Legge/Szamboti: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible

[leftysergeant]

Which leads me to my question: when you see those same things depicted in a TV show or movie, do they sound anything at all like they really do in person? I'm willing to bet the answer is, in the vast majority of instances, no.

A television sound system will not deliver the true sound of a large caliber handgun being fired. It makes your ears rign. That's why every professional, commercial or shooting club firing range in the world requires hearing protection.

Television will not convey the sensation that the whole world has become over-pressurized to match the blast of a grenade or artillery burst.

And I have never heard anything that would drown out a pound of plastic explosives a thousand feet away.

 

[leftysergeant]

Simply speaking the WTCs were much too strongly built to allow any collapse under any circumstances due to release of its inherent potential energy. So extra energy must have been introduced and it seems to have been released very suddenly ... and not only inside the so called initiation zone but in other locations.

That makes no bloody sense. It is impossible to build a structure which does not allow collapse under any circumstances, unless we are talking about a solid steel pyramid.

And what indications are there that any energy was applied elsewhere than in the area of collapse initiation? The lack of any observeable explosive phenomena elsewhere rules this out utterly. The relative lack of damage to the cores rules out cutting charges lower in the structure. The lack of observeable cutting charges on the outside of the buildings rules out cutting charges on the perimeter columns.

The antenna on the north tower did not just shoot down into the interior when it fell, it wobbled and sank.

You need to come up with something incredible to prove that there were any explosive events.

 

[pomeroo]

I know how it is defined, it is a ratio isn't it? In the limit of high numbers it should give a reliable estimation of the chance, which can be used to calculate the chance for a new similar situation, that's how insurance companies work.

Twin, Pom, AW,

I try to imagine how this fits with the crush-down crush-up model and believe I even didn't mention the word explosives in this thread.

Try thinking in terms of a lottery. The chance that you will win is extremely small. The chance that someone will win is very big. Of the myriad possibilities of something--a piece of paper, an article of clothing, an object--surviving a plane crash or a building collapse, well, one or more of them will survive. After the fact, we all know what that something is.
If I tell you that there was a plane crash and something survived, you won't doubt me. You will assume that something did survive, and you'll ask what it was. You profess astonishment that a passport survived, but if the passport had vanished and the miraculous item turned out to be a phone bill a passenger was carrying, you'd be asking how the "magic" phone bill made it through.

 

[beachnut]

Try thinking in terms of a lottery. The chance that you will win is extremely small. The chance that someone will win is very big. Of the myriad possibilities of something--a piece of paper, an article of clothing, an object--surviving a plane crash or a building collapse, well, one or more of them will survive. After the fact, we all know what that something is.
If I tell you that there was a plane crash and something survived, you won't doubt me. You will assume that something did survive, and you'll ask what it was. You profess astonishment that a passport survived, but if the passport had vanished and the miraculous item turned out to be a phone bill a passenger was carrying, you'd be asking how the "magic" phone bill made it through.

True, you can't pick what survives! It is chance!

Happy new year

The impacts on 911 were as expected for high speed aircraft; and it does not take a class from the USAF to understand. Did you have any problem understanding? No.

 

[twinstead]

Happy new year everybody!

 

[beachnut]

Happy new year everybody!

happy new year --- how good is the beer?

 

[pomeroo]

Happy New Year!


Beer-hah! I'm drinkin' bubbly.

 

[beachnut]

Happy New Year!


Beer-hah! I'm drinkin' bubbly.

ah, but mine is not vintage

pour la vie, and Story too Private Cuvee

 

[A W Smith]

Whos drinkin what?

Happy New Year!


Beer-hah! I'm drinkin' bubbly.

Wonder what Fran..... oh never mind

 

[Newtons Bit]

That makes no bloody sense. It is impossible to build a structure which does not allow collapse under any circumstances, unless we are talking about a solid steel pyramid.

And what indications are there that any energy was applied elsewhere than in the area of collapse initiation? The lack of any observeable explosive phenomena elsewhere rules this out utterly. The relative lack of damage to the cores rules out cutting charges lower in the structure. The lack of observeable cutting charges on the outside of the buildings rules out cutting charges on the perimeter columns.

The antenna on the north tower did not just shoot down into the interior when it fell, it wobbled and sank.

You need to come up with something incredible to prove that there were any explosive events.

Heiwa is right to a degree, in that under normal loading conditions (wind, live load, etc) the towers would not collapse. External energy would need to be provided. On 9/11, this energy was delivered in the form of a plane.

Funny that he didn't notice that part of the day.

 

[leftysergeant]

Heiwa is right to a degree, in that under normal loading conditions (wind, live load, etc) the towers would not collapse. External energy would need to be provided. On 9/11, this energy was delivered in the form of a plane.

Funny that he didn't notice that part of the day.

Well, if you put it that way, it really doesn't matter how the buildings were designed. After the impact, they had been re-designed and the new design sort of sucked in the areas of stability and fire resistance. Random and slaunch-wise supports are notoriously inefficient at holding up multi-ton objects.

 

[Max Photon]

External energy in the form of a plane, and planted thermite, caused collapse

Heiwa is right to a degree, in that under normal loading conditions (wind, live load, etc) the towers would not collapse. External energy would need to be provided. On 9/11, this energy was delivered in the form of a plane.

Funny that he didn't notice that part of the day.

Which part?

That the aluminum from the planes was used to create aluminum-water explosions to knock off SFRM?

Or that thermite was planted at steel connections to augment the fires, to ensure that a critical number of members failed from heat-weakening?


Let me add a bit to Newton...

Under normal loading conditions (wind, live load, etc) the towers would not collapse. External energy would need to be provided. On 9/11, this energy was delivered in the form of a plane - its momentum, jet fuel, combustible contents, and aluminum - and in the form of planted thermite.


You know why it's funny that Newton missed that part of the day?

Because deception and humor have the same geometry!

That's a laugh, don't you see?

 

[uk_dave]

Which part?

That the aluminum from the planes was used to create aluminum-water explosions to knock off SFRM?

What? Good grief Max, is that your next maxlihop lite theory?

Or that thermite was planted at steel connections to augment the fires, to ensure that a critical number of members failed from heat-weakening?

unnecessary

Let me add a bit to Newton...

in your dreams

Under normal loading conditions (wind, live load, etc) the towers would not collapse. External energy would need to be provided. On 9/11, this energy was delivered in the form of a plane - its momentum, jet fuel, combustible contents, and aluminum - and in the form of planted thermite which somehow managed to survive the crash and didn't actually ignite anyway, but that's ok because it wasn't needed.

fixed that on for you

You know why it's funny that Newton missed that part of the day?

Because deception and humor have the same geometry!

That's a laugh, don't you see?

Nope

 

[einsteen]

deleted

 

[einsteen]

I know absolutely nothing about thermite and all that stuff, but perhaps Max-Mihop means that the parts that don't survive are no longer needed because those columns are already destroyed and the parts that do survive can do their normal job.

ps. I see there is no real debunk of the rumbling sound prior to collapse, I didn't expect anything else here.

 

[Max Photon]

More than enough thermite would survive the crash

I know absolutely nothing about thermite and all that stuff, but perhaps Max-Mihop means that the parts that don't survive are no longer needed because those columns are already destroyed and the parts that do survive can do their normal job.

...exactly, AND that there was more than enough planted thermite to get the job done.

 

[uk_dave]

The planes crashed through the structure and spread a large amount of fuel around the impact floors causing numerous fires which weakened the floor trusses which had been made more vulnerable by the damage caused to their fireproofing.

...exactly, AND that there was more than enough planted thermite to get the job done.

Works quite well, don't it?

 

[TjW]

I know absolutely nothing about thermite and all that stuff, but perhaps Max-Mihop means that the parts that don't survive are no longer needed because those columns are already destroyed and the parts that do survive can do their normal job.

ps. I see there is no real debunk of the rumbling sound prior to collapse, I didn't expect anything else here.

I wouldn't expect this to be called a debunking, but have you given the merest glimmer of a possibility of a thought to a conjecture that things could have been breaking internally, out of view of video cameras, shifting more and more load to the external columns, until they finally yielded, resulting in the visible collapse?

Call me silly, but this seems more likely than postulating explosives-that-don't-sound-like-explosives.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I wouldn't expect this to be called a debunking, but have you given the merest glimmer of a possibility of a thought to a conjecture that things could have been breaking internally, out of view of video cameras, shifting more and more load to the external columns, until they finally yielded, resulting in the visible collapse?

Call me silly, but this seems more likely than postulating explosives-that-don't-sound-like-explosives.

Some form of artificial heat weakening of the columns could also cause the same phenomena and should be looked at since we had the same phenomena happen twice to buildings with relatively high factors of safety. With Gregory Urich's recently published mass analysis it turns out to be 3:00 to 1 for the core and 5:00 to 1 for the perimeter when considering gravity only.

It can be shown that no more than 20% of the columns in either building were destroyed or heavily damaged.

Additionally, that all pervasive jet fuel can be shown to have burned off in ten minutes or so leaving only office fires.

Couple the above with the fact that NIST got very few pieces of structural steel of the central cores from the fire affected areas to test. Why? That makes me suspicious and I wonder why more people here aren't also.

 

[beachnut]

Some form of artificial heat weakening of the columns could also cause the same phenomena and should be looked at since we had the same phenomena happen twice to buildings with relatively high factors of safety (with Gregory Urich's mass analysis it turns out to be 3:00 to 1 for the core and 5:00 to 1 for the perimeter when considering gravity only), which had no more than 20% of their columns destroyed or heavily damaged, and where that all pervasive jet fuel can be shown to have burned off in ten minutes or so leaving only office fires.

Couple the above with the fact that NIST got very few pieces of structural steel of the central cores from the fire affected areas to test. Why? That makes me suspicious and I wonder why more people here aren't also.

You have just debunked your own paper! Good job.