Molten Steel

[funk de fino]

Saying the energy was there does not prove that it resulted in the total collapse. That is speculation, not science.

So wrong it is unbelievable.

Furthermore, NIST did not allow for the energy necessary to eject debris up to 600 feet in all directions.

And?

ETA:
NIST did not subtract the energy lost as a result of debris falling outside the perimeter. Estimates run as high as 95% [Blanchard]

Oh really? In the first milisecond second or so it took the top section to hit the bottom section, how much of the top section was falling outside the perimeter?

You dont even think before you type your babble do you?

 

[Christopher7]

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

This is NOT what happened.

Yes it is, when the top section broke free and fell on the bottom section the load of the top section was applied suddenly to the intact floor below which could not handlle the weight so the floor connections broke.

Wrong!
The weight was primarily on the columns.

The north tower tilted a few degrees and fell straight down. Most of the weight was on the interior and exterior columns.
Even if the top section moved to one side a little, the weight of one exterior wall would then be outside the building and the weight of the core would still be mostly inside the core area.
It would be physically impossible to apply all the weight of the top section to the floor connections.

That is complete mumbo jumbo, you ahave no idea what you are talking about.

Correction: You have no idea what I am talking about.

If the top section tilts enough then the columns break. This section is now a moving weight.

Correct

When the top section falls it hits the floor below.

Correct.
However
You fail to grasp the concept that the columns were carrying the weight. The columns were mostly bearing down on the columns below, not the floor. The weight of one floor was suddenly applied to the intact floor below, not the weight of 12 or 29.

 

[GlennB]

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

Uh? So if I mortar together 12 bricks and drop them on your head you are only suffering the weight of the bottom brick? Another Chris7 special.

 

[Christopher7]

Saying the energy was there does not prove that it resulted in the total collapse. That is speculation, not science.

So wrong it is unbelievable.

I agree completely.

In the first milisecond second or so it took the top section to hit the bottom section, how much of the top section was falling outside the perimeter?

Stupid question.
A better question would be:
If the energy consumed ejecting debris up to 600 feet in all directions and the potential energy lost due to most of the debris falling outside the perimeter were subtracted from the total amount of energy available at the start of the collapse, would there still be enough to make the towers fall the way the did?

NIST did not take all the relevant factors into consideration and therefore their hypothesis is invalid.

 

[Christopher7]

Uh? So if I mortar together 12 bricks and drop them on your head you are only suffering the weight of the bottom brick?

Kids, don't try this at home.

Do you know the difference between a core and perimeter frame building and a brick?

 

[funk de fino]

Wrong!
The weight was primarily on the columns.

Wrong if the top section tilted and the columns were broken then they were not. The columns did not hit square on. Even in Bazants model when this is the case the collapse progressed.

Or are you saying the columns would not break if the top section tilted far enough?

Correction: You have no idea what I am talking about.

Correct, because it is just babble from someone who is uninformed and has no engineering background.

Correct

Correct.

However
You fail to grasp the concept that the columns were carrying the weight. The columns were mostly bearing down on the columns below, not the floor. The weight of one floor was suddenly applied to the intact floor below, not the weight of 12 or 29.

They were not bearing down on the columns below the top section fell as one and hit the section below. It could not avoid the floor below so the connections were broken by the load of the top section hitting it. Once the floor connections are gone the columns lose support. the top section was one moving mass. This was one load applied to anything below it.

That is by far the stupidest thing I have ever seen you post and is Stundied.

All that fell on the floor below was the weight of one floor? That is hilarious.

 

[funk de fino]

Stupid question.
A better question would be:
If the energy consumed ejecting debris up to 600 feet in all directions and the potential energy lost due to most of the debris falling outside the perimeter were subtracted from the total amount of energy at the start of the collapse, would there still be enough to make the towers fall the way the did?

NIST did not take all the relevant factors into consideration and therefore their hypothesis is invalid.

Except for that fact you said that it fell outside the perimeter. It did not in the first milisecnd did it? Therefore there was no energy used at the point when the collapse started. The parts that flew out did not start to fly out until the collapse initiated.

You are putting the cart before the horse. The top section was one section made of many parts. Its mass did not change in the first milisecond of the collapse as it dropped.

 

[Christopher7]

The weight was primarily on the columns.

Wrong if the top section tilted and the columns were broken then they were not. The columns did not hit square on.

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.

Or are you saying the columns would not break if the top section tilted far enough?

No

They were not bearing down on the columns below the top section fell as one and hit the section below.

Both you and glen don't seem to understand the difference between a core and perimeter frame building and a brick.

 

[Christopher7]

If the energy consumed ejecting debris up to 600 feet in all directions and the potential energy lost due to most of the debris falling outside the perimeter were subtracted from the total amount of energy at the start of the collapse, would there still be enough to make the towers fall the way the did?

NIST did not take all the relevant factors into consideration and therefore their hypothesis is invalid.

It did not in the first milisecnd did it? Therefore there was no energy used at the point when the collapse started. The parts that flew out did not start to fly out until the collapse initiated.

Correct.
What about the rest of the collapse? NIST did not take all the relevant factors into consideration and therefore their hypothesis is invalid.

 

[Dave Rogers]

"I can't figure out how it happened, therefore, it cannot be."

Chris, that is in fact your position in this. You can't figure out how the steel stayed molten, so you've concluded that whatever kept it molten couldn't have melted it in the first place.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Wrong. Thermite is the only possible source of the molten steel. How it stayed molten for weeks is a matter of speculation.

Wrong. Any process capable of keeping steel molten for weeks is also capable of melting steel. There is therefore some other source than thermite of the molten steel, or the molten steel did not exist.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

Kids, don't try this at home.

Do you know the difference between a core and perimeter frame building and a brick?

OK another analogy to help you get it -

1. get some steel mesh and drop it on your head

2. weld the same steel mesh across the end of a 6' diameter steel pipe. Have it dropped on you so that the mesh part hits your head.

The same pain damage and pain? No.

Of course it's fair to say that the degree of damage will depend on the quality of the welds, the strength of the mesh and other issues, but the basic fact is that the mesh is attached to something heavy.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Because there is no other possibility.

Except for the as-yet unknown mechanism which you propose kept the steel molten for weeks.

Dave

 

[Bananaman]

Don't confuse Chris7, guys, his home help will be round soon and they have a hard enough job without him being in the middle of one of his fits, poor chap.

Bananaman (who is all heart).

 

[funk de fino]

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.

That is wrong, when the top tilts the columns do not move outside the perimter. I suggest you go and have a play with a picture editor and play around with blocks and try tilting them. That will only happen if it moves in the horizontal plane. This did not happen, as is seen in the videos

No

You are not saying it or you are saying they would not break at some point in the tilt?

Both you and glen don't seem to understand the difference between a core and perimeter frame building and a brick.

I have not mentioned a brick. Stop havering.

 

[funk de fino]

Correct.
What about the rest of the collapse? NIST did not take all the relevant factors into consideration and therefore their hypothesis is invalid.

Once one floor gave way then the rest could not stop it, as the mass became greater as each failed. Again this is seen in video. You seem to be saying that unless resistance was removed at every level then the building would have arrested collapse?

I note you dishonestly left this out.

Explanation

–noun
1. the act or process of explaining.
2. something that explains; a statement made to clarify something and make it understandable; exposition: an explanation of a poem.
3. a meaning or interpretation: to find an explanation for a mystery.
4. a mutual declaration of the meaning of words spoken, actions, motives, etc., with a view to adjusting a misunderstanding or reconciling differences: After a long and emotional explanation they were friends again.

NIST gave an explanation for the collapse and you claimed they did not. Retract the claim or you are a liar.

 

[funk de fino]

In this rough picture I threw together, I would like C7 to show me the columns that would be outside the perimeter if the top sections in each of my basic towers fell vertically (like he has said they did)

 

[Wolrab]

Another ingredient of Hushaboom brand explosive, non-light emitting, extended release thermite in the new handy spray on applicator Apply directly to the forehead.

 

[Disbelief]

It is not difficult to see that it was molten steel as you seem to think. When people see partially melted beams and molten metal it's a no-brainer. Your inability to figure this out means you have no brain.[or you left it in your other pants]

I do not report posts, but why the personal insults, especially when you have the nerve to say this to someone:

Adolescent insult from a denier!

Anyway, once again you can not tell what the molten metal was based on sight alone. Why do you think that holds so much weight compared to all the other evidence available?

As I said before, he is a professional and you are not in a position to second guess him.

Why do you get a free pass on questioning professionals (NIST, Purdue, MIT, etc.), yet I can not question one man? Besides that, of course I can question him to determine if what he said corresponds to all the other evidence.

You look at each statement and try to find a reason to doubt rather than looking at all the statements as a whole.

To dismiss what he and so many others have said is just denial.

Point to where I questioned what he said? I asked specific questions of you to help ascertain if he was the expert that you touted him to be. Of course, since you can not answer the questions you try and divert the discussion to something else.

 

[twinstead]

Why do you get a free pass on questioning professionals (NIST, Purdue, MIT, etc.), yet I can not question one man? Besides that, of course I can question him to determine if what he said corresponds to all the other evidence.

This confuses me too. He thinks nothing of implying that the large number of professionals and experts who contributed to those reports at best incompetent and at worst "in on it", yet he lectures us about asking for clarification about ONE person's comments.

And, to make it worse, it's almost as if he doesn't think we notice it.