Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[bill smith]

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.



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4469208#post4469208 [emphasis added -tk]




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

Is THAT what it means. Well.....you live and you learn.

I have deliberately not become embroiled in the 'explosives' discussion on this forum as I already told Dave in case you didn't notice. It can be used as a distraction. You might have noticed a perfect example of this further back.

I suppose you had better go ahead and provide links to where I used the phrase 'silent exlosives' Just so that you can prove to people tht you are not being dishonest. Please provide context too.

 

[Christopher7]

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?

After the collapse front had passed and pushed the wall out, there was nothing left to collide with it.

 

[phunk]

After the collapse front had passed and pushed the wall out, there was nothing left to collide with it.

You mean other than the stuff that just collided with it to push it out?

 

[Christopher7]

NIST did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.

Please point to where it is stated that they were supposed to analyze and explain the collapse itself.

This is the JREF way of tiptoeing around the point that you can't quite bring yourself to acknowledge.

 

[A W Smith]

After the collapse front had passed and pushed the wall out, there was nothing left to collide with it.

Think crush up Christopher. Because of rotation some elements of the top section perimeter column trees were outside the perimeter.

 

[GStan]

After the collapse front had passed and pushed the wall out, there was nothing left to collide with it.

This is not correct.

In tower 1, there were (at collapse initiation) 12 stories of fairly intact tower above the collapse front.
In tower 2, there were (at collapse initiation) 29 stories of fairly intact tower above the collapse front.
Just because the collapse front has reached a certain level, does not mean that all of the available mass (and energy) of the upper mass had also passed that level.
There was a substantial mass left to collide with the column trees even after the collapse front had passed.

 

[bill smith]

NIST did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.

Bazant did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.


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.

Chris here's a couple of pics of WTC2 from a girl called 'Krizzee' on another forum.
http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11/img/wtc23.jpg
http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11/img/wtc39.jpg

 

[GStan]

After the collapse front had passed and pushed the wall out, there was nothing left to collide with it.

So the collapse front pushed the perimeter columns outward, and then the explosives 'ejected' them the rest of the way out of the way?

Wouldn't you agree that even without explosives, if the building were collapsing, there are forces inherently expected in the collapse that could push at least some of the material laterally? And that the expected distribution of debris is substantially (by volume, not distance) beyond the footprint of the building? Do you acknowledge that these mechanisms exist?

 

[Christopher7]

You mean other than the stuff that just collided with it to push it out?

My bad. The falling exterior frame above colliding with the exterior frame below would be breaking the exterior frame apart in both directions as Newton suggests. There was no buildup of floor slabs preventing crush-up of the exterior frame and the top part would have been destroyed after about 10 floors in the north tower and fallen to the side in the south tower.

As to the 45% angle; above and below the point of contact, the exterior wall in intact. The only moving pieces are the ones that just tore each other appart. All the energy is directed downwards and all the pieces are moving downwards. Even if the strike one another, the energy is still mostly downwards.

 

[phunk]

Doesn't matter if the momentum is straight downwards. If it hits in any way other than perpendicular with the surface and directly aligned with the center of gravity, both objects are going to end up moving at an angle, not straight down.

Ever played billiards? How about baseball?

 

[Christopher7]

So the collapse front pushed the perimeter columns outward, and then the explosives 'ejected' them the rest of the way out of the way?

Right now I'm just pointing out that gravity could not eject 4 ton frame sections up to 500 feet laterally.

Wouldn't you agree that even without explosives, if the building were collapsing, there are forces inherently expected in the collapse that could push at least some of the material laterally?

Yes but not 4 ton sections, 400-500 feet.
Before you ask, I won't try to guess how far these sections could be pushed aside, only that it's no where near 400 feet.

 

[funk de fino]

To you perhaps.

Please state where they say all floors had to hit square at the same time.

The load is the same regardless. Think stillettos and snow shoes.

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.

No, its not.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Post it.

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.

Using larger fonts does not make you any less wrong. I have an explanation: There was sufficient energy from the collapse to allow for pieces to land in the street. Your repeated statements of incredulity is not enough to overcome that. Your use of irrelevant details does not overcome that. The energy was there, period; how the pieces got there is not surprising.

If you want to see tfk's calc, use the "<<" on the page link and find it yourself. If you want to see Ben Burch's, ask him for it. I'm not going to do your work for you. Figure it out yourself.

 

[beachnut]

http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11/img/wtc23.jpg
http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11/img/wtc39.jpg

Visual evidence of no explosives.

 

[Christopher7]

Doesn't matter if the momentum is straight downwards. If it hits in any way other than perpendicular with the surface and directly aligned with the center of gravity, both objects are going to end up moving at an angle, not straight down.

Yes, but since both objects are moving downward, the angle will still be primairly downward.

Ever played billiards? How about baseball?

Try welding a billiard ball to a building and hitting it with a baseball bat.
Stick to the case at hand Sophie.

 

[tfk]

HB,

Of course we do. Even a sea sponge would walk smarter in comparison to your posts.

Seriously, do you have any data at all to back up any of the assertions you've made? So far, I've seen you throw out blanket statements with no supporting evidence, ignore all evidence to the contrary, and refuse to answer almost any question put to you.

Seriously, are you familiar with English? Just to make sure, can you post your definitions of "win" and "debate"?

By the way, you spell "cheeze" with an s, not a z.

Alright, this charade has gone on long enough.

You've said the magic word, HB. "SERIOUSLY..."

And the answer is, "No, neither bill nor Bob are serious in the slightest." They are the very epitome of trolls. Their only purpose is to annoy people, and in bill's case, we believe to keep the controversy stoked so that he can continue to sell 9/11 trinkets.

The important thing is to NOT invest time or energy, as I did. They are not serious. They do not CARE how stupid they look.

They are NOT playing by the same rules that you are.

Answer them, don't answer them, as you choose. But don't be misled into thinking that you are in an honest discussion with an honest or honorable opponent. It AIN'T the case.

My current approach is attributed to HL Mencken: "One good horselaugh is worth a thousand syllogisms."
___

Bill's tactic is as constant as the sun rising.

He starts out (as he did here) as the innocent idealist, just asking a few questions, looking for answers, no ulterior motives at all. People like you folks will take him at his word and attempt to answer his questions. Just as I did a dozen times, before the pattern became obvious.

He neither answers nor addresses nor acknowledges any of your responses. He simply restates absurdities or, if clearly busted, changes topics. Only to return to the very same disproven statement at a later date. Then he gradually ratchets up to more & more absurd claims, culminating in a round of insulting. Finally, he'll get cloyingly friendly, and see if he can drag you into the same cycle all over again.

After a bunch of posters got wise to him, a bunch of newbies suddenly appeared under different names from all over the world. All with exactly the same pattern. And as soon as the latest one was exposed, like clockwork, a fresh replacement appeared. Usually within minutes. Sometimes as much as a few hours. Always within the space of about 2 days max. (And he thinks he's subtle...)

___

Bob (most likely bill's puppet) is the intentional buffoon. You've seen a small taste of his style above.

A sampling:

[Bob's "sense of humor"]

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post80815

Q: What has 10 feet, 6 eyes, 2 arms and 2 wings?

A: A bag of mistakenly discarded KFC mixed in with various body parts recovered from the WTC 1 site.

___

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post80895

funny how every single demolitions and deconstruction expert in the world all think that the wtc buildings were brought down by charges

___

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post80889

nothing really too hard about an earthquake machine

I did a project like this once in college, it was an osciallating beam where low frequencies were generated and aimed and fired at objects, in this case rats and mice, the rodents intestines shook wildly and they couldn't stop pissing, ******** and puking after a few minutes of frequency exposure. I based this off of Tesla's train of thought.

I did a form of this for one of my thesis projects for college, another project that i did was using a high voltage electron beam to cool a hot winding.

I took copper cable, wound it around a spindle, ran high current through it till it glowed then projected a electron beam and it cooled a spot where the electrons flowed about the size of a half dollar

___

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post80770

Hi Bill, I'm not exactly sure what you mean in your post, are you saying that Tommy shillanov claims that the jets striking the wtc towers, either jet or both, sliced throuigh the central core steel columns?

Is he claiming that an aluminum bodied jet can slice through hot rolled steel that has a thickness to strength ratio exceeding the aluminum structure impactability - by a factor of 128 to 1?

I mean, any engineer worth hos salt would know that a jet--all jets--are designed for crushability and to absorb impacts and to fold, much like an accordion does.

___

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post80446

An iceberg was blamed for sinking the Titanic. Yeah right. Do they expect us to believe that ice--which is frozen water--is stronger than metal--the stuff they make swords out of? If icebergs are really that tough, then why don't people make boats out of icebergs instead? "

Now, it was always only press and media speculation of the day, for that period of time that it was an iceberg striking the titanic or the titanic striking an iceberg, your choice of verbage

now, science and technology has proven that it was not an iceberg, but a failure of the material composition-or metallurgy-of both the steel as well as the bolts or rivets.

it's not surprising that there are still dummies out there like you that have not caught up to the titanic's sinking facts since 1912

It's been proven that the speed and draft of the vessel vs. it's design capabilities is what doomed the ship, the iceberg really had little, if anything to do with it sinking.

But it makes a great story and a great movie..just like 9/11..it's far more entertaining to say that some bearded guy in a cave, 12,000 miles away, hired 19 guys to hijack jets and fly them with super precision, more precision that even the finest combat or ALPA could have as a member

Even Capt. Sully admitted 4 years ago that he could not fly a jet at that speed and make that kind of a G turn and hit either of the wtc towers or the pentagon

___

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post80438

One thing that always gets that deer caught in the headlights from the shill crowd at large is how wtc 1 and wtc 2 could fall unencumbered and uniterupted or unipeded in any way , shape or form,

I contacted the infamous Dr. bazant regarding this and he gave me also that deer caught in the headlights sort of blank stare.

Apparently, the good Dr. Bazant never even had this question posed to him before nor had he even considered this ultra-important piece of evidence.

The good dr. Bazant will be one of those engineering and other professionals that change their tune and their position once the citizens of the world point out the falsehoods and the impossibilities in this forward moving probe of 9/11

___

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post80391

always get to see that we have one ass clown shill employed in here at any given time. one of your other ass clowns shills will be in to relieve you soon enough, so you can get back to spanking the monkey while you surf kiddie porn on the internet

does it bother you at all that I thoroughly wallop the living **** out of you any day that I'm here?

i don;t that it bother you, you enjoy and get off on the psychological pain that I deliver,-- otherwise you would have left here long ago...you get a kick out of me dismantling you and whipping you like one off my field negroes

 

[Christopher7]

I have an explanation: There was sufficient energy from the collapse to allow for pieces to land in the street

but not 400-500 feet away.

If you want to see tfk's calc, use the "<<" on the page link and find it yourself. If you want to see Ben Burch's, ask him for it. I'm not going to do your work for you. Figure it out yourself.

cop-out. put up or . . . . .

 

[lapman]

NIST did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.
This is the JREF way of tiptoeing around the point that you can't quite bring yourself to acknowledge.

Not at all. You are the one that is making this an issue and therefore making the claim that the collapse itself was in the scope if their investigation. I'm just asking you for proof that the collapse was supposed to be a part of the NIST investigation.

 

[GlennB]

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.

I wonder if Bill+Bob were just running interference for Chris?

 

[beachnut]

Due to their firm obsessive support of their own delusions on 911:
To debate Chris, Heiwa, Bill and Bob is hopeless since they are using hearsay, lies and fantasy to create their delusional evidence free statements to create idiotic conclusions.

For over 7 years 911Truth and those spreading false information, like the few with failed ideas in this thread, have failed to do more than expose their complete ignorance of fire, physics, structures, research techniques, and rational thought.

Present some facts and ignore those who are ignorant on 911 and post delusions like Bob, Bill, Chris, and Heiwa (and add the guy who is from two countries too nice to reveal to the world).

The person who built the towers made them strong, they could survive a hurricane. Each tower was severely damaged by impact of aircraft. The impacts were in energy equal to the energy you find in 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT. The energy of the impacts on 911 was enough obliterate your house. The fuel on each jet was equal in heat to 315 TONS of TNT. The burning office contents hundreds of TONS of TNT heat energy also.

The most qualified person to talk about the WTC Towers is Robertson. No one can touch his knowledge of the WTC Towers; he built and designed the structural components of the WTC Towers to make the vision of the architect come true.
Robertson supports that aircraft impacts and fires destroyed his building; only those who lack knowledge on appropriate disciplines support contrary conclusions; failed conclusions.