So who the heck ever said "Pull it" was slang for controlled demolitions?

Originally posted by Meatballglove
I don't understand why that is naive. Why must everyone with a free mind be labeled a truther. Does that make everyone else a liar? No. Don't be so patronising.

...because when people are saying things like "pull it is slang for controlled demolitions" it means they're not the free thinkers as they believe they are. They're simply being suckered by the crackpots and con artists behind those damned fool conspiracy websites...in this specific case, Alex Jones...and they don't know they're being suckered.

My intentions aren't to insult you or to make you feel bad about yourself. My intentions are to show you there's a whole other side of the debate you're not aware of, specifically becuase it isn't in the interest of Alex Jones, Richard Gage, Dylan Avery, and a host of other self centered characters to show you all the facts. I can give you all the examples of this as you'd like.

Originally posted by TattooedWarrior
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Hello Dave.
Instead of asking for proof that ''pull it'' means bring the building down, why don't you present some evidence showing how 3 buildings can all fall in their own footprint at the same speed as a controlled demolition just from fire that doesn't burn hot enough to even start melting the metal part of the structure.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
reply to post by TattooedWarrior
-The buildings did NOT fall because the fires "melted the steel". Thousands of years of blacksmithy have taught us that metal doesn't need to be heated to the melting point for it to become soft. The claim is a red herring becuas eit also draws attention away from the fact that a plane had hit the towers and caused unknown amounts of damage.

Here you go, from the American Institute of Steel Construction


FIRE RESISTANCE OF STEEL SYSTEMS

From the NIST data...





Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 Collapse

Educated analysis trumps conjecture every time

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Educated analysis trumps conjecture every time

Interesting! So in other words, the figures say that at 1000 degrees celcius the structural integrity of steel is reduced to less than 10%, and that widespread areas within WTC 7 had been baking at 1000 degrees celcius for hours.

Of course, this means either one of two things...either characters like Richard Gage and Alex Jones are deliberately lying about all this "secret controlled demolitions" bit for them to be concealing important information like this, or, all these steel engineers are sinister secret agents being paid to cover up the conspiracy.

Of course.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Educated analysis trumps conjecture every time

But your "educated analysis" is incomplete and misleading, and not very educated. Unless appeals to authority is what they teach you these days.

Where does your educated analysis take 'thermal transfer' into consideration?

All it does is take the maximum theoretical results, and claim that is what happens all the time. There is no evidence any steel got that hot, or even if it did that there was enough of it heated up to cause failure.

It takes a finite amount of time for steel to get hot from random fires. It takes a controlled (max temp.), direct flame to get the results your "educated analysis" is claiming. As fire moves, once fuel is used up, then the steel instantly starts to cool. For a building to completely collapse from fire would take ALL the steel to fail, otherwise you would have resistance and the collapse would not have been symmetrical and mostly in its own footprint.

(Your only counter to this is to dismiss the fact that collapse was symmetrical, and landed mostly in its own footprint, even though vids, and pics, shows that to be the case.)

But regardless of how hot the fires got, it still doesn't explain how it could cause the complete collapse of a steel framed building into its own footprint. When steel fails from heat it's not an instant reaction, there would have been obvious signs of this long before there was any complete failure. It's also not controlled, so why was the collapse, and the debris field, symmetrical?

Temperatures of objects

It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.

www.doctorfire.com...

So you're claims are irrelevant.

Originally posted by ANOK
But regardless of how hot the fires got, it still doesn't explain how it could cause the complete collapse of a steel framed building into its own footprint. When steel fails from heat it's not an instant reaction, there would have been obvious signs of this long before there was any complete failure. It's also not controlled, so why was the collapse, and the debris field, symmetrical?

You mean like how deputy fire chief Peter Hayden reported there was a three story tall bulge in the side of WTC 7 from the fires that they used a transom to shore up, and how everyone who was there knew the buidling was going to fall by the way it was creaking? This has been mentioned numerous times and I know you've seen it.

Seriously, Anok, you have to WANT these conspiracy stories to be true, for you to continue clinging to them at this point.

reply to post by ANOK


Anok, you are either deluded and incapable of understanding or disingenuously trolling, take your pick.

All of your claims to support your position have been conclusively refuted numerous times. You don't understand or misconstrue even basic concepts and mechanisms that have been explained to you ad nauseum (as your ludicrous response prove).

I give you thorough analysis supported by sourced facts along with the data and methodology used to generate any conclusions made and you (incorrectly) respond that I am making an appeal to authority and proceed to grandiosely pontificate nonsensical blabber and proclaim that you have somehow proven a point.

I really dislike addressing anyone this sharply in polite conversation however I am beginning to take exception your laughably naive denouncements and bellicose proclamations of logical fallacies.

Your not fooling anybody.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by ANOK

 

Anok, you are either deluded and incapable of understanding or disingenuously trolling, take your pick.

All of your claims to support your position have been conclusively refuted numerous times. You don't understand or misconstrue even basic concepts and mechanisms that have been explained to you ad nauseum (as your ludicrous response prove).

I give you thorough analysis supported by sourced facts along with the data and methodology used to generate any conclusions made and you (incorrectly) respond that I am making an appeal to authority and proceed to grandiosely pontificate nonsensical blabber and proclaim that you have somehow proven a point.

I really dislike addressing anyone this sharply in polite conversation however I am beginning to take exception your laughably naive denouncements and bellicose proclamations of logical fallacies.

Your not fooling anybody.

Ah soooo , I think I am getting the drift of your ignorance here.

Other than a pant load of Rant, your off topic rendition is one, totally void of the common sense, that Larry admittedly said PULL IT, (a demo term from his past) and he watched the BUILDING SEVEN FALL.
The FACT is, that it fell right straight down into it's (common knowledge )
FOOT PRINT. Are you ATS worthy???
ljb
PS dull is what your address is.

Regardless of whether or not "pull it" is slang for controlled demolition, they say a picture is worth a thousand words. Forgive me if this video has been posted before, I'm not going to go through 77 pp. of a thread just to make sure I'm not duplicating something.

WTC7 and Controlled Demolition side by side



Unless a building that nothing hit, weakened steel or not, looks just like a controlled demolition, there is definitely some 'splainin to do

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

I understand the Wikipedia, its pretty much common knowledge. But I just don't have a clue what the text you wrote means, or what your point is. Especially a sentence like this: In FRAME only a small portion of the structure suffered temporary SPACE. What does this mean?

Hi plb,
I know you don't want this exposed but since you asked.
The formular is the most evolved for momentum.
It realizes that all particles are never compressed by gravity, mutually. Unless under controlled circumstance.
The F is for frame, (the entirety of the mass.] Surface pressure atop the mass.
You see unless you control the mass so that it is equal you don't need F (frame)
BUT most mass is unbalanced. Weighty on one side or the other.
So without relief being a total distribution under a mass , the acceleration will not be EVEN (balanced)
Therefore, there is not one of the three WTC buildings that could have fallen straight down. The relief damage was always off center. Hence the non damaged portion of the frame would remain stationary while IF a sufficient void is created to initiate MOMENTUM (plane building #1, plane building #2,
corner damage on SEVEN) in another portion of the FRAME,
Then the acceleration would cease due to the resistance to the momentum of the undamaged portion of the frame.( building) Or the mass would tip to the side of the void.
So there you have it, tied up with a pretty bow .
ljb

reply to post by longjohnbritches

You see unless you control the mass so that it is equal you don't need F (frame) BUT most mass is unbalanced. Weighty on one side or the other. So without relief being a total distribution under a mass , the acceleration will not be EVEN (balanced) Therefore, there is not one of the three WTC buildings that could have fallen straight down. The relief damage was always off center. Hence the non damaged portion of the frame would remain stationary while IF a sufficient void is created to initiate MOMENTUM (plane building #1, plane building #2, corner damage on SEVEN) in another portion of the FRAME,

So what you are saying is that, in the video comparison directly above your post, there is no way physics would allow a non-controlled demolition to look exactly like a controlled demolition?

reply to post by longjohnbritches


Do you honestly believe that mess you cobbled together is correct or coherent?

You cant fake the laws of nature with conjecture, there are very clearly defined rules that are the same for anyone who understands them.

I've read your posts in this and other threads where, like in your confused post above, you clearly show your naivety to both the mechanics that govern both the natural world and the math that describes it (some of your recent contributions to the Moon Landing Hoax - The Space Suit thread are bordering on epic knee slappers)

As in the case of most who have bought into the fantastical 9/11 truther nonsense, you don't understand the fundamentals and are trying to argue from a position of ignorance.

Take a few classes on the matter, with a little honest effort to educate yourself. You will be surprised at how fundamentally mistaken you are and hopefully a little embarrassed with yourself for how transparent your silly attempt to pass your own convoluted mess of misunderstanding off as correct or definitive.

Demonstrate a correct mechanism to support your position with the corresponding math and I will eat my words however I am not worried of that possibility in the slightest.

A final word, skip the insults and try posting facts, data and source's. The math does not lie and if you are correct the math will support it, resorting to boorish and rude ad hominems and glib insults only serves to underscore the lack of substance to your argument.

reply to post by ANOK


I'm sorry ANOK, but your link to "Doctor fire" is getting worn out. Also, you miss quite a bit of info just relying on that one little site.

Go back to my post way back:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I know for a fact you wont look, but for posterity's sake, I'll repost it, since it links directly to important info regarding steel structures and fire.

Also, I am still waiting for you to give me a decent answer as to why and how McCormick Place's heavy steel truss roof managed to collapse from fire alone within 20 minutes? I know you always like to sidestep and ignore this question, or answer with nonsense about how it's not like the WTCs or something. No, I'm asking you how a roof that was supported by large heavy steel trusses managed to collapse within 20 minutes of the fire. You claim steel cannot heat up fast enough in fire, and that it somehow needs hours to reach that critical point to fail. McCormick Place's roof fell within 20 minutes, without a plane hit or anything. Please explain how this flies in the face of your assertions, and was it a conspiracy?

reply to post by GenRadek

Also, I am still waiting for you to give me a decent answer as to why and how McCormick Place's heavy steel truss roof managed to collapse from fire alone within 20 minutes? I know you always like to sidestep and ignore this question, or answer with nonsense about how it's not like the WTCs or something. No, I'm asking you how a roof that was supported by large heavy steel trusses managed to collapse within 20 minutes of the fire.

The first fact that should be noted in regard to any such comparison is that the McCormick Place incident was not a total building collapse -- it was only a roof collapse. Much less was it the total collapse of a high-rise building. Any comparison of it to the Twin Towers is limited to the Towers' floor diaphragms. FEMA blamed the heat-induced failure of the Towers' floor diaphragms, but failed to provide a convincing explanation of how floor failures could have led to total building collapse. Moreover, the alleged failure of the Towers floor trusses has lost relevance with NIST's endorsing the column failure theory to the exclusion of the truss failure theory.

Furthermore, the comparisons of the roof trusses of McCormick Place to the floor trusses of the Twin Towers is limited by the following facts:

The floor trusses were insulated, unlike the roof trusses.
The floor trusses spanned at most 60 feet, apparently much shorter than the roof trusses.
The floor trusses had to support the floor loads of the concrete slabs and office furniture, whereas the roof trusses only had to support snow loading.

911research.wtc7.net...

Also, the McCormick Place fire started at 2am and was put out by 10 am, that's 8 hours.

The original 7 World Trade Center was 47 stories tall, clad in red exterior masonry, and occupied a trapezoidal footprint. An elevated walkway connected the building to the World Trade Center plaza. The building was situated above a Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints. When the building opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants. In 1988, Salomon Brothers signed a long-term lease, and became the main tenants of the building. On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm.

