It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11

page: 6
28
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I'll even agree with you here and agree that 7's collapse "looks" like a CD. However, it doesn't "sound" like a CD. So I'm unsure of what to think.


Says you...

except there's CREDIBLE witnesses who claim otherwise.

and don't twist the issue by arguing semantics how these witnesses' testimony were not talking about explosions related to CD.

Once anyone with a brain examines the context and facts surrounding the nature of the "explosions" that were heard, the only logical conclusion is they were describing explosions going off both prior to and during the "collapses" that can only be related to
a CD.

there's irrefutable evidence of demolition squibs in all 3 wtc towers and only those trying to peddle disinfo will dismiss them as innocuous or argue against what any expert or person with common sense knows are DEMO SQUIBS.

oh and be sure to explain how and why explosions would be going off in wtc7 before wtc1 or 2 had collapsed.




posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Given the damage to the building and its unusual design [how did NYC ever approve the construction of such a cobbled together monstrosity?] Silverstein likely felt that it would be easier [and more profitable] to start over than to try to repair a severely damaged building. Aside from the insurance payout, which we all know was a consideration, stabilization of buildings on the verge of collapse would have slowed everything down; clean-up, recovery, rebuilding, etc. My bet is that had #7 not collapsed, it would have to have been brought down.
If the towers had not collapsed, how would they have been repaired? Who would work on them? How long would it take to repair them? How would materials be moved to the damage? As I have stated before, leaving them standing would have provided far more problems than having them collapse.



no matter what the explanation by the shills and perps now, they're screwed… it was only a matter of time before the TRUTH reached another marker and really backed them into a corner they'll never be able to get out of.

Shapiro's words will forever change the lull in the type of evidence many have waited for to seal the coffin in understanding what LARRY "really" meant.

talk about backfiring... The only good thing about a LIE is that the more a liar tries to prove the lie true the more the TRUTH comes.

if they say fires brought it down, the facts and science PROVE that to be impossible

if they say wtc7 was pre-rigged for SECURITY reasons or was considered being imploded, as someone pointed out, that means that "they are saying that they WANTED to do a CD of 7, BUT by random coincidence, the building fell on it's own before they could do anything."

This is nothing more than a validation and proof that the building was RIGGED with EXPLOSIVES BEFOREHAND and anyone with a brain knows that it would take WEEKS to MONTHS of planning.

and lets not forget Barry Jennings talking about explosions and then stepping over the bodies of police and firefighters in the lobby of B7 that morning ... how would they have been killed before any of the towers fell?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

You argue that IF a single column is compromised, it shouldn't matter since the other 47 stories were intact. There's a couple of serious and fatal flaws there:

1- it is a misrepresentation of what is in the NIST report to state that there is a single column failing. It states that they believe that a floor beam failed,which then fell onto the floor below, which caused it to fail. The floor collapse progressed both vertically and horizontally, until several columns were unrestrained. Then col 79 buckled, followed by others close by, as evidenced by the east penthouse collapsing into the building. Then the interior collapse progress of the columns occured, as evidenced by the horizontal progression of penthouse collapses. This continued until a sufficent number of int columns were buckled that left the now ALSO unrestrained ext columns unable to carry the load of the remaining shell. That's when the global collapse occurs.


I think it is obvious to the audience that you have entirely missed the point of my posts or you are only able to provide arguments against trivial points and semantics. You are yet to tell me what is wrong with my conservation of energy statements which have been the meat of my posts. I apologize if NIST are officially saying several unrestrained columns initiated the collapse, I recently read an official NIST document which stated it was only a single column. They change their story so frequently I don't have the time to keep up to date with the latest version. It doesn't change a single thing though. For all I care, those columns could have ceased to exist and it wouldn't have any implications on my conservation of energy statements. Most people can see through your tactics and won't give you credibility until you confront my post head on and start answering my direct questions.



Why not collapse when we were unrestrained for 5 stories or 6 stories?


Because a column or group of columns that is unrestrained for 4-6 stories will have more load capacity than ones that are unrestrained for 8 stories. This is simple structural mechanics, and one that you should know.

Yes, this is the exact point I was trying to make, well done. These are fire proofed steel columns which have ONLY JUST exceeded their load carrying capacity. That doesn't mean they suddenly have turned to wet noodles. I assume you are unaware that steel actually gets stiffer and stronger while it is yielding.


You seem to agree with the part of the Bazant paper where it says that a 1% resistance from plastic hinges is indeed good engineering science. So what kind of acceleration factor does engineering tell you that will be achieved with that amount of resistance?


Now you are putting words in my mouth. I have not seen any testing or calculations to show these columns or a similar test specimen would provide about 1% resistance to free fall. Wind resistance can provide more than 1% resistance to free fall at these velocities... Saying a series of these columns unrestrained for ~8 stories would provide about 1% resistance to free fall is laughable. Maybe you should check the difference between a plastic hinge and a buckling column? Remembering that the columns in the twin towers that you are basing your assumptions off supposedly had their fire proofing blown off and were in much larger fires. But again I must reiterate that this is all debating trivial parts of the point I have been making. I could be wrong, and the columns actually provided about 1% resistance but it doesn't change my point.

Running out of characters so starting a fresh post...



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

You ARE aware that the collapse slowed again after the "freefall" period, right?

I think you're confusing yourself here.

IF.... ~8 stories worth of the 47 story building had columns that were poorly restrained, and IF one accepts the engineering fact that a column failing plastically will give only about 1% resistance to the falling mass, then it follows that IF there is a "freefall" period, then the "freefall" distance should be roughly equal to that 8 story distance. And, that is exactly what's seen.

Then, as you point out correctly, when the remaining undamaged structure impacts, the fall will slow to less than "freefall". This is also what is seen.

So what's the beef?


LOL of course I'm aware collapse slowed after free fall, where did I say it didn't? Although it undertook several seconds of sustained free fall, I never claimed it managed to somehow keep up this acceleration indefinitely.

Either you don't understand the NIST report, or you are creating your own version of events while borrowing some assumptions from NIST and some from the 1% resistance theory which you are amusingly attempting to pass off as engineering fact. Doesn't this make you a non-believer of the OS also? Anyway, it is ludicrous to claim that somehow several unrestrained for ~8 stories columns have managed to cause every other column (there is a huge amount of columns) around the same floor level to also become unrestrained. During this time they have waited for all the columns to be ready and held off from vertical failure of the structure. Then when all the columns are ready to go (all have now become unrestrained for 8 stories) they simultaneously collapsed in a spectacular free fall fashion, due to there being 8 floors worth of literally no structure! You will bring up some sort of trivial problem with my description but you are essentially saying that somehow for a vertical length of 8 stories every single column at a certain level in the building managed to simultaneously or almost simultaneously go from being perfectly capable from supporting the above mass of the building to being completely unable to support that mass and only providing about 1% resistance to free fall. I'm sure you don't want to look like a fool so how would you describe it? Sure maybe several columns failed first or something but essentially the rest of them have simultaneously turned into wet noodles.


2- you argue that 47 stories of columns should be able to prevent the collapse initiation, yet agree that in the towers, also agree that the collapse initiation at the plane impact point to be plausible. These 2 statements are at odds. With the towers, you realize that an initiation point doesn't rely on what happens over the height of the building, but depends on what's happening on a localized horizontal level. And yet with 7, you argue that what matters is what matters is the state of the entire 47 stories, rather than remaining consistent with the engineering principle of collapse initiation being dependent on the conditions on a localized horizontal level. Your statements about the state of the entire 47 stories will only have an effect on the speed of the collapse while it's collapsing, not whether or not it can innitiate or not.


Again putting words in my mouth so that you have something other than the meat of my posts to debate.


Where did I say 47 stories of columns should have been able to prevent collapse initiation? It is poor debating form to put words in my mouth then use that as your main argument against me. All I have ever claimed is that it is physically impossible for 47 stories of mostly undamaged structure to achieve the free fall seen during collapse without some sort of extra energy input such as explosives, although I am not attempting to speculate what exactly that energy input is (thermite, thermate etc).



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911

and don't twist the issue by arguing semantics how these witnesses' testimony were not talking about explosions related to CD.




I'll make you a deal

You go to Firehouse.com. There you'll find FDNY guys that were there and survived.

Tell me what the consensus is about cutter charges being used.

Unless you get agreement from them, your claims are garbage.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
True. But if there is a horizontal internal collapse, as evidenced by the penthouses again, there will be fewer columns to provide load carrying capacity.


The penthouses are on the roof. Please elaborate on how this translates to a horizontal collapse low down in the building.


Originally posted by Azp420
I also said that whether or not a single failing column provides any resistance to free fall, the other 47 stories worth of mostly undamaged structure would have most definitely given a significant amount of resistance to free fall. Another way of putting it is that 47 stories of structure would have taken a massive amount of energy to rip apart. Energy that (officially) comes from the mass of the falling building's kinetic energy. If kinetic energy is being used up the falling mass is either decelerating, keeping a constant velocity or accelerating at a slower acceleration than it other wise would be, i.e. accelerating at the slower rate than acceleration due to gravity, g~9.81m/s/s or whatever units you guys use. For the acceleration of the WTC7 to maintain g, it means none of its kinetic energy which it converted from gravitational potential energy has been used to turn 47 stories of structural steel and concrete into rubble. That energy came from a different source. There is evidence to suggest thermite or nano-thermite etc.


If you want to start to debate the main point I have been making then please do so. Where is the problem you have with my conservation of energy claims? Where do you suggest the extra energy came from to completely dismantle the 47 stories of mainly undamaged structure?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Azp420

Lol no. In terms of structural collapses they don't get more symmetrical than that. What should have happened when the top section of the tower leaned over as you stated, is that it continued on that trajectory, taking the path of least resistance to the ground, which is not changing course and plowing straight through the rest of the structure. The falling top section that started falling to the side was magically pulled in by some forces that the OS doesn't mention so we should all just forget about them. To paraphrase Bill Hicks, go back to sleep America, your government is in control.


I am amused by the "path of least resistance" arguments that many repeat without question. The top of the tower tipped at the hinge point and struck the lower part of the building. Why do you think it changed course? It appears that gravity pulled it straight onto the lower part of the building. For it to magically leap into space would have required large amounts of energy that weren't there, so for this case the "path of least resistance" is onto the lower part of the building.
If you were to describe your version of what the collapse should have looked like, how would it differ from what happened and why?


Good, I take it from your lack of rebuttal regarding symmetry that you are in agreeance that the towers underwent symmetrical collapses.


Why do you think it changed course?


IMO controlled demolition straightened out the leaning top section.


It appears that gravity pulled it straight onto the lower part of the building.


Gravity acts in a completely downwards direction towards the earth at all times so this can not be the force that pulled it back inwards.


If you were to describe your version of what the collapse should have looked like, how would it differ from what happened and why?


When the top section of the tower (this happened significantly on one of the towers, I forget which one and don't have time to check) started leaning over just after collapse initiated it was moving in a trajectory which was NOT perpendicular to the ground but at a downwards and sideways angle. For this downwards and sideways momentum to be corrected, a force must act on the sideways component in the opposite direction. I would expect to see the falling top section either arrested when it reaches undamaged structure or it to continue on its original trajectory and topple off the side of the structure (its center of gravity was well to one side).



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420

I think it is obvious to the audience that you have entirely missed the point of my posts or you are only able to provide arguments against trivial points and semantics.


No, what is obvious by now to all that have been reading is that your claim to be a student is a lie.


You are yet to tell me what is wrong with my conservation of energy statements which have been the meat of my posts.


So everything I pointed out that you get wrong is irrelevant. Nice.


I apologize if NIST are officially saying several unrestrained columns initiated the collapse, I recently read an official NIST document which stated it was only a single column.


If that's the level of understanding you got from it, then you aren't a student.


They change their story so frequently I don't have the time to keep up to date with the latest version.


The report was done quite some time ago. If you're still not up to speed on that final draft, then let me know when you are.


For all I care, those columns could have ceased to exist and it wouldn't have any implications on my conservation of energy statements.


Really?
How many will it take then before it does?


Yes, this is the exact point I was trying to make, well done. These are fire proofed steel columns which have ONLY JUST exceeded their load carrying capacity. That doesn't mean they suddenly have turned to wet noodles.


Actually, they do in the plastic phase.


I assume you are unaware that steel actually gets stiffer and stronger while it is yielding.


And what happens when they exceed this and snap into the plastic phase of buckling?


I have not seen any testing or calculations to show these columns or a similar test specimen would provide about 1% resistance to free fall.


Huh? I gavr you the link to Bazant's paper. In it, he describes, and gives the calculations for, determining how at initiation, there's about 12% resistance given by buckling columns in the plastic phase. And how as the collapse progresses, as more plastic hinges form, it drops to 1%.

Guess you missed that?



Wind resistance can provide more than 1% resistance to free fall at these velocities


LOL. I don't suppose you've got ANY analysis from ANYONE that shows this?


Saying a series of these columns unrestrained for ~8 stories would provide about 1% resistance to free fall is laughable.


And yet Bazant, whom I'm quite sure your "instructor" would classify as an intellectual of the highest caliber on the subject of structural engineering, says it's solid engineering.


I could be wrong, and the columns actually provided about 1% resistance but it doesn't change my point.


It should. If there's only 1% resistance being given, what would the difference in acceleration be?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420

Sure maybe several columns failed first or something but essentially the rest of them have simultaneously turned into wet noodles.


That's essentially what happens once the columns exceed their yield capacity.

Are you saying that they should yield slowly? Ludicrous.


Again putting words in my mouth so that you have something other than the meat of my posts to debate.


Like any other truther, there is no meat to your posts. They're nothing but arguments from incredulity and ignorance.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420

The penthouses are on the roof. Please elaborate on how this translates to a horizontal collapse low down in the building.


Because the int columns run up to the roof.


Where is the problem you have with my conservation of energy claims?


Ok, I'll provide as much support as you have for yours.

They're garbage.


Where do you suggest the extra energy came from to completely dismantle the 47 stories of mainly undamaged structure?


Kinetic energy



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


You challenged my post and have failed to prove my statements about conservation of energy wrong, as I have been saying the whole time you either put words in my mouth and attack those or argue the semantics because you can't stand up in a debate about the conservation of energy. Now you are moving on to attacking my credentials.
If I was going to make them up I would have claimed significant work experience and a masters degree. It is obvious from many of your statements and lack of meaningful rebuttals that you are struggling to grasp the engineering and science involved here.

Now that you have moved on to attempting to discredit me and calling me names I'm claiming the victory. The readers can judge for themselves. Why are you getting all angry when all people are asking for is an investigation to find the truth? What have you got against the truth?

By the way why did you change your sig? Now we can't identify you as a full time (and therefore close minded) debunker.



it is ludicrous to claim that somehow several unrestrained for ~8 stories columns have managed to cause every other column (there is a huge amount of columns) around the same floor level to also become unrestrained. During this time they have waited for all the columns to be ready and held off from vertical failure of the structure. Then when all the columns are ready to go (all have now become unrestrained for 8 stories) they simultaneously collapsed in a spectacular free fall fashion, due to there being 8 floors worth of literally no structure! You will bring up some sort of trivial problem with my description but you are essentially saying that somehow for a vertical length of 8 stories every single column at a certain level in the building managed to simultaneously or almost simultaneously go from being perfectly capable from supporting the above mass of the building to being completely unable to support that mass and only providing about 1% resistance to free fall. I'm sure you don't want to look like a fool so how would you describe it? Sure maybe several columns failed first or something but essentially the rest of them have simultaneously turned into wet noodles.


Until you explain your version of this or your version of the conservation of energy I'll be retiring from the debate enjoying my victory. I see no point in stooping to your level of debating tactics. It's little wonder the truth movement continues to gain more and more momentum. People can see right through "debunkers" such as yourself who religiously defend the OS like their lives depended on it.

Peace out.

PS if kinetic energy is your answer then I've already shown how if this is the case then free fall is not possible while obeying the conservation of energy law. Try again.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420

You challenged my post and have failed to prove my statements about conservation of energy wrong,


Does it bother you that YOU haven't proven your statement correct?

I've given you the mere outline of what a supposed education should be giving you.

1- exterior collapse initiation happens after the horizintal interior collapse initiation begins, and the load capacity of the remaining columns is exceeded.

2- as NIST agrees to, first there is a slow buckling phase before the columns reach their plastic phase of buckling. IIRC, 1.75 seconds and about 7 feet.

3- the ext enters "freefall", with the distance/time being dictated by the unsupported lengths of ext columns.

4- once this length is "used up", and the undamaged parts of the structure need to be broken up, the fall slows down


All your questions have been answered logically and with evidence.

You have unsupported claims.

You're right about one thing though. Readers can clearly see who won the debate, and it ain't you.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 04:47 AM
link   
LOL sorry, but I can't help myself:


Originally posted by Joey Canoli

I've given you the mere outline of what a supposed education should be giving you.


Thanks for the advice. I'll be sure to disregard everything I have learned so far during my degree because you are obviously an expert in the field. Do you have any other recommendations for me while you are at it?



1- exterior collapse initiation happens after the horizintal interior collapse initiation begins, and the load capacity of some of the remaining columns has only just been exceeded.


Fixed.




3- the ext enters "freefall", with the distance/time being dictated by the unsupported lengths of ext columns.


The exterior columns are not unsupported. If you mean unrestrained then they are not that either. You really expect people to believe that the entire structure for 360 degrees around the mostly undamaged building simultaneously disintegrated in a perfectly symmetrical fashion? You claim that you believe the NIST version of events so please provide a link as to where NIST states that every single interior and exterior column simultaneously becomes unrestrained for ~8 stories, then somehow simultaneously yield, then somehow simultaneously form a plastic hinge along their section. Oh what's that? You can't? This is essentially what you are claiming, yes?



4- once this length is "used up", and the undamaged parts of the structure need to be broken up, the fall slows down


LOL except the fall didn't slow down. The structure continued to accelerate through itself (at a rate not far from free fall). Here is the main flaw what you believe happened. Your version of events becomes less and less likely with each wild claim. When you watch a video of collapse, you don't see the structure drop for ~8 stories then noticeably slow as the rest of the undamaged structure impacts with itself, slowly destroying itself floor by floor until the roof line reaches the ground as you claim is the case. It is one smooth drop of the entire structure, it smoothly builds up to free fall and smoothly comes back down from free fall. This by the way, is even what NIST show on their graph of rate of acceleration. They do not show a sudden drop in acceleration as the undamaged structure impacts. Your version of events seems to be quite different to NIST's so maybe you should also be calling for another investigation?



All your questions have been answered logically and with evidence.


Now you are just flat out lying. Anyone can look back over the last few posts I have directed at you and see that there are many questions you have chosen to ignore as your answers would highlight the flaws in your reasoning.



You have unsupported claims.


Do I need to post a link to a high school physics book to prove to you that the law of conservation of energy is scientifically accepted or so that you know how to apply it?



You're right about one thing though. Readers can clearly see who won the debate, and it ain't you.


LOL just copy what I said.




Huh? I gavr you the link to Bazant's paper. In it, he describes, and gives the calculations for, determining how at initiation, there's about 12% resistance given by buckling columns in the plastic phase. And how as the collapse progresses, as more plastic hinges form, it drops to 1%.

Guess you missed that?


Not at all. I know you are a huge fanboy of Bazant but I was under the impression the paper he wrote was dealing with the twin towers. In the twin towers the fire proofing was supposedly blown off the columns and much hotter jet fuel fires supposedly burned. If you want to then apply his findings to WTC7 where the majority of the structure was undamaged then that's your call but I'll stick with what I have learned in my degree.


[edit on 29-4-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Azp420


I could be wrong, and the columns actually provided about 1% resistance but it doesn't change my point.


It should. If there's only 1% resistance being given, what would the difference in acceleration be?


Almost zero. The rest of the undamaged columns would pick up the stack. No where does even NIST claim that all columns around the perimeter and all interior columns simultaneously form plastic hinges at the moment of collapse initiation. That claim is a little far fetched. People are waking up and fewer and fewer people are buying the extraordinary propaganda people like you are pushing. You're trying to debunk this like your life depends on it but your version becomes more and more outrageous with every claim.



[edit on 29-4-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420

When the top section of the tower (this happened significantly on one of the towers, I forget which one and don't have time to check) started leaning over just after collapse initiated it was moving in a trajectory which was NOT perpendicular to the ground but at a downwards and sideways angle. For this downwards and sideways momentum to be corrected, a force must act on the sideways component in the opposite direction. I would expect to see the falling top section either arrested when it reaches undamaged structure or it to continue on its original trajectory and topple off the side of the structure (its center of gravity was well to one side).


Why would you expect the top to topple off the side? It wasn't a detached part, was it? As to expecting it to rest quietly on the top of the structure, you have been reading websites that are not in agreement with structural engineers.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420

You claim that you believe the NIST version of events so please provide a link as to where NIST states that every single interior and exterior column simultaneously becomes unrestrained for ~8 stories, then somehow simultaneously yield, then somehow simultaneously form a plastic hinge along their section. Oh what's that? You can't? This is essentially what you are claiming, yes?


No.

You omitted point 2, where it is pointed out to you that for the first 1.75 seconds, the building fell slowly, not instantaneously.

IOW, you're lying about both what the NIST report says, and what I've said.

Very bad form.


LOL except the fall didn't slow down.


Did it accelerate at LESS than g, therefore proving that the structure was infact providing significant resistance to the falling structure?


The structure continued to accelerate through itself (at a rate not far from free fall).


At significantly less than g acceleration, correct?


When you watch a video of collapse, you don't see the structure drop for ~8 stories then noticeably slow as the rest of the undamaged structure impacts with itself, slowly destroying itself floor by floor until the roof line reaches the ground as you claim is the case

It is one smooth drop of the entire structure, it smoothly builds up to free fall and smoothly comes back down from free fall.


DO you expect there to be a jolt as it transitions? Explain why if so.


Do I need to post a link to a high school physics book to prove to you that the law of conservation of energy is scientifically accepted or so that you know how to apply it?


I realize that this all you have. Noticeably absent from that offer of proof is a link to any technical paper that explains anything what you've claimed.

That's called zero support to your claims.


Not at all. I know you are a huge fanboy of Bazant but I was under the impression the paper he wrote was dealing with the twin towers.


Yes it is. But any educated person would be able to take the engineering principles and correctly apply them to any situation.

He explains the resistance given by buckling columns to a descending mass. This concept can be used anywhere, from buildings, to bridges, to parking garages. The engineering facts are undisputeable. They are applicable to any study of resistance given by buckling columns.

But you are unable to take the lesson from the towers and apply it to 7.

Here's another engineering principle that will apply to any study of any structure or building. In 7, the columns were restrained every 12'. What happens to the column capacity when that length is doubled?


In the twin towers the fire proofing was supposedly blown off the columns


Ok.


and much hotter jet fuel fires supposedly burned.


Supposedly burned? Are you indoubt that the jet fuel would have burned, and set fires on several floors simultaneously?

Provide the quote from NIST that says anything about the jet fuel fires being "much hotter". Matter of fact, please provide the quote where they blame the collapse on the fires coming from only the jet fuel being responsible for the collapse. If you actually knew what it said, you'd know that the jet fuel was responsible for starting fires on ultiple floors all at once, whivh is one of the biggest differences between this event and other fires.


If you want to then apply his findings to WTC7 where the majority of the structure was undamaged then that's your call but I'll stick with what I have learned in my degree.


His findings on the towers are not being used by me or anyone else to explain what happened in 7. Only the engineering principles, which as I have pointed out, can be used in any performance study by any competent person.

The whole "using his findings about the towers" deal is just your personal strawman, erected to avoid admitting that the engineering principles he lays out are sound.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420

Almost zero. The rest of the undamaged columns would pick up the stack.


You're really showing your ignorance here. No one single column will be buckling on its own once the global collapse begins. They will all be buckling at roughly the same time, and in roughly the same buckling phase. When they all reach the plastic phase, there will be 1% resistance.

This period of convergence is in the first 1.75 seconds of the global collapse, when it fell about 7 feet.


No where does even NIST claim that all columns around the perimeter and all interior columns simultaneously form plastic hinges at the moment of collapse initiation.


That's because they don't need to, cuz it didn't happen that way. the first 1.75 seconds is when the remaining columns are getting into the plastic phase. You keep ignoring this.

Any competent engineering student would recognize this.

But again, this is just your own personal strawman.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

At significantly less than g acceleration, correct?



Incorrect, along with the rest of your reasoning.

It continued to accelerate through itself at a rate close to g. This means it can't have been only kinetic energy ripping the structure apart floor by floor. I'm pressed for time so won't be picking your post apart and arguing the trivia. The facts are available for all to see or for whoever wants to do their own independent research and apply some very basic physics.

And 1.75 seconds is what I would define as simultaneously or almost simultaneously. But it is clear from not just my posts that you are one for arguing semantics.


[edit on 29-4-2010 by Azp420]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Building 7 is some of the most pure evidence there is. Buildings don't just fall at free fall speed for no reason. Larry even admitted he had it puled on video but the U.S. government still tries to beat around the bush.




top topics



 
28
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join