Trying to resolve 9/11

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: turbonium1

Physical principles dictate that such a collapse cannot occur, in any way, shape, or form, unless the structural supports which have held the building intact for 30 years, are first completely removed.

Anyone knows that, or certainly should know it.

Anyone? As in ae911? Shouldn't they know?
Why hasn't any one of their thousands of members whipped out their
engineering book and pointed to the page that says "it's impossible"????

Lets break this down to something stupidly simple.
Lets assume floor 'x' can hold the weight of 1000 kilo before it breaks.
Now if a 1000 kilo weight is dropped from 3 meters it will hit the force of 29,000 kilos.
Clearly it would not hold up to that much force.
Just a 1 meter drop give you a 10,000 kilo impact.
ae911 will not deny this as it it is just physics.

But you say the floor above didn't hit the floor below un impeded ?
Correct.
There was stuff in between.
Even if it was only a 1 meter drop you are looking at 10 times the force.

You say the supports had to have been 'removed' to allow the drop.
Well they were from the plane impact. The pictures show it.
Still the building held.
ae911 will not deny the plane took out the external supports on the impact side.

You say the remaining supports had to be taken out by charges.
NO They buckled and twisted from the heat.
ae911 will not deny that steel can buckle and twist from heat.

Remember:
It wasn't just one floor from above. It was many floors.
It wasn't a square on hit. It was twisting as it fell.
ae911 will not deny that.

The whole thing really was just that simple.
ae911 has spouted off for almost two decades.
18 years - thousands of members - millions of dollars, for what?
They have yet to produce one piece of peer reviewed proof of CD.

Now if they can't do it, what makes you think you are correct?

It's your claim that has no proof, that's the problem here. You cannot prove cartoon physics, and never will.

Any claim can be replicated in the real world. If it cannot be replicated, then it is a false claim.

The physics cannot be removed in any scenario - it either holds up, or if it cannot hold up, it's cartoon physics.

a reply to: neutronflux

Triggered

originally posted by: Stu112
a reply to: neutronflux

Triggered

Yes. By blatant truth movement propaganda and falsehoods.

originally posted by: turbonium1

The physics cannot be removed in any scenario - it either holds up, or if it cannot hold up, it's cartoon physics.

I'm going to explain Scale Gravity to you in a way that is simple enough for even you to understand........(maybe)

We are going to have one tower 1,000' tall with 10' in between each floor.

And a 10% exact scale model of that tower 100' tall with 1' in between each floor.

We will start a cascade floor system failure near the top of the towers.

The floors in the 1000' tower will have 10' to accelerate at 9.8 meters per second per second.

The floors in the 100' model will have only 1' to accelerate also 9.8 meters per second per second.

The floors in the 1000' tower WILL be going faster and impact the floor below harder than the floors in the 100' model.

To demonstrate this in the real world Find something 1' tall and jump off it. Next find something 10' tall and jump off it.

You should notice a difference in speed and impact force between the two.

The fact that I am having to explain this to you, because you don't already know it, is the reason why your opinion doesn't matter.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Can you point out why there no progressive collapse?

You mean WTC 5?

One. Because there wasn’t 10 or twenty stores above the failed members in WTC 5 to fall into the floor system below.

Two. Enough floor connections didn’t fail to result in a long enough unsupported span in WTC 5 to lose lateral support and buckle.


You

Why since a couple of unprotected steel columns failed the construction should have fallen down?

See above

That your proposal for WTC7 is it not fire buckled a couple of columns and the full building fell down!

Why wouldn’t WTC 7 have fire related and damage related failures like WTC 5. It was hit by burning debris from the twin towers like WTC 5.

The failures in WTC 7 probably started around floor 13. More load above the failures. And wider spread fires in a building with longer floor spans that resulted in longer section of a vertical column with no lateral support leading to that column buckling.

Now you don’t want to talk about WTC 1 and 2?

You

The floor was concrete, that was exposed too with no fire protection, that would lead to an actual loss of columns if it went.

Quote where the concrete was something other than part of the floor system. The steel floor trusses under the concrete provided the lateral support of the vertical columns, not the concrete.

You

Towers' central core was steel, not concrete. It composed of stronger elements and would operate stronger in a fire.

How is steel stronger than concrete rated for use/load as columns reinforced with steel rebar with the concrete insulating the steel reinforcement with in. Vs WTC was known to have degraded and deficient insulation. With WTC 1 and WTC 2 having large amounts of insulation knocked down from the jet impacts on the floors where each collapse initiated.

Concrete vs. steel
Concrete is a conventionally used material for construction while steel is now gaining momentum for its flexibility and reduced construction time. Both concrete and steel framed structures have environmental issues associated with their use, including a high embodied energy in their manufacture.

Concrete has some advantages; waste materials can be included within the mix, such as GGBS (Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag) and PFA (Pulverised Fuel Ash). In addition, moves are being made to assess the potential of using recycled concrete, however, issues such as moisture content and material variability dictate that it is economically unviable.

Steel, while having a high lead time, is known for its fast erection on site. However, steel needs fire protection whereas within concrete this is inherent. Prefabrication of steel can allow thin film intumescent coatings to be applied offsite.

www.designingbuildings.co.uk...

You

Steel is more resistant to fire

Compared to what, and why does it need fire insulation.

You

firms pre 9/11 tested steel in fire conditions of 1000c plus,

If fire is not a threat, why does code require the steel to be insulated. The fire insulation was heavily damaged on the floors of where the collapse for WTC 1 and 2 initiated. Heating steel to 1000c causes any steel to lose around sixty percent of its strength.

For WTC 1 and 2. The fires caused floor trusses to try to expand. The floor trusses still boxed in by standing vertical columns could not grow in length. They dropped downward under load. The bowed floor trusses upon cooling contracted, drawing and bowing inward vertical columns until they buckled to initiate the collapse.

Then if you through in uneven heating, uneven cooling and contracting, everything goes to hell.

You

unsupported no fireproofing for an hour and that steel only sagged.

What kind of force is caused on connections and vertical columns when the deformed steel cools and contracts.

Quote where NIST claims the buckling and collapse for WTC 1 and 2 were caused by fire? Vs thermal stress.

You

This building here was on fire for 20 hours- it withstood a large fire for that long and did not fully collapse.

Are you referring to the Madrid Windsor? Which was built totally different than the WTC buildings? The Madrid Windsor had reinforced concrete columns and members that the WTC buildings did not have. Thus, why the WTC buildings collapse. And why the Madrid Windsor only suffered collapse of its steel structure above the 17th floor, and not a collapse of its reinforced concrete structure.

You

Your own beliefs appear to not hold up since on 9/11 entire building collapsed.

Are you referring to WTC structures known to have deficient fire insulation. Who’s design started under 1938 building codes. Where the port authority got to pick and chose what codes it would follow from a 1968 draft of building codes. How much practical experience did that 1968 draft of codes draw from previously built all steel structures over 1000 feet tall insulated with something other than Asbestos.

You do know there is video, audio, seismic records from the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, And WTC 7? None of the evidence shows detonations with the force to cut steel columns.

You

Find me a building that supports your narrative and explanations and we can talk.

So. You cannot find a comparable building to WTC 7, WTC 1 and WTC 2 that caught fire and survived. Buildings mostly steel, that minimized concrete usage beyond common practice, built as cheap and light weight as possible for the port authority, whit as long floor spans with no mid length columns, and built to maximize space like WTC 1 and 2. With the strange floor connection angles found in WTC 7.

And you still have not provided any evidence the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, WTC 7 was initiated by cut columns from the video, audio, seismic evidence. With no proof of any cut columns by detonations.

a reply to: waypastvne

You know Turbo doesn’t believe in gravity. The individual is a flat earther that believes in the sorting of densities. Just FYI.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: turbonium1

The physics cannot be removed in any scenario - it either holds up, or if it cannot hold up, it's cartoon physics.

I'm going to explain Scale Gravity to you in a way that is simple enough for even you to understand........(maybe)

We are going to have one tower 1,000' tall with 10' in between each floor.

And a 10% exact scale model of that tower 100' tall with 1' in between each floor.

We will start a cascade floor system failure near the top of the towers.

The floors in the 1000' tower will have 10' to accelerate at 9.8 meters per second per second.

The floors in the 100' model will have only 1' to accelerate also 9.8 meters per second per second.

The floors in the 1000' tower WILL be going faster and impact the floor below harder than the floors in the 100' model.

To demonstrate this in the real world Find something 1' tall and jump off it. Next find something 10' tall and jump off it.

You should notice a difference in speed and impact force between the two.

The fact that I am having to explain this to you, because you don't already know it, is the reason why your opinion doesn't matter.

Your method of testing a structure by scale models would be - hmm - sort of peculiar..

If a 500 million ton structure fails to support itself, at a specific area, or areas, initial failure can occur, and has occurred, many times before, in various ways,

Let's assume a floor is 10 feet high, and collapses onto the floor below it. You don't take a 10 inch high floor, and drop it onto a floor below it, to replicate ANY actual collapse! That's what you think we would actually try to do?!?

That's funny.

To replicate something which occurs in a much larger structure, the same physical principles apply to the scale models.

If you removed a leg from a table, this would cause the table to collapse, toward that side.

Same thing would occur with any four-legged structure, if you removed a leg. Large or small, whatever material used, it has the very same result.

Now, if the table was stacked on 100 more tables, all identical to the first table, what occurs if you remove a leg from the table on top of the other tables?

Would the tables below it collapse, when the top table falls onto them? No, of course not.


If you removed a leg from a table that had 9 tables above it, and 90 tables below it, would it cause the lower 90 floors to collapse afterwards? Once again, it would not cause the lower tables to collapse straight down, to the floor.


Any other structure is the same, a failure cannot/does not/will never.... cause a total collapse of any structure, straight down, to the surface.


If you removed all structural supports of a highrise, at any floor, the building would not, could not, collapse straight down to the surface. Because the path of least resistance is not directly through the intact structure below it. Physics confirms it, and you're desperation won't change the physical principles, which holds for any/all structures, the exact same way.

neutronflux

'Link you posted'
FEMA outright says the progressive collapse did not take place in WTC5, 6 and 4. Even though local partial failures occurred inside the building been struck by debris and were on fire.
Why was WTC7 so unique?
FEMA claims localized failure initiated at the roofline- from the 9th to 4th floor, so why made the connections not fail elsewhere across the extent of the building?
In my view, FEMA is wrong- the blue and red damage-. There aligned horizontally


The blue impact failures are likely continuing to induce weakness in the red field as well. You have a wide impact of failure in blue. I don't dispute fire had an impact but really inappropriate to say fire led to the red zone failures only. Blue impact area clearly caused floor beams to sever from the floor deck and that would lead to stability issues in the red zone too.
FEMA claims two areas collapsed under an unbroken roof, therefore, this ruled out tower impact damage caused it ( the red zones)  In the same statement 4.3.2  they express there was debris impact near this section? How did the tower debris end up there later?  Plus their own photograph shows two wide-open holes in the roofline so large parts debris may have came come through the open gaps and hurled sideways to affect the red zone areas?
There no evidence at all fire only induced the collapses.

'WTC7 failure'
According to every study concluded it was south-west of WTC7 that got struck by tower wreckage. Every engineering study released takes the collapse started on the northeast and southeast far edge ( area under the penthouse) No the tower impact damage did not begin a progressive collapse. Since the towers fell down just after 10 am and building seven collapsed at 5.20 pm there no association between the two events. 
The difference between me and you -I already know NIST's explanation for the catastrophe is deceptive. They have lied about the construction and missed the evidence the building experienced a freefall condition. They were baffled by the query asked in Aug 2008 ( six years after they introduced the investigation) and did not even know the building was in free-fall condition for 8 floors. It the smoking gun the truthers are right. The sole way you can remove 84 columns on 8 floors is by demolition.  Debunkers have never asked NIST why the stated that in Aug 2008 that progressive failure was incompatible with freefall. It unfortunate AE911 truth are considered crooks for challenging it.  Of course, debunkers like yourself will avoid this debate.

'Madrid Windsor fire'
It's a steel-concrete infrastructure.  It not a steel core framed highrise. 
So you comparing two separate designs.
Madrid Windsor did not collapse totally. Plus you investigating a limited local collapse and comparing it to an extensive full collapse.
Tower 2 failed in 40 minutes after the impact. Fires damage was just 40 minutes.
Madrid tower was on fire for 20 hours and steel had no fireproofing, the concrete had no insulation and fireproofing. Steel would break in a fire for 20 hours unprotected.
Wtc7, WTC1, and WTC2 had fire protection for 3 hours or higher. WTC7 fire was localized and went out.  It bad investigation to state fires burned nonstop for hours. 
You have no proof fireproofing was knocked off inside the tower that mere conjecture.
Where the prove WTC7 experienced 1000c degree fire? NIST never found any steel member- again debunkers overlook this as if it's irrelevant. I certainly much doubt WTC7 fires reached 1000c degrees.  

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Do you have any compression?

You

Madrid tower was on fire for 20 hours and steel had no fireproofing, the concrete had no insulation and fireproofing

Why would concrete need insulation and fire proofing.

A source cited specifically for you.

Concrete vs. steel
Concrete is a conventionally used material for construction while steel is now gaining momentum for its flexibility and reduced construction time. Both concrete and steel framed structures have environmental issues associated with their use, including a high embodied energy in their manufacture.

Concrete has some advantages; waste materials can be included within the mix, such as GGBS (Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag) and PFA (Pulverised Fuel Ash). In addition, moves are being made to assess the potential of using recycled concrete, however, issues such as moisture content and material variability dictate that it is economically unviable.

Steel, while having a high lead time, is known for its fast erection on site. However, steel needs fire protection whereas within concrete this is inherent. Prefabrication of steel can allow thin film intumescent coatings to be applied offsite.

www.designingbuildings.co.uk...

What part of “ However, steel needs fire protection whereas within concrete this is inherent.“


Other source

Fire resistance

In fire, concrete performs well – both as an engineered structure, and as a material in its own right. It has the highest fire resistance classification (class AI) under EN 13501-1:2007- A1:2009.

www.concretecentre.com...(1)/Fire-Resistance.aspx

Why does concrete need fire proofing?

Why don’t you understand you cannot compare the WTC failures to building with concrete load bearing columns and members.

Name another structure fire before the WTC where a building like the WTC buildings caught fire. A structure that was mostly steel, and used less concrete beyond common practice.

The Madrid Windsor Tower is a great example how concrete columns vs steel columns perform in a fire.

Windsor Tower (Madrid)

The fire spread quickly throughout the entire building, leading to the collapse of the outermost, steel parts of the upper floors.

en.m.wikipedia.org...(Madrid)

Picture below showing the collapse of the steel structure above the 17th floor with the surviving concrete columns.


From: www.pdworld.com...

You

You have no proof fireproofing was knocked off inside the tower that mere conjecture.

The jet crash into WTC 2 is modeled.

Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center
m.youtube.com...

The jet impacts passed through the twin towers. The impacts cut core columns leaving exposed metal. The jet impacts tore and ripped away floor panels, leaving exposed metal. This fact already contradicts “ You have no proof fireproofing was knocked off inside the tower“.

The jet impacts also cut floor trusses, cut water mains, and electric services. If you don’t think the buckshot/sandblasting acting of the jet wreckage didn’t strip away fire insulation that was documented as being degraded because people simply walked on it during construction, you need to be calibrated.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Where the prove WTC7 experienced 1000c degree fire?

Do I need any proof?

WTC 7 was hit by burning debris like WTC 5. Is that false? So, why would WTC 7 not have internal failures like WTC 5?



Would the Madrid Windsor tower have burnt any hotter than the WTC 7. Why wouldn’t WTC 7 have steel buckling. Especially when it’s fire insulation was documented as deficient and damage by falling debris?

originally posted by: turbonium1



Your method of testing a structure by scale models would be - hmm - sort of peculiar..

If a 500 million ton structure fails to support itself, at a specific area, or areas, initial failure can occur, and has occurred, many times before, in various ways,

Let's assume a floor is 10 feet high, and collapses onto the floor below it. You don't take a 10 inch high floor, and drop it onto a floor below it, to replicate ANY actual collapse! That's what you think we would actually try to do?!?

That's funny.

To replicate something which occurs in a much larger structure, the same physical principles apply to the scale models.

If you removed a leg from a table, this would cause the table to collapse, toward that side.

Same thing would occur with any four-legged structure, if you removed a leg. Large or small, whatever material used, it has the very same result.

Now, if the table was stacked on 100 more tables, all identical to the first table, what occurs if you remove a leg from the table on top of the other tables?

Would the tables below it collapse, when the top table falls onto them? No, of course not.


If you removed a leg from a table that had 9 tables above it, and 90 tables below it, would it cause the lower 90 floors to collapse afterwards? Once again, it would not cause the lower tables to collapse straight down, to the floor.


Any other structure is the same, a failure cannot/does not/will never.... cause a total collapse of any structure, straight down, to the surface.


If you removed all structural supports of a highrise, at any floor, the building would not, could not, collapse straight down to the surface. Because the path of least resistance is not directly through the intact structure below it. Physics confirms it, and you're desperation won't change the physical principles, which holds for any/all structures, the exact same way.

Your models failure mode is compression. WTC 1 & 2 's failure mode was shear.

Give me a model that fails under shear.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

As usual. A “debunker” is going through great lengths to address your concerns as a conspiracist.

Now, your turn to address some of my concerns out of intellectual honesty.

And I asked....

So. You have absolutely no evidence the collapse initiation of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was from detonations, and no evidence the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were sustained by detonations.

Post evidence of columns cut to initiate collapse from the video, audio, seismic, physical evidence.

I am talking about the actual collapse which you don’t want to discuss.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

I am happy to read that you at least CONSIDER the nuclear theory. Have you read the recent analysis of Heinz Pommer?

The only coherent explanation for all observed facts and evidence is the nuclear theory.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Hulseyreport

I am happy to read that you at least CONSIDER the nuclear theory. Have you read the recent analysis of Heinz Pommer?

The only coherent explanation for all observed facts and evidence is the nuclear theory.

Just shows your both can be conned by truth movement propaganda and pseudoscience.

Would you like to address

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

You

The photos showing the WTC pieces stuck in adjacent buildings were taken by FEMA and others.

Did you ever reply to the below?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

Kwahakev tried this game and posted this picture.

originally posted by: kwakakev

So far, you haven’t even provide any evidence concerning cut steel columns.

If you are not going to be serious about this i am not going to help you with your silly games.

One. If explosives hurled this massive piece of building, the explosion wound have been massive. The resultant pressure wave would have been obvious, and ruptured eardrums throughout manhattan. There is still intact windows in the building part of the WTC fell into. The pressure waves from explosions hurling ton pieces of building would have completely knocked out windows.

Two. The piece contains broken welds, with no indication of being worked by cutting charges.

Three, why would cutting charges hurl large pieces of building?

Four, the pieces are explained by the tumbling action of the structural steel.

a reply to: neutronflux

Yeah should go back to Space Exploration Forum and explain how rockets and space suits don't work in a vacuum

Whole lot of dumb at work …….

a reply to: firerescue

Poor Turbo is homeless after all the trolls forced the mods to lockout the flat earth and rockets don’t work in vacuum threads.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: turbonium1



Your method of testing a structure by scale models would be - hmm - sort of peculiar..

If a 500 million ton structure fails to support itself, at a specific area, or areas, initial failure can occur, and has occurred, many times before, in various ways,

Let's assume a floor is 10 feet high, and collapses onto the floor below it. You don't take a 10 inch high floor, and drop it onto a floor below it, to replicate ANY actual collapse! That's what you think we would actually try to do?!?

That's funny.

To replicate something which occurs in a much larger structure, the same physical principles apply to the scale models.

If you removed a leg from a table, this would cause the table to collapse, toward that side.

Same thing would occur with any four-legged structure, if you removed a leg. Large or small, whatever material used, it has the very same result.

Now, if the table was stacked on 100 more tables, all identical to the first table, what occurs if you remove a leg from the table on top of the other tables?

Would the tables below it collapse, when the top table falls onto them? No, of course not.


If you removed a leg from a table that had 9 tables above it, and 90 tables below it, would it cause the lower 90 floors to collapse afterwards? Once again, it would not cause the lower tables to collapse straight down, to the floor.


Any other structure is the same, a failure cannot/does not/will never.... cause a total collapse of any structure, straight down, to the surface.


If you removed all structural supports of a highrise, at any floor, the building would not, could not, collapse straight down to the surface. Because the path of least resistance is not directly through the intact structure below it. Physics confirms it, and you're desperation won't change the physical principles, which holds for any/all structures, the exact same way.

Your models failure mode is compression. WTC 1 & 2 's failure mode was shear.

Give me a model that fails under shear.

Shearing is when a piece, or pieces, of a structure, break off, or when a layer shifts/slides off, from it's original position, where other layers below it exist.


So we add four outer walls to the tables, and that makes it a shear collapse model, where the sides break away from the rest of the table, and we'll see if it collapses straight through the lower shear-model tables, or not...

Not.


Trying to make it look impossible to replicate by using an engineering term, is just another excuse for your insane, cartoon-like physics.

Structures have the same physical principles, the same physical features, that's how we are able build structures, in the first place. All structures can be modeled, many have been modeled, and the towers WERE modeled, before they were built.

How do you think they knew what would happen if a plane, or several planes, hit the towers, before they ever BUILT the towers? Just a guess? Speculation? No, they knew what would happen, because they built scale model replicas of the towers, which had to be done, because it was a very unique structure. They cannot spend billions of dollars on something they don't have a clue whether or not would stand intact after a strong wind hits it! That's absurd, and completely ridiculous.

You cannot excuse this as the only structure ever built, that cannot be replicated for a structural failure event, because they DID replicate it, before they ever BUILT the real buildings, and it proves your claim is complete nonsense.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact they build models, and replicated this very event, and much worse events, proving the structure would remain intact?

Are you so afraid of accepting this fact, that you will keep denying it, in fear of what accepting the truth really means?

a reply to: neutronflux

One. If explosives hurled this massive piece of building, the explosion wound have been massive. The resultant pressure wave would have been obvious, and ruptured eardrums throughout manhattan. There is still intact windows in the building part of the WTC fell into. The pressure waves from explosions hurling ton pieces of building would have completely knocked out windows.

You asked for evidence of cut columns. Ok, that image is one of a cut exterior. One that somehow got cut from the rest of the building and pushed across the street. I have put up other images of cut columns, but it is just truther nonsense to you.

blatant truth movement propaganda and falsehoods.

I pray you can find the truth and the light of god. Maybe this statement is just more truther nonsense for you. Do you value the truth? God can be more than religion or belief if you so choose. All that I know is real is our reality. You can deny it all you want. The only one you are convincing with your falsehoods is yourself.

originally posted by: kwakakev

You asked for evidence of cut columns. Ok, that image is one of a cut exterior. One that somehow got cut from the rest of the building and pushed across the street. I have put up other images of cut columns, but it is just truther nonsense to you.

Are you sure that section of outer wall is 'cut'?
Perhaps look into how the outer walls were constructed from spandrel assemblies which were bolted together with bolts/nuts accessed through those holes visible at the ends of the vertical columns. What you see is 2 or three spandrel assemblies still horizontally connected that snapped off the remainder of the outer wall due to the bolts failing. The pre-assembled sections were staggered for max overall strength exactly as seen in the pic of relatively intact wall components (no cutting)

Not sure what help you'll be getting by appealing to a higher deity for accurate info.

a reply to: Pilgrum

Are you sure that section of outer wall is 'cut'?

The best we got from NIST was the moment of collapse. How else does such a heavy steal structure jump across the road and impale into another building? More truther nonsenses I guess?

My higher diety is the truth, just more truther nonsense for the believers.