At least they had one thing in common,

Fire fighting efforts were severely delayed, however, as four of the seven McCormick Place fire hydrants were shut off. To attack the flames, firefighters had to draft water from Lake Michigan and rely on fire hydrants a quarter-mile away.

www.ideals.illinois.edu...

Yet even the inadequate water suppression failed to contribute to a total collapse of McCormick Place.

So figuring the fire in building 7 started right at 9am when the first plane hit which it didn't since the North tower collapsed at 10:30, that's about 6.5 hours. How tall was McCormick place? At least 47stories? No? So a smaller building in Chicago built in the 60's doesn't collapse from an 8 hour fire in a way that looks like a controlled demolition even though the roof trusses melted, but a 47 story building built in the 80's does after less than 8 hours?

And did it look exactly like a controlled demolition when the whole building came down at near freefall speed? Oh wait, McCormick Place didn't collapse completely. The weight of the steel roof coming down should have pancaked the whole thing with each floor adding weight and thus speed. At least that's how the story goes.

reply to post by GenRadek


But none of that explains how sagging trusses can pull on columns. It doesn't explain how some steel heating up can completely collapse a building. The WTC floors were multiple trusses, not the same desgin as roof trusses.
A roof collapse is not a building collapse, that equates to one floor failing, not a complete 110 story tower.

Even if one floor did collapse from 'sagging trusses', it doesn't mean complete collapse is inevitable.

You keep forgetting what the main arguments are. You keep focusing simply on theory that heat can cause steel to fail, there is no argument there. You have to put it all in context.

It's hilarious that you equate 'lightweight' the way it's used in that article, and the 'lightweight' floor trusses of the towers. A complete stretch to try to claim sagging floor trusses can cause complete collapse of the WTC towers.

This is not what the WTC was made of....





So how did those 'lightweight' floors trusses cause the collapse of the core and outer mesh columns? Do you even realise how you contradict your whole claim? I doubt it.

Yes go ahead and ignore heat transfer, it suites the rest of your naive ignorance. Those tests are done with the steel directly in contact with fire, in a controlled situation in order to maximize the heat damage, that did not happen in the WTC buildings because none of them were completely engulfed, and fires were out at the impact points before they collapsed.

Sorry but you might think you have something with all your links, but you simply prove once again you fail to understand the big picture, and miss critical details and make a huge different in reality. You have nothing, you should be embarrassed.

reply to post by coyotepoet


now what did I say about total collapse and such?

I was talking about how the heavy steel truss supported roof collapsed within 20 minutes of fire start. I dont give a damn about it burning for hours later, I am specifically talking about how fire managed to cause the roof collapse within 20 minutes.

The "9/11 Research" website is a typical truther site, which masquerades as a "legit" "research" site, but then drops bombs like what you posted. I find it funny how the "geniuses" cant even give a basic explanation as to why the roof collapsed, and resort to pointing out how different the WTC is from McP. Fact is, a large heavy steel trussed roof, that only had to hold up itself and the weight of snow collapsed within 30 minutes from a regular fire alone.

No one is talking about total collapse of McCormick Place. Not I or anyone else. What is being pointed out is that steel can be rapidly affected by fire, something that ANOK and other truthers claim cannot happen. I really, really, really really wish that truthers would work on their reading comprehension skills before trying to come up with an argument. Like just now. What was point in my initial response?

I am still waiting for you to give me a decent answer as to why and how McCormick Place's heavy steel truss roof managed to collapse from fire alone within 20 minutes? I know you always like to sidestep and ignore this question, or answer with nonsense about how it's not like the WTCs or something. No, I'm asking you how a roof that was supported by large heavy steel trusses managed to collapse within 20 minutes of the fire. You claim steel cannot heat up fast enough in fire, and that it somehow needs hours to reach that critical point to fail.

