Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

Spray-on nano-thermite makes no sense? Why not? If you were going to deceptively destroy the WTC you would have to disconnect the cores in a manner that didn't look like a nuclear weapon. You would need something that wouldn't require two hundred guys carrying in massive amounts of explosives. Something that could be masked quite easily as a 'fireproofing upgrade'.

Bazant wasn't trying to come up with new physics? Then what was he doing? He was looking at an impossible collapse, and ignoring what he already knew could cause it, trying to mislead noobs with ridiculous calculations.

Think about it. Instant collapse. Slowly softening steel cores. Doesn't add up. The openings where the planes entered would have slowly been closing from the softening metal before anything/everything snapped.

It's totally preposturous to believe the 10-15% of anything can obliterate the remaining 85-90% of itself. Please give us some examples of this phenomenon happening on planet earth.
 
KreeL said:
Spray-on nano-thermite makes no sense? Why not? If you were going to deceptively destroy the WTC you would have to disconnect the cores in a manner that didn't look like a nuclear weapon. You would need something that wouldn't require two hundred guys carrying in massive amounts of explosives. Something that could be masked quite easily as a 'fireproofing upgrade'.
Click to expand...

Look, if you spray "nano-thermite" on in three-inch thick amounts, and then expose it to an office fire that ignites the thermite, what happens next is a stupendous cloud of brilliant light and sparks as the "nano-thermite" burns out in a matter of seconds. The light would be utterly unmistakable. And it's questionable if that would cause the collapse in the first place. Heat transfer takes time. Thermite, no matter how "nano," is several times less potent in terms of energy per kilogram, than jet fuel, furniture, or even carpeting.

You don't have the slightest bloody clue what you're talking about.

KreeL said:
Bazant wasn't trying to come up with new physics? Then what was he doing? He was looking at an impossible collapse, and ignoring what he already knew could cause it, trying to mislead noobs with ridiculous calculations.
Click to expand...

Misleading "noobs" like the editors of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, huh. Nice try.

KreeL said:
Think about it. Instant collapse. Slowly softening steel cores. Doesn't add up. The openings where the planes entered would have slowly been closing from the softening metal before anything/everything snapped.
Click to expand...

No. Steel will not creep that far before yielding. When it does, it fails very, very rapidly. Even a first-year materials scientist can clear that up for you.

KreeL said:
It's totally preposturous to believe the 10-15% of anything can obliterate the remaining 85-90% of itself. Please give us some examples of this phenomenon happening on planet earth.
Click to expand...

Avalanches do it all the time. See Dr. Bazant's papers on the subject, and try to understand them this time. Ask questions rather than making blustery accusations. And for FSM's sake, try to learn something.
 
The people that planned and perped 9/11 didn't think inside the box at all.

The hilarious part is when they paid people to explain something impossible.

Funnier still are the ones ignoring what they know and buying it.
 
Good candidate for ignore. And only in 5 posts. A new record! You beat Ultima1. Congrats.
 
Wrong you are, Mackey. You are assuming 3 inches of aerogel nano-thermite. You are also assuming that the nano-thermite wasn't applied UNDER the fireproofing.

Steel will not creep? Are you kidding me? Do a little experiment and place a cinder block on top of a metal pipe. Get your acetyline torch and heat up the pipe til it's redhot and see if it bends or snaps.

Regardless, the fires weren't evenly dispersed in the tops of the towers. The supports weren't all the same temperature. NIST admitted the steel they tested never got hot enough to bend. Furthermore, when a steel framework the size of either tower started warming up, the thermal properties of steel would act like a giant heatsink. No snappage all at once at all. Give us an experiment that demonstrates what you are saying.
 
Dislodge the fireproofing. Sheesh! That's obviously why They TM had to crash the planes into the towers first.
 
KreeL said:
Wrong you are, Mackey. You are assuming 3 inches of aerogel nano-thermite. You are also assuming that the nano-thermite wasn't applied UNDER the fireproofing.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not.

No combination of little details like you're fussing about will make any difference. You're simply applying different shades of lipstick to your pig of an incomplete hypothesis -- just like several hundred credulous believers before you...

KreeL said:
Steel will not creep? Are you kidding me? Do a little experiment and place a cinder block on top of a metal pipe. Get your acetyline torch and heat up the pipe til it's redhot and see if it bends or snaps.
Click to expand...

Worst model ever, excepting perhaps the stack of lemons proposed last week. Steel will creep up to its yield strain, and that's it. In a column under stress, that's a few percent of its length. Then SNAP and the collapse runs away.

KreeL said:
Regardless, the fires weren't evenly dispersed in the tops of the towers. The supports weren't all the same temperature.
Click to expand...

True so far, but not a problem.

KreeL said:
NIST admitted the steel they tested never got hot enough to bend.
Click to expand...

False. See NCSTAR1-3C.

KreeL said:
Furthermore, when a steel framework the size of either tower started warming up, the thermal properties of steel would act like a giant heatsink. No snappage all at once at all.
Click to expand...

Stuff and nonsense.

KreeL said:
Give us an experiment that demonstrates what you are saying.
Click to expand...

I'll give you three. NIST in NCSTAR1-5F, NCSTAR1-5G, and NCSTAR1-6D provide exactly this experiment, conducted in computer simulation. Purdue led by Dr. Irfanoglu independently confirmed these results. Dr. James Quintiere demonstrated this in a scale model.

Did it ever occur to you to search the forum, or at least read the older threads? You are not the least bit original in any way, not even your dearth of expertise on the subject is unusual.
 
You would likely ignite it with something that could be controlled.

Probably NOT a Bic.
 
You-all did not respond to this because you can neither deny nor accept the truth:

Bazant's theory REQUIRES that all the accumulated weight be applied evenly.

That is NOT what happened!

Bazant's theory does NOT work. It does NOT explain the collapses of the Trade Towers.
 
Mackey if you don't understand how a heatsink works....

NIST's physical models all failed.
 
KreeL said:
Mackey if you don't understand how a heatsink works....

NIST's physical models all failed.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, I do understand how a heat-sink works. I have a physics degree, and thermo/stat mech was a prominent part of it.

Anyway, I'm already bored of this, so let me ask you two of the few questions that you can correctly answer: First, you didn't come up with this yourself, so who told you? Second, why did you choose to believe them?

Thanks in advance for your reply.
 
Why would you use a microwave oven? That doesn't make sense. In fact it appears you are being snide.

I have looked at Bazant's theory. I am waiting on his model. I want him to drop 15% of something on top of itself and obliterate the remaining 85%. This will be good.
 
If you have a physics degree, then you already know Bazant's crap doesn't float. Don't pretend you don't. You would already know that a close model global progressive collapse is impossible. You would already have tried to duplicate it...and you would have failed.
 
KreeL said:
Why would you use a microwave oven? That doesn't make sense. In fact it appears you are being snide.

I have looked at Bazant's theory. I am waiting on his model. I want him to drop 15% of something on top of itself and obliterate the remaining 85%. This will be good.
Click to expand...

You do actually understand the floor trusses braced the external columns to the inner core, right?
 
You'll see these bizarre rants a lot on YouTube. They just feed each other their ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom