ozeco41
Philosopher
Tony beat me to it but....different stages as T Sz has explained. More details if you want.
Challenge: Demonstrate Sagging floor Trusses Pulling in Perimeter Columns
- Thread starter enik
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc collapse
NoahFence
Banned
I'm trying to dig up the quote but it's proving difficult.
I was under the impression he was basically inside the building looking down, which would be consistent with every report that stated the floors were sagging. We can even see the result of the floors sagging in that area where the aluminum was pouring out the side.
ozeco41
Philosopher
It could be interesting but nothing under discussion hangs on it. Don't sweat it.
I doubt that anyone inside the Top Portion could see evidence of floor sagging. They could not have been standing on a sagging floor - fatally hot. And no holes through the building to look down - any "shafts" rising through those affected floors would have been flaming chimneys.
Meanwhile our original reason for coming to this thread seem to have worked. Enik's confusions should be resolved. And my offer to discuss initiation mechanism with CD included has been ignored.
I didn't expect the offer to be accepted - "Hey truther - let me help you build a coherent hypothesis!" I've made the offer many times since 2007. Only twice was the offer accepted. 2009 and2010 from memory. It can be fun playing "rational thinking, clear logic, evidence based truther." There are few of them around these days. Years since I've met one.
EDIT: PS BTW my offer to discuss with CD on the table is not new. This was posted on my second day on the Internet - 15 Nov 2007:
econ41 said:
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Last edited:
Where are your many models on the WTC? Are they published?
What is your final conclusion? CD or not CD?
Why are you stuck on showing NIST is wrong with this topic? Why do you have to show NIST is wrong to have some silly fantasy version of 911.
What is wrong with the full up model of collapse we all witnessed on 911? What purpose is a mode now? The building was studied and found to be built right, it was strong, there were no defects. What purposed do model have? In your case you are using models to attack others, not very productive. Either you have a purpose beyond attacking NIST, or you don't. Do you have a real goal, or some silly one limited to failed attacks on NIST?
I like the full up model. After checking, there was no thermite, no explosives. Thus, fire and impacts, and the full up model collapsed. No matter what you do, models etc, the WTC collapsed due to impact and fire. For more understanding check with Robertson, he understand how they collapsed, he built them.
Where are all your models you say you have on the WTC? Where are they published? What is your conclusion on 911? Cat got your typing fingers, or is your voice to text software broken? 12 years and you have no conclusion?
Wait, you do have a conclusion. Inside Job Evidence is in the Physics of WTC #1. Was it an inside job. Oops, we found models that show the sagging is possible. Darn, your challenge is done. Your retirement is compete along with the silly inside job stuff.
Your model is not complete, it was just simple junk. How much of the core pulled in the shell? lol, that about the rest of the WTC? I found your "model", it sucks. But that is my engineering side, on the non-engineering pilot side, it is pretty, with color, and looks cool, but is incomplete. I like the model that shows what the floor really did.
You left out the science of materials and fire, and your model does not explain how the core failed. It is a shallow model, you must be upset you can't find silent explosives, or that Jones faked the thermite claims, which are delusional elements of a failed fantasy in his mind. You left out a lot of stuff, your model is not backed with a paper; or is it? Looks like your retirement from JREF is the best action left to avoid having to explain your inside job theory; was it CD with the fantasy thermite, or silent sub-sonic explosives?
Where is your complete work published?
Last edited:
Inside Job Evidence is in the Physics of WTC #1. What did the Physics say?
To the house of woo? Where they think steel melts at 1000 C?
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/5116176/1/
Your fellow loose change experts have declared, "Beachnut"; is a bot and nothing more.
Loose Change, the dumbest forum on earth? Where woo is rewarded as evidence? lol. No wonder you have a fantasy "Inside Job Evidence is in the Physics of WTC #1".
How does the core pull in the shell 55 inches before the building collapses? The 5 minute core failure? Got some physics for that? Is the Inside Job Evidence the same as that for Bigfoot, but you faked the physics part?
Mr. Usmani - did you refute his work which included how steel works when in fire, etc. Like real steel does, not some failed values you put in to a standard model. Why does your steel not look right in your model?
Real steel sags, your silly cartoon model did not do much more than verify your silly claim, which remain fuzzy, not well defined; past the silly inside job crap. Looks like your model needs work before you can claim the 5 minute core failure, with the 55 inch shell bow with 5 minutes to go... , can happen in your low fidelity model. Loose Change Forum is exactly where your stuff will thrive, and be praised. You picked the right place to float your woo of an inside job, while hiding behind a shallow engineering facade.
You don't know? Is 911 the only buildings totaled by fire you study?
The fires were fought. The building was totaled by fire. The building is gone. Why does you model not look like the real thing? I know MT and Tony have problems with models, so you need to explain how you can say your model proves something when it does not look anything close to reality. Plus, I have seen models, and can understand models which do show what steel does in fire; why is your model so darn weak, low fidelity, missing the right stuff?