You see? I really hate it when truthers just ignore the main point of the post, and go off on something else that I specifically said not to, since that is precisely what I was not getting at. If you missed it, I'll ask again:
If, as according to ANOK and other truthers, it takes a long time for a steel structure to heat up from a regular fire and be affected negatively, then why did the steel trussed roof fail within 20-30 minutes of fire ignition? Come on truthers, I know that at least some of you have some reading comprehension skills. What caused the heavy steel trussed roof to collapse so rapidly if steel cannot be so rapidly and negatively affected by a regular fire? How many freaking times do I need to repeat this question to get a real answer?

Also, I can see that you are not familiar with McCormick Place. Who said the trusses melted? What is with Truthers and making crap up????

reply to post by ANOK


ANOK, heat transfer is a far more complicated thing then you let on. You do realize that during heat transfer, it depends on the size, shape, mass of the object AND the amount of surface area it is connected to? The heat from the truss is going to go where? Why, it is going to travel through those pesky bolts on each end and just how much surface area is touching the steel truss and the core? Boy ANOK, for someone who believes he is so well versed in such complicated matters, you sure do miss quite a bit.

Also, as it is stated in many engineering articles regarding the design of the WTC floors, they all describe the floor trusses as "lightweight steel structures." It has nothing to do with the steel being light, as you are trying to paint it, but everything with the size, shape and mass of the structure. I cannot believe I need to educate you in what is meant by a "heavy steel structure" and "light steel structure".

Heat transfer depends on the mass, shape, and size of the object. What it is made from also counts. A typical truss like those used in the WTC floors will heat up faster than a heavy steel I-beam. Why is it that firefighters fear going into structures that have a light steel truss supported roof? I ask you this everytime and you ignore it everytime.

Also, you ignored my question again. What caused the roof of McCormick place to collapse within 30 minutes, if it had larger and heavy steel trusses supporting the roof, and there was no plane impact or burning inside, just a regular fire????



Just so my question does not get ignored. What caused the steel trussed roof of McCormick Place to collapse so rapidly if steel takes forever to heat up (as you claim) until it fails? It is a simple question. Just like my question to you regarding how and where did the majority of the mass of the floors of the WTC Towers get ejected and how did those floors, with trusses, steel decking, and concrete manage to eject out the footprint. Its almost 6 months and I still havent gotten a satisfactory response on that.

reply to post by GenRadek

No one is talking about total collapse of McCormick Place. Not I or anyone else. What is being pointed out is that steel can be rapidly affected by fire,

I personally never argued that it couldn't. Doesn't really matter. Can you find one example of a non-controlled complete destruction of a comparable building that looks exactly like a controlled demolition as in the side by side video I posted earlier? It's okay to sidestep the issue if you can't.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by GenRadek

 

I personally never argued that it couldn't. Doesn't really matter. Can you find one example of a non-controlled complete destruction of a comparable building that looks exactly like a controlled demolition as in the side by side video I posted earlier?

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

Yes it does matter. ANOK and other truthers say that steel cannot be affected by fire fast enough to cause any sort of failure. I have shown that is false, and that it has happened before. McCormick Place's roof, which had a large heavy steel truss construction, collapsed within 30 minutes of fire start. So it appears that the truthers are wrong, and ANOK is wrong. Steel structures can be rapidly affected by regular fires.

If a large sized steel truss, which has greater mass than a smaller, lighter truss can fail, what chance does the smaller truss have in that same scenario?

reply to post by GenRadek

So it appears that the truthers are wrong, and ANOK is wrong. Steel structures can be rapidly affected by regular fires. If a large sized steel truss, which has greater mass than a smaller, lighter truss can fail, what chance does the smaller truss have in that same scenario?

Fine. Show me a comparable non-controlled building collapse that looks exactly like a controlled demolition and I will admit to being wrong. But you can't, now can you?

And the other two WTC buildings don't count. To my knowledge these have been the only 3 "non-controlled" collapses to look exactly like a controlled demolition. What a coincidence that it all happened in the same day and place. You don't know of any others do you?

reply to post by coyotepoet


How do two tall towers plainly collapsing from impact points towards their tops " look exactly like a controlled demolition " ? Which cd's do you have in mind ?