Nick,

You're showing a picture of the explosion from the time the plane hit the building, and you want me to think that the fire was that intense? That ball of fire quickly dissipated after impact...

Can you prove to me that the fire picture is the same tower as the one with the hole and the women standing there? There were 2 towers hit and even so, you believe that fire took down the building in 1 hour? I don't, we can clearly agree to disagree on that issue.

And also, While there was a fire, it doesn't really compare with the Madrid fire in fire density, which makes a huge different and is highly relevant.

About your camouflaged personal attacks, I am not misinformed, i am just not gullible to think that the fire in the picture you posted would result in the global collapse of the building in 1 hour time lapse. (Again, we can agree to disagree.)

And about your argument that because the velocity of the plane caused the tower to globally collapse... You must realize that the plane hit the corner of the building mostly missing the center core steel and so the damage is mostly cosmetic and does not affect the overall structural integrity of the whole building....

The world trade center was designed a way that if a plane crashes into it, it's like a pencil piercing a spider web, the impact of one area of the tower does not dictate the force being transfered to the whole building but just that isolated area alone.

So again, we can just agree to disagree, and stop arguing about this because you made up your mind about it and i made up my mind about it and this will just go in pointless circles.

Take care now.

Originally posted by Griff

And, the whole point was to say that the calculations of the cap falling at freefall are eroneous because the cap wouldn't have fallen freefall 12 feet. It should have slumped slower into the rest of the building.

I'm not sure of the technical term for a sudden collapse. Every so often there's a news story here about somebody who'se back deck fell off their house during a party, killing or severely injuring people. Up to the point the deck didn't fall, it seemed to be normal. Then all of a sudden, in the blink of an eye, the entire deck drops to the ground after some sort of critical point is reached.

Is there an equivalent analogy that could be applied to the internal structures of the WTCs, knowing that some number of support beams were taken out by the impact?

In other words, the steel could have been "sagging" for lack of a better word for the entire hour between the time the planes hit and the time the building collapsed. So in effect, the collapse time wouldn't have been at free fall speed, but at over an hour, with the difference between that the internal sagging wasn't visible to anybody looking at the outside of the buildings.

sorry, post was removed due to excessive quoting.

in a nutshell: building 7 did not have uncontrolable fires burning in it, the video is available. It would have been the first time in history that a steel framed building fell due to fire. as far as fire + falling debris. if you can show me a picture of any damage to the building that would make it fall ill consider that evidence. beyond that i would like to see how the building fell as if it were under controled demlition that would be great also. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and i realize this works on both sides but again:

owner of building said it was cd, then reniged his statement.

building fell as if it were cd.

no evidence of a fire strong enough to bring it down.

Could be Nick. Also, a buckled column still has some strength left. So, the calculations by Greening (I believe it was Greening who did the calculations) would be erroneous because he took a drop of 12 fet. The steel would have some resistance to that drop. So, the cap didn't just drop 12 feet onto the remaining building. It still would have fallen but not without any resistance. Greenings calculations assummed no resistance. That is my point on the slower failure than freefall.

Originally posted by nick7261
I'm not sure of the technical term for a sudden collapse. Every so often there's a news story here about somebody who'se back deck fell off their house during a party, killing or severely injuring people. Up to the point the deck didn't fall, it seemed to be normal. Then all of a sudden, in the blink of an eye, the entire deck drops to the ground after some sort of critical point is reached

aye.
except those decks are either wood, or rusted at the connections.

steel does not behave the same as wood.

same goes for some of the buildings in south or central america that suddenly collapse. they are concrete, which is brittle, and susceptible to fracture.

steel, ESPECIALLY when heated, does not fracture before it stretches, warps, sags, etc. steel is highly elastic when cold, and can rapidly change shape without losing it's strength, and without losing it's integrity.

in the case of the towers, the extreme weight that was constantly bearing on the columns would shorten them all slightly, and so the were a bit like a coiled spring which is 'wanting' to return to it's orginal shape, and in fact is storing energy in this coiled state.

you would need like a super-duper engineer from outerspace that could hold all of the relevent stresses and strains, force vectors, potential and moving energies, momentum transfers, connection strengths individually and in concert, wave propogations and frequencies......etc. in his little human head.

that's why computers are great.
one guy can get the buckling data. another guy can focus on velocities. another on seismic wave timings and amplitudes. another guy on geometry....
etc.
and then, all the data can be input into a fine element analysis simulation, and, if the input data is good, then the output will be fairly accurate.

much of the analysis has already been done by standards institutes, and properties of the steel used is one of these things.
it is interesting, how, scientists and engineers who support the official story, online, that i 'discuss' this with, have a penchant for trying to hoodwink others with technobabble, and meaningless math(ie., they say, well, the cap had 500 MJ of energy, the energy of an ATOM BOMB!, and therefore, the collapse was inevitable).

i don't want to pin my hopes on AE911, but i jumped for joy when i heard it finally happened. (it was an inevitable group, because the data is insufficient to support the official conclusions, and architects and engineers are not so easily hoodwinked by handwaving as joe lunchbox is(no offense joe, i'm joe lunchbox, too)).

Originally posted by selfless
Nick,

You're showing a picture of the explosion from the time the plane hit the building, and you want me to think that the fire was that intense? That ball of fire quickly dissipated after impact...

No, I want you to look at the black smoke pouring from WTC1 when FL 175 hit WTC2. This was 15 minutes after WTC1 was hit. Something was making all the smoke coming from WTC1. My guess it was the fires shown in the other photos.

Can you prove to me that the fire picture is the same tower as the one with the hole and the women standing there?

Yes, there were two buildings hit, WTC1 and WTC2. The photos I posted show the south face of WTC1. There are dozens, if not hundreds of photos of the two buildings. By taking just a few minutes to actually research the photos, you will see very quickly that the photos I posted are the south face of WTC1.

There were 2 towers hit and even so, you believe that fire took down the building in 1 hour? I don't, we can clearly agree to disagree on that issue.

No, the fires alone did not take down the buildings in 1 hour. The buildings were severely damaged by 300,000 pound planes hitting them at 500 mph. So we can agree that the fires alone wouldn't have taken down the buildings. Now all you have to do is account for the impact of the planes, and the damage caused by the exploding jet fuel which in itself may have released more energy than a CD would have.

And also, While there was a fire, it doesn't really compare with the Madrid fire in fire density, which makes a huge different and is highly relevant.

I've never heard of a parameter called "fire density"? What exactly is fire "density?" And why do you think it's relevant at all, let alone highly relevant? This is an example of made up science in an attempt to support a theory.

In fact, if I can even attempt to interpret your idea of fire "density," it appears that the Madrid fires would be *LESS* dense as they encompass a larger area of the building.

About your camouflaged personal attacks, I am not misinformed, i am just not gullible to think that the fire in the picture you posted would result in the global collapse of the building in 1 hour time lapse. (Again, we can agree to disagree.)

No, you are attempting to spread misinformation by saying that there was only a "tiny little fire" in WTC1. Either you are misinformed, or just plain trying to distort the truth.

And nobody, *NOBODY* ever made the claim that the fires alone caused the collapse. It was the initial plane impact, along with the jet fuel explosion combined with large fires that is said to have caused the collapse. While you may not be "gullible" as you put it, you also do not seem to be well informed, or well educated in terms of the science necessary to even comment one way or another on what caused the collapse. To repeatedly argue that the fires did not cause the collapse while ignoring the damage caused by the airplanes impacting the steel beams is evidence of this.

And about your argument that because the velocity of the plane caused the tower to globally collapse... You must realize that the plane hit the corner of the building mostly missing the center core steel and so the damage is mostly cosmetic and does not affect the overall structural integrity of the whole building....

Again, your conclusion is wrong. WTC1 was hit almost dead center at the core. The fact that it collapsed beginning with the radio tower plunging straight down shows the center core collapsed first in this building.

WTC2 was hit on an angle, with the east side of the building suffering the most damage. WTC2 began collapsing when the steel beams buckled on the east side, causing the entire tower to begin tilting. At some point the lower levels could not withstand the force caused by the mass of the top cap accelerating downward. This is where the dropping a bowling ball on a glass table metaphor comes in.

The world trade center was designed a way that if a plane crashes into it, it's like a pencil piercing a spider web, the impact of one area of the tower does not dictate the force being transfered to the whole building but just that isolated area alone.

The weight of the upper towers had to be transferred to the support columns that remained in place after the planes struck the building. This is nothing like a pencil piercing a spider web because there was a tremendous amount of weight pushing down on the remaining beams.

So again, we can just agree to disagree, and stop arguing about this because you made up your mind about it and i made up my mind about it and this will just go in pointless circles.

The difference is that I've made up my mind to look at what actually happened, and how it can be explained. As you indicated on another thread, you made up your mind to look for evidence that the official story is a lie.

This is why you fail to see the obvious fallacies in your arguments that you distort any way you can just to make the official story wrong. This is why you can point to the woman in the hole or the Madrid fire and say, "See! This proves the official story is a lie!"

So your comment to "agree to disagree" and that you've "made up your mind" is nothing more than an admission that you've closed your mind to any facts that contradict your agenda to prove the official story is a lie. In other words, rather than admit that the sacred CT myths of the woman standing in the hole and the Madrid fire are totally irrelevant and bogus arguments, you instead choose to ignore the facts so you can promote your agenda, even if it means distorting the truth.

The only reason I'm even spending time describing this is because it really exemplifies that the "Truth Movement" is anything BUT about the truth. It's about twisting, distorting, and manipulating ANY information, no matter how flimsy, to show that the government lied about 9/11. The "Truth Movement" has really become a transparent joke that few, if any, outside of the "Truth Movement" club take seriously.

This is really a shame because the official storty of WTC7 is inexplicable, as is the fact that FL 77 was allowed to fly unimpeded for 30 minutes and hit it's target in the heart of Washington D.C. But the total cesspool of baseless disinformation that's easily debunked has caused any mention of WTC7 to be lumped into the "you're a nutcase like Rosie O'Donnell" category.

As long as people keep making unfounded conclusions based on misinformation, the real seams of the conspiracy are going to be lost forever. I'm afraid that after Rosie O'Donnell's meltdown it might already be too late.

Originally posted by Griff

Show me ANY building that has collapsed in that manner without the use of controlled demolition. You can't. It just doesn't work that way.

Show me another building that was the same exact design and suffered the same exact damage as that one and didn't collapse. You can't do it. It just doesn't work that way. And you are claiming to be a Civil Engineer?


Oh really? Take that same chair and instead of hacking at the leg try using fire. That's what we are talking about. Would the steel legs all of a sudden just give way with no resistance? Nope, they would bend and deform more slowly than freefall.

OK, let's use fire. At some point the fire is going to weaken that leg and the leg will give and the chair will suddenly fall over. Choose any source you want to take out the support. It doesn't matter. The result will be the same. Of course in the case of the WTC it was not fire alone that brought the building down.

And there you go with the cliche "freefall" claim. It didn't free fall. It was like it essentially fell at free fall, but it didn't Why do you guys keep making this stuff up?


What caused the freefall "drop" of the cap in the first place? It should not have dropped, it should have slumped.

Once again, no freefall. Or if there was freefall, then explain how the debris fell faster than freefall? How did the debris manage to defy the laws of physics? And NO, it would NOT have slumped.

Care to see my credentials? Just because YOU don't understand physics, material science, statics, dynamics, finite element analysis etc. does not prove that what the government has fed you is correct.

