• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fyziks 101

So steel welded in 36 ft sections is solid, yet not solid? Can you make up your mind?

Your entire post is BS , just like NIST's play on words. Grab a stop watch
and check out any MSM video of the towers exploding. It's not 25 seconds! LMAO

The need to explain the quoted section above highlights your inability to
grasp common terms. The steel itself is solid! The steel lengths welded
together then become solid.

SOme of you morons are trying to spin this to say the length of steel were
1300 feet each LMFAO!

Grow up kids.
 
Again with this DROPPED BS!

The upper section did NOT drop upon 'initiation' of collapse.

Everything was connected by core and perimeter columns!

When columns buckle and the structure begins to move as a result of the failure it indicates otherwise turbo... And most everything broke at the connections as has been pointed to you countless times
 
No dude, I don't admit anything. They used bogus calculations, and
poor simulations to explain their theory.

Your lack of research shows. They did not use simulations to explain the total collapse progression. You have not looked at the Deecember FAQ's have you? it explains why, once initiation had occured, the collapse did not stop. They provide clacs for this. Please disprove them.

TF said:
"nearer 15 seconds"

Wow, I'll give you that extra 5 seconds! You don't see anything wrong
with that?

Ten seconds was taken from several video sources. YouTube is not
blocked here (you can still link videos).

15 secs is nowhere near freefall which is nearer 9 secs. Some of the loose parts fell at freefall, the collapse of the tower was not freefall or anywhere near it.
 
Your entire post is BS , just like NIST's play on words.
YAWN... in other words you can't answer it so you resort to hand waving... thanks... got it

Grab a stop watch and check out any MSM video of the towers exploding. It's not 25 seconds! LMAO

Just how does
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

turn into saying the main collapse took that long. Are you reading impaired? :eye-poppi

The steel itself is solid!

To clarify your layman say so about the columns they were hollow box columns. Whose cross section looked like so: LINK

The steel lengths welded together then become solid.
They were welded together to construct a continuous length yes, but to make them 'solid'.....no

SOme of you morons are trying to spin this to say the length of steel were
1300 feet each LMFAO!
In effect the overall length was close to that... but the individual parts that made up the columns were no longer than 36 ft in length. You are the one claiming that 1300 ft of steel structure should have remained standing... that's a reflection of your physics understanding... which is substantially low
 
Last edited:
Really? Since you imply that you're so familiar with these calculation can you provide the correct numbers for us? Can you demonstrate to us how they are bogus?

Read up on D. Griffin and K. Ryan!



Not in this one....

I guess all sound stops when the towers stop 'falling' huh?
Sure, don't account for sound delays, and the sounds of pieces spreading
arond the city streets. I guess that goes unheard and quiet as a mouse? :rolleyes:

To clarify your layman say so about the columns they were hollow box columns. Whose cross section looked like so: LINK

Steel is a SOLID !

I can't believe you people listen to each other and think you're god's gift
to engineering.

Steel is not a liquid, or a gas. It's solid. In sections, or welded!
 
Last edited:
Read up on D. Griffin and K. Ryan!
Ahhhh so you can't then.

Steel is a SOLID you STUPID ****ING MORON!
Hmmmmm. As I said in a previous post, 'truthers' tend to get very petulant when their inadequacies are exposed. I suspect you'll be wanting a mod to put you out of your misery.
 
Ahhhh so you can't then.

No, not to their level. Why redo something that is already proven?


Hmmmmm. As I said in a previous post, 'truthers' tend to get very petulant when their inadequacies are exposed. I suspect you'll be wanting a mod to put you out of your misery.

You guys call me a troll? Grizzly is making failed attempts at twisting my
words, and that's fine?

What he's doing is fine by JREF I guess? So what, ban me then. :rolleyes:

If I have to put up with losers like him, I'd rather not be here.

There are countless instances where other members are breaking forum rules, but
they are not getting moderated. Sure, I understand there is some bias, but give
me a break.
 
Last edited:
Read up on D. Griffin and K. Ryan!

Kevin Ryan has been shown to be a lying fraud on this very forum. Do a search and you'll find some great information about his failed lawsuit, which was hilariously dismissed with prejudice.

David Griffin is a former professor of what, exactly? It's getting so difficult to keep track of all the completely unrelated fields the 'experts' of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory movement specialize in.
 
Steel is a SOLID you <Expletive removed for convenience>! I can't believe you people listen to each other and think you're god's gift
to engineering.

Steel is not a liquid, or a gas. It's solid. In sections, or welded!

Got it <Expletive removed for convenience>?

I think I was perfectly well aware that steel is a solid, not a liquid, but I don't know where this became a discussion of the difference between steel being a 'solid', or a 'liquid'.

Your context implied that you were claiming something else and I clarified accordingly... If you were trying to shift this to solid vs liquid argument you should have clarified earlier before getting pissed off to the point of insulting my intelligence... Congratulations, there's a chance you could win the honor of being the first member I put on ignore...


He's just trolling. Which is why I put him on ignore long ago. He's not here to debate, or to do anything except waste peoples time.
I might go ahead and set him on ignore... I just have a high tolerance for talking to stubborn ignoramuses. Maybe Turbofan will be the first to break it... he's approaching that point... I can see why you did it earlier though, he's tempted me a few times to do it sooner XD


What he's doing is fine by JREF I guess? So what, ban me then. :rolleyes:

If I have to put up with losers like him, I'd rather not be here.

There are countless instances where other members are breaking forum rules, but
they are not getting moderated. Sure, I understand there is some bias, but give
me a break.

The difference turbofan is that I am insulting your arguments andaiming my insults purely at your conjecture. I make a conservative effort to avoid making it a personal insult. You directly insulted my intelligence, rather than attacking my argument...

But if it makes you feel like you got more pride then do continue... it's not hurting my feelings....
 
Last edited:
Steel is not a liquid, or a gas. It's solid. In sections, or welded!

You are the least of my worries if you don't know
steel is considered a solid! LMFAO!

There are many definitions of the word "solid". This should not have to be explained to you.

When we say that the pieces of steel were "not a solid" we're not referring to the phase of matter1, rather we're stating that multiple pieces of steel welded together are not one solid piece5.

sol·id
1. Of definite shape and volume; not liquid or gaseous.

5. Having no gaps or breaks; continuous: That granite countertop is one solid piece.
 
Last edited:
There are countless instances where other members are breaking forum rules, but
they are not getting moderated.

Any specific instances you would like to bring to our attention?

Edit: As Minadin says, that's really mod-territory. The mods here are very fair about applying the rules to all members equally, regardless of opinion.
 
Last edited:
No, not to their level. Why redo something that is already proven?




You guys call me a troll? Grizzly is making failed attempts at twisting my
words, and that's fine?

What he's doing is fine by JREF I guess? So what, ban me then. :rolleyes:

If I have to put up with losers like him, I'd rather not be here.

There are countless instances where other members are breaking forum rules, but
they are not getting moderated. Sure, I understand there is some bias, but give
me a break.

If you feel another member is breaking the rules, you should use the report feature to let the mods know about it (Little triangle symbol with exclaimation point under a poster's avatar area, looks like /!\)

The rules apply equally to everyone regardless of the position you're trying to argue.
 
The need to explain the quoted section above highlights your inability to grasp common terms. The steel itself is solid! The steel lengths welded together then become solid.
Looks like you think that welds have the same tensile strength as the steel itself. Am I correct in thinking that?
 
Because, not surprisingly, TF is ignoring the last post I made I looked for the NIST explanation for total collapse.

I suspect he is ignorant of them or he would not have made the earlier false claim.

NIST FAQ's said:
1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

Care to dispute this explanation TF?

This "solid" thing is one of the stupidest things I have seen for ages. Well done TF you have given me a giggle.
 

Back
Top Bottom