• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

JSanderO said:
Whatever you say Beachie..
Click to expand...

It is what you said that is still posted today, and might be why you are quibbling bout engineering stuff.


all three towers were destroyed as the result of explosives placed within the towers before September 11, 2001 detonated after the first plane struck the north tower. In the case of WTC 7, it was seven hours after the first plan struck before the demolition was initiated.
Click to expand...
Can you erase this stuff, or will it mislead more people because you are an architect?

Is this why you have problems with NIST? It was explosives?
 
beachnut said:
It is what you said that is still posted today, and might be why you are quibbling bout engineering stuff.

Can you erase this stuff, or will it mislead more people because you are an architect?

Is this why you have problems with NIST? It was explosives?
Click to expand...

I wrote that bit when I was a board member. My thinking has certainly evolved since then. I can and did edit the piece removing the bits I no longer abide.
 
JSanderO said:
I wrote that bit when I was a board member. My thinking has certainly evolved since then. I can and did edit the piece removing the bits I no longer abide.
Click to expand...
Good job, but you left in woo, and can't drop your biases on 911. One reason you can't grasp engineering, an inability to understand, and using opinion instead of reason.

When? Yesterday. lol, your page went from 16 explosive, to 11.
You removed this yesterday
are explosion squibs shooting from the facade and the building falling onto its own footprint appearing to implode, These types of demolitions will use the “stored” gravity energy which is released when supporting columns are undermined by explosions to cause the demolition.
Click to expand...
But you added more woo.
It should be noted that conspiracy is not a dirty word. Conspiracies have existed and the word conspiracy only means that more than one person is involved in the planning of a crime. The conventional explanation is also conspiracy theory. It states that Al Qaeda formed cells and 19 members hijacked the planes and crashed them into buildings carrying out the planned attacks
Click to expand...
It is not a theory, 19 terrorists did 911. The USA has the DNA from 9 of them, or more. They did it, not a theory, but fact.

How do you get rid of the rest?
“They” did find the finger prints of explosives.
Click to expand...
Why not debunk 911 truth in the text of your page? Put them down big time.
http://my.firedoglake.com/sandero/2009/12/07/why-truth-matters/
How do you erase your comments?

When will you debunk explosives? Is this why you have problems with NIST?
Not being about to digest evidence it was 19 terrorists, might be your problem with digesting engineering, and understanding fire did it.

You make up stuff, you can't help it.
deflects scrutiny of the 911 Commission’s flawed report
Click to expand...
Like your problems in this thread, you love to BS, and make up stuff with no facts.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Good job, but you left in woo, and can't drop your biases on 911. One reason you can't grasp engineering, an inability to understand, and using opinion instead of reason.
Click to expand...
There's plenty of "truthers" in this section that mess around for the sake of messing around to promote a conspiracy but this thread isn't among them in my opinion. It's just egregious nitpicking over details I feel aren't going to provide any meaningful purpose or knowledge beyond what's already available. Much of the debate over the details NIST got right or wrong have to do with that thermal expansion/contraction issue and how much they took one into account over the other. The purpose of their modeling was to figure out where the collapse started and what factors would have allowed it to deteriorate into a full-on collapse which translate to life-safety design considerations for future buildings. It wasn't to figure out what nut or bolt failed and at what point.... I think he's taking the modeling too literally and getting completely tangled up by the details, hence I don't think his questions are satisfiable.

Getting tangled up on trying to dig too deep into details doesn't strike me as the same thing as trying to endorse CD or the more ridiculous conspiracies.
I'd rather focus on what the issue actually is, rather than the stereotype that it's not...
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
There's plenty of "truthers" in this section that mess around for the sake of messing around to promote a conspiracy but this thread isn't among them in my opinion. It's just egregious nitpicking over details I feel aren't going to provide any meaningful purpose or knowledge beyond what's already available. Much of the debate over the details NIST got right or wrong have to do with that thermal expansion/contraction issue and how much they took one into account over the other. The purpose of their modeling was to figure out where the collapse started and what factors would have allowed it to deteriorate into a full-on collapse which translate to life-safety design considerations for future buildings. It wasn't to figure out what nut or bolt failed and at what point.... I think he's taking the modeling too literally and getting completely tangled up by the details, hence I don't think his questions are satisfiable.

Getting tangled up on trying to dig too deep into details doesn't strike me as the same thing as trying to endorse CD or the more ridiculous conspiracies.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. "Leaving no stone unturned" doesn't mean you have to get down with tweezers and roll over the mouse turds.

Essentially, if you have 4 fasteners in a joint, then overload that joint to, say, 10X ultimate load, does it really matter which fastener failed first?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
...Getting tangled up on trying to dig too deep into details doesn't strike me as the same thing as trying to endorse CD or the more ridiculous conspiracies.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

rwguinn said:
...Essentially, if you have 4 fasteners in a joint, then overload that joint to, say, 10X ultimate load, does it really matter which fastener failed first?
Click to expand...
Just as the arguments about "perimeter led" or "core led" are pointless - we know that when the top blocks started to fall ALL columns had failed. Which went first of little interest.

rwguinn said:
Absolutely. "Leaving no stone unturned" doesn't mean you have to get down with tweezers and roll over the mouse turds.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of a motto - not mine - which was "Leave no turn unstoned."


:runaway
 
The Lewes formulation uses a plastic explosive and thermite mix.

And it dates back to WWII.

Imagine the progress that might have been made in 60 years.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
The Lewes formulation uses a plastic explosive and thermite mix.

And it dates back to WWII.

Imagine the progress that might have been made in 60 years.

MM
Click to expand...

And this is in the "Single Column Failure" thread because you Imagine it?

Does this mean after 12 years of complete failure, it will take 60 years for 911 truth to make progress and stop spreading lies like thermite?

Imagine the progress of 911 truth defies definition.
 
Does anyone want to discuss the OP?

My answers in brief are:
False premise AKA "strawman".
It isn't.
No.
No.
Yes.
False premise. Invalid. Invalid. Invalid.
False premise.
No.

More details posted several times earlier in the thread. :)


:runaway
 
Miragememories said:
The Lewes formulation uses a plastic explosive and thermite mix.

And it dates back to WWII.

Imagine the progress that might have been made in 60 years.

MM
Click to expand...
You can imagine all you want. Harris wants you to disregard the laws of science. We all know you have no problem with that.
 
DGM said:
I'm wondering why this is in this subforum (If he wants to discuss what he claims)?
Click to expand...
No problem with it being here - remember it is 9/11 related and the reason for the sub-forum is to keep all the 9/11 related material quarantined to avoid contaminating the rest of JREF.

Sander is actually addressing some aspects of engineering reality and not a truther aspect in sight. Unless MM actually posts an on topic comment. ;)
 
ozeco41 said:
No problem with it being here - remember it is 9/11 related and the reason for the sub-forum is to keep all the 9/11 related material quarantined to avoid contaminating the rest of JREF.

Sander is actually addressing some aspects of engineering reality and not a truther aspect in sight. Unless MM actually posts an on topic comment. ;)
Click to expand...
I understand this but, I don't think Sanders really want's to discuss the topic (which really doesn't have much connection to 9/11). ;)
 
ozeco41 said:
Does anyone want to discuss the OP?

My answers in brief are:
False premise AKA "strawman".
It isn't.
No.
No.
Yes.
False premise. Invalid. Invalid. Invalid.
False premise.
No.

More details posted several times earlier in the thread. :)


:runaway
Click to expand...
closed/
 
beachnut said:
closed/
Click to expand...
thumbup.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom