Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

lapman said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, I'm just pointing out that the Official Collapse Theory has not been proven. It's still just a theory.

Can you acknowledge this fact?
 
Christopher7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Answering the question should be easy for you. You evade the question. The tiptoeing is therefore occurring on your side of the table.

NIST was given the assignment to find out why the towers collapsed. The built computer models that revealed how the collapse initiated. They pointed out that once collapse, initiated, the impacted floor was incapable to withstand the dynamic loads of the falling top section. Since the amount of falling mass scales with the progression of the collapse and the amount of kinetic energy per unit of falling mass scales with the progression of the collapse as well, the amount of kinetic energy available to destroy more of the tower scales with the sqaure of the collapse progression. Collapse arrest is without hope.

Once it got going, there was no stopping. The lessons for the future: make building so that collapse initiation is more difficult. If collapse is not initiated, collapse can't begin to progress and the building will not collapse.

It makes sense. It adds up and is easy to understand.

They didn't run their computer models beyond the point of collapse initiation because the problem at that point becomes chaotic, i.e. sensitive to initial conditions, as is easy to see and understand. Things snap en buckle at random points, pieces start flying around. A micrometer to the right and two pieces fly past each other, a micrometer to the left and two pieces hit one another and change directions.

Modeling the collapse itself would have required an entirally different modelling approach. Building such a model would be enterprise that adds little and would only burn money.

It makes sense. It adds up and is easy to understand.

It is not to the liking of C7 and his colleagues though. To them 'explaining how the tower collapsed' is little short of calculating where every piece of debris landed. They demand a 200% level of perfection from "the official story" where their own story has a 0.00% degree of perfection. Their own "story" is a house of cards that they can't even begin to build because all they got is some scorched pieces of paper and some pieces of cloth that is in the process of being consumed by fungi.
 
Last edited:
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...
hahahahahahahahah Martensiting. Omfg you buddy are hilarious - I don't know whether to put you on ignore or risk lowering my IQ reading such drivel, as a metallurgist I dunno if I can take the stupid anymore, but I do need to refute this for the benefit of everyone else.

I've never heard the term "martensiting" before, because it's not used. I've got text books going back to the 1960's and it's not in any of those so I googled it and got 30 results! LOL I believe he's trying to refer to the transformation of austenite to martensite. i.e the martensitic transformation.

However it's plainly obvious that he doesn't understand what martensite is or how it is produced (rapid cooling from the austenitic phase via a diffusionless, shear transformation producing a metastable BCT structure - with usually Ms around 220°C and Mf around 90°C but this obviously varies with composition).

Firstly there isn't any martensite present in A36, because it's not quenched - the predominant microstructure for A36 (rolled) steel is elongated or banding of pearlite and ferrite (due to rolling). Can't possibly contain martensite and the material specifications don't require it. It's a silly thing to need to do for a structural steel because it would add huge cost.

Secondly, if he is claiming that the fires couldn't reach the AC3 temperature then it would be impossible for any martensite to form because in order to produce martensite you have to quench from above the AC3 temp - he's arguing mutually exclusive points and debunking himself!

Thirdly, even if the fires heated steel to 1000°C the resulting cooling rate would not be quick enough to transform the micro-structure to (a percentage of) martensite, therefore the idea of claiming "no martensite in the cooled steel microstructure indicates yield and strength loss" is a red herring.

image004.gif


Fourthly, and this does make me chuckle, the whole point behind quenching to martensite is that the resulting structure produces a higher yield point and a stronger steel, the opposite of what BTA claims! It does this at the expense of ductility (it's brittle) and therefore it's common practice to temper martensite.

There is absolutely no reason to look at original samples from heats, the likelyhood is they are long thrown away. The mill(s) would have produced steel to an accepted international or American standard. Also the only thing you have to do is perform metallurgical analysis on specimens taken from WTC steel that was not affected by fire. This was also done and the results conformed to the relevant material specifications - this is in the NIST report, I've read that very section.

SEM including EDX/EDX analysis was also carried out in the metallurgical analysis (although it's not the be all and end all)

http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

I believe the interweb term is PWNED or OWNED. I await your answer, sidestep, ignore, goal-post move with hilarity!
 
Hellbound said:
tfk:

Yeah, I know...but sometimes the idiocy gets so bad I just have to type something :)

Besides, I liked my sea sponge line :p
Click to expand...

Would YOU like to give this idiocy a whirl ?

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
 
Christopher7 said:
No, I'm just pointing out that the Official Collapse Theory has not been proven. It's still just a theory.

Can you acknowledge this fact?
Click to expand...


Fact? First give some solid reason why you believe the collapse is not properly explained. There is something about your ignorant, Mickey Mouse arguments that is unconvincing.

Talking about unconvincing.. there is something unpersuasive about your "the official story has it all wrong" approach. How would NIST having it wrong imply that the towers where brought down by CD? It doesn't. Whether the latter is true does solely depend on its own merits. Put all available evidence on the table and start building your case. Prove it.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

Video proof of no explosives at the WTC, and also proof that morons can type posting dirt dumb comments to go with the dolt who posted the video to prove he is an idiot trying to prove his delusion.

Caution, reading the comments on this video could damage your keyboard, no drinking.

WARNING, reading the comments on this video could cause strokes in some viewers as they are shocked by the dirt dumb statements made by knowledge challenged people.
 
NutCracker said:
NIST was given the assignment to find out why the towers collapsed. The built computer models that revealed how the collapse initiated. They pointed out that once collapse, initiated, the impacted floor was incapable to withstand the dynamic loads of the falling top section.
Click to expand...
They stated their opinion. They did not even try to prove it.


NIST reply to stj911truth
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

pg 3
NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability.

pg 4
We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.

NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers.
NIST’s analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation.
 
Sunstealer said:
hahahahahahahahah Martensiting. Omfg you buddy are hilarious - I don't know whether to put you on ignore or risk lowering my IQ reading such drivel, as a metallurgist I dunno if I can take the stupid anymore, but I do need to refute this for the benefit of everyone else.

I've never heard the term "martensiting" before, because it's not used. I've got text books going back to the 1960's and it's not in any of those so I googled it and got 30 results! LOL I believe he's trying to refer to the transformation of austenite to martensite. i.e the martensitic transformation.
Click to expand...
Not exactly the kind of terminology you would expect from a "professional metallurgist with 30 years of steel making experience" eh?

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TA9TK83ERHKKB00MQ/p5
 
Christopher7 said:
but not 400-500 feet away.


cop-out. put up or . . . . .
Click to expand...

Yes, 400+ feet away.

And: You're telling me to put up? You?? The king of no calcs? Mr. Dodge The Central Point Himself? The person who's used up this entire thread to avoid the energetics question and try to obsfucate everything from the point of Bazant & Zhous/BLBG to what the NIST report represents? You?? You just earned a trip to my ignore list for that one.

Tfk's done one on a beam travelling that far strictly on strain energy. Again, you can see it in this very thread. Use the back link. Ben Burch has done it too, and again, if you want to see his work, ask him for it. I'm not going to do your work for you. Bottom line: The energy was there. It's up to you to demonstrate it was not. And since you've demonstrated that you have no idea what the actual series of events behind the collapse are, let alone have not admitted that you have a basis for your unfounded incredulity at the piece in question, you have a lot to catch up on. Go to work. And speak to the hand from here on out, because you're now on ignore.
 
Christopher7 said:
They stated their opinion. They did not even try to prove it.


NIST reply to stj911truth
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

pg 3
NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability.

pg 4
We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.

NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers.
NIST’s analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation.
Click to expand...

You refuse to accept their "opinion" regardless of how many experts were involved. Now the ball is in your court to come up with an explanation that fits the available evidence better. You appear to be incapable of doing that, so all you have is a silly argument from incredulity. That isn't a very potent argument, sad to say.
 
tfk said:
Bob's lying.

He's well acquainted with who Heiwa is.

Here are three posts in which he mentions Heiwa by name. The first is my introduction of Heiwa to Bob & others.

<snip>
Saturday Feb 14
Click to expand...

I like to call CTr's like that "statues." If you know what I mean....
 
Porkpie Hat said:
Not exactly the kind of terminology you would expect from a "professional metallurgist with 30 years of steel making experience" eh?

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TA9TK83ERHKKB00MQ/p5
Click to expand...
And I doubt any metallurgist worth his salt would say this

If anything, the range of temperatures within the wtc would have heat treated the steel. the NYC fire department as well as the sprikler[sic] system would've acted as a quenching.
Click to expand...
Which is laughable because first you need to get steel hot above AC3 temp (+730°C), then you need to reduce that temperature very quickly below the Ms temp @ 220°C usually within a couple of seconds (for quenching (plain carbon steels) see TTT diagram above - sprinklers would never be able to do this.

or this

you'll never hear a degreed [sic] metallurgist or any steel foundry worker agree with the US government's theory regarding the A950, 1010/1008 and other steel grades weaking [sic] from such a low intensity fire for such a short period of time.
Click to expand...
which directly contradicts his statement above. I expect this person works in a foundry/mill but has little qualification and no experience in dealing with oxidation due to heat caused by fires. There are numerous studies on house fires and temperatures can rise as high as 600°C at ceiling height in 5 minutes.

And this

I mean, c'mon, the human race learned in 1250AD at advent of the iron age that steel is impervious to fire
Click to expand...
I mean come on if you are going to cite someone with experience then you ought to look at their posting history.

It's very simple. House/building fires cause a rise in temperature. This rise can be as high 600°C and more. Plain carbon steel loses it's strength as it heats up. At around 600°C it will have lost more than half it's yield strength.

http://www.hindawi.com/GetArticle.aspx?doi=10.1155/2008/814137&e=html

If steel is so impregnable in fires then why do building codes insist of fireproofing for steel? It's a complete was of time and money if steel is not affected by fire. Why does everyone around the world waste their money on fire-proofing steel? :confused:

2 PWNS in one night, not bad going eh? ;)
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
I like to call CTr's like that "statues." If you know what I mean....
Click to expand...

Hey Grizzly...I'mtrying to get some of you guys to help me analyse this video below but I seem to behaving no luck. Maybe you would like to help brainstorm it ?

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
 
Last edited:
Porkpie Hat said:
Not exactly the kind of terminology you would expect from a "professional metallurgist with 30 years of steel making experience" eh?

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TA9TK83ERHKKB00MQ/p5
Click to expand...


Huh?

the most feasible and practical way to cut steel in a hurry is with a plasma cutter and generator.

they're portable, their quick and they work great.

that's why steel mills use them for slicing the hot slabs after rolling, before cold forming.
Click to expand...

They cut hot steel slabs (or blooms) with a plasma torch? really?
 
NutCracker said:
Fact? First give some solid reason why you believe the collapse is not properly explained.
Click to expand...

NIST reply to stj911truth
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf
pg 3
NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability.

pg 4
We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.

* * * * *
Bazant:
The high tilt seen on the South Tower top (about 25_ after 4 seconds of fall, NIST 2005) would call for a three-dimensional model of progressive collapse. Why does the one dimensional model give nonetheless a reasonably good match? Probably because the crushing front of compacted debris tends to develop a flat front once it becomes thick enough (Fig. 6e). However, to answer this question fully, a three-dimensional analysis would be required.
 
Christopher7 said:
They stated their opinion. They did not even try to prove it.


NIST reply to stj911truth
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

pg 3
NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability.

pg 4
We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.

NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers.
NIST’s analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation.
Click to expand...

Did not even try to prove it? They built freaking computer models that validated the collapse initiation. They calculated that the dynamic load of the falling top section exceeded the load bearing capacity of the impacted floors. That's not explaining?

or in the words of the letter you refer to:

With respect to the second request for change, it was most critical for NIST to explain why the collapse initiated. Once the collapse initiated, it is clear from the available evidence that the building was unable to resist the falling mass of the upper stories of the towers.
Click to expand...

Than follows some quote mining from a letter to 'prove' your point. Objections that have been addressed by the very post your post is a reply to, I might add.

The context:

Your letter suggests that NIST should have used computer models to analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution.

Your letter contends that NIST's report violates the Information Quality Standard of "utility." NIST believes that the report has utility. In fact, the codes and standards bodies are already taking actions to improve building and fire codes and standards based on the findings of the WTC Investigation. As we mentioned previously, we are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse.
Click to expand...

"we are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse.".. a rewording of "At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution."

Problem becomes chaotic. No point in computing where every piece of junk landed. Critical was to know what initiated the collapse. Makes sense. Adds up. No amount of rehashing Mickey Mouse opinions does change that.

NIST found what got the ball rolling, and they showed that once it got rolling there was no stopping. They explained why the towers collapsed.
 
Chris, You keep repeating the same things over and over again. This is like some bible or Koran fundy who keeps repeating the same out of context phrase to justify doing something wrong.

You are claiming the NIST report was only a theory, but insist on shoving your own theory down our throats as if it wins by default. No matter what, if you have a theory about how the WTC fell, and it conflicts with the generally accepted explanation, PROVE IT.

I can't believe you won't acknowledge this.
 
Last edited:
bob the analyst said:
I heard they sent both a fax as well as a cell phone text message to Liverpool <rolls eyes> but I'm not 100% sure
Click to expand...

I am assuming this is to me in response to my questioning about your grandma's family missing the Titanic. Very minimal research proves you a liar, as no family was a no-show, and there were only about 12-18 people who missed the boat. There were others who canceled, but that is not what your family did (at least according to you). You are not very good at any of this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom