Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[lapman]

Wire? We don't need no stinking wire!

Oh, so the radios did not work inside the building, yet radio controlled detonators would. And the ones on the floors that were on fire somehow survived.

?

Here we go again:
Please provide even one example, before or since 9/11, where 4 ton steel columns was found intact with no blast effects 600 feet away from the explosion. While your at it, please provide even one example of a CD by explosives, before or since 9/11, where not one single audio recording device picked up the sound of the explosive sequence.

 

[Minadin]

And how is that applicable to 4 ton framing sections 500-600 feet from where they started?

An inclined plane is an example of a well-known mechanism that exists all over the place and is commonly used to convert vertical, gravitational energy into horizontal motion. You denied that they existed, remember?

But, none of this matters. You think that pieces of the building landing far away from the base means it's an inside job, controlled demolition, or whatever, because AE 9/11 Truth says it is, and you want to believe them.

However, they also say that because the collapse was straight down, it's an inside job / controlled demolition / whatever. You're aware of this, right? Their position states:

Debris outside / far outside building footprint = CD = Inside Job
Debris inside footprint / straight down collapse = CD = Inside Job

Ignoring for a moment that it's both intellectually dishonest and pretty freaking stupid to attempt to claim that both of these conditions existed at the same time, under what circumstance would the AE 9/11 truth incompetents say that the evidence did not point to CD / Inside Job?

 

[T.A.M.]

It's important to note that 5 and 6 suffered catastrophic damage from the impacting debris, but neither bldg globally collapsed, as the larger 7 did, which was farther from the towers.

A very simple question, which I doubt you will give me a reasonable answer to.

WHY is it important? Be exact now. No vagueness please.

TAM

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It's important to note that 5 and 6 suffered catastrophic damage from the impacting debris, but neither bldg globally collapsed, as the larger 7 did, which was farther from the towers.

About the only significance such a comparison has is that WTC 5 & 6 were not constructed with the same framing system 7 was built with. Size also influences the performance to a certain extent. You don't appear to place any value in studying the design specs of each, so how do I take your argument which clearly lacks such background knowledge at face value?

 

[Christopher7]

An inclined plane is an example of a well-known mechanism that exists all over the place and is commonly used to convert vertical, gravitational energy into horizontal motion. You denied that they existed, remember?

Point taken. I have since revised my position

But, none of this matters. You think that pieces of the building landing far away from the base means it's an inside job, controlled demolition, or whatever, because AE 9/11 Truth says it is, and you want to believe them.

Don't claim to know why I believe as I do. You are presumptuous and wrong.

However, they also say that because the collapse was straight down, it's an inside job / controlled demolition / whatever. You're aware of this, right? Their position states:

Debris outside / far outside building footprint = CD = Inside Job
Debris inside footprint / straight down collapse = CD = Inside Job

Are you pretending to be stupid?

Childish insult deleted.

 

[beachnut]

...
Are you pretending to be stupid? ...

Talk about autobiographical.
Yes? No? What is the correct answer to this? Have you asked dolt master Thermite Jones? Have you asked Gage?

Is this more evidence you have no evidence to support AE delusions?

 

[Christopher7]

About the only significance such a comparison has is that WTC 5 & 6 were not constructed with the same framing system 7 was built with. Size also influences the performance to a certain extent. You don't appear to place any value in studying the design specs of each, so how do I take your argument which clearly lacks such background knowledge at face value?

Red, I'll take these.

Griz, T.A.M.

This is off the current topic but since you responded . . . .

The significance is, there was no horizontal collapse. The designs and heights were different but the principle is the same. High rise steel frame buildings have never collapsed at all because of fire. Even 8 and 9 story buildings don't suffer horizontal collapse when heavily damaged and have more extensive fires than WTC 7. The claim that the core columns 58-75 lost lateral support is a lie. 73, 74 and 75 lost lateral support on the east side. They still had lateral support on 3 sides.

 

[beachnut]

Someone forgot to attend his engineering classes.

Someone forgot what he learned in his physics classes.

Someone forgot what he learned in architect school.

Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth – that is what these someones have in common; plus the ability to suspend reality and adopt real dumb ideas.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an ironic name as the spew lies.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth took samples form steel from the WTC and they found traces they say are due to thermite.
FACT: the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth took a sample from a cut in the steel done after 911. Good job Gage and Jones.

http://www.ae911truth.net//ppt_web/slideshow.php?i=166&hires=1 slide 157 on.
Are they really this dumb?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Red, I'll take these.

Griz, T.A.M.

This is off the current topic but since you responded . . . .

The significance is, there was no horizontal collapse. The designs and heights were different but the principle is the same. High rise steel frame buildings have never collapsed at all because of fire.

I will tell you the same thing I told Redibis, don't bother arguing if you don't have the patience to look up the case studies. The first time in history cannard is a bull *rule10* argument. The materiality of the structure, the framing system a structure uses, and height will all affect performance in their own way. Comparing WTC 5 & 6 to WTC 7 is pathetic and demonstrates that anyone attempting to make that comparison has no concept of how design affects performance. Fire weakens steel, and under the right circumstances any building can fail due to the same weakening mechanisms. If you honestly believe steel structures are invincible against fire, I suggest you make the case the agencies which enforce the building codes and explain to them how fireproofing should no longer be required for any steel framed structure.

Even 8 and 9 story buildings don't suffer horizontal collapse when heavily damaged and have more extensive fires than WTC 7.

Irrelevant, you're comparing apples and oranges, you don't have the patience or the motivation to research how design affects performance. You're arguments are not worth taking seriously at that rate.

The claim that the core columns 58-75 lost lateral support is a lie. 73, 74 and 75 lost lateral support on the east side. They still had lateral support on 3 sides.

The structural system that composed the core was braced by the lateral support provided by the floor systems. You had the case studies provided to you on a silver platter... it's your disadvantage for refusing to examine them.

 

[T.A.M.]

Christopher7, you are FOS. You obviously not only have no education in the relevant area, but you do not even have the intellect or common sense to understand either the question, or the answer.

The fact that the heights and the designs of the other buildings were different is VITALLY important. For the love of god.

TAM

 

[nicepants]

The significance is, there was no horizontal collapse. The designs and heights were different but the principle is the same. High rise steel frame buildings have never collapsed at all because of fire. Even 8 and 9 story buildings don't suffer horizontal collapse when heavily damaged and have more extensive fires than WTC 7. The claim that the core columns 58-75 lost lateral support is a lie. 73, 74 and 75 lost lateral support on the east side. They still had lateral support on 3 sides.

Christopher-

I witnessed a car accident a few weeks ago....one car was totaled and the other barely had a dent. Using your logic, would the damage to the totaled car be the result of explosives?

 

[Disbelief]

The hinging action can account for about 100 feet or so. Debris could be pushed outside the perimeter, chaotic collisions can cause deflections but none of these can hurl 4 ton sections 500-600 feet.

Proof of this? Once again, just because you say it does not make it true.

You will now want to criticize me for modifying my position for clarity, something you are incapable of doing. Don't bother, ICCL what you think of me.

When have I attaked you? I just think you need to provide evidence and calculations for your claims.

One would have to have a complete knowledge of every explosive including super thermite and the state of the art demolition tecniques. One would also need the plans and specifications of the towers.
Your request is rhetorical.

No, you would just need to know what kind of force is required (which can be calculated) and with this information you could determine the amount of explosives required. Even "super thermite" would have to explode with a specific amount of force to do what you say it would.

Furthermore, you don't know how loud it was. Someone here claims to have been there but no one can be expected to take his word for the noise level. We need the audio evidence contained on the 7,000 video clips that were collected. There was no need to hide this information from the public in the first place. You-all will support the government excuse that it was necessary because of the trials and/or investigation. Leaving the video evidence in the public domain would have no effect on either. Hiding the evidence is a cover up.

Yes, you absolutely would need to know how loud it was. The amount of explosives required to do what you say, even disregarding the other claim about pulverizing the concrete, would be clearly audible and the dB level could be calculated. Your handwaving won't change this, no matter how much you try.

 

[Christopher7]

Fire weakens steel, and under the right circumstances any building can fail due to the same weakening mechanisms.

But no high rise buildings have.

If you honestly believe steel structures are invincible against fire,

No

The structural system that composed the core was braced by the lateral support provided by the floor systems.

Watch the WTC 7 Collapse with Debris Impact Damage
Use the pause/play to slow the action
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html

Take a look, tell me what you see [be honest] concerning the horizontal collapse. Remember, this is all NIST gave as an explanation for the horizontal collapse.
BTW:
Column row 70-72 had lateral support in 3 directions and 73-75 had lateral support in 4 directions directions, on all floors.
See NCSTAR 1-9 vol.2 pg 505-511

 

[dtugg]

So in other words, you are smarter than NIST and the FDNY?

Maybe they should have just let you do the investigation along with Cardboard Gage and Thermite Jones. Then we would know what really happened.

 

[Christopher7]

So in other words, you are smarter than NIST and the FDNY?

Maybe they should have just let you do the investigation along with Cardboard Gage and Thermite Jones. Then we would know what really happened.

Would it be asking too much for you to address the evidence I presented?

 

[dtugg]

Would it be asking too much for you to address the evidence I presented?

What evidence?

 

[Christopher7]

What evidence?

[FONT=&quot]http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html[/FONT]

Scroll down and watch the WTC 7 Collapse with Debris Impact Damage video. Stop the video just before the end and just after the global collapse begins. Note that the horizontal collapse is at the top. There is no horizontal collapse near the bottom.

 

[dtugg]

[FONT=&quot]http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html[/FONT]

Scroll down and watch the WTC 7 Collapse with Debris Impact Damage video. Stop the video just before the end and just after the global collapse begins. Note that the horizontal collapse is at the top. There is no horizontal collapse near the bottom.

OK? And this proves inside job how?

 

[Christopher7]

OK? And this proves inside job how?

You are getting ahead of yourself. One step at a time.

This proves that the progressive horizontal collapse didn't happen.


The video does not match the text. My bad. However, There are some problems with the horizontal collapse.

See NCSTAR 1-9 vol.2

Pg 581 [243 on pg counter]
Column 76 failed in the next second, as indicated in Figure 12–53, due to loss of lateral support as the floor connections failed, the impact of falling debris, and load redistribution from adjacent columns.

Columns 73 to 75 buckled in the next second, as shown in Figure 12–54, as the process continued where there were sequential failures of each north-south row of interior columns, due to loss of lateral support as floor connections failed, impact of falling debris, and load redistribution from adjacent failing columns.

Column buckling and floor failures continued to propagate from east to west across the core in the lower floors, until all the interior columns buckled between Floors 9 and 14. This occurred 6.5 s after the kink was observed in the East Penthouse, and 6.7 s after Column 79 buckled, as indicated by Figure 12–55.

Figure 12–56 shows that west interior Columns 59, 62, 65, and 66, which were damaged after the debris impact by WTC 1 and by thermally-induced damage from the fires,did not buckle until 4.7 s after the kink was observed in the East Penthouse, or 6 s after Column 79 buckled. The west interior columns did not buckle until these columns were affected by the horizontal progression of failures due to loss of lateral support as floor connections failed, impact of falling debris, and the load redistribution from adjacent failing columns.


Pg 584 [246]
Figure 12–57 shows the general westward progression of interior column failures. Corresponding loads for the column groups 1 to 5 during the horizontal progression of buckling are shown in Figure 12–58. Column group 1 (Columns 79, 80, and 81) failed at -0.5 s before the kink was observed in the East Penthouse, and column groups 1 to 5 had failed by 6.3 s. Column loads for column groups 6 to 8 are shown in Figure 12–59. Column group 7 failed at 4.3 s and column groups 6 to 8 had failed by 6.3 s. At this time, all the interior columns had buckled.

* * * * *

There are several problems with this.

The columns are much larger on the lower floors so any horizontal collapse would occur on the upper floors first.

The floor beams are running north and south and there is a stairwell and some service shafts between row 73-75 [group 3] and row 76-78 [group 2] so there's not a great deal of slab area.

The floor slabs to the north and south are being held up by the exterior walls at that end. They would be adding weight to the falling girder but also adding lateral support to the column and the girder on the other side of row 73-75[group 3]
There is the strength of the column plus the girder on the other side [smaller] to resist the pull.
The pull would be down as much as sideways and the girders would rip loose before buckling the columns.

The computer model has all 3 columns failing in 1 second. Columns cannot fail that fast. They would have to be ripped loose from the girders on the other side and break at 3 splice joints.

The computer model then has the process continuing across the core. This would take several seconds even if it could happen.

The next problem is, there are elevator shafts and even less slab area between column row 73-75[group 3] and row 70-72[group 4] The same is true for the next row.

Meanwhile, columns 59, 62 and 65 [group 7]* very conveniently collapse together at precisely the right time followed 2 seconds later by columns 58, 61, 64 [group 6], 60, 63 and 66 [group 8]

*which were damaged after the debris impact by WTC 1. There is no mention of what damaged them or to what extent that I could find. The fires did not get hot enough to weaken the core columns and they had burned out the west end long before 5:00 PM on most floors.


The main problem is, the collapse of columns 58-75 [6 rows] was simultaneous, not progressive. [NIST L pg 33 "The simultaneous failure of screenwall and west penthouse structures, . . ."

This boat don't float!

 

[dtugg]

As soon as you can prove anything you just said, there is a discussion. By prove, I mean provide some calculations. Just because you say something should happen one way or it doesn't look right doesn't make it so. Especially since you have proven you don't know anything about science here already. Honestly, NIST has infinitely more credibility than some carpenter that can't even define the laws of conversation of energy and momentum without copying verbatim from wikipedia.