The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

tempesta29 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, this is practically meaningless. Failure of a column is, again, a process, not a motion. If you can't distinguish between the two, it's not surprising that you can't understand what's going on.

The process of column failure involves several stages, as I understand it. I've shown them in a simple sketch. Initially (1) the column will shorten due to elastic compression. Next (2), it will buckle elastically, bending in a continuous curve; at this stage, if the load is removed, by definition the column will return to its original shape. Up to this point, failure has not occurred. As the load increases, the column will buckle inelastically (3); at points where the strain is greatest, the column will form plastic hinges, which will not return to its original shape once the load is removed. At this point the column may be said to have failed, and it loses much (though not all) of its load bearing capacity. Finally (4), the column will fracture at the plastic hinges, breaking into unconnected pieces. At this final stage, the column no longer has any load bearing capacity whatsoever, because it consists of broken pieces of metal that are not even in the load path. At this point, anything previously restrained by the column is now in freefall.



I'm sure the structural engineers here will correct me if any of this is wrong, but in the mean time, please explain how a column at stage 4 - where there is, effectively, no column any more - is supposed to retard a falling body.

Dave
 
in tempesta's defense, he is being told what to think by people who also don't understand the collapse.
 
twinstead said:
in tempesta's defense, he is being told what to think by people who also don't understand the collapse.
Click to expand...

That's a good point....

I sometimes forget that most truthers simply don't know any better or understand the issues they talk about.

They are just parroting the "leaders" who SHOULD know better.....but for whatever reason.....be it stupidity or deceit or insanity or some combination of factors choose to spread this nonsense.

So tempesta:

It's not your fault.
 
tempesta29 said:
...You realize that if the north face perimeter columns had already buckled before then you would be able to see it in videos...
Click to expand...

And indeed we DO see it in videos: You see, when columns have already buckled, all the loads they previously supported are in freefall, until they impact a new ground. This is exactly what we see: After the north face columns have buckled at or somewhat above the 8th floor, the upper part of the north face went into freefall for about 8 floors, until hitting the ground.

You don't see the buckled portions themselves, as all the videos we have don't show any floors on the north wall below the 20th floor or so. But you see the predictable effect.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Again, this is practically meaningless. Failure of a column is, again, a process, not a motion. If you can't distinguish between the two, it's not surprising that you can't understand what's going on.

The process of column failure involves several stages, as I understand it. I've shown them in a simple sketch. Initially (1) the column will shorten due to elastic compression. Next (2), it will buckle elastically, bending in a continuous curve; at this stage, if the load is removed, by definition the column will return to its original shape. Up to this point, failure has not occurred. As the load increases, the column will buckle inelastically (3); at points where the strain is greatest, the column will form plastic hinges, which will not return to its original shape once the load is removed. At this point the column may be said to have failed, and it loses much (though not all) of its load bearing capacity. Finally (4), the column will fracture at the plastic hinges, breaking into unconnected pieces. At this final stage, the column no longer has any load bearing capacity whatsoever, because it consists of broken pieces of metal that are not even in the load path. At this point, anything previously restrained by the column is now in freefall.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/147644d2591c7a6c0b.bmp[/qimg]

I'm sure the structural engineers here will correct me if any of this is wrong, but in the mean time, please explain how a column at stage 4 - where there is, effectively, no column any more - is supposed to retard a falling body.

Dave
Click to expand...

No, that's the way I understand it also. This can be confirmed by tfk, Architect, and NewtonsBit.
 
tempesta29 said:
Buckling is a deformation process. Steel will not go through this process at gravitational acceleration.



How can you possibly know this? And how would this even help your case? If controlled, coordinated explosive charges fail so often to produce free fall then why would you expect fire to do it?
Click to expand...

Because it has been shown.

Alienentity has a channel on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/user/AlienEntity1




He has done a rather indepth analysis of buildings which were CD and found that even with intentional CD, the buildings did not fall at gravitational acceleration. Oopsie.

So the fact that wtc7 had 2.25 seconds of gravitational accelerations shows it wasn't a CD.

You are trying to claim that
a. free fall acceleration is a product of CD.

when shown that free fall acceleration isn't a product of CD now you shift to
b. the fact that free fall acceleration isn't the product of CD means it is CD.

how does that work again?
 
Last edited:
tempesta29 said:
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.



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


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?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

So your whole post was a pointless attempt to "baffle with the BS".

You ignoring the first phase of the collapse (the ~10 seconds before "free-fall") is fatal to your understanding of the "free-fall" you choose to focus on.
 
tempesta29 said:
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.
Click to expand...
"Upper portion of north facade of the Salomon Brothers Building" ≠ Building.

If you want to argue about specific individual components of these buildings, there are good reasons that many of them fell at faster than free fall, due to the leverage exerted on them.

Here is a good resource for you to learn about the collapse timing - http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911b.htm

After digesting the link above, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the total time for all three collapses, vs. what the "free fall" time would have been.
 
TruthersLie said:
Because it has been shown.

Alienentity has a channel on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/user/AlienEntity1




He has done a rather indepth analysis of buildings which were CD and found that even with intentional CD, the buildings did not fall at gravitational acceleration. Oopsie.

So the fact that wtc7 had 2.25 seconds of gravitational accelerations shows it wasn't a CD.

You are trying to claim that
a. free fall acceleration is a product of CD.

when shown that free fall acceleration isn't a product of CD now you shift to
b. the fact that free fall acceleration isn't the product of CD means it is CD.

how does that work again?
Click to expand...
On a related point, which I thought of after I went to bed last night (Yes, I know, that's pathetic. [shaking fist]TRUTHERRRRS!!![/shaking fist]):

If freefall is the unmistakable tell of a controlled demolition, as they claim, then how do they explain Stage 1's slow descent? How did the building start collapsing BEFORE the charges removed the critical supports?
 
chipmunk stew said:
On a related point, which I thought of after I went to bed last night (Yes, I know, that's pathetic. [shaking fist]TRUTHERRRRS!!![/shaking fist]):

If freefall is the unmistakable tell of a controlled demolition, as they claim, then how do they explain Stage 1's slow descent? How did the building start collapsing BEFORE the charges removed the critical supports?
Click to expand...

There were some charges placed on specific columns in order to give the illusion of a slow collapse, and then the rest of the charges were blown!

YOU LOSE!
 
chipmunk stew said:
On a related point, which I thought of after I went to bed last night (Yes, I know, that's pathetic. [shaking fist]TRUTHERRRRS!!![/shaking fist]):

If freefall is the unmistakable tell of a controlled demolition, as they claim, then how do they explain Stage 1's slow descent? How did the building start collapsing BEFORE the charges removed the critical supports?
Click to expand...

Anything is possible in Trutherland.
 
excaza said:
There were some charges placed on specific columns in order to give the illusion of a slow collapse, and then the rest of the charges were blown!

YOU LOSE!
Click to expand...

Ninja maintenance men with blow torches started the job, then got beamed up by Judy's DEW just before the thermite took over then the hushaboom kicked in.................cool. lol.

The woo is amazing here. lol.
 
Jackanory said:
Ninja maintenance men with blow torches started the job, then got beamed up by Judy's DEW just before the thermite took over then the hushaboom kicked in.................cool. lol.

The woo is amazing here. lol.
Click to expand...

YOU HAVE TO ADMIT, IT'S POSSIBLE!

/caps
 
tempesta29 said:
Dave, what the hell are you talking about, really? Acceleration itself is a process, by definition. The deformation process that is buckling always involves motion. Not only do you fail at your own game of semantics, you have the nerve to be condescending as well. Congrats.
Click to expand...

Well, I tried to teach you something useful, but you decided you'd rather stay ignorant. Acceleration is not a process, it's a vector quantity describing an aspect of motion. Buckling involves a complex series of motions in different directions and at different velocities, and can't therefore be characterised by a single acceleration. So, your attempt to assign an acceleration to a buckling process is meaningless.

But so is this diversion. Please explain how fragments of a column that are disconnected and not in the load path can resist the fall of a load.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Well, I tried to teach you something useful, but you decided you'd rather stay ignorant. Acceleration is not a process, it's a vector quantity describing an aspect of motion. Buckling involves a complex series of motions in different directions and at different velocities, and can't therefore be characterised by a single acceleration. So, your attempt to assign an acceleration to a buckling process is meaningless.

But so is this diversion. Please explain how fragments of a column that are disconnected and not in the load path can resist the fall of a load.

Dave
Click to expand...

Buckling can in fact be characterized by a single acceleration: the downward acceleration of the load beginning at the onset of failure. The buckling itself isn't being measured; it's the acceleration of its associated load.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom