A Question For Truthers Regarding the CD Theory

[Dave Rogers]

Are you implying it only takes fracturing on one horizontal plane of a building to induce complete free fall thereafter?

I'm saying that an initial failure can comprise a multi-storey buckle. As I've explained to you with pictures, this requires typically three fractures at different heights. But feel free to pretend I'm saying something totally different on the basis of an imprecise use of language, if that's the only debating position you have left.

This post is beneath you.

I'm sure you're well placed to assess that.

Dave

 

[tempesta29]

I'm saying that an initial failure can comprise a multi-storey buckle. As I've explained to you with pictures, this requires typically three fractures at different heights. But feel free to pretend I'm saying something totally different on the basis of an imprecise use of language, if that's the only debating position you have left.

Yeah, and buckling doesn't occur at free fall. You've been reminded of this countless times. Severing columns near the ground level of a building will not even induce complete collapse let alone a collapse at gravitational acceleration.

 

[tempesta29]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6726337&postcount=103

The failure of a single or multiple structural elements can occur in a single very short period of time. It can be few minutes, few seconds or even less than a second.

But the case of WTC7 it probably took several seconds.

Where did you get this garbage?

Who said "one horizontal plane"?

Is this that hard to comprehend? The building is collapsing down, therefore columns are failing on the same floors. A floor is a horizontal plane.

 

[Carlos]

Yeah, and buckling doesn't occur at free fall.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6717618&postcount=12

Severing columns near the ground level of a building will not even induce complete collapse let alone a collapse at gravitational acceleration.

Why not?

 

[Carlos]

Where did you get this garbage?

Which part?

Is this that hard to comprehend? The building is collapsing down, therefore columns are failing on the same floors. A floor is a horizontal plane.

I understood perfectly what you said.

Replace "one horizontal plane" by "one floor" in my question.

 

[GlennB]

Yeah, and buckling doesn't occur at free fall. You've been reminded of this countless times.

The buckling phase is stage 1 in the graph. Sub g acceleration. This has been pointed out to you a number of times.

Severing columns near the ground level of a building will not even induce complete collapse let alone a collapse at gravitational acceleration.

So commercial CD doesn't work? Quick - pass the word.

 

[chipmunk stew]

The buckling phase is stage 1 in the graph. Sub g acceleration. This has been pointed out to you a number of times.

Good gawd, this still hasn't sunk in? It's not a difficult concept, even for an Armchair Engineer.

 

[dafydd]

Yeah, and buckling doesn't occur at free fall. You've been reminded of this countless times. Severing columns near the ground level of a building will not even induce complete collapse let alone a collapse at gravitational acceleration.

How do you know this? In which engineering school did they teach you that?

 

[Thunder]

the title of the OP needs to be changed.

no such theory has ever been presented. all we have been provided with, is an untested hypothesis..which is little more than a guess or a speculation.

 

[dafydd]

I agree,now that Tempesta has claimed that commercial CD doesn't work.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I would take it one step further than that: if Truthers cannot present that a material with the necessary properties even exists, then discussing whether they were in the building is utterly pointless.

I prefer the more linear approach. If you can't show that the very first thing that all of your subsequent theories rely upon to be possible, the logical conclusion is that anything that follows that explicitly relies upon that impossibility is rendered moot.

 

[tempesta29]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6717618&postcount=12

Yeah, I remember that guy's post the first time he didn't make sense writing it. You can stop linking to other posts. I won't be responding any further. Make an argument, and write it on this page.

Why not?

Are you kidding? Have you ever seen a failed CD where only the first set or first few levels of explosives detonate? The building hits the ground and stops. One floor of buckling will not induce total collapse.

Replace "one horizontal plane" by "one floor" in my question.

Your posts are lazy. Form complete questions. I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[tempesta29]

The buckling phase is stage 1 in the graph. Sub g acceleration. This has been pointed out to you a number of times.

So commercial CD doesn't work? Quick - pass the word.

And what do you think this means exactly? Are you under the impression that severing one floor of columns at the base will then induce total collapse? It creates the onset of collapse and then, in a CD, another level of columns are severed and so on and so forth.

The buckling of columns at the base is just that: happening at the base. There are 46 other floors to this building. Stage 1 involves 7 feet of structure. There are about 240 more feet of industrial steel columns to resist collapse.

And what is this "buckling phase" nonsense? Where did you get this term?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIEBLdd6W3Q

Here you go. You're welcome.

 

[tempesta29]

And again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c&feature=fvw

Look how much momentum this building has. Guess what? It just stops. This building collapsed roughly half of its height and it just stops.

Want more or are you starting to get the picture?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

It always amuses me when truthers compare a building with absolutely no similarities in construction to the world trade center. It really highlights those who have absolutely no clue as to what they're talking about. At all.

 

[GlennB]

And what do you think this means exactly? Are you under the impression that severing one floor of columns at the base will then induce total collapse? It creates the onset of collapse and then, in a CD, another level of columns are severed and so on and so forth.

Are you under the impression that every floor needs to be cut, otherwise the collapse will arrest? Oh dear.

Meanwhile in verinage demolition even very robust RC buildings are totally demolished with the removal of a single floor.

The buckling of columns at the base is just that: happening at the base. There are 46 other floors to this building. Stage 1 involves 7 feet of structure. There are about 240 more feet of industrial steel columns to resist collapse.

You've missed the point AGAIN that after stage 1 we have - in essence - 8 storeys of wall providing no resistance, therefore leading to a further 8-storey drop before any further resistance is experienced. Having fallen 8 storeys there is no way on earth the collapse will arrest. Remember too (in case you forgot) that the core was collapsing well before any of this happened, so the wall's internal support is marginal to non-existent.

And what is this "buckling phase" nonsense? Where did you get this term?

That represents the formation and then rupture of a plastic hinge and would be the initial sub-g phase in the NIST graph. This has been explained several times now so please stop asking the same damn question. In the case of WTC7 the 8-storey section we're considering also involves multiple column connections, making the rupture that much easier to occur.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIEBLdd6W3Q

Here you go. You're welcome.

That's a RC building whose CD has been screwed up. So what?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yeah, and buckling doesn't occur at free fall. You've been reminded of this countless times.

And, as I've reminded you countless times, the statement that "buckling doesn't occur at free fall" means about as much as "velocity is not orange". It's word salad.

Let me spell this out for you.

Fire-induced buckle theory:

T=0 seconds - Initiation of facade collapse - a section of perimeter columns, probably about eight floors in height, buckles to form a series of plastic hinges.
T=1.75 seconds - having buckled inelastically, the plastic hinges fracture. Nothing is now supporting the facade, which descends at approximately 1G acceleration.
T=4 seconds - having fallen through the remaining height of the inital buckle, the upper section encounters resistance due to impact on the remaining lower section.

Exposives theory:

T=0 seconds - explosives go off silently. Although all support has been severed, for some reason the upper section doesn't fall at 1G acceleration.
T=1.75 seconds - although nothing new has happened, for some unknown reason the acceleration of the upper section reaches 1G.
T=4 seconds - again for no clearly understoof reason, the acceleration then begins to decrease.

Multi-storey buckling makes sense of the acceleration curve. Explosives don't. It's as simple as that.

Severing columns near the ground level of a building will not even induce complete collapse let alone a collapse at gravitational acceleration.

Congratulations on your Stundie nomination for demonstrating that you don't understand the basic principles of controlled demolition. No doubt this will lead other conspiracy theorists to ascribe even greater authority to your random pronouncements.

Dave

 

[dafydd]

A worthy stundie,and one of the front runners for the January prize.

 

[Sabretooth]

The NIST report admits that WTC 7 fell at free fall. That is an admission that its columns lost 100% of their load bearing capacity over roughly 8 floors, possibly more.

Great! Now what medium caused this? Be sure it includes all of the requirements outlined in the OP!

 

[Sabretooth]

Asking this question is like asking a 9/11 conspiracy theorist to justify why explosions are always equated to the use of explosives after failing to eliminate the other 50 things that are candidates.

There's never any direct answer to it. They will say "that's why we need a new investigation to find out." Yet despite arguing that, they claim to have already found their answer and are ready to take this thing to court.

Quiet explosives: It's an oxymoron. Explosives are by definition a sudden release of energy. There is no kind of explosive charge designed to sever a structural member that will have a sound measurement below 130 decibels from a quarter to half-mile.

If there is one recording of it, then there should be at least a couple hundred. This was the most documented terrorist attack in history, with footage from virtually every distance. There is not a single audio recording of audible explosions of the type that can be associated with charges capable of severing columns. NONE. Reports of explosions do not change this, because truthers refuse to provide compelling evidence that alternatives don't explain the reports, in fact alternatives, in their minds, don't exist.

Detection before or after use: Not even a concern. If truthers cannot present even the basic evidence that the said materials were there in the first place then discussing the method of installation is utterly pointless.

Just my 2 cents... I'd be interested however in seeing what sort of disagreement they'd have with this kind of question, or an elaboration discussing why the question was asked such as this one. I find that playing devil's advocate with this theory is impractical since the evidence points to something other than the case they advance

You are 100% right. However, I wanted a truther to see this question for what it is...impossible.

Truthers are quick to back up the ridiculous antics of some anonymous utuber, without the slightest bit of thought. The point of the OP is to make them think for themselves.

Truthers automatically believe a preconceived notion of item "D" to be true. The OP is a question designed to show that "D" cannot be true because "A", "B", and "C" cannot be found to be true. Does that make sense? If any part of the OP question is "False", then the conclusion also equals "False".

Bottom line - the CD theory is impossible because one or more of the elements required for CD is missing. So let them Truthers figure it out.