Q's about AE911T

[ergo]

Yes, he really is.

Um, no I wasn't. The building I'm speaking of had two floors collapse early on in the fire. According to your theory, global collapse should have ensued, since "the fires were just too great" and structural damage had occurred as a result.

Why didn't global collapse ensue?

I'm going for the Stundie nomination.

Hope you win it this time. I forgot to enter your "fell like a ton of bricks!!" argument, but better luck this time.

 

[ergo]

No, that linked post contains no answer.

Sorry you're having difficulty.

 

[Oystein]

Sorry you're having difficulty.

You were asked a question that requires an answer of "yes" or "no", or some equivalent of "yes" or "no".
The reply (not answer) you gave, and referred ne to, was:

I'm helping you with your own question. See:

So, Trifor, did the WTC7 collapse into its own footprint or not?

Please point out the "yes", the "no", or the equivalent!
I take note that

• "I'm helping you with your own question." is not an answer
• "See:" is not an answer (and neither is tri's post that you quoted there)
• "So, Trifor, did the WTC7 collapse into its own footprint or not?" is not an answer

So please muster the courtesy and honesty to answer the follwoing simple question with a simple "yes" or a simple "no":

Is there any defintion of the word "footprint" used in common demolition industry parlance, or indeed used commonly by anyone at all that includes the roofs and faces of adjacent buildings?​

Just type two or three letters, and spare yourself and us the wasted effort of writing and reading more than 3 letters to formulate yet another embarrassing dodge. It is getting old.

 

[triforcharity]

?? What building are you talking about Trifor?

Try figuring it out for yourself.

What happened to collapse must be inevitable?

Who said that about the Caracas Tower?

 

[ergo]

Try figuring it out for yourself.

I don't know...I hadn't heard of a 15-storey impact zone for either of the towers, so I can't really guess what you might mean.

Who said that about the Caracas Tower?

Bazant said that about any steel-framed highrise. I believe his crush-down, crush-up theory should apply to all steel-framed highrises. Heat weakens steel columns very quickly. They fail, then collapse becomes inevitable.

Did Bazant write a paper about the Caracas tower?

 

[TruthersLie]

Tri.

good ole stundie ergo has made the normal classic twoof blunder... comparing apples to oranges.

hey stundie ergo... tell me about the differences in the construction between the towers (or wtc7) and the caracas tower.

I eagerly await your thesis... (just like I have been waiting for your dodge about how loose particles can not crush anything... or your continued dodging of the footprint question.)

 

[ergo]

tell me about the differences in the construction between the towers (or wtc7) and the caracas tower.

Are you saying that crush-down, crush-up only applies to the Twin Towers? If so, why? Bee dunkers usually argue that it is a commonplace phenomenon.

 

[triforcharity]

I don't know...I hadn't heard of a 15-storey impact zone for either of the towers, so I can't really guess what you might mean.

Then don't take things out of context.

Bazant said that about any steel-framed highrise. I believe his crush-down, crush-up theory should apply to all steel-framed highrises. Heat weakens steel columns very quickly. They fail, then collapse becomes inevitable.

Really? Bazant said that? Prove it. Cite your source.
First you say Bazant said that about any steel-framed highrise. Then you say YOU believe it should apply to all SFHR buildings. Which is it?

Did Bazant write a paper about the Caracas tower?

No. Please see a doctor, as you seem to have a case of cranial-rectal inversion.

 

[ergo]

Then don't take things out of context.

Here's the context, trifor. Do you want to explain to your friends what you meant by 15+ floors?

Really? Bazant said that? Prove it. Cite your source.
First you say Bazant said that about any steel-framed highrise. Then you say YOU believe it should apply to all SFHR buildings. Which is it?

He wasn't talking about all steel-framed highrises? Only the Twin Towers? Collapse is not inevitable when structural elements begin to fail?? Which is it, bee dunkers?

His principle of crush-down, crush-up would seem to want to apply universally, since he describes it as a general principle. What makes you think he only was referring to the Twin Towers?

 

[ergo]

Here's the context, trifor.

For those having problems with reading:

The Caracas tower was 56 storeys. About half the potential energy of the Twin Towers. Let's say 100 tons of TNT. Two floors failed early on in the collapse. Where did the potential 100 tons of TNT go?

Two floors versus 15+ floors, and major structural damage to begin with.

 

[TruthersLie]

Are you saying that crush-down, crush-up only applies to the Twin Towers? If so, why? Bee dunkers usually argue that it is a commonplace phenomenon.

I love it when I get to hand you your ass stundie ergo.

You are talking about the tallest buildings in caracas, right?

The fire on those buildings, which caused 2 floors to collapse. Right?

This building?

This building right?

Here is the important differences between the twin towers in NYC and this building. See if you can READ well enough to spot the key differences

The reinforced concrete structure consists of perimeter columns connected by post-tensioned concrete “macroslabs” that are each 10 feet (3 meters) deep and above the second–floor mezzanine, the 14th, 26th, 38th, and 49th floors. There’s no central core.

Individual floors between the macroslabs have a steel-deck floor supported by steel beams, all protected underneath with spray-on Cafco Blaze Shield DC/F mineral glass fiber wool with cement fireproofing. According to Cafco’s Manny Herrera, the floor was designed to meet U.S. standards for a two-hour fire resistance rating. However, the overall fire compartmentalization of each floor slab was decreased by the addition of several unrated floor panels to provide access to mechanical and plumbing systems.

Gee... what is the construction of this building? What do you see on the outside? Is that concrete? What? I can't hear you...

So it is like comparing the mandarin hotel fire in China (with an entirely different construction and concrete core) with the twin towers...

Oopsie.

yet again you get your ass handed to you.... (free of charge, I miss beating you up at DBS.)

ETA: Something I just noticed... Like with the windsor tower fire and the CCTV fire... the unreinforced steel failed in different places. Gee... just goes to show you. If you use reinforced concrete it doesn't collapse. If you have steel (even fireproofed) you get failures... wowsers... talk about a eureka moment. But Ergo will just ignore/miss it.

 

[DGM]

For those having problems with reading:

You really don't understand.

 

[ergo]

You really don't understand.

It's probably similar to trifor's insistence that there were gas lines running up the towers, right, DGM?

 

[ergo]

The reinforced concrete structure consists of perimeter columns connected by post-tensioned concrete “macroslabs” that are each 10 feet (3 meters) deep and above the second–floor mezzanine, the 14th, 26th, 38th, and 49th floors. There’s no central core.

Individual floors between the macroslabs have a steel-deck floor supported by steel beams, all protected underneath with spray-on Cafco Blaze Shield DC/F mineral glass fiber wool with cement fireproofing. According to Cafco’s Manny Herrera, the floor was designed to meet U.S. standards for a two-hour fire resistance rating. However, the overall fire compartmentalization of each floor slab was decreased by the addition of several unrated floor panels to provide access to mechanical and plumbing systems.

So no central core, and concrete encasing the perimeter. Two floors failed. There should have been a massive internal collapse, similar to what is argued for WTC7. The Twin Towers also had concrete encasement of structural beams. That's something that the later NIST reports don't seem to want to mention.

 

[DGM]

It's probably similar to trifor's insistence that there were gas lines running up the towers, right, DGM?

I don't follow. You made a grave error in your expression of potential energy. You don't realize this, do you?

 

[DGM]

So no central core, and concrete encasing the perimeter. Two floors failed. There should have been a massive internal collapse, similar to what is argued for WTC7. The Twin Towers also had concrete encasement of structural beams. That's something that the later NIST reports don't seem to want to mention.

 

[triforcharity]

Did I also not concede that I couldn't confirm that? That it was my belief? Nowhere did I say it was absolute fact.

Now, does a footprint ever include other buildings ergo?

 

[triforcharity]

He's talking about the concrete encasement on some of the mechanical floors.

He still doesn't understand though.

 

[TruthersLie]

So no central core, and concrete encasing the perimeter. Two floors failed. There should have been a massive internal collapse, similar to what is argued for WTC7. The Twin Towers also had concrete encasement of structural beams. That's something that the later NIST reports don't seem to want to mention.

No no no..

Now first of all
can we compare the buildings? Yes or no?

No we can't.

Why?
Different construction methods including a reinforced concrete perimeter... which would keep the outershell of the building from collapsing.

Was there collapses inside the building? Yes. The steel heated, then failed on 2 floors. All you had collapse was the mass of the floor, not the entire surrounding building. the mass is much less.

But what can we see from your bad example... that when heated steel fails. Gee... I thought we already knew that.

We saw it in WTC5 and 6 which had internal collapses due to fire alone (unless you are suggesting they did nanothermite there too?). The windsor fire... oh the unreinforced steel collapsed.... and here the steel which was fireproofed collapsed. Amazing. What does that tell yoU?

Still waiting for you to provide any citation which states there was concrete on the core of the wtc towers... I haven't seen that ciation. Provide it.

 

[ergo]

I don't follow. You made a grave error in your expression of potential energy. You don't realize this, do you?

I understand the bazant/bee dunker argument for potential energy. That a burnt top section of a building can simultaneously hit and crush the remaining 80 and 90 intact floors of concrete and structural steel (as well as furnishings, walls, large mechanical equipment, massive filing systems, plumbing, 7-ton floor pans, stairwells, people etc..) at the rate of 0.15 secs per floor without any perceptible slowing down.

Edit: ...and (according to Bazant) without crushing up first!!

Are you trying to deflect attention away from Trifor's claim of a 15+ story damage zone?