You clearly are not being honest. You should understand the most basic principles of engineering which you have shown not to. And the fact that you have to use such cliche lines like "what the government feeds me" etc. I am saying that I think you are a fraud. Or at the very most you are twisting your credentials to mislead people into thinking that you understand structural engineering. You use absolutely NO scientific method in your claims or thinking. You have shown that you clearly have a far fetched understanding of physics that even someone with no expertise can understand.

Please provide some calculations, computer models, steel frame fire tests etc. that support your theory. Because going by 100+ years of known physics, the Cardington steel fire tests (pre-9/11) and even NIST's fire tests and computer simulations prove these hundreds of engineers wrong. Just because you don't understand engineering principles does not make them right.

All those calculations and computer models are available to the public in the NIST reports. All done by hundreds of scientists and engineers. And basically you are saying that they don't understand physics and engineering. NIST fire tests do NOT prove the engineers wrong, it proves them completely right. Who are you kidding here????

You think you can tout some credentials and then claim everyone is wrong. It's BS. I am sorry, but enough is enough. Essentailly what you want us to believe is that all the worlds engineers are all incompetent and the 60 engineers on this web site are the only ones who understand engineering. And the criteria for this web site is that you simply have a web browser.

Originally posted by jprophet420
it is my opinion that there is indeed a grand conspiracy here.

it is my opinion that both towers were destroyed by a lot more than 2 jetliners.

it is also my opnion that building 7 was blown.

the difference between the first two statements and the third is that that the third statement has not one single shred of evidence to support that it was not a controlled demolition.

There's not one shred of evidence to prove it wasn't Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny either.

Originally posted by nick7261
The weight of the upper towers had to be transferred to the support columns that remained in place after the planes struck the building.

And since the factor of safety would have been over 2, 15% of the columns wouldn't make much of a difference.

This is nothing like a pencil piercing a spider web because there was a tremendous amount of weight pushing down on the remaining beams.

This tremendous amount of weight you say was already designed into the columns capacity to handle it. And if the FOS was 2 or more, then the columns wouldn't have had a hard time compensating the loss of 15%.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy
And what I am saying is that he isn't.

I guess what I'm going to have to do is when I recieve my PE stamp, I'll stamp a page and sign it for you. Then you can look up my PE number and verify that I am a structural engineer. Would this be acceptable to you or would you ignore it like you've ignored my transcripts?

Crap, I ment to quote this post and not edit it.
[edit on 6/1/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 6/1/2007 by Griff]

It doesn't matter to me. Go right ahead and stamp it. I think you have clearly shown that you are not a credible source. Would you like me to prove I am a structural engineer too? Because all I have to do is go sign up on this web site and I can be one.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy
And what I am saying is that he isn't.

Prove I'm not. I have posted my transcripts before. If that is not enough for you, I'll be getting my PE sometime this year and will gladly give you my PE number to be verified.

If he was, he would not be asking questions the way he is asking them.

So, engineers are to be all knowing and can't ask questions?

But I guess since he is listed as a civil engineer on a web site that has no verification process at all, it must be true.

You could easily verify the ones that have PE listed by their name. You can look up anyone who is a PE and verify they are real. Go to the state's board for professional engineers website and look up their name. Soon, you'll be able to do the same with me.

You're telling me that a civil engineer is suggesting that a it's odd that a failed support on a building could cause a sudden collapse instead of slowly falling? I mean that alone should be a red light for you.

No, you are taking what I'm saying wrong or misrepresenting what I'm saying on purpose. Which is it?

A steel column will not buckle all at once from heat. It will bend and deform more slowly than a sudden free fall. And when I say slowly, I don't mean like mollases like you are trying to make it seem.

And, the whole point was to say that the calculations of the cap falling at freefall are eroneous because the cap wouldn't have fallen freefall 12 feet. It should have slumped slower into the rest of the building.

In conclusion:

I DON'T TAKE KINDLY TO BEING CALLED A LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!


[edit on 6/1/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 6/1/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 6/1/2007 by Griff]

No one is saying the steel buckles all at once from the heat. You guys keep making this argument about it being only fire that caused the collapse. You keep claiming that you're an engineer, yet keep making these kind of claims.

What causes the sudden collapse is not the heat, it's the weight. When that weakened beam becomes too weak to support the load, the load is transfered to the remaining supports. Once the total weight is greater than the remaining supports, the collapse. They don't slowly collapse, the collapse. From there out you have the weight of the above building, plus the force of it moving downward.

It should have slowly slumped into the building??? Come on now man. The top of the building, millions of tons will just slowly slump into the building? Seriously, you're a structural engineer?

I think you arer letting your desire to find a conspiracy dictate your work. What you are saying contradicts engineering basics.

Originally posted by snoopy
And there you go with the cliche "freefall" claim. It didn't free fall. It was like it essentially fell at free fall, but it didn't Why do you guys keep making this stuff up?

And there you go again with not reading what I'm saying. Freefall in this sense DOES NOT mean speed. It means with no resistance.

Once again, no freefall. Or if there was freefall, then explain how the debris fell faster than freefall? How did the debris manage to defy the laws of physics? And NO, it would NOT have slumped.

Once again, yes freefall.

You clearly are not being honest. You should understand the most basic principles of engineering which you have shown not to.

Please point out my misunderstandings. Or better yet, get any engineer that you believe to be an engineer and bring it on.

And the fact that you have to use such cliche lines like "what the government feeds me" etc. I am saying that I think you are a fraud.

Piss off. I don't know what more I can do to prove to you I have a BS in engineering with emphasis on structural.

Or at the very most you are twisting your credentials to mislead people into thinking that you understand structural engineering.

Twisting my credentials? How do I twist credentials when I have a BS in civil engineering. Have shown my transcripts with all the structural classes I've taken etc.

You use absolutely NO scientific method in your claims or thinking.

Show me where i have used unscientific thinking.

You have shown that you clearly have a far fetched understanding of physics that even someone with no expertise can understand.

Again. Show me my misunderstandings.

All those calculations and computer models are available to the public in the NIST reports. All done by hundreds of scientists and engineers. And basically you are saying that they don't understand physics and engineering. NIST fire tests do NOT prove the engineers wrong, it proves them completely right. Who are you kidding here????

So, the Cardington tests showed that fire can collapse steel framed buildings? NIST didn't have to tweek their computer models for them to work? Who are you trying to kid?

You think you can tout some credentials and then claim everyone is wrong. It's BS. I am sorry, but enough is enough. Essentailly what you want us to believe is that all the worlds engineers are all incompetent and the 60 engineers on this web site are the only ones who understand engineering. And the criteria for this web site is that you simply have a web browser.

I'm not saying all the engineers in the world are wrong. How can all these engineers know what they are talking about without ever seeing the construction documents?

Originally posted by snoopy
It doesn't matter to me. Go right ahead and stamp it. I think you have clearly shown that you are not a credible source. Would you like me to prove I am a structural engineer too? Because all I have to do is go sign up on this web site and I can be one.

First, quit trying to piss me off to get another warn. If transcripts and a PE number are not good enough for you then you are not even worth the time to speak with.

Originally posted by snoopy
What you are saying contradicts engineering basics.

Please point out my fallacy using engineering basics. Do you know that a buckled column still has some strength to it? It would give freeking resistance. That resistance is not calculated in calculations where people claim that the cap had such and such energy. The cap would not have fallen 12 feet freefall with no resistance. Period.

While you may not be "gullible" as you put it, you also do not seem to be well informed, or well educated in terms of the science necessary to even comment one way or another on what caused the collapse.

no one person is educated in science enought to determine what caused the collapse. anyone can comment on it. you are commenting on it, i am commenting on it, millions of people are.

untill you post your teams analysis and thier credentials, i will continue to read your comments with the same grain of salt as everyones.

Originally posted by Griff

And there you go again with not reading what I'm saying. Freefall in this sense DOES NOT mean speed. It means with no resistance.

I know this. And you are saying there was no resistance are you not? That of course is simply not true. And no one ever claimed there was no resistance. But as the weight of the top of the building increases with each added floor, the resistance to weight ratio widens as it gets lower and lower. Thus essentially the farther the building falls the less resistance. Well, not so much the resistance changing as the force increasing.

Once again, yes freefall.

So then explain to us how the debris fell faster than freefall speeds? You're saying that there was no resistance so the building fell straight down. Yet the debris outside the building absolutely had no resistance and fell even faster. So if there was no resistance to the building, how did the building fall slower? Was this magic that caused it to fall slower? Or was it magic that caused the debris to fall faster? Two parts of the building with no resistance (according to you) falling at two different speeds. Please explain.

Please point out my misunderstandings. Or better yet, get any engineer that you believe to be an engineer and bring it on.

Well I would start with the 225 engineers that you are claiming are all wrong. Then how about all the others in the world who should clearly be able to see that those engineers are all wrong and don't say anything about it or point out their faults. One misunderstanding is this claim that if a steel column is weakened by fire, that that column will start the collapse and that because it's just weakened that somehow the whole building should just cave in on that column. When instead the load is actually redistributed to the remaining supports to compensate for the weakened one. This misunderstanding that that weakened column is suddenly just snapping because it's too hot. Hey, you're the expert so you say. But so are the other experts.

Piss off. I don't know what more I can do to prove to you I have a BS in engineering with emphasis on structural.

I am not here to prove or disprove your credentials. YOU are the one who has brought them up to enforce your points of view. YOU are the one pushing them not me. And if you are going to use your claims of credentials to push your points, then I have to question your credentials as I question your points.

But hey, Judy has a PHD in physics and that doesn't stop her from making these claims about space beams and microwaves "dustifying" material. The entire rest of the physics world can do nothing but laugh at her claims, but she has credentials. her credentials don't make her right.

If you didn't keep pushing your credentials as eveidence you are right, then they wouldn't be in the point of argument. But YOU brought it into the discussion, not me. And the whole real point of this thread is about a web site touting engineers credentials from a web site that has absolutely no verification process. YOU touted your name being on that web site showing you have credentials. The web site is clearly a fraud even if you aren't. And I am not meaning to say you yourself are a fruad (but the web sit certainly is), but I think you are abusing your credentials (assuming they are true).

Twisting my credentials? How do I twist credentials when I have a BS in civil engineering. Have shown my transcripts with all the structural classes I've taken etc.

See the above reply as it pretty much addresses this as well.

Show me where i have used unscientific thinking.

A couple paragraphs above show some examples. A perfect example though is you making the statement about no other building ever collapsing this way without a controlled demolition. This here is by far the biggest red flag as to your credibility. What true engineer would make such a claim? A true engineer would understand that you can't simply base all rules of engineering on one building. You can't say that because of how one building works, they must all work the same way. Leaving out scientific method is the way you completely ignored the fact that the building was severely damaged and that his wasn't just a fire. The fact that no other building has been exposed to these circumstances.

So, the Cardington tests showed that fire can collapse steel framed buildings? NIST didn't have to tweek their computer models for them to work? Who are you trying to kid?

Another example of your misunderstandings. You keep touting that the buildings collapsed from only fire. You claim the NIST papers prove the engineers wrong, but had you read the NIST papers you would know it wasn't fire. And for the record, fire alone has indeed caused steel buildings and structures in the past to collapse. With no structural damage.

And as for tweaking the models, do you have a suggestion for testing the variables that day? Should they rebuild the towers and then destroy them for testing? They HAVE to tweak the computer models because they have to test all the possible variables. It's IMPOSSIBLE to know what they were inside the building. This is scientific method. And you attacking that scientific method is another example of your lack of scientific method. Perhaps your method would to just skip all research and claim bombs brought down the building. Forget the fact that there isn't a single shred of physical evidence to support that.


I'm not saying all the engineers in the world are wrong. How can all these engineers know what they are talking about without ever seeing the construction documents?

Have you seen the construction documents and everything else needed? Have all the 60 engineers on this web site seen them? Because you guys don't seem to have needed them to do so.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy
It doesn't matter to me. Go right ahead and stamp it. I think you have clearly shown that you are not a credible source. Would you like me to prove I am a structural engineer too? Because all I have to do is go sign up on this web site and I can be one.

First, quit trying to piss me off to get another warn. If transcripts and a PE number are not good enough for you then you are not even worth the time to speak with.

Another warn? For what? Pissing you of. I can't piss you off, you can simply choose to get pissed off.

This thread is about a web site which touts acredited engineers who think 9/11 was an inside job. That web site has no verification process what so ever for the people on it. And the web site simply uses those credentials (which are easily fakes) to relay the same exact things that all the other XXX for truth web sites do but with a better attempt to mislead the readers by implying that the members are all credible people.

I have no been asking you for credentials and I don't want them. I am not interested. But by your posts on this thread, I have the opinion that you aren't credible. And I have a right to that opinion.

Please stop twisting this into something it isn't. that's really not fair. You are putting all these claims out here on this forum and I have ever right to discuss and disagree with them as well as discuss the actual topic itself. If you want to ban me for disagreeing, then so be it, but I am not gonna sit here and play along with this when I know it's clearly wrong.

Snoopy,

First, I think you need to go back and re-read what I have said. I'm not talking about ANYTHING other than the initial cap falling onto the remaining structure. I'm talking about the resistance that is left out of the calcultions for the energy the cap had. Nothing else.

No nick, you are just twisting everything around as usual and I'm at a point where i don't even read your posts anymore because i don't come on here to argue like you do. I get no pleasure out of arguing so this is my last post towards you on this subject.

Just because i like to portray my opinion based on the research i have done does not mean that i am spreading disinfo, it only means that i am expressing my OPINION based on the research i have done.

And because i don't feel like spoon feeding a person to prove my point, i rather let everyone have their own opinions but that doesn't mean i can't express my opinion... But you on the other hand feel that everyone should agree with you, well i don't roll that way man.

I don't come on here to get involved into these situations where a person posts a bunch of paragraphs and then the other person quotes all the paragraphs and then try to prove the other person wrong and then the other person quotes all those paragraphs and then tries to prove that person wrong again and so the other person quotes all the other paragraphs and so on and so on forever.... I try not to do that because, i have no time to waste falling into these endless troll cycles.

So this is why i tell you once and for all, we can agree to disagree. I have no time to argue like some people on here...

Stop assuming that i have not researched into this just because my opinion does not reflect your own, it's getting annoying.

And yes i have an agenda, it's letting my opinion be known and if you don't agree with it that's fine but don't force your agenda onto me.



[edit on 1-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy
What you are saying contradicts engineering basics.

Please point out my fallacy using engineering basics. Do you know that a buckled column still has some strength to it? It would give freeking resistance. That resistance is not calculated in calculations where people claim that the cap had such and such energy. The cap would not have fallen 12 feet freefall with no resistance. Period.

That's not what I am saying. No one is saying a buckled column doesn't have strength. In fact it is exactly what I am saying, that it does indeed have strength (as opposed to none). Are you suggesting that the building above that buckled column gets lighter? Of course you aren't. So what happens to that weight that is no longer held by that buckled column? It gets redistributed to the other supports.

And again, you keep claiming that someone must be saying there was no resistance. Where are you getting this? Of course there was resistance. NIST isn't claiming there was no resistance. No one is claiming the cap well without resistance. But once enough supports were weakened or destroyed, the result is not going to be that it's going to just slump over. The whole thing is going to come straight down. And the points that suddenly snap are not going to be the columns that are weakened from fire, it's going to be the intact ones who have been taking over the load given up by the buckling supports.

You seem to have this vision that the building just collapses at the buckling columns and that because they still have strength that it will just slowly bend downward. But it just doesn't work that way. Especially not with a canti-lever design (WTC7).