Fighting fires can stop the damage seen on 911. WTC 1, 2, and 7 fires not fought. Many building have been totaled by fire, when the fires are fought. Your models are not full fidelity, and lack the stuff needed to understand what you can't state clearly. Your inside job junk was stillborn. Loose Change forum is the one of the only places your ideas float and receive praise. Science and Engineering don't mix with Loose Change.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
I believe the photo you showed of the sagged floor beams was from the 19 hour long Meridian Bank building fire in downtown Philadelphia in 1991. There was no collapse although the building was considered unusable afterward. It was left vacant and not taken down until about eight years afterward http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Meridian_Plaza. I live in the Philadelphia area and saw the building first hand many times after the fire. To answer Enik's question that you didn't want to, or were unable to, there were no bowed in perimeter columns.
Last edited:
The WTC fire was still burning for weeks... 19 hours, it must of been a small building. Wait, fires were fought, fire systems were finally fixed. Amazing how you can shoot water from other buildings to fight fires and avoid complete collapse.
LOL, the building was considered unusable?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg
Really? Why Tony? lol
The building was destroyed by fire. Fires fought. WTC fires not fought. Buildings destroyed by fire. Simple concept 911 truth has to make up lies to have CD, some incredibly inside job junk which they can't define after 12 silly years of woo.
The bowed floors show what fire does, his model, and your claims are BS. The real CD deal only exists in a fantasy. Wow, I was born in Philly, so?
He has failed to make a point, like your paper, and your CD claims. 12 years of CD nonsense.
Inside Job Evidence is in the Physics of WTC #1. What did the Physics say? Jump on in, where is your proof to help enik with his real CD deal? Any evidence yet?
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
The Meridian Plaza building burned out of control from the 22nd to the 30th floor for much of that 19 hours and there was certainly no water applied for the first couple of hours. According to your WTC logic the building should have collapsed, but it didn't, and its shell stood in downtown Philadelphia for eight years. Why didn't it collapse according to your unfought fire theory? Why weren't the perimeter columns bowed inward?
There weren't sprinklers on every floor required at the time it was built and it wasn't until the sprinklers on the 30th floor kicked in that the fire was tamped down and brought under control. The water sprayed on the fires from neighboring buildings was considered ineffective and they did not stop the fire that way.
Last edited:
Robrob
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,497
Are you claiming the Meridian Plaza building was built the same way as the buildings at the WTC?
Oh noes, you forgot the fire dropped down to the 21st floor by convenience stairs. Better study before you take a single floor beginning fire, and compare to a multiple floor KE impact of 1300 to 2000 pounds of TNT - with accelerant of 66,000 pounds of jet fuel (10,000 gallons of jet fuel starting fires on multiple floors).
Did Meridian have a big hole in it, over 100 feet wide and 10 feet tall on multiple floors feeding the fire air? lol, you are so into woo and fantasy you can't make rational claims.
Wow Tony, the WTC were compromised, Meridian Plaza was not. The fire proofing in Meridian was not harmed before the fires started. You failed to make any good for your fantasy CD.
Where did the aircraft hit on Meridian Plaza? lol
Why were there structural failures in Meridian Plaza? Wow, 3 foot floor bowed? Why is eniks model unable to render the correct steel reaction? Why can't you come up with engineering stuff, instead you talk, and compare nonsense.
The best part was this.
LOL, yep unusable to do structural damage. like this?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg
Three Foot Sag? Considered unusable? lol, got to get another beer for this one.
LOL, 911 truth, first to make fun of the dead with far out incomplete stories of inside job, and the silent CD.
Wow, sort of like WTC 7, but different, no holes and pre-damage due to stuff hitting it. A fire inside a building not damaged.
Wait, the fires were being fought and water from other buildings was being applied... Wait... How deep can you did it?
The simple point is, office fires made the steel floors sag, THREE feet, why are the floors of enik's model not doing anything close to reality? Do you gots some engineering to go with your shallow knowledge of Meridian, and a failed comparison to support a fantasy of CD?
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
It had a central core and perimeter construction. See https://failures.wikispaces.com/One+Meridian+Plaza,+Philadelphia,+PA
According to Beachnut's unfought fire theory it should have collapsed.
Last edited:
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
I would love to see a video of truthers trying to assemble Ikea furniture.
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
Oh, so now we are on to the knocked off fireproofing all the way on the other side of the building and up a few stories from the aircraft impact for the North Tower.
What happened to the unfought fire theory?
Enik's model doesn't say the floors can't sag. It says that sagging floor beams or trusses cannot generate the lateral load required to pull the perimeter columns inward. The Meridian Plaza building fire results proves him right. I have provided an explanation of why beams and trusses would not apply a truly catenary lateral tensile load. It is because they still have vertical stiffness and are still supported vertically much more than horizontally like a cable in tension.
The inward bowing and failure of the WTC perimeter columns was due to their being pulled inward by removed core columns. That is the only explanation that works.
Last edited: