The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[dafydd]

If a column under an axial load begins to buckle, then said load will descend. The rate of velocity of that descending load is measurable. That load will still be resisted by the steel during its failure and therefore never experience free fall. What I think is being suggested is that the load was so great on all of these columns that it produced such rapid failure as to be unmeasurably indistinguishable from free fall, despite the fact that so much of the load was the columns themselves and the rest was building materials that had comprised the rest of the structure for decades.

In which engineering college did you learn that? Ask for your money back.

 

[Dragon37]

Sorry, but under no circumstance will steel buckle at gravitational acceleration.

As far as can tell, you are the only one claiming this. The columns buckled first. This caused the centre of gravity to move beyond the point where the upper portion of the columns were no longer supported by anything. So they fell and, not being resisted by the lower section of the columns, they fell fast until they caught up to said lower portions and slowed because they were encountering resistance again. I don't know why that is so hard for you to grasp

 

[fess]

Oh Jesus. Are we really doing this over again?

Maybe you'll get it right this time.

Is this a serious question?

Only if we get a serious answer.

 

[tempesta29]

And that measurement would be?

What are you referring to here? I was describing a general rule, not a specific instance. You need to reread the post you were responding to and comprehend.

Yes. Got Math?

Let me make this easy, What's wrong with what was seen? (with math)


ETA: Wait, I just realized, I asked you this after your second post.

"Got math?" is not a viable question. Let me repost what I said:

If a column under an axial load begins to buckle, then said load will descend. The rate of velocity of that descending load is measurable.

Then you asked what that measurement was. The question doesn't make sense. How fast a column buckles under stress depends on a lot of factors, e.g. the type of column, the temperature of the column, the the total force against the column. I referred to "a column" under "a load". Do you just generally ask for math even when it isn't applicable as a cop out?

 

[triforcharity]

Do you usually drive that Dodge like it's a ******* Porsche?

 

[WildCat]

Let me repost what I said:

Do you think a buckled column can carry more, or less, weight than an unbuckled column?

 

[chipmunk stew]

The only role column buckling played was BEFORE the onset of global collapse. It was in the causal chain of events that LED to collapse. The descending portion of no building on 9/11 descended at a rate approaching anywhere near freefall WHILE the columns in the sequence of failures were buckling.

 

[tempesta29]

Humor me.

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html?

Even the NIST report admits gravitational acceleration in their final report on WTC 7. You claimed no WTC building reached free fall. You are wrong. I believe the figure is on page 46 of the report.

Do you think it takes more force to initiate the buckling, or to continue the buckling once initiated?

If you pick the latter, you are saying a buckled structural member is stronger than one which has not buckled, surely even you realize this isn't the case?

Funny post. It's as if you answered the question for me.

So why wouldn't the collapse occur at an accelerating rate?

Who is disputing that the collapse would accelerate?

 

[Thunder]

Do you just generally ask for math even when it isn't applicable as a cop out?

Originally Posted by tempesta29
Is this a serious question?

 

[tempesta29]

The only role column buckling played was BEFORE the onset of global collapse. It was in the causal chain of events that LED to collapse. The descending portion of no building on 9/11 descended at a rate approaching anywhere near freefall WHILE the columns in the sequence of failures were buckling.

Then what do you think is happening as the north face roofline is descending? Columns are buckling.

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.

All NIST claims here is that columns simply didn't provide any support while they were collapsing. My question is: how can this be? The north face roofline descends virtually parallel with the horizon line when viewed with videos with a level perspective. This means all the columns that support the north face roofline and make up the north face itself are completely in harmony with each other; they all collapse at virtually the same rate and all begin failure at the same time. How is this a "chain of events"? If there is some progressive chain the begins with column 79 under the east penthouse then why don't columns on the north face that are most near to column 79 begin failing first?

 

[tempesta29]

Do you think a buckled column can carry more, or less, weight than an unbuckled column?

It takes more force to initiate the buckling than it does to continue buckling once initiated.

 

[chipmunk stew]

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.

ED not ING

The buckling happened in Stage 1.

 

[chipmunk stew]

All NIST claims here is that columns simply didn't provide any support while they were collapsing. My question is: how can this be? The north face roofline descends virtually parallel with the horizon line when viewed with videos with a level perspective. This means all the columns that support the north face roofline and make up the north face itself are completely in harmony with each other; they all collapse at virtually the same rate and all begin failure at the same time. How is this a "chain of events"? If there is some progressive chain the begins with column 79 under the east penthouse then why don't columns on the north face that are most near to column 79 begin failing first?

Global collapse didn't occur until the failure initiated at column 79 propagated horizontally (east to west, IIRC, I forget which floor but it's in the report) and could no longer bear the weight of the structure above.

 

[chipmunk stew]

The upper section above the zone where global collapse initiated remained relatively rigid because of the design of the building. If you don't cherry-pick the report, this is laid out very clearly.

 

[tempesta29]

ED not ING

The buckling happened in Stage 1.

That doesn't make sense. What columns have already completely buckled before global collapse begins? You realize that if the north face perimeter columns had already buckled before then you would be able to see it in videos. The entire facade is being held up by perimeter columns. If those columns had already totally buckled then there would be visual evidence of it.

What you're saying doesn't make sense on any level. If columns are buckling then they are also collapsing. Buckling and descent go hand in hand.

EDIT: Wait a second, in one comment you say buckling occurred before the onset of collapse, then you say buckling happened in stage 1, which is a stage of collapse. You are now officially just talking out of your rear.

 

[chipmunk stew]

That doesn't make sense. What columns have already completely buckled before global collapse begins? You realize that if the north face perimeter columns had already buckled before then you would be able to see it in videos. The entire facade is being held up by perimeter columns. If those columns had already totally buckled then there would be visual evidence of it.

What you're saying doesn't make sense on any level. If columns are buckling then they are also collapsing. Buckling and descent go hand in hand.

EDIT: Wait a second, in one comment you say buckling occurred before the onset of collapse, then you say buckling happened in stage 1, which is a stage of collapse. You are now officially just talking out of your rear.

It depends on when you mark the onset of collapse. I apologize for the inconsistency. In the first comment, I was marking the beginning of global collapse at the point where the building actually started to descend near freefall. In the second, I was referring to the Stages defined by NIST.

Stage 1, when the columns were bucklING, did not come close to freefall.
Stage 2, when the columns were bucklED, did approach freefall.

 

[chipmunk stew]

What columns have already completely buckled before global collapse begins?

Please, for God's sake, read the report. You're pulling quotes from it, so I know you know where to access it.

It explains in detail how the horizontal progression probably occurred, how the main load bearing (interior) columns buckled. It's very clear. Why are you asking me to summarize a report that you can just as easily read yourself?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Here, this is directly above the quote you mined in the report:

In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft).

Bolding is mine.

 

[GlennB]

^ that. And in case tempesta29 has missed it : ^ that.

Buckling happened at < g
Once buckled, acceleration was ~g until the buckled section was bypassed.

It would appear that tempesta29 is under the impression that the onset of ~g acceleration was instantaneous, which can only mean damn little effort in reading the NIST report.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Buckling is a deformation process. Steel will not go through this process at gravitational acceleration.

That doesn't mean a lot more. By definition, a process does not have a velocity or an acceleration; these are properties of motion. How can you possibly understand what you're talking about when you don't even grasp these basic concepts?

Dave