Molten Steel

[funk de fino]

Quite the contrary. You have again demonstrated that you don't understand the geometry of the drawing you posted.

How dense are you? Which parts of the top section hit the part below? The bottom of that section and the bottom of that section is now inisde the bottom section due to the tipping. It is not the columns half way up that hit the floor below.

Actually, when the top section tilts, the top of the building is moving horizontally and the columns above the break on the tilt side are then outside the perimeter.

They are moving in a curve and the bottom is moving insode the perimeter. These are the parts that hit the bottom section first.

The broken end of the columns may protrude inside the building but the weight on those columns is outside the building and would be applied to the exterior columns as well as the floor.

There is no weight oustide the weight is acting on the first part that hits the bottom section.

Draw a line straight up from the exterior columns on the tilt side. The exterior wall above the break is outside the building perimeter.

Draw a line directly down from the top section bottom corners, they are inside the perimeter.

But the weight on those columns is outside the building. The exterior columns could support 20 times their designated load and would bend or break the broken ends of the columns protruding into the building. Some of the weight might be applied to the floor but not all of it.

The weight does not move around that top section. It is a load that is apllied to the first part it hits, in this case the floor below

Furthermore, most of the weight of the core columns would be applied to the core area and the weight of the side exterior wall columns would be walls would be applied to the exterior walls below the break.

The core columns would have broken due to the tilt. At some point the side columns would also. This is not a slow process as can be seen in the videos

The NIST hypothesis says ALL the weight was applied to the floors suddenly. That did not happen.

"Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly."

They say the load was applied sudenly. Dynamically. It exceeded the floor limits. You still stick to your claim that only the weight of one floor hit the intact floor below?

 

[funk de fino]

What part of "if" don't you understand?

The part where you do not type it in this post

In that scenario, as many as half the exterior columns would be outside the perimeter and the weight they were carrying would not be applied to the floor below.

Gonna show me where you said if?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

He could not have been more clear.

Source

Then obviously there's no mistake that this oil platform was wired with thermite. They say the platform melted and buckled under he extreme heat:

Original caption: Venice, LA: Steel facilities aboard the 50-foot offshore drilling platform of the Chevron Oil Co. melt and buckle under intense blaze here. Oil and gas fire raged for days.

You can't deny facts right? They said the platform melted. Thermite is the only possibility because it melts steel am I getting your thought line correct? There is no other explanation because fire does not get hot enough to do this to steel right?

Christopher... Understandably similes can be very confusing for those who have difficulty comprehending them. Here, let me help you understand. Nobody is perfect, you can't expect everyone to use the right terminology, all the time.

In Encarta 2009 Microsoft wrote an article concerning the September 11th terrorist attacks, and they use the term melting to describe the effects of fire on the structural members of the trade centers. The usage is incorrect, the fire did not melt the steel, it did weaken it much like this and these wide flange beams draped over wood like wet noodles.

I have no doubt Astanel said what you continue to rant on about: "Melting of steel girders." I have no doubt that many other people reported seeing molten metal in the debris pile. Their conclusions on the other hand, and the lack of action to pursue the issue thereafter suggests they either meant something else, used an expression, or actually saw a substance which had a melting point totally explainable by the temperatures of the rubble fires. Perhaps you should ask all of these witnesses for their thoughts about what they saw since clearly nothing else will give you the comprehension you sorely lack in this category. Or better yet you could in fact slam all of us with irrefutable confirmation that those statements led to a conclusion in line with your own which cannot be considered mistaken. Pick and choose, this could either be your big opportunity to show all of us off, or to completely humiliate yourself. Don't let the "fruits" of your research disappoint.

You cannot accept that because you are in denial.

No, really. You're adult enough; try asking any one of your witness what their thoughts are concerning what they reported seeing. Or do you believe all of these professionals you cite to be cowards like you accuse Mark Loizeaux and others? Or is there another reason keeping you from sitting at your desk and writing a simple question to them via email?

 

[Mercutio]

Speak for yourself. No one here has yet said they believe the numerous credible witnesses who said there was molten steel at the WTC.

Including yourself, it would seem. You don't believe them when these same people say things that are not consistent with your fantasy, as has been amply evidenced in this thread. Why do you not believe them?

Asinine accusation deleted.

It was not an accusation, C7, it was a simple description of your actions. You have lied using the words of others, then hid like a coward behind their reputations to attempt to deflect criticism of your lies. You have knowingly misrepresented the words of honest people who would be appalled to be associated with such deceit.

As always, I stand ready to be proven wrong. Go ahead, humiliate me; contact your star witnesses and show them the argument you defend so passionately. You won't, of course, because you already know you are lying, and you know you are insulting your witnesses and all those who lost their lives.

 

[BenBurch]

Can you accept that the numerous eyewitnesses were telling the truth and they were not "mistaken" or using "similes"?

It doesn't get any clearer than this. Did you check this out?

The History Channel's "World Trade Center, Rise and Fall of an American Icon"
Richard Riggs a Debris Removal Specialist that was doing the clean up.
"The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug up."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ogru...eature=related


There was molten steel in the debris pile!


Deal with it!

No, there was none whatsoever. Not even a pound of it. You are the one telling the lie, so you have to prove it, child.

 

[Christopher7]

[FONT=&quot]

Which parts of the top section hit the part below?

The columns and one floor.

The bottom of that section and the bottom of that section is now inisde the bottom section due to the tipping. It is not the columns half way up that hit the floor below.

The towers were tipping a few degrees at collapse initiation. The exterior wall of the top section was not necessarily inside the bottom section but let's analyze what would happen if it was.
In your scenario the exterior wall on the tipping side applies its weight to the floor on that side. In that case the core columns on the tilt side were applying their weight inside the core. If the columns on the high side were applying their weight inside the building to the floor then the core on the high side were applying their weight inside the core area. The side walls were applying their weight to the exterior walls below, not the floor.
The net result is less than half of the weight above the collapse is being applied to the floor.

It is physically impossible to apply all the weight of the top section to the intact floor below.

NIST FAQ hypothesis is impossible.

[/FONT]

 

[funk de fino]

The columns and one floor.

And from my picture which part would hit first?

The towers were tipping a few degrees at collapse initiation. The exterior wall of the top section was not necessarily inside the bottom section but let's analyze what would happen if it was.

A few degrees? I guess you could look it up and analyze it and see how much. One of them tipped quite a bit.

In your scenario the exterior wall on the tipping side applies its weight to the floor on that side. In that case the core columns on the tilt side were applying their weight inside the core.

And what is inside the core?

If the columns on the high side were applying their weight inside the building to the floor then the core on the high side was applying their weight inside the core area.

What is inside the core?

The side walls were applying their weight to the exterior walls below, not the floor. The net result is less than half of the weight above the collapse is being applied to the floor.

Got calcs?

It is physically impossible to apply all the weight of the top section to the intact floor below.

NIST FAQ hypothesis is impossible.

Not if the top section is dropping after breaking the columns and it did not even need that full weight did it? Care to answer the question? How much load could one floor withstand max?

I notice you snip out the other stuff that proved you were an incompetant.

Struggling to come to terms with it? Basic geometry or maths.

Are you sticking by this? Because it looks like you have just changed your tune.

The weight of one floor was suddenly applied to the intact floor below, not the weight of 12 or 29

Also if those columns on the lower side fell inside the perimeter what would happen to the perimeter columns below as the collapse progressed? Would they be pushed outwards or inwards?

 

[Christopher7]

You can't deny facts right? They said the platform melted.

Who said that?

[FONT=&quot]ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.[/FONT]

This is not an off the cuff statement. He is specifically comparing girders that some people [like the person in the article you posted] might mistakenly refer to as "melting" [turn into liquid] with girders at the WTC that actually did melt.

I have no doubt Astanel said "Melting of steel girders." I have no doubt that many other people reported seeing molten metal in the debris pile.

Do you doubt that several witnesses saw molten steel dripping from beams being pulled from the pile?

Their conclusions on the other hand, and the lack of action to pursue the issue thereafter suggests

A cover up.

they either meant something else, used an expression, or actually saw a substance which had a melting point totally explainable by the temperatures of the rubble fires.

Hogwash. That is pure denial.

Perhaps you should ask all of these witnesses for their thoughts about what they saw since clearly nothing else will give you the comprehension you sorely lack in this category.

Only to a devout denier.

The numerous statements support each other. There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic.

 

[beachnut]

[FONT=&quot]ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.[/FONT]


Do you doubt that several witnesses saw molten steel dripping from beams being pulled from the pile?

A cover up.

The fact is he saw no melted steel on 911; never saw melted steel on 911; you know what he really saw?. He arrived when? Not on 911, so he saw no melting due to thermite; there was no thermite and by the time Dr A showed up even if thermite was in the WTC, it would be rock solid thermite product, not melted any more. Sad, you have no clue.

When did Dr A show up in NYC? This cool, there were no explosives used, Dr A says the WTC fell due to fire and he thinks they underbuilt it, but then he is in the minority opinion, yet now engineers are looking at building with idiot terrorists in mind, the same idiot terrorist you are doing a poor job trying to apologize for and failing.


Sad, you are using quotes from months after 911. Months. Thus thermite is proven not used, thermite turns quite solid after minutes, not months.

So you are saying the fires burning for months in the WTC due to office contents melted steel and has what to do with 911? NOTHING.

Good for you, you have wasted 7 years spewing delusions and failed opinions on 911 when you could have gained an education and learned not to be fooled by idiotic ideas that 911Truth made up based on junk science and hearsay.


What does melted steel have to do with 911? Oh, you say only thermite can melt steel. Too bad Jones made up thermite is telling a lie.

 

[Christopher7]

In your scenario the exterior wall on the tipping side applies its weight to the floor on that side. In that case the core columns on the tilt side were applying their weight inside the core.

If the columns on the high side were applying their weight inside the building to the floor then the core columns on the high side were applying their weight inside the core area.

The side walls were applying their weight to the exterior walls below, not the floor. The net result is less than half of the weight above the collapse is being applied to the floor.

Got calcs?

T = Total werght of top section
W = weight carried by one exterior wall
C = weight carried by core columns
C ~= 4W
T = 4W + C

T - (C + 2W) < .5 T

The NIST hypothesis says all the weight of the top section was applied suddenly to the intact floor.

"Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly."

That is NOT what happened.

 

[funk de fino]

There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic.

I do believe that is another Stundie.

This keeps getting better and better.

 

[funk de fino]

T = Total werght of top section
W = weight carried by one exterior wall
C = weight carried by core columns
C > 4W
T = 4W + C

T - (C + 2W) < .5 T

The NIST hypothesis says all the weight of the top section was applied suddenly to the intact floor.

"Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly."

That is NOT what happened.

Those are not calcs. Where is the dynamic part? The core is no longer carrying any weight, the columns have broken.

Even in you laughable situation you would have 2 perimeter walls carrying some of that weight for a very miniscule period porior to it hitting the floor. Are you forgetting the distance between the intact floor and the top section?

Read the FAQ's again.

If there had been a CD and the top section dropped the same distance would progressive collapse ensue?

You have snipped out stuff again, unless you start answering all the post, you look dishonest and intellectually cowardly.

Stop wasting our time, bring it, or stop posting nonsense like this

The weight of one floor was suddenly applied to the intact floor below, not the weight of 12 or 29

 

[Christopher7]

Those are not calcs. Where is the dynamic part? The core is no longer carrying any weight, the columns have broken.

You are talking thru your hat.

The core columns are carrying the weight above them just like the exterior walls are carrying the weight above them.

Even in you laughable situation you would have 2 perimeter walls carrying some of that weight for a very miniscule period porior to it hitting the floor. Are you forgetting the distance between the intact floor and the top section?

You are forgetting that the other 2 perimeter walls applied their weight to the perimeter walls below the collapse, NOT THE FLOOR!

You are also forgetting that the core columns were applying their weight to the core area below, NOT THE FLOOR!

 

[funk de fino]

You are talking thru your hat.

The core columns are carrying the weight above them just like the exterior walls are carrying the weight above them. Some of the core and perimeter columns were broken by the impact, where does that show in your calcs?

You are forgetting that the other 2 perimeter walls applied their weight to the perimeter walls below the collapse, NOT THE FLOOR!

You are also forgetting that the core columns were applying their weight to the core area below, NOT THE FLOOR!

How far was the drop to the next intact floor? The columns would have snapped by this time. At the very best they would have been weakened so badly by the fire they would not have supported anything.

What is in the core C7? What could the core columns poossibly be exerting their weight on?

Do you stand by this?

The weight of one floor was suddenly applied to the intact floor below, not the weight of 12 or 29

You like one of those jokes that gets funnier everytime you hear it, a rarety indeed.

With your calcs, what weight will hit the first intact floor below and from what height? What load does this give?

 

[Christopher7]

How far was the drop to the next intact floor?

Irrelevant.

The columns would have snapped by this time. At the very best they would have been weakened so badly by the fire they would not have supported anything.

What are you talking about?

All the columns failed prior to collapse.

What is in the core C7? What could the core columns poossibly be exerting their weight on?

Something other than the floor between the core and the exterior walls.

With your calcs, what weight will hit the first intact floor below and from what height? What load does this give?

Irrelevant.

The question is not when or how much but where the weight of the top section was applied.

There is NO scenario where all the weight of the top section can be suddenly applied to the intact floor below as the NIST FAQ hypothesis proposes.

 

[funk de fino]

Irrelevant.

Are you trying for the Stundie award with every post? Of course the height to the next intact floor is relevant. There is more distance for gravity to accelerate the mass of the top section. Are you a Heiwa two miles man?

What are you talking about?

All the columns failed prior to collapse.

So if they failed they were carrying the weight of nothing.

Something other than the floor between the core and the exterior walls.

What was inside the core C7?

Irrelevant.

No, its not. Once the top section fell is is accelerating towarfs whatever is beneath it. In this case its the first intact floor below. The larger that distance the more load applied.

The question is not when or how much but where the weight of the top section was applied.

There is NO scenario where all the weight of the top section can be suddenly applied to the intact floor below as the NIST FAQ hypothesis proposes.

The top section tiults which part of the top section hits the bottom section first? Is it your perimeter columns 10 meter above the impact zone or is it the bottom of the columns of the section that is tipped? What happens to the perimeter columns below this point if the columns which have tipped drop down inside? Are they thrown outwards or inwards?

NIST say load, they do not say weight. The drop increases the load applied on the floor.

Please calculate that C7.

 

[Sunstealer]

C7 doesn't can't do calculations.

 

[roundhead]

C7 is shamelessly owning you guys.

 

[T.A.M.]

C7 is shamelessly owning you guys.

There are not enough laughing dogs to reply with.

TAM

 

[twinstead]

C7 is shamelessly owning you guys.

Yea, and Heiwa is bill smith's hero. What's your point? Of course you're going to say that. You kind of HAVE to if you want to keep your little world view intact, don't you?