You Can’t Handle the 9/11 Truth

page: 16
50
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by thedman
WTC 7 collapsed from inside out until only outer shell remained and it then fell


That my friend is impossible. The outer walls and the inner structure were connected together. For what you claim to have happened all those beams that connect floors to the outer walls would have all had to fail at the same time.


The outer shell was made of granite. Check up on it.

The beams could easily break away from the granite exterior and pour out of the damaged holes on the South side before the structure can no longer hold itself up, and inevitably collapses.




posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
The outer shell was made of granite. Check up on it.


What do you notice in this pic....



Granite slabs held together with a steel frame. The steel frame is what would have been attached to the floor beams, not the slabs.

Did you really think the outer walls were just granite? You did didn't you?



The beams could easily break away from the granite exterior and pour out of the damaged holes on the South side before the structure can no longer hold itself up, and inevitably collapses.


By what mechanism? The floors beams would have been connected to the outer wall by either welding or bolts. If the floors fell they would have pulled the walls down with them and the walls would end up being covered as the rubble spilled outwards. The wall would not have stayed standing while beams were ripped from it. There is only one way that the outer walls can end up on top of the rest of the collapsed building, and that is not from a natural collapse.

Nice try, but no soup for you mate. Maybe you should have taken some time to learn about building construction and physics while the forum was closed, but I see nothing has changed.

edit on 9/21/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
By what mechanism? The floors beams would have been connected to the outer wall by either welding or bolts. If the floors fell they would have pulled the walls down with them and the walls would end up being covered as the rubble spilled outwards. The wall would not have stayed standing while beams were ripped from it. There is only one way that the outer walls can end up on top of the rest of the collapsed building, and that is not from a natural collapse.

Nice try, but no soup for you mate. Maybe you should have taken some time to learn about building construction and physics while the forum was closed, but I see nothing has changed.


By weight. Kinetic energy is helpful.

I kind of agree that the walls should have come inward, but I also kind of don't. I'm not experienced enough with the factors of WTC 7 to say positively what "should" have happened to it. Never even taken an engineering course, so I'm not sure whether a building can collapse internally. All I know is that it is readily visible that it certainly was collapsing internally before it fell for eight floors at "free fall."

If I can clarify things a bit, you believe that the floors would pull and rip away at the exterior facade unless severed with explosives. Granted, this would take an explosive on every single floor, I'm just trying to grasp the basics here. I believe that the floors could break away, given that the exterior facade was strong enough to resist significant deformation. I don't have proof of this, but would like to find some.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
By weight. Kinetic energy is helpful.


Not this old claim again? Is kinetic energy all you understand?

What about resistance?

Kinetic energy is not the answer to everything. It is only one small part. A steel framed building does not have enough kinetic energy to rip itself apart without help. Do you understand why? Because they are designed to hold their own weight many time over. To completely collapse the building would take more kinetic energy than the building itself could create.

You are just making uneducated guesses.

So what happened to your granite walls claim? Not going to address the fact that the walls were steel framed and solidly connected to the floors?


I believe that the floors could break away, given that the exterior facade was strong enough to resist significant deformation. I don't have proof of this, but would like to find some.


How would the outer walls resist the deformation of the interior pulling on it? You don't need proof to explain the physics behind the claim. Good luck finding proof, you'll need it.

edit on 9/22/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Kinetic energy is not the answer to everything. It is only one small part. A steel framed building does not have enough kinetic energy to rip itself apart without help. Do you understand why? Because they are designed to hold their own weight many time over. To completely collapse the building would take more kinetic energy than the building itself could create.

You are just making uneducated guesses.

The irony of these two statements being placed together is not lost on me. You are indeed making uneducated guesses based on some logical rule that does not exist.

I can trivially create a building design that has more than enough potential energy to destroy every element, except it can be statically supported just fine. There is little inherent correlation.

Not only that, but the Verinage method of demolition we've all seen many times relies upon the building having enough potential energy to destroy itself.

How can you explain this?



