Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

Bob said:
yep skippy, I design space elevators as much as you are an architect


and we know neither one of us is either a space elevator designer nor an architect


that's what's great about the internet, isn' it skippy? people like you can claim to be anything they feel like making up they are at any given momebnt in time


but no regrets for you skipppy, you were just pretending and we all had a riot making fun of your vivid imagination,

I speak for everyone here and wish you all the best of luck on your next fairy tale and imaginative career that you pretend to have next time around
Click to expand...



No, Bob, I am an architect. You seem to have forgotten this post already:

Architect said:
Oh, Bob, bless. Hope you've got evidence about the space elevators.

You see, some years ago one of your Truther friends made exactly the same claim. So, well, we took steps to prove credentials. Specifically, one of the mods - Chillzero - was given all necessary details of qualification (ARB and RIBA registration details, if you must know) together with sight of sufficient employer information to confirm experience.

Now, if you want to contact Chillzero then go ahead. If not, then it's clear that you know it's because you'll lose and I'll have your apology together with evidence of your work on space elevators.

In the meantime, just to make sure I press the point home, do enjoy these examples of my work.
Click to expand...

It was only a wee while ago now, I don't see why you're so confused.

How you getting on with tasks (a) through to (e) then?
 
Last edited:
A W Smith said:
Still dancing Bob? No answers yet? Its a bit more difficult to debate here in the midst of architects, engineers and builders instead of you tube comment boxes Bob. You are clinging to your assertion that steel doesn't lose strength up to 4000 degrees F? When i directly point out to you a study of structural members subjected to heat far below that temperature? ill post the link for you Again bob.

ftp://www.stahlbau.uni-hannover.de/Publizierungen/Brandschutz/FSJ_10-1986.pdf
Click to expand...
what was the temperature strength of the wtc steel when it was casted? how many times have you been to Kobe steel in Cleveland?
 
bob the analyst said:
yep skippy, I design space elevators as much as you are an architect


and we know neither one of us is either a space elevator designer nor an architect


that's what's great about the internet, isn' it skippy? people like you can claim to be anything they feel like making up they are at any given momebnt in time


but no regrets for you skipppy, you were just pretending and we all had a riot making fun of your vivid imagination,

I speak for everyone here and wish you all the best of luck on your next fairy tale and imaginative career that you pretend to have next time around
Click to expand...


Lies, Bob. You keep lying. One: Architect IS indeed what he says he is. And 2: You don't speak for me. You are a great person, but only in your own mind.

Provide the details behind your claims. You need evidence. Without evidence, you are just blowing smoke. We're all waiting for your claims.
 
bob the analyst said:
yep skippy, I design space elevators as much as you are an architect


and we know neither one of us is either a space elevator designer nor an architect


that's what's great about the internet, isn' it skippy? people like you can claim to be anything they feel like making up they are at any given momebnt in time


but no regrets for you skipppy, you were just pretending and we all had a riot making fun of your vivid imagination,

I speak for everyone here and wish you all the best of luck on your next fairy tale and imaginative career that you pretend to have next time around
Click to expand...

his username is architect, and therefore referring to him as skippy is technically name calling, which is against the TOS/Rules. You should refrain from name calling if you wish to remain on this forum bob.

TAM:)
 
Christopher7 said:
Plausible may work for you but it it is not proof.

Until I saw the implosion of WTC 7 I did not question the collapse of the Trade Towers either. After looking at these collapses closer, I don't believe the Official Collapse Theory.

The point here is, the Official Collapse Theory is just that, a theory. It has not been proven.
Click to expand...

You're right, but what kind of proof are you looking for? Why is "plausible" not enough?

You see, I'm not an engineer. So when I look at video of an implosion, or whatever you're saying, it means nothing to me. I don't have any expert opinion, and any I tried to form would be ill-advised. That's just common sense, right?

So, to me, this isn't really about "proof." Proof is impossible anyway. What it's really about are two competing theories, and the plausibility of both. On the one hand, the idea that the buildings collapsed due to fire, is to me, plausible, simply because that's what the experts say. On the other hand, the theory that there was a controlled demolition is less plausible, for a lot of reasons. It just seems to me that an enormous amount of co-ordination would be required to do that, and it seems amazing that nobody would have noticed, and furthermore that nobody has blown the whistle on this yet is also incredible.

Anyway, it seems like you're using the word "theory" to mean guess. Since no one can go back in time and examine the actual building before it blew up, isn't a plausible guess the most we could possibly expect? Why do you expect them to "prove" it to you? How do you think they could that? I'm just a little unclear about that.
 
Christopher7 said:
My how the pages fly by.

Buried in the fast and furious fray is the inconvenient truth that:


NIST did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.

Bazant did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.

Some have tried to double talk around these facts and failed.

The Official Collapse Theory has NOT been proven. It is just a theory.
Click to expand...


You already have been explained why NIST did explain the collapse. If you disagree, you should be able to be able to point out where and why the explanation offered is inadequate. Rather, you repeat your objections which have already been addressed. And you failed to point out why the explanation offered was inadequate.

Conclusion: you have got nothing to build a case for your position. All you can do is quote mining. You have got nothing.
 
Shalamar said:
Lies, Bob. You keep lying. One: Architect IS indeed what he says he is. And 2: You don't speak for me. You are a great person, but only in your own mind.

Provide the details behind your claims. You need evidence. Without evidence, you are just blowing smoke. We're all waiting for your claims.
Click to expand...
are you claiming that if he's an architect in real life, then you're a space elevator designer?
 
bob the analyst said:
are you claiming that if he's an architect in real life, then you're a space elevator designer?
Click to expand...

Let me read over my post.. And... Nope. I didn't say that.

So.. have any evidence? At all? Any? You just need to provide evidence that steel doesn't lose strength until 4000 degrees F.
 
NutCracker said:
Restating your position that is rebutted by the very post your reply is supposed to be a rebuttal to doesn't help to increase your credibility. It was already explained to you why the video is a fraud. You explicitly stated that failure to explain why the video is a fraud will lead you to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. Given that you failed to supply one iota of evidence in support of your favoured conclusion this is shifting the burden of proof and false Dilemma in the space of a few sentences. Rephrasing those sentences doesn't make the fallacies go away.

I see.. ordinary people use the word "explosion" to describe a variety of events but fire fighters instantly draw a scientifically correct conclusion and express themselves after a such a disaster with scientific rigor. I wonder why they didn't use the word "detonation" than, which is the technically correct term to describe high explosives going boom.

Let us see:
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/14009868/detail.html
http://www.firerescue1.com/line-of-duty-deaths/393008-l-a-firefighter-killed-in-explosion/

Nope. It appears firefighters use the word "explosion" to describe such an event as a gas bottle exploding as well.

It is clear, when we read the firefighters' testimony, that they where describing the events they witnessed and where using simile.

Your insistence that their testimony is proof of the use of explosives, where it is, as explained, not , and your bragging about how 118 sworn testimonies proves the use of high explosives, where it does not, only shows that you want the word "explosions" to mean what you want them to mean.

And no, the sound of explosions is absent from the video, just a roaring, rumbling sound is to be heard, even from yours. It is unclear to me how you can put forward a piece of evidence in support of your contention where it actually contradicts it.
Click to expand...

Evidently your eyes and ears work differently to mine. the best I can do is repost an exerpt from of my post ad allow people to decide forhemselves and to post the video again for reference.

''I agree that people occasonally use the word 'explosion' somewhat incorrectly but this will seldom occur in the ranks of expert professional firefighters and never in such numbers in the space of an hour or two on a single day. 118 firefighters reported exploions that day and testified to them. Not trivial explosons either but explosions they clearly thought had something to do with the collapse. 'That friggin' noise.....pop-pop-pop-pop-pop...like you hear when they bring a building down'. 'We saw low-level flashes and then the building started to come down' ''Threw me 40 feet and I was covered with hat white *****' 'flashes going up and down and all around the building' Lots more like that.''
'flashes going up and down and all around the building' Lots more like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firefighter Tstimony - study
 
Last edited:
Since you can't play nice, thread set to moderated status. Posts will not be approved unless they are civil, and on topic, and not continuing this bickering.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
Shalamar said:
So steel retains all of its strength at %100 until 4000 F? Or is it all steel, except steel used by blacksmiths?
Click to expand...
the steel in the wtc was designed and pouted for that, you see the steel was known, specified, poured, rolled and other things specifically for the wtc. that being a high rise structure, should a plane ever, say, crash into the building, the chances of a jet fuel fire would occur

would you agree that the chances of a jet or other plane at any time, in the designer's and architech's mind, do you think that they took into effect the odds of the 2 largest wtc structures would be struck, at some small or large percentage, that planes might hit the wtc?

now ask yourself, what could I, as an architect, as a designer do, to make sure that the buildings would never completly and totally collapse?

would you specify steel that would survive normal jet fuel A burn temperatures as well as all the other hydro-carbon burnable office materials contained with in the structure

would you design the building so that numerous strikes could occur, could hit the structure and survivability would be not only expected, but guranteed?

You see, any architect or designer will tell you that the most glaring, the most prominent, the highest focused concern in designing a large building is survivability of the occupants as well as the structure itself.

This is why buildings are designed for impact and for crashability, for imapact absorption, much the same as a vehicle where it is designed for the occupants to survive a crash, head on or other wise
 
bob the analyst said:
yes, it was a unanimous concesus all around, a very light and unstrudy building, possibly steel, maybe alunimum, perhaps tin, specific materials unknown, size appeared very small in comparison, say, to the ***** wtc structures!
In fact, a lot of people were saying that that have a rv, a camper or a motor home bigger in size that the building or hut in the photos
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who you're talking about, Bob, but those people sound pretty crazy. I mean, all you have to do is read a little into the article to discover that it's a warehouse. I think you're joking with me, aren't you Bob?

Sure, it's small compared to the wtc, but if a fire can cause a steel structure to collapse, that's seems important. But if you're saying that the building may not be steel, well I admit I don't know how to check that off-hand. The guy who posted it seemed pretty certain that it was a steel structure. Assuming it was, what would that say about your theories? Just curious.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom