Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

bob the analyst said:
can you prove that this building wasn't deconstructed? that it wasn't hit by large pneumatic or hydraulic devices? it's ludicrous to say that fire impacts steel

do you know why buildings, high rise offices or apartments aren't made out of wood construction and framing

go ahead and take a guess and now, it isn't cost realted

c'mon big boy supply us with an answer, take you best shot

why are buildings, high rise offices or apartments, why aren't they made out of wood construction and framing instead of the common steel?
Click to expand...

Because steel is stronger than wood at normal temperatures. Unfortunately, in a fire, steel will lose its strength in the time that wood would only have burned a few mm deep.
 
GStan said:
This has turned into one of the weirdest threads I've ever read at JREF.

I feel like at any moment Mackey is going to pop in and reveal that he asked two sixth-graders to bombard this thread with stupidity just to prove some psychological point related to his "future responses to the truth movement" poll. Perhaps his instructions to them included:

1) do not answer a question, under any circumstances
2) do not source anything, under any circumstances
3) change the subject frequently
4) use puncuation sparingly
5) spel lotz of werds rong
6) act like your pwning everyone, all the time

C'mon Mackey, off with the mask! We get it now that there is no way these two can be legit.
Click to expand...

GS,

Nope, it's not a joke. Well, not a joke in THAT sense.

This is what remains of the Twoof Movement. The nuts (like Bob), and the folks that are in it for the DVD, Tee Shirt, etc. merchandising opportunities (which we suspect is bill's motivation).

It seems that there is good news afoot.

Lots of non-technical people thought, early on, that something was amiss with the collapse of the WTC buildings. Due, perhaps to a suspicious nature, political leanings or the single most common cause (IMHO), the "angry young man" phenomenon.

Those most affected were high school to college age. Now, with the passage of time, most of those folks are emerging from the hormonal upheaval of the YoungAndStupid age into adulthood. And it turns out that their ranks are not being filled by the younger kids. 9-11 is not their issue, any more than Vietnam is any more than a chapter in a history book to anyone under the age of 45 or so.

So, it seems that those with at least a minimally functional epistemology and a trace of honesty are leaving the Twoofer ranks. I've looked at the attendance at Twoofer meetings over the last six months, and the results are stunning. Nobody but a tiny number of folks, the committed leaders with no followers.

A few more years, and this long, national nightmare will be over.

It does, by the way, SERIOUSLY chaps my ass that guys like Gage are now exporting their lunacy to the rest of the world, now that the home-grown wells are drying up. Of all the things to sell overseas, "the Americans did it to themselves" is gonna sell like hot-cakes in some parts of the world.

I don't know how Gage et al sleeps at night.

tomk

PS. Since they either refuse to answer (bill) or lie about it (Bob), what we've discovered over the course of almost 2 years of nonsense is that bill has (perhaps) completed high school, but no college. He won't tell us what he does for a living.

Bob may be somehow peripherally related to the trucking industry. Perhaps dispatcher. The common thread to Bob's approach is blatant falsehood, insult & victory dances. You've seen glimpses of it here. It is ALL that he has.
 
A W Smith said:
Bobs a legend in his own mind. We pretty much showed what idiocy he posts. He has retreated into applauding himself for arguments he has lost.

oh and Bob?
get over 9/11 already, forget about it, no one cares, i speak for all Americans
Click to expand...
I wonder if he's this Bob, he sure sounds like him.
BagBob-749336.jpg
 
bob the analyst said:
the towers were filled with fuel?
Click to expand...
Yep. Office buildings are full of flamible things, from paper to wood furnishings to plastics of all sorts.
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
Click to expand...

In the meantime, those of us who know what 'stoichiometry' means (go google it) can figure out that there wasn't enough air inside the impact floors for the thousands of gallons splashed all over the inside of the buildings to burn instantly.
 
tfk said:
Bob may be somehow peripherally related to the trucking industry. Perhaps dispatcher. The common thread to Bob's approach is blatant falsehood, insult & victory dances. You've seen glimpses of it here. It is ALL that he has.
Click to expand...

but Bob says he is part of the engineering community, I mean come on, he can't be lying about that, now can he?

See my sig for a response to your astute assessment of who made up the majority of the truth movement.

TAM:)
 
bob the analyst said:
now the guy is trying to say that the heat and temperature during re-entry from space through the atmosphere is equal to the wtc fire...this is good...thanks for the laugh
Click to expand...
No, we are stating that for the first time in the 100+ year history of aviation, a piece of foam brought down an aircraft. Since foam strikes had been recorded on previous shuttle flights and they did not break the skin of the aircraft, there is no possible way, according to your standard, that it would have never happened on the Columbia.
 
bob the analyst said:
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
Click to expand...

Page 169 Bob
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf


[edt] Oh i see bob has fled already when he lost the argument.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Correct



10,000 pages and [FONT=&quot]NIST did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.[/FONT]
Click to expand...
The WTC failed exactly as the Chief Structural Engineer who built the WTC Tower expected it to when aircraft impacted with 7 and 11 times the impact energy he designed them for, and fires were not fought.

The Chief Structural Engineer who built the WTC Towers says the fell due to aircraft impacts and fires. You make up delusions and back them up with hearsay, lies and fantasy. Chief Structural Engineer wins.

A few fringe engineers support your failed ideas; less than 0.001 percent of engineers. You lost by the numbers who support you and the fact is you have only a delusion. You lost by default.





Your failure to grasp reality is noted. Your failure to correct my work is proof you can't help anyone understand 911.
 
bill,

Disingenuous: adj. not candid, insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitious, lying, mendacious, hypocritical.

I just wanted to make absolutely certain that you were acquainted with the meaning of the word.


bill smith said:
I don't think I've mentioned explosives being used or made a case for their use on this forum ? That may be your impression but it is not borne out by the facts. Therefore there are no questions for me to answer in this respect.
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4469208#post4469208 [emphasis added -tk]


bill smith said:
In none of those do I say explosives were used. I talk about 'other forces at play' I refer to a video where explosions can be heard...and they can if you want to have a look for yourself. Controlled demolition is as close as I came and even then I do not make a case for explosives. 'Blown out' came on the back of the guy who was talking about the compressed air blowing out drywall and suchlike .
<snip>
Click to expand...

You know, and I know, that you have been an unwavering supporter of explosives. We both know that you have adamantly supported the concept of "SILENT explosives", as well.

Do I need to bring links to your clearly stated opinions?

tk
 
ElMondoHummus said:
. . . . rebut tfk's, Ben Burch's, Glennb's, and anyone else's work who's calculated this out
Click to expand...
Post it.

a 4 ton piece of building made it all the way across the street
Click to expand...
and embedded it self in a building 400 feet away on the 20th floor, 240 feet from the ground.

Everything was falling and no collision could redirect that much energy 90 degrees.

The floors were collapsing at 5 or more per second. No core column could get past that to collide with the exterior frame.

The exterior framework remained intact until the collapse front had passed, removing support and pushing it outward.


First, deal with the reality that the 4 ton sections embedded in WFC 3, over 400 feet away and 200-240 feet above the ground, were not thrown that far due to falling exterior sections colliding.

Then look for another explanation.

 
tfk said:
GS,





PS. Since they either refuse to answer (bill) or lie about it (Bob), what we've discovered over the course of almost 2 years of nonsense is that bill has (perhaps) completed high school, but no college. He won't tell us what he does for a living.

Bob may be somehow peripherally related to the trucking industry. Perhaps dispatcher. The common thread to Bob's approach is blatant falsehood, insult & victory dances. You've seen glimpses of it here. It is ALL that he has.
Click to expand...

Hello again.

Maybe you would like to watch this video fullscreen and tell us if the crumpling and distortion we see in the perimeter columns of the upper clock of WTC1 before there is any crumpling or distortion in the lower 90% of the building means that the top block was already imploding prior to impact with with the lower bock ? Can you comment othe fact that the antenna appears to begin sinking intothe buiding prior to any other sign of collapse?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k
 
NIST did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.

Bazant did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.


Hokulele said:
What, is this like some new form of Tourette's?
Click to expand...
No, those are facts.

Intolerable facts that disprove the Official Collapse Theory or the Official Conspiracy Theory are not recognized here as you so eloquently just pointed out.
 
You said it yourself chris:

"removing support and pushing it outward."

It doesn't have to be 90 degrees either. How about 45? Would that be acceptable to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom