| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| chek wrote: | Modern explosives such as RDX and related types produce shockwaves that propagate in the region of 27,000 ft/sec. It was suggested (by means of calculations that were beyond me) that the degree of pulverisation would require a shockwave of about 10 times that figure.
Note that I am not proposing this as 'fact', rather just introducing it as an observation from elsewhere. As stated earlier, extraordinary forces were required. How they were achieved is the mystery part. |
Seems you have a few ideas, though. Why not table them down here, chek? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well if you want to play such games how about:
(1) 0 planes crashing into a building (2) which then become only the third steel frame building to collapse in history (3) and just happens to collapse on the same day as the first two steel frame buildings to collapse in history (4) and impossibly collapses due to fire even though in this instance there is no aviation fuel involved (5) and it collapse in approximately 7 secs (6) and collapses perfectly onto it's own footprint strangely like the first two collapses= 6 known anomalies.
I could go on but that would just be annoying wouldn't it? 
These anomalies defy the laws of probability and physics and there is also reasonable doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | They give a figure of 'ten times the amount of WTC powdered concrete for the official collapse story to be true' in the Google chart topper video 'Improbable Collapse'. |
What does that mean? Ten times what powdered concrete, where? |
Watch the video wacker! |
It wouldn't help. Not all of us have your unique skills that allow you to spot 60 micron particles of dust, or calculate the exact amount of powdered concrete, just by watching a grainy video. |
I was just quoting/paraphrasing the authors of 'Improbable Collapse' brainiac. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | Modern explosives such as RDX and related types produce shockwaves that propagate in the region of 27,000 ft/sec. It was suggested (by means of calculations that were beyond me) that the degree of pulverisation would require a shockwave of about 10 times that figure.
Note that I am not proposing this as 'fact', rather just introducing it as an observation from elsewhere. As stated earlier, extraordinary forces were required. How they were achieved is the mystery part. |
Seems you have a few ideas, though. Why not table them down here, chek? |
Because at present that's all they are ideas - not claims. I'm keeping a look out for any further corroborating evidence and I'll be sure to let you know when something materialises. As I stated in that thread:
"Well that's the strange thing about the strange case of the WTC Briaman - lots of strange factors that don't point to one specific known technology, just suggestive bits and pieces of many.
Factors such as use of thermate that is consistent with some evidence, but not others. Possible use of generally unknown hi-energy weapons that are consistent with other real data but again not conclusive. As of so far, nobody is able to point and say - here's how it was done, in such a way as to satisfy all the information." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | As of so far, nobody is able to point and say - here's how it was done, in such a way as to satisfy all the information." |
Apart from severe damage and intense fire followed by natural collapse of weakened structures, that is .....
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | Well if you want to play such games how about:
(1) 0 planes crashing into a building (2) which then become only the third steel frame building to collapse in history (3) and just happens to collapse on the same day as the first two steel frame buildings to collapse in history
|
And you don't think the fact that big chunks of concrete and steel raining down on it from 1000 feet had anything to do with it, and that this may have somehow been connected to the collapse of two very tall buildings in the vicinity, and that this in turn may have been connected to the very first two collisions of airliners, full-throttle, into skyscrapers? Or do you deny that this happened?
| Quote: |
(4) and impossibly collapses due to fire even though in this instance there is no aviation fuel involved
|
By definition, it was not impossible, because it happened. You have to take several things into consideration if you want to understand what happened:
1. It did NOT collapse just because of fire, it was heavily damaged.
2. Jet fuel only STARTED the fire in the towers, most of the fuel was of the same sort that burned in WTC7. (I'm not sure what started the fire in WTC7 exactly, but the fact that fires often break out in earthquakes, despite there being no jet fuel involved, proves that heavily damaged buildings CAN spontaneously catch fire.)
3. The damaged infrastructure due to the towers collapsing meant there was insufficient water pressure to fight the fire effectively.
4. There was no sane motive to secretly destroy WTC7. Forget all the talk about Silverstein's get-rich-quick insurance scam, the lease revenue he lost and the cost of rebuilding quickly wiped out any profit he might have made.
| Quote: |
(5) and it collapse in approximately 7 secs (6) and collapses perfectly onto it's own footprint strangely like the first two collapses= 6 known anomalies.
|
Except that it DIDN'T collapse in 7 seconds and it DIDN'T fall in its own footprint, unless the buildings around it that were damaged by falling debris were inside its footprint.
| Quote: |
I could go on but that would just be annoying wouldn't it?
These anomalies defy the laws of probability and physics and there is also reasonable doubt. |
I seriously doubt you know anything about the laws of probability or physics. You are simply repeating something you have heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | | As of so far, nobody is able to point and say - here's how it was done, in such a way as to satisfy all the information." |
Apart from severe damage and intense fire followed by natural collapse of weakened structures, that is ..... |
Would you care to define 'intense', as my recollection of NIST's figures may be faulty, but I seem to recall their steel samples showed sub-400C and mostly sub-300C temps? We'll ignore WTC7 for the moment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | Well if you want to play such games how about:
(1) 0 planes crashing into a building (2) which then become only the third steel frame building to collapse in history (3) and just happens to collapse on the same day as the first two steel frame buildings to collapse in history
|
And you don't think the fact that big chunks of concrete and steel raining down on it from 1000 feet had anything to do with it, and that this may have somehow been connected to the collapse of two very tall buildings in the vicinity, and that this in turn may have been connected to the very first two collisions of airliners, full-throttle, into skyscrapers? Or do you deny that this happened?
| Quote: |
(4) and impossibly collapses due to fire even though in this instance there is no aviation fuel involved
|
By definition, it was not impossible, because it happened. You have to take several things into consideration if you want to understand what happened:
1. It did NOT collapse just because of fire, it was heavily damaged.
2. Jet fuel only STARTED the fire in the towers, most of the fuel was of the same sort that burned in WTC7. (I'm not sure what started the fire in WTC7 exactly, but the fact that fires often break out in earthquakes, despite there being no jet fuel involved, proves that heavily damaged buildings CAN spontaneously catch fire.)
3. The damaged infrastructure due to the towers collapsing meant there was insufficient water pressure to fight the fire effectively.
4. There was no sane motive to secretly destroy WTC7. Forget all the talk about Silverstein's get-rich-quick insurance scam, the lease revenue he lost and the cost of rebuilding quickly wiped out any profit he might have made.
| Quote: |
(5) and it collapse in approximately 7 secs (6) and collapses perfectly onto it's own footprint strangely like the first two collapses= 6 known anomalies.
|
Except that it DIDN'T collapse in 7 seconds and it DIDN'T fall in its own footprint, unless the buildings around it that were damaged by falling debris were inside its footprint.
| Quote: |
I could go on but that would just be annoying wouldn't it?
These anomalies defy the laws of probability and physics and there is also reasonable doubt. |
I seriously doubt you know anything about the laws of probability or physics. You are simply repeating something you have heard. |
You seem somewhat antagonized by my initial response to your 'unknown entities' thesis. I'm sorry to tell you this but you don't have all the answers. We also don't know what happened to building 7. You can suggest that building 7 was hit by debris etc but that would seem to be just as speculative as anything I could put forward. Saying the twin towers collapsed, note I say collapsed and not fell, because two aircraft hit them is like someone say “doctor are you sure it was the cancer as I still think the bullet to the head may have had something to do with it”.
The important thing is to remain open minded and I choose to make my 'own' mind up and not be bullied into submission because I'm not a mathematician or scientist.
Anyway your persistence is amusing.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arkan_Wolfshade
Minor Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | | As of so far, nobody is able to point and say - here's how it was done, in such a way as to satisfy all the information." |
Apart from severe damage and intense fire followed by natural collapse of weakened structures, that is ..... |
Would you care to define 'intense', as my recollection of NIST's figures may be faulty, but I seem to recall their steel samples showed sub-400C and mostly sub-300C temps? We'll ignore WTC7 for the moment. |
| Quote: |
The modeling suggests a peak total rate of fire energy output on the order of 3–5 trillion Btu/hr, around 1–1.5 gigawatts (GW), for each of the two towers. From one third to one half of this energy flowed out of the structures. This vented energy was the force that drove the external smoke plume. The vented energy and accompanying smoke from both towers combined into a single plume. The energy output from
each of the two buildings is similar to the power output of a commercial power generating station. The modeling also suggests ceiling gas temperatures of 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), with an estimated confidence of plus
or minus 100 °C (200 °F) or about 900–1,100 °C (1,600–2,000 °F). A major portion of the uncertainty in these estimates is due to the scarcity of data regarding the initial conditions within the building and how the
aircraft impact changed the geometry and fuel loading. Temperatures may have been as high as 900–1,100 °C (1,700–2,000 °F) in some areas and 400–800 °C (800–1,500 °F) in others.
The viability of a 3–5 trillion Btu/hr (1–1.15 GW) fire depends on the fuel and air supply. The surface area of office contents needed to support such a fire ranges from about 30,000–50,000 square feet, depending
on the composition and final arrangement of the contents and the fuel loading present. Given the typical occupied area of a floor as approximately 30,000 square feet, it can be seen that simultaneous fire involvement of an area equal to 1–2 entire floors can produce such a fire. Fuel loads are typically described in terms of the equivalent weight of wood. Fuel loads in office-type occupancies typically range from about 4–12 psf, with the mean slightly less than 8 psf (Culver 1977). File rooms, libraries, and similar concentrations of paper materials have significantly higher concentrations of fuel. At the burning rate necessary to yield these fires, a fuel load of about 5 psf would be required to provide sufficient fuel to maintain the fire at full force for an hour, and twice that quantity to maintain it for 2 hours. The air needed to support combustion would be on
the order of 600,000–1,000,000 cubic feet per minute.
Air supply to support the fires was primarily provided by openings in the exterior walls that were created by the aircraft impacts and fireballs, as well as by additional window breakage from the ensuing heat of the fires. Table 2.1 lists the estimated exterior wall openings used in these calculations. Although the table shows the openings on a floor-by-floor basis, several of the openings, particularly in the area of impact,
actually spanned several floors (see Figure 2-17).
Sometimes, interior shafts in burning high-rise buildings also deliver significant quantities of air to a fire, through a phenomenon known as “stack effect,” which is created when differences between the ambient
exterior air temperatures and the air temperatures inside the building result in differential air pressures, drawing air up through the shafts to the fire area. Because outside and inside temperatures appear to have
been virtually the same on September 11, this stack effect was not expected to be strong in this case.
Based on photographic evidence, the fire burned as a distributed collection of large but separate fires with significant temperature variations from space to space, depending on the type and arrangement of combustible material present and the available air for combustion in each particular space. Consequently, the temperature and related incident heat flux to the structural elements varied with both time and location. This information is not currently available, but could be modeled with advanced CFD fire models.
Damage caused by the aircraft impacts is believed to have disrupted the sprinkler and fire standpipe systems, preventing effective operation of either the manual or automatic suppression systems. Even if these
systems had not been compromised by the impacts, they would likely have been ineffective. It is believed that the initial flash fires of jet fuel would have opened so many sprinkler heads that the systems would have
quickly depressurized and been unable to effectively deliver water to the large area of fire involvement.
Further, the initial spread of fires was so extensive as to make occupant use of small hose streams ineffective. |
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf
Section 2, pgs 22-23 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | We also don't know what happened to building 7. |
Speak for yourself. | Quote: | | You can suggest that building 7 was hit by debris etc but that would seem to be just as speculative as anything I could put forward. |
About as speculative as saying the WTC was hit by planes. It is pretty much an accepted fact that WTC was damaged by debris, even conspiracy theorists aren't denying that. They are denying that it was enough damage. | Quote: | | Saying the twin towers collapsed, note I say collapsed and not fell, because two aircraft hit them is like someone say “doctor are you sure it was the cancer as I still think the bullet to the head may have had something to do with it”. |
I'd more like your doctor telling you that you have lung cancer because you were a chain smoker for 30 years, and you concluding that it was probably chemtrails designed to make you believe the official 9.11 cover story and your doctor is part of the plot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Arkan_Wolfshade wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | | As of so far, nobody is able to point and say - here's how it was done, in such a way as to satisfy all the information." |
Apart from severe damage and intense fire followed by natural collapse of weakened structures, that is ..... |
Would you care to define 'intense', as my recollection of NIST's figures may be faulty, but I seem to recall their steel samples showed sub-400C and mostly sub-300C temps? We'll ignore WTC7 for the moment. |
| Quote: |
The modeling suggests a peak total rate of fire energy output on the order of 3–5 trillion Btu/hr, around 1–1.5 gigawatts (GW), for each of the two towers. From one third to one half of this energy flowed out of the structures. This vented energy was the force that drove the external smoke plume. The vented energy and accompanying smoke from both towers combined into a single plume. The energy output from
each of the two buildings is similar to the power output of a commercial power generating station. The modeling also suggests ceiling gas temperatures of 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), with an estimated confidence of plus
or minus 100 °C (200 °F) or about 900–1,100 °C (1,600–2,000 °F). A major portion of the uncertainty in these estimates is due to the scarcity of data regarding the initial conditions within the building and how the
aircraft impact changed the geometry and fuel loading. Temperatures may have been as high as 900–1,100 °C (1,700–2,000 °F) in some areas and 400–800 °C (800–1,500 °F) in others.
The viability of a 3–5 trillion Btu/hr (1–1.15 GW) fire depends on the fuel and air supply. The surface area of office contents needed to support such a fire ranges from about 30,000–50,000 square feet, depending
on the composition and final arrangement of the contents and the fuel loading present. Given the typical occupied area of a floor as approximately 30,000 square feet, it can be seen that simultaneous fire involvement of an area equal to 1–2 entire floors can produce such a fire. Fuel loads are typically described in terms of the equivalent weight of wood. Fuel loads in office-type occupancies typically range from about 4–12 psf, with the mean slightly less than 8 psf (Culver 1977). File rooms, libraries, and similar concentrations of paper materials have significantly higher concentrations of fuel. At the burning rate necessary to yield these fires, a fuel load of about 5 psf would be required to provide sufficient fuel to maintain the fire at full force for an hour, and twice that quantity to maintain it for 2 hours. The air needed to support combustion would be on
the order of 600,000–1,000,000 cubic feet per minute.
Air supply to support the fires was primarily provided by openings in the exterior walls that were created by the aircraft impacts and fireballs, as well as by additional window breakage from the ensuing heat of the fires. Table 2.1 lists the estimated exterior wall openings used in these calculations. Although the table shows the openings on a floor-by-floor basis, several of the openings, particularly in the area of impact,
actually spanned several floors (see Figure 2-17).
Sometimes, interior shafts in burning high-rise buildings also deliver significant quantities of air to a fire, through a phenomenon known as “stack effect,” which is created when differences between the ambient
exterior air temperatures and the air temperatures inside the building result in differential air pressures, drawing air up through the shafts to the fire area. Because outside and inside temperatures appear to have
been virtually the same on September 11, this stack effect was not expected to be strong in this case.
Based on photographic evidence, the fire burned as a distributed collection of large but separate fires with significant temperature variations from space to space, depending on the type and arrangement of combustible material present and the available air for combustion in each particular space. Consequently, the temperature and related incident heat flux to the structural elements varied with both time and location. This information is not currently available, but could be modeled with advanced CFD fire models.
Damage caused by the aircraft impacts is believed to have disrupted the sprinkler and fire standpipe systems, preventing effective operation of either the manual or automatic suppression systems. Even if these
systems had not been compromised by the impacts, they would likely have been ineffective. It is believed that the initial flash fires of jet fuel would have opened so many sprinkler heads that the systems would have
quickly depressurized and been unable to effectively deliver water to the large area of fire involvement.
Further, the initial spread of fires was so extensive as to make occupant use of small hose streams ineffective. |
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf
Section 2, pgs 22-23 |
Perhaps a lot of critics - and other people made the mistake of assuming that those temperatures transferred to the steel itself. Certainly that's the impression many people had.
"NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached; it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels; however, these columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns on the floors involved in fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors. Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C. These areas were: • WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web, • WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web, • WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse. Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time. Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire-affected floors of the towers.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:4Qem98jNCQQJ:wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NC STAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf+NIST+steel+sample+temperatures+%2BNIST&hl= en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | We also don't know what happened to building 7. |
Speak for yourself. | Quote: | | You can suggest that building 7 was hit by debris etc but that would seem to be just as speculative as anything I could put forward. |
About as speculative as saying the WTC was hit by planes. It is pretty much an accepted fact that WTC was damaged by debris, even conspiracy theorists aren't denying that. They are denying that it was enough damage. | Quote: | | Saying the twin towers collapsed, note I say collapsed and not fell, because two aircraft hit them is like someone say “doctor are you sure it was the cancer as I still think the bullet to the head may have had something to do with it”. |
I'd more like your doctor telling you that you have lung cancer because you were a chain smoker for 30 years, and you concluding that it was probably chemtrails designed to make you believe the official 9.11 cover story and your doctor is part of the plot. |
Lets just return to the twin towers for a moment and consider the reality of their structure and the theory that fire weakened columns and floor trusses thereby resulting in their collapse.
In such a structure as that of the WTC towers there are no main load baring columns or trusses. The whole design of the towers focuses on the idea that each member is able to support many other members in the event that structural integrity is compromised. The building philosophy is somewhat akin to the matrix or honeycomb philosophy of architecture. Buckminster Fuller was a great exponent of such structural engineering with his famous 'geodesic dome' design.
So the point I'm making here is that a very large bomb could have exploded on the eightieth floor of one of the towers creating a void and the towers were designed to still stand. This is because the tolerance of each member was calculated to 'pick up' the stresses of other members. This means the towers should not have fallen due to impact from an aircraft of even the failure of columns or trusses due to fire. The cliché here is that the twin towers by default were 'over engineered'.
The collapse of the world trade center can have only happened in the event of thousands of weld joints floor trusses and columns being compromised. Because of this we deduce that the structural integrity of the whole of a tower needed to be compromised not just one small section.
The probability, especially since the towers and Building 7 fell on the same day and are to date the only steel framed buildings to collapse apparently due to impacts and fire, is that foul play was involved.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | | pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | We also don't know what happened to building 7. |
Speak for yourself. | Quote: | | You can suggest that building 7 was hit by debris etc but that would seem to be just as speculative as anything I could put forward. |
About as speculative as saying the WTC was hit by planes. It is pretty much an accepted fact that WTC was damaged by debris, even conspiracy theorists aren't denying that. They are denying that it was enough damage. | Quote: | | Saying the twin towers collapsed, note I say collapsed and not fell, because two aircraft hit them is like someone say “doctor are you sure it was the cancer as I still think the bullet to the head may have had something to do with it”. |
I'd more like your doctor telling you that you have lung cancer because you were a chain smoker for 30 years, and you concluding that it was probably chemtrails designed to make you believe the official 9.11 cover story and your doctor is part of the plot. |
Lets just return to the twin towers for a moment and consider the reality of their structure and the theory that fire weakened columns and floor trusses thereby resulting in their collapse.
In such a structure as that of the WTC towers there are no main load baring columns or trusses. The whole design of the towers focuses on the idea that each member is able to support many other members in the event that structural integrity is compromised. The building philosophy is somewhat akin to the matrix or honeycomb philosophy of architecture. Buckminster Fuller was a great exponent of such structural engineering with his famous 'geodesic dome' design.
So the point I'm making here is that a very large bomb could have exploded on the eightieth floor of one of the towers creating a void and the towers were designed to still stand. This is because the tolerance of each member was calculated to 'pick up' the stresses of other members. This means the towers should not have fallen due to impact from an aircraft of even the failure of columns or trusses due to fire. The cliché here is that the twin towers by default were 'over engineered'.
The collapse of the world trade center can have only happened in the event of thousands of weld joints floor trusses and columns being compromised. Because of this we deduce that the structural integrity of the whole of a tower needed to be compromised not just one small section.
The probability, especially since the towers and Building 7 fell on the same day and are to date the only steel framed buildings to collapse apparently due to impacts and fire, is that foul play was involved. |
But there comes a point when all the over engineering in the world won't hold up a building, it still has its limits. 9/11 was over the limit for the WTC.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | We also don't know what happened to building 7. |
Speak for yourself. | Quote: | | You can suggest that building 7 was hit by debris etc but that would seem to be just as speculative as anything I could put forward. |
About as speculative as saying the WTC was hit by planes. It is pretty much an accepted fact that WTC was damaged by debris, even conspiracy theorists aren't denying that. They are denying that it was enough damage. | Quote: | | Saying the twin towers collapsed, note I say collapsed and not fell, because two aircraft hit them is like someone say “doctor are you sure it was the cancer as I still think the bullet to the head may have had something to do with it”. |
I'd more like your doctor telling you that you have lung cancer because you were a chain smoker for 30 years, and you concluding that it was probably chemtrails designed to make you believe the official 9.11 cover story and your doctor is part of the plot. |
Lets just return to the twin towers for a moment and consider the reality of their structure and the theory that fire weakened columns and floor trusses thereby resulting in their collapse.
In such a structure as that of the WTC towers there are no main load baring columns or trusses. The whole design of the towers focuses on the idea that each member is able to support many other members in the event that structural integrity is compromised. The building philosophy is somewhat akin to the matrix or honeycomb philosophy of architecture. Buckminster Fuller was a great exponent of such structural engineering with his famous 'geodesic dome' design.
So the point I'm making here is that a very large bomb could have exploded on the eightieth floor of one of the towers creating a void and the towers were designed to still stand. This is because the tolerance of each member was calculated to 'pick up' the stresses of other members. This means the towers should not have fallen due to impact from an aircraft of even the failure of columns or trusses due to fire. The cliché here is that the twin towers by default were 'over engineered'.
The collapse of the world trade center can have only happened in the event of thousands of weld joints floor trusses and columns being compromised. Because of this we deduce that the structural integrity of the whole of a tower needed to be compromised not just one small section.
The probability, especially since the towers and Building 7 fell on the same day and are to date the only steel framed buildings to collapse apparently due to impacts and fire, is that foul play was involved. |
But there comes a point when all the over engineering in the world won't hold up a building, it still has its limits. 9/11 was over the limit for the WTC. |
Just like building 7 I suppose?
Sorry but no banana. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | We also don't know what happened to building 7. |
Speak for yourself. | Quote: | | You can suggest that building 7 was hit by debris etc but that would seem to be just as speculative as anything I could put forward. |
About as speculative as saying the WTC was hit by planes. It is pretty much an accepted fact that WTC was damaged by debris, even conspiracy theorists aren't denying that. They are denying that it was enough damage. | Quote: | | Saying the twin towers collapsed, note I say collapsed and not fell, because two aircraft hit them is like someone say “doctor are you sure it was the cancer as I still think the bullet to the head may have had something to do with it”. |
I'd more like your doctor telling you that you have lung cancer because you were a chain smoker for 30 years, and you concluding that it was probably chemtrails designed to make you believe the official 9.11 cover story and your doctor is part of the plot. |
Lets just return to the twin towers for a moment and consider the reality of their structure and the theory that fire weakened columns and floor trusses thereby resulting in their collapse.
In such a structure as that of the WTC towers there are no main load baring columns or trusses. The whole design of the towers focuses on the idea that each member is able to support many other members in the event that structural integrity is compromised. The building philosophy is somewhat akin to the matrix or honeycomb philosophy of architecture. Buckminster Fuller was a great exponent of such structural engineering with his famous 'geodesic dome' design.
So the point I'm making here is that a very large bomb could have exploded on the eightieth floor of one of the towers creating a void and the towers were designed to still stand. This is because the tolerance of each member was calculated to 'pick up' the stresses of other members. This means the towers should not have fallen due to impact from an aircraft of even the failure of columns or trusses due to fire. The cliché here is that the twin towers by default were 'over engineered'.
The collapse of the world trade center can have only happened in the event of thousands of weld joints floor trusses and columns being compromised. Because of this we deduce that the structural integrity of the whole of a tower needed to be compromised not just one small section.
The probability, especially since the towers and Building 7 fell on the same day and are to date the only steel framed buildings to collapse apparently due to impacts and fire, is that foul play was involved. |
But there comes a point when all the over engineering in the world won't hold up a building, it still has its limits. 9/11 was over the limit for the WTC. |
Just like building 7 I suppose?
Sorry but no banana. |
Are you saying the the WTC buildings were impossible to collapse? WTC 7 had limits too. I'm not sure how you think you know that these weren't exceeded, seeing as all you have to go on is pictures and video.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | We also don't know what happened to building 7. |
Speak for yourself. | Quote: | | You can suggest that building 7 was hit by debris etc but that would seem to be just as speculative as anything I could put forward. |
About as speculative as saying the WTC was hit by planes. It is pretty much an accepted fact that WTC was damaged by debris, even conspiracy theorists aren't denying that. They are denying that it was enough damage. | Quote: | | Saying the twin towers collapsed, note I say collapsed and not fell, because two aircraft hit them is like someone say “doctor are you sure it was the cancer as I still think the bullet to the head may have had something to do with it”. |
I'd more like your doctor telling you that you have lung cancer because you were a chain smoker for 30 years, and you concluding that it was probably chemtrails designed to make you believe the official 9.11 cover story and your doctor is part of the plot. |
Lets just return to the twin towers for a moment and consider the reality of their structure and the theory that fire weakened columns and floor trusses thereby resulting in their collapse.
In such a structure as that of the WTC towers there are no main load baring columns or trusses. The whole design of the towers focuses on the idea that each member is able to support many other members in the event that structural integrity is compromised. The building philosophy is somewhat akin to the matrix or honeycomb philosophy of architecture. Buckminster Fuller was a great exponent of such structural engineering with his famous 'geodesic dome' design.
So the point I'm making here is that a very large bomb could have exploded on the eightieth floor of one of the towers creating a void and the towers were designed to still stand. This is because the tolerance of each member was calculated to 'pick up' the stresses of other members. This means the towers should not have fallen due to impact from an aircraft of even the failure of columns or trusses due to fire. The cliché here is that the twin towers by default were 'over engineered'.
The collapse of the world trade center can have only happened in the event of thousands of weld joints floor trusses and columns being compromised. Because of this we deduce that the structural integrity of the whole of a tower needed to be compromised not just one small section.
The probability, especially since the towers and Building 7 fell on the same day and are to date the only steel framed buildings to collapse apparently due to impacts and fire, is that foul play was involved. |
But there comes a point when all the over engineering in the world won't hold up a building, it still has its limits. 9/11 was over the limit for the WTC. |
Just like building 7 I suppose?
Sorry but no banana. |
Are you saying the the WTC buildings were impossible to collapse? WTC 7 had limits too. I'm not sure how you think you know that these weren't exceeded, seeing as all you have to go on is pictures and video. |
banana  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | We also don't know what happened to building 7. |
Speak for yourself. | Quote: | | You can suggest that building 7 was hit by debris etc but that would seem to be just as speculative as anything I could put forward. |
About as speculative as saying the WTC was hit by planes. It is pretty much an accepted fact that WTC was damaged by debris, even conspiracy theorists aren't denying that. They are denying that it was enough damage. | Quote: | | Saying the twin towers collapsed, note I say collapsed and not fell, because two aircraft hit them is like someone say “doctor are you sure it was the cancer as I still think the bullet to the head may have had something to do with it”. |
I'd more like your doctor telling you that you have lung cancer because you were a chain smoker for 30 years, and you concluding that it was probably chemtrails designed to make you believe the official 9.11 cover story and your doctor is part of the plot. |
Lets just return to the twin towers for a moment and consider the reality of their structure and the theory that fire weakened columns and floor trusses thereby resulting in their collapse.
In such a structure as that of the WTC towers there are no main load baring columns or trusses. The whole design of the towers focuses on the idea that each member is able to support many other members in the event that structural integrity is compromised. The building philosophy is somewhat akin to the matrix or honeycomb philosophy of architecture. Buckminster Fuller was a great exponent of such structural engineering with his famous 'geodesic dome' design.
So the point I'm making here is that a very large bomb could have exploded on the eightieth floor of one of the towers creating a void and the towers were designed to still stand. This is because the tolerance of each member was calculated to 'pick up' the stresses of other members. This means the towers should not have fallen due to impact from an aircraft of even the failure of columns or trusses due to fire. The cliché here is that the twin towers by default were 'over engineered'.
The collapse of the world trade center can have only happened in the event of thousands of weld joints floor trusses and columns being compromised. Because of this we deduce that the structural integrity of the whole of a tower needed to be compromised not just one small section.
The probability, especially since the towers and Building 7 fell on the same day and are to date the only steel framed buildings to collapse apparently due to impacts and fire, is that foul play was involved. |
But there comes a point when all the over engineering in the world won't hold up a building, it still has its limits. 9/11 was over the limit for the WTC. |
Just like building 7 I suppose?
Sorry but no banana. |
Are you saying the the WTC buildings were impossible to collapse? WTC 7 had limits too. I'm not sure how you think you know that these weren't exceeded, seeing as all you have to go on is pictures and video. |
banana |
Like I thought, you got nothing
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | We also don't know what happened to building 7. |
Speak for yourself. | Quote: | | You can suggest that building 7 was hit by debris etc but that would seem to be just as speculative as anything I could put forward. |
About as speculative as saying the WTC was hit by planes. It is pretty much an accepted fact that WTC was damaged by debris, even conspiracy theorists aren't denying that. They are denying that it was enough damage. | Quote: | | Saying the twin towers collapsed, note I say collapsed and not fell, because two aircraft hit them is like someone say “doctor are you sure it was the cancer as I still think the bullet to the head may have had something to do with it”. |
I'd more like your doctor telling you that you have lung cancer because you were a chain smoker for 30 years, and you concluding that it was probably chemtrails designed to make you believe the official 9.11 cover story and your doctor is part of the plot. |
Lets just return to the twin towers for a moment and consider the reality of their structure and the theory that fire weakened columns and floor trusses thereby resulting in their collapse.
In such a structure as that of the WTC towers there are no main load baring columns or trusses. The whole design of the towers focuses on the idea that each member is able to support many other members in the event that structural integrity is compromised. The building philosophy is somewhat akin to the matrix or honeycomb philosophy of architecture. Buckminster Fuller was a great exponent of such structural engineering with his famous 'geodesic dome' design.
So the point I'm making here is that a very large bomb could have exploded on the eightieth floor of one of the towers creating a void and the towers were designed to still stand. This is because the tolerance of each member was calculated to 'pick up' the stresses of other members. This means the towers should not have fallen due to impact from an aircraft of even the failure of columns or trusses due to fire. The cliché here is that the twin towers by default were 'over engineered'.
The collapse of the world trade center can have only happened in the event of thousands of weld joints floor trusses and columns being compromised. Because of this we deduce that the structural integrity of the whole of a tower needed to be compromised not just one small section.
The probability, especially since the towers and Building 7 fell on the same day and are to date the only steel framed buildings to collapse apparently due to impacts and fire, is that foul play was involved. |
But there comes a point when all the over engineering in the world won't hold up a building, it still has its limits. 9/11 was over the limit for the WTC. |
Just like building 7 I suppose?
Sorry but no banana. |
Are you saying the the WTC buildings were impossible to collapse? WTC 7 had limits too. I'm not sure how you think you know that these weren't exceeded, seeing as all you have to go on is pictures and video. |
banana |
Like I thought, you got nothing |
So you got something! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: |
banana |
Banana Cream Pie
Banana cream pie recipe, made with milk, eggs, cinnamon, butter, and sliced bananas.
INGREDIENTS:
1 cup whole milk
4 egg yolks
1 cup granulated sugar
5 tablespoons all-purpose flour
3 tablespoons butter, cut in small pieces
1/2 teaspoon ground cinnamon
1 1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract
2 cups heavy cream divided
2 bananas, thinly sliced and tossed with 1 1/2 tablespoons lemon juice (about 1/2 lemon)
1 baked 9-inch pie shell
PREPARATION:
In a heavy saucepan, bring milk to the boiling point.
Place egg yolks in mixing bowl and beat on medium speed of electric mixer, gradually adding sugar. Beat for 2 minutes, until mixture is thick and lemon-colored.
Beat in flour. With mixer on low speed, gradually add the hot milk.
Transfer mixture to heavy saucepan and heat over medium heat, stirring constantly. Let mixture come to a boil and boil for about 1 minute, stirring constantly. Remove from heat and continue to beat until mixture is smooth. Beat in butter a little at a time; then blend in cinnamon. Stir in vanilla extract; let mixture cool.
Beat 1 cup of the cream until firm but not stiff. Mix about 1/2 cup of the whipped cream into the egg mixture to lighten it. Fold remaining whipped cream into egg mixture then fold in sliced bananas.
Transfer filling to the pastry shell. Whip remaining cream and spoon or pipe onto the pie. Refrigerate until serving time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh for so wise an Owl you're such a hoot! 
Can I have chockey chips on mine? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | Oh for so wise an Owl you're such a hoot!
Can I have chockey chips on mine? |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | The collapse of the world trade center can have only happened in the event of thousands of weld joints floor trusses and columns being compromised. Because of this we deduce that the structural integrity of the whole of a tower needed to be compromised not just one small section.
The probability, especially since the towers and Building 7 fell on the same day and are to date the only steel framed buildings to collapse apparently due to impacts and fire, is that foul play was involved. |
No, it was initially thought that those joints had failed, but the NIST report states that they remained intact, and that enabled the sagging floors to pull the perimeter columns inward, initiatng the collapse. There is photographic evidence showing the perimeter columns bowing inwards just prior to collapse. There is thus solid evidence for this theory, whereas the demolition theory, basically depends on "it looked like it".
These buildings were not of course the only steel-framed buildings to have collapsed due to fire. The danger of that happening is why steel buildings are fire-proofed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | The collapse of the world trade center can have only happened in the event of thousands of weld joints floor trusses and columns being compromised. Because of this we deduce that the structural integrity of the whole of a tower needed to be compromised not just one small section.
The probability, especially since the towers and Building 7 fell on the same day and are to date the only steel framed buildings to collapse apparently due to impacts and fire, is that foul play was involved. |
No, it was initially thought that those joints had failed, but the NIST report states that they remained intact, and that enabled the sagging floors to pull the perimeter columns inward, initiatng the collapse. There is photographic evidence showing the perimeter columns bowing inwards just prior to collapse. There is thus solid evidence for this theory, whereas the demolition theory, basically depends on "it looked like it".
These buildings were not of course the only steel-framed buildings to have collapsed due to fire. The danger of that happening is why steel buildings are fire-proofed. |
Sorry BW - I'm gonna have to call you on all these fire collapsed steel buildings. Wouldn't want anyone to think you're making unsubstantiated claims like some cheap shill now, would we? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | The collapse of the world trade center can have only happened in the event of thousands of weld joints floor trusses and columns being compromised. Because of this we deduce that the structural integrity of the whole of a tower needed to be compromised not just one small section.
The probability, especially since the towers and Building 7 fell on the same day and are to date the only steel framed buildings to collapse apparently due to impacts and fire, is that foul play was involved. |
No, it was initially thought that those joints had failed, but the NIST report states that they remained intact, and that enabled the sagging floors to pull the perimeter columns inward, initiatng the collapse. There is photographic evidence showing the perimeter columns bowing inwards just prior to collapse. There is thus solid evidence for this theory, whereas the demolition theory, basically depends on "it looked like it".
These buildings were not of course the only steel-framed buildings to have collapsed due to fire. The danger of that happening is why steel buildings are fire-proofed. |
Sorry BW - I'm gonna have to call you on all these fire collapsed steel buildings. Wouldn't want anyone to think you're making unsubstantiated claims like some cheap shill now, would we? |
Hotel Windsor, Madrid (upper floors only, lower floors and concrete lift shaft remained)
McCormick Place, Chicago
Sight and Sound Theater, Pennsylvania
One Meridian Plaza Philadelphia (Did not collapse but all interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors. The fire was halted when it reached a sprinklered floor)
Brackenridge, Pennsylvania
Dogwood Elementary School, Reston, Virginia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Bushwacker"] | chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | The collapse of the world trade center can have only happened in the event of thousands of weld joints floor trusses and columns being compromised. Because of this we deduce that the structural integrity of the whole of a tower needed to be compromised not just one small section.
The probability, especially since the towers and Building 7 fell on the same day and are to date the only steel framed buildings to collapse apparently due to impacts and fire, is that foul play was involved. |
No, it was initially thought that those joints had failed, but the NIST report states that they remained intact, and that enabled the sagging floors to pull the perimeter columns inward, initiatng the collapse. There is photographic evidence showing the perimeter columns bowing inwards just prior to collapse. There is thus solid evidence for this theory, whereas the demolition theory, basically depends on "it looked like it".
These buildings were not of course the only steel-framed buildings to have collapsed due to fire. The danger of that happening is why steel buildings are fire-proofed. |
Sorry BW - I'm gonna have to call you on all these fire collapsed steel buildings. Wouldn't want anyone to think you're making unsubstantiated claims like some cheap shill now, would we? |
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Hotel Windsor, Madrid (upper floors only, lower floors and concrete lift shaft remained) |
And of course the steel structure remained with enough strength to support the construction crane on top. Although badly burned out, no catastrophic total collapse, http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2796
So - a partial collapse
| Bushwacker wrote: | | McCormick Place, Chicago |
While the steel roof trusses did fail, "the portion of the old structure that had been relatively undamaged was incorporated into the interior of the much-larger new building"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCormick_Place
http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/mccormick_fire.html
Hmm - another partial collapse
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Sight and Sound Theater, Pennsylvania ) |
As the photos in the attached fire report show, another roof gone, partial collapse
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf
| Bushwacker wrote: | | [One Meridian Plaza Philadelphia (Did not collapse but all interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors. The fire was halted when it reached a sprinklered floor) |
So basically, you're saying yet another partial collapse?
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Brackenridge, Pennsylvania |
Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania on, December 20, 1991, Killing 4 volunteer firemen
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-061.pdf
Another partial collapse then.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Dogwood Elementary School, Reston, Virginia |
"Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed about 20 minutes after fire broke out"
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-135.pdf
And another partial.
A valiant try BW, but we are after all talking about total, catastrophic, all-fall-down, shovel-it-up-and-take-it-away, no further demolition required absolute destruction of buildings. And that hasn't been seen anywhere else apart from the WTC complex in September 2001. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is quite irrelevant whether it is a whole or partial collapse, which depends on other factors such as the operation of sprinklers, or the different structure of the walls, or lower part of the building. The point is that fire can and does cause structural steel componants to fail. In some of those examples it was the roof trusses, in the WTC it was the perimeter columns. The roof trusses in having failed, everything above came down, the perimeter columns having failed everything above came down and since that was itself the weight of a sizeable building, took down the rest.
Structural steel can fail because of fire, and has done elsewhere than at the WTC. At the WTC there were fires and the structural steel failed there as well, no theory of a hitherto unknown type of thermate explosive applied throughout an occupied building without anyone noticing is required. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | It is quite irrelevant whether it is a whole or partial collapse, which depends on other factors such as the operation of sprinklers, or the different structure of the walls, or lower part of the building. The point is that fire can and does cause structural steel componants to fail. In some of those examples it was the roof trusses, in the WTC it was the perimeter columns. The roof trusses in having failed, everything above came down, the perimeter columns having failed everything above came down and since that was itself the weight of a sizeable building, took down the rest.
Structural steel can fail because of fire, and has done elsewhere than at the WTC. At the WTC there were fires and the structural steel failed there as well, no theory of a hitherto unknown type of thermate explosive applied throughout an occupied building without anyone noticing is required. |
Apart from the rather suspect claim that if the trusses on one floor fail they must therefore all fail, your examples are all of partial collapses.
It's the total disassembling collapse of the WTC for the first time ever that marks them out.
I realise the debunk911 site would have it otherwise, but that's neither here nor there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
Apart from the rather suspect claim that if the trusses on one floor fail they must therefore all fail, your examples are all of partial collapses.
It's the total disassembling collapse of the WTC for the first time ever that marks them out.
I realise the debunk911 site would have it otherwise, but that's neither here nor there. |
But you do admit that fire can make steel structures fail, though? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | chek wrote: |
Apart from the rather suspect claim that if the trusses on one floor fail they must therefore all fail, your examples are all of partial collapses.
It's the total disassembling collapse of the WTC for the first time ever that marks them out.
I realise the debunk911 site would have it otherwise, but that's neither here nor there. |
But you do admit that fire can make steel structures fail, though? |
That is not in doubt in any way AS, and if remains similar to any of BW's examples had been left at any of the WTC buildings, there would be no reason for questioning any of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | t;]Hotel Windsor, Madrid (upper floors only, lower floors and concrete lift shaft remained) |
And of course the steel structure remained with enough strength to support the construction crane on top. Although badly burned out, no catastrophic total collapse, http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2796
So - a partial collapse
|
No, have another look at the photos you found, for instance this one. The construction crane and the penthouse are sitting on top of the concrete centre core, the steel framework of the upper floors lies in a tangled heap, exactly like the WTC, despite what the laughably named truthseeker pretends.
In any event, since you now accept that steel structures can fail because of fire, what you now seem to be saying is that you would not have expected the entire structure to collapse so completely, which is rather a different approach.
We know that the perimeter columns were bowed inwards on the fire floors, because we have photographs of them doing so. We also know that the collapse started at the fire floors. We know that no known explosive and detonator combination could have survived the heat of the fire on those floors. Are you prepared to accept that it is no less implausible that at least that floor collapsed because of the fire, as that a hitherto unknown type of explosive/detonator was used to collapse them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
