Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[bob the analyst]

geeze how about that, the wood floor in the photo didn't even burn through, that would be the ceiling in the photo, keep up the great work though, it makes my job here even easier, I like allies like you that publish photos that will tear down the shillsters argument for me

 

[Grizzly Bear]

but the funny thing is, whether it's the mandarin tower or a thousand other steel and concrete buildings, none have ever fallen due to a hydro-carbon fire, none ever will


just a hint, it's why high rise office buildings have a steel core construction

and you may have guessed it already as to why buildings are constructed of steel

it's because fire can never harm steel

I'm going to focus on this once more by exposing you to relevant reference material, because... you clearly desire professional resources; here are a few direct excerpts from my own reference material. Your homework will be to obtain the source books and read them:

Source: Fundamentals of Building Construction: Materials and Methods -- Fourth Edition by Edward Allen & Joseph Iano

The above are excerpts from chapter 11.

and

Source: Understanding Structures by Fuller Moore

Chapter 17, page 238

 

[DGM]

I bet that if the NIST said that the towers collapsed because the flux capacitor in the planes exploded, you guys would buy it, no doubt

Nope, Only "morons" believe crap with no evidence. What's your excuse?

 

[bob the analyst]

it's far easier for you to say that you don't understand what forging is instead of getting all hostile and irritated like this, junior

 

[A W Smith]

prove that you are showing steel in your photograph, it looks more like aluminum channel

Holy **** you don't even know what steel LOOKS like.

Bob. Put daddy's books back on the shelf before you hurt yourself child. And read that which you refuse to read. You are judging NIST by its cover and attempting to criticize its contents without reading it. It is pretty obvious that you are a blowing bull. Please continue to post to show us what asses those in the truth movement are.

Again prove the weak points you make. That "steel is invulnerable to fire"
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/firesafetyengineering&theperformanceofst
In your opinion. What caused the steel to yield bob?

And why does the American Institute of Architects with a membership body of over 75 thousand architects concern itself with the effects of office fires and steel? In response to the nist wtc report AIA believe that they didn't go far enough in exposing the vulnerabilities of structures to fire. It is AIA's opinion that had not fireproofing been dislodged that the buildings would have survived. Does this sound like paint to you?
http://web.archive.org/web/20060621095431/http://www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/aiawtcresponse.pdf

The pre and post failure modes and effects analysis for WTC that you claim does not exist can be found here.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf

 

[DGM]

it's far easier for you to say that you don't understand what forging is instead of getting all hostile and irritated like this, junior

I'll asume your talking to me. What does forging have to do with fire (or what we're talking about)? Your answer will show if your clueless (better fire up the "google").

 

[Shalamar]

do you understand that blacksmithing is a forging process, do you know the difference between a forging process and a small fire under control that isn't being fed constantly with air/gas and fuels?

You certainty do not, that is obvious. The towers were filled with fuel. All nicely fed with a nice catalyst, jet fuel. Completely out of control, and un-fought.

When are the intelligent truthers , you know, with evidence going to arrive?

 

[bob the analyst]

why is it that no commerical or high rise building, at any time in the world, ever fallen and collapsed due to fire?

now, to clarify, we'll make this at least the beginning of the 2oth century, when material scinces and metallurgy, not alchemy became part of design, manufacturing and production, say from the mid 1920's on forward.

It just doesn't happen kiddies, no matter how much psycho babble you try to convince yourselves with and no matter how good your argument sounds to yourself when you practice it out loud in a mirror before you type it here, reality sinks in and proven science stays on my side, the winning side.

 

[bob the analyst]

You certainty do not, that is obvious. The towers were filled with fuel. All nicely fed with a nice catalyst, jet fuel. Completely out of control, and un-fought.

When are the intelligent truthers , you know, with evidence going to arrive?

the towers were filled with fuel?

kewl, all this time the rest of us swear to God that we all saw every last drop, every last ounce blown up in a fire ball out and away from the buildings upon impact


silly F'ing us, ehe?

 

[bob the analyst]

I honestly thought that I would see some competition in here, but it's been more like running qualifyng races against the special olympic crowd, <sigh>

 

[A W Smith]

just a hint, it's why high rise office buildings have a steel core construction

Most modern skyscrapers don't. they have a steel reinforced concrete core

 

[DGM]

the towers were filled with fuel?

kewl, all this time the rest of us swear to God that we all saw every last drop, every last ounce blown up in a fire ball out and away from the buildings upon impact


silly F'ing us, ehe?

Ah Bob:
You can't see the forest (fuel) through the trees (fuel). Clueless.

 

[beachnut]

it's far easier for you to say that you don't understand what forging is instead of getting all hostile and irritated like this, junior

Your ability to make an insult is inversely proportional to your abilities and knowledge on 911, fire, steel and more.

At least you have all of 911Truth equal to your lack of evidence.

... So remeber what I always say, you always walk away a little bit smarter after you read one of my posts.

This is a classic egotistical wrong post?


What do you like about Heiwa's paper? I know you have not read NIST, maybe you like the shorter and dirt dumb 911Truth short papers that have hearsay lies and fantasies like your posts. Which is your favorite paper from 911Truth on gravity collapse?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

why is it that no commerical or high rise building, at any time in the world, ever fallen and collapsed due to fire?

Let me get this straight; if something happens for the first time, it can't happen because it's never happened before? Remember this even comes in light despite all of the known vulnerabilities in steel material. Please enlighten me as to how this concept works.

How many 110-story skyscrapers have ever been hit by fully load passenger aircraft hard enough to strip off the fire protection and render all methods of fire suppression moot? How many structures have the same construction as these buildings?

Please remind me how this first time in history argument applies to current professional practices. Do you think that such intensive measures would be applied to tall structures if precedence were enough to convict an event as impossible?

 

[Papermache]

I honestly thought that I would see some competition in here, but it's been more like running qualifyng races against the special olympic crowd, <sigh>

Really? You lost there, too?

 

[Christopher7]

They have all the floors above the first intact floor to be impacted arriving at the same time.

No, it does not. They do not claim this they just speak about the load, weight and whether a load is static or dynamic. Please show us where they claim the floors all have to arive at the same time.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connectionscould have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically.Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. 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. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

The floors above the collapse zone were attached to the core and perimeter columns. When the collapse started, the weight of all but one of those floors and the rubble from the plane impact, was on the exterior and core columns, not the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns.

That does not make sense

To you perhaps.

please explain in real terms. The top tilted and the load above hit the floors below. It did not hit square onto columns below it hit offset.

If the top section tilted significantly or moved to one side, some of the columns would apply their weight to the floor below at the exterior connections but on the other side of the building the weight would be outside the building. Likewise, one side of the core would apply its weight to the column side floor connections but the other side would apply its weight inside the core.

It was physically impossible for the all the weight of the floors above to suddenly impact [load] the intact floor.

 

[bob the analyst]

Holy **** you don't even know what steel LOOKS like.

Bob. Put daddy's books back on the shelf before you hurt yourself child. And read that which you refuse to read. You are judging NIST by its cover and attempting to criticize its contents without reading it. It is pretty obvious that you are a blowing bull. Please continue to post to show us what asses those in the truth movement are.

Again prove the weak points you make. That "steel is invulnerable to fire"
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/firesafetyengineering&theperformanceofst
In your opinion. What caused the steel to yield bob?

And why does the American Institute of Architects with a membership body of over 75 thousand architects concern itself with the effects of office fires and steel? In response to the nist wtc report AIA believe that they didn't go far enough in exposing the vulnerabilities of structures to fire. It is AIA's opinion that had not fireproofing been dislodged that the buildings would have survived. Does this sound like paint to you?
http://web.archive.org/web/20060621095431/http://www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/aiawtcresponse.pdf

The pre and post failure modes and effects analysis for WTC that you claim does not exist can be found here.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf

care to explain why the NIST failed to use microscopic techniques, such as an SEC, scanning electron microscope in their analysis? There's still no evidence of martensiting effect, yet they claimed yield and strenght loss and tensile and plasticity and that can not happen with out showing and verifying a martensiting, plus several others, then of course you have to compare it against the original core samples from the original steel heats for a comparison

you see, this is just one example where real world people such as me, totally disseminate the NIST report as ludicrous

and no there still is not an actual fmea chart in the report

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I'm going to focus on this once more by exposing you to relevant reference material, because... you clearly desire professional resources; here are a few direct excerpts from my own reference material. Your homework will be to obtain the source books and read them:

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/3699/ref1.jpg

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/2319/ref1b.jpg
Source: Fundamentals of Building Construction: Materials and Methods -- Fourth Edition by Edward Allen & Joseph Iano

The above are excerpts from chapter 11.

and

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/8568/ref2.jpg

Source: Understanding Structures by Fuller Moore

Chapter 17, page 238

Thank you, Grizzly.

Lurkers/new folks: This underscores my, Gravy's, and others questions put directly to (and dodged directly by) bob here. Steel is adversely affected by high temperatures. In order to withstand fires long enough to get people out (hence fire resistance ratings indicating hours of survival), the steel must be protected. Given that, how can fire protective material be "crap", as bob puts it? Seems to me that he's missing out a very basic concept, as Grizzly Bear has so well illustrated.

 

[bob the analyst]

Let me get this straight; if something happens for the first time, it can't happen because it's never happened before? Remember this even comes in light despite all of the known vulnerabilities in steel material. Please enlighten me as to how this concept works.

How many 110-story skyscrapers have ever been hit by fully load passenger aircraft hard enough to strip off the fire protection and render all methods of fire suppression moot? How many structures have the same construction as these buildings?

Please remind me how this first time in history argument applies to current professional practices. Do you think that such intensive measures would be applied to tall structures if precedence were enough to convict an event as impossible?

let's explain it somewhat easy for you to understand, if someone makes a statement as to why something happens or happened, you have to be able to verify that claim

it is called repeatability and reproducability, you can not just claim that something of this significance and importance, such as the wtc towers all falling down as a weird anomaly when whe know for a fact in the history since the industrial revolution, when buildings got higher and stronger, that they just don't fall down because of fire

 

[Hokulele]

To you perhaps.

If the top section tilted significantly or moved to one side, some of the columns would apply their weight to the floor below at the exterior connections but on the other side of the building the weight would be outside the building. Likewise, one side of the core would apply its weight to the column side floor connections but the other side would apply its weight inside the core.

It was physically impossible for the all the weight of the floors above to suddenly impact [load] the intact floor.

What do you think was the role of the hat truss?