurately account for them?
BTW, the vast majority of them are unpredictable, such as wind direction (down to the 1/2 of 1 degree) and speed (down to 1/2 MPH accuracy)
Yeah, good luck with that.
What's funny, is that this processor didn't exist untill late 2011.
http://hardocp.com/article/2011/11/14/intel_core_i73960x_sandy_bridge_e_processor_review/4
Um, perhaps you'll donate one to NIST. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to use a processor that didn't exist in 2004-2008 in their investigation....
Hey, why not tell Gage et al. to all get together to do their own?
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
I won't debate him - or rather I recognise that he will not discuss.
HOWEVER: A HINT.
He is treating the situation as if it only involves one factor - viz linear expansion/contraction. That is not reality so don't waste effort debating his "one factor" approach.
Cheers.
I couldn't agree more.
What's even more sad, is that this is completely outside my area of real interest and formal training, and I can STILL point out where he goes wrong.
Cheers to you also kind sir!
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Those temperatures are Celcius and these are the steel temperatures not the flame temperatures. NIST only mentions temperatures of 400 to 600oC steel temperatures for that area.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
That is the NIST hypothesis - thermal expansion initiated the collapse.I won't debate him - or rather I recognise that he will not discuss.
HOWEVER: A HINT.
He is treating the situation as if it only involves one factor - viz linear expansion/contraction. That is not reality so don't waste effort debating his "one factor" approach.
Cheers.
Oh gee, and good of you to talk to us as if Richard Gage is the only person who has viewed these photos.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
You mean under the column labeled oF, that is actually oC? Holy ***, now I KNOW you have no clue how to make an informed conclusion on this subject.
Welcome to Failville. Population: You and Clayton. SHC will be your Mayor I am sure.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
No, the column labeled C. NIST used Celsius and so did I. You are a little slow on the uptake.
Keep reading this until you understand what it says.
Those temperatures are Celcius and these are the steel temperatures not the flame temperatures. NIST only mentions 400 to 600oC steel temperatures for that area. That's 750 to 1100oF
If North Tower fell into it's "basic footprint", how did its debris hit WTC 7, which was an entire building (WTC 6) and a street away? What are you defining as "basic footprint"?
You're still working it backward. Determine if what was apparently available on 9/11 arising naturally from the plane crash was sufficient to cause the collapse. It was, therefore CD is not the only option.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Christopher7's lie about me
You know, Chris7, for a little while there you got away with lying to me about what I said in my own video. I'm pretty angry at myself and you for letting you get away with a lie about what you call my ignorance. You said, among other things,
"A stick [or 2x4] breaks loosing all its strength suddenly. As a carpenter I have experience with this. On the other hand, a steel H beam [a more accurate term than I beam] does not break or loose almost all its strength suddenly like a piece of wood and the comparison does show a lack of understanding of the physical properties of both."
First of all, your statement is wrong wrong wrong, because in both a broken piece of wood and a buckling column, there is a near-instantaneous loss of support, as has now been pointed out to you many times (keyword Euler). I don't know how you can be proven wrong over and over again about subject after subject and have the gall to call me ignorant!
And in my video 18 (http://www.youtube.com/my_videos_edit?video_id=2MER5PhIDt0&ns=1&feature=mhsn), after using the "stick" analogy to demonstrate how columns could bend very slowly and then collapse very quickly, I actually said, "Columns buckled, but in both cases, there is a sudden release and loss of strength." This was an acknowledgement that my stick analogy was just that, an analogy. I just now clarified this further in my video just to make all this even more painfully clear (and unnecessarily clear, except to you and other nitpickers). The whole Euler discussion was an expansion of my knowledge base, but I knew from the start that there is a difference between a clean break and buckling... BUT that both cause a sudden and drastic termination of structural support. AND I SAID THAT!!!
I also know (and you deny) that buckling Building 7 columns were shifting their loads at almost the speed of sound as they buckled, and that as a result, the first couple seconds of the collapse went down way slower, as some of the supporting columns were not all fully buckled and others were bending but not yet buckling. You have no explanation for the slower-than-freefall beginning of the outer perimeter collapse. Thermate would not cause way-slower-than-freefall collapse initiation followed by a couple seconds of freefall, nor would it bring down the east penthouse first. I can explain stage one of the perimeter collapse, you can't.
In other words, my explanation makes sense, my analogy was an analogy, I knew what I was talking about, and you were and are wrong, wrong, wrong, both in content and in the unjustified contempt in which you hold my basic competence. I'm mad at myself for forgetting that I HAD explained right from the start that there is a difference between the breaking stick and the buckling column, but I'm a lot madder at you. Disgusted, actually. I hate being lied about.
You know, Chris7, for a little while there you got away with lying to me about what I said in my own video. I'm pretty angry at myself and you for letting you get away with a lie about what you call my ignorance. You said, among other things,
"A stick [or 2x4] breaks loosing all its strength suddenly. As a carpenter I have experience with this. On the other hand, a steel H beam [a more accurate term than I beam] does not break or loose almost all its strength suddenly like a piece of wood and the comparison does show a lack of understanding of the physical properties of both."
First of all, your statement is wrong wrong wrong, because in both a broken piece of wood and a buckling column, there is a near-instantaneous loss of support, as has now been pointed out to you many times (keyword Euler). I don't know how you can be proven wrong over and over again about subject after subject and have the gall to call me ignorant!
And in my video 18 (http://www.youtube.com/my_videos_edit?video_id=2MER5PhIDt0&ns=1&feature=mhsn), after using the "stick" analogy to demonstrate how columns could bend very slowly and then collapse very quickly, I actually said, "Columns buckled, but in both cases, there is a sudden release and loss of strength." This was an acknowledgement that my stick analogy was just that, an analogy. I just now clarified this further in my video just to make all this even more painfully clear (and unnecessarily clear, except to you and other nitpickers). The whole Euler discussion was an expansion of my knowledge base, but I knew from the start that there is a difference between a clean break and buckling... BUT that both cause a sudden and drastic termination of structural support. AND I SAID THAT!!!
I also know (and you deny) that buckling Building 7 columns were shifting their loads at almost the speed of sound as they buckled, and that as a result, the first couple seconds of the collapse went down way slower, as some of the supporting columns were not all fully buckled and others were bending but not yet buckling. You have no explanation for the slower-than-freefall beginning of the outer perimeter collapse. Thermate would not cause way-slower-than-freefall collapse initiation followed by a couple seconds of freefall, nor would it bring down the east penthouse first. I can explain stage one of the perimeter collapse, you can't.
In other words, my explanation makes sense, my analogy was an analogy, I knew what I was talking about, and you were and are wrong, wrong, wrong, both in content and in the unjustified contempt in which you hold my basic competence. I'm mad at myself for forgetting that I HAD explained right from the start that there is a difference between the breaking stick and the buckling column, but I'm a lot madder at you. Disgusted, actually. I hate being lied about.
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
Simply absurd.
No, that is not what happened to it. There are other ways of bringing down a building, like removing just the amount of support necessary for the remaining one to not be able to hold the building anymore. And of course, that sudden loss of support can happen naturally also during a fire; that's why buildings, including WTC7, suddenly collapse during fires.
The pull-down force (in a way similar to the one I showed in the crane failure video) also explains the acceleration, and even the sudden excess load on the façade.
That is wrong. They did determine what brought it down. They didn't determine exactly how. Nor did they need to.
You've already been corrected several times on this matter. As Ozeco noted to you, describing collapse progression gives zero information to the intended audience of the report (the engineering community) on how to prevent a collapse. Therefore, their stated goal of "why and how the buildings collapsed" is necessarily interpreted as "why at how collapse was initiated".No, no, no
Even if such was the case, they calculated 5.7" displacement, which would leave (if you were correct, which is not my point) a 0.3" seating length. Do you think a 0.3" seating could effectively prevent the girder from collapsing? Pardon me if I'm skeptical. It's a lot of weight over a very tiny surface.
A tiny surface which is also weakened by heat (even if C7's figures on the dimensions are spot-on)
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Exactly. Also, what is the tolerance stackup?
- Status