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Not only that, but the Verinage method of demolition we've all seen many times relies upon the building having enough potential energy to destroy itself.

How can you explain this?


This has been explained to you many times. Verinage does not work on steel structures for a start.

Secondly the building is collapsed by dropping 50% of the building on a weakened 50%. Concrete has a low weight to strength ratio meaning it can more easily destroy itself with it's own weight. Steel has a high weight to strength ratio.

It does not cause a building to collapse into it's own footprint from an uncontrolled collapse.

I guess all the OS supporters have done during this down time is to forget their arguments have been debunked already.


edit on 9/22/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



Consider that the Verinage method employs a team of structural engineers who “rig the physics” in a purposeful and deliberate manner in order to accomplish the desired result; a symmetrical, rapid collapse. This strongly supports the controlled demolition theory, NOT a fire initiated, gravitational collapse theory. To say that fire can do exactly what a team of engineers and demolition experts do is not only absurd, but it is an insult to their profession in my opinion. It is argued that the Verinage method emulates the WTC conditions for this kind of collapse. But how can that be without fire? This is question begging as the whole debate is centered on whether random office fires can bring down buildings in the exact manner as controlled demolition, exhibiting all, or most of, their characteristics. The Verinage example refutes their own case. Also, a closer look at theVerinage method reveals other problems for the debunkers. For example, what type of building is the method used for? Are any steel framed high rises? No. To bring down steel framed buildings, explosives are generally used. Does the method employ a gravitational collapse of the top 15 % of the building in order to crush the bottom 85%, like we see in the WTC’s? No, they weaken the columns on the CENTRAL floors and let physics do the work. Lastly, it is argued, in the WTC collapses, that the squibs were the result of pressurized air, not explosives. In the Verinage example, no explosives were used so wouldn’t westill expect to see many squibs like in the WTC’s, assuming they are the samekind of destructive event?


I've been following the responses and it looks like the gravity collapse argument has been completely lost



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
It does not cause a building to collapse into it's own footprint from an uncontrolled collapse.

No you're right, neither WTC1,2,7 nor any Verinage demolition collapses into their footprint.

However, it very much does cause a complete uncontrolled collapse.

Why are steel buildings so different to violate apparent laws you have invented in your mind?



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


You're required to do more than just copy and paste someone else's arguments and present them as your own. If you want to argue against this then you can do so with your own words please.

I'll be happy to reply to any questions, but I could just link you to the NIST report and claim it's as valid. Please detail your own criticisms.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


WTC 7 did collapse mostly in it's own footprint. stop with the denying everything.

The outer walls can be seen on top of the rest of the collapsed building, that is the definition of in it's own footprint.











C'mon man the evidence hasn't changed since the break.


Why are steel buildings so different to violate apparent laws you have invented in your mind?


Are you serious? You mean different to concrete buildings? Strength to weight ratio for a start.

What laws have I invented in my mind, please elaborate so I can once again prove my point.

edit on 9/22/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by exponent
 


WTC 7 did collapse mostly in it's own footprint. stop with the denying everything.

When a building collapses and damages buildings on every side of it and spills across major multi-lane roads I do not claim it has fallen 'in its footprint'. You have already backed down and included the word 'mostly'. Are we to expect you next to claim that it was 'somewhat' inside the footprint and that is sufficient?

The claim is nonsense, so bad in fact that you have to define it this badly:

The outer walls can be seen on top of the rest of the collapsed building, that is the definition of in it's own footprint.


No. The definition of "in its own footprint" would be that the debris did not significantly spill outside the footprint of the building. In this case the building caused terminal damage to another building and millions in damage to two others, all separated by a full sized road.

Verinage demolitions also cause some moderate debris spilling due to the lack of any mechanism to pull walls inward. Would you like to address the point now please? How are steel buildings so fundamentally different that you have been able to create a law based on no calculations or physics or anything but your own speculation?


What laws have I invented in my mind, please elaborate so I can once again prove my point.

You said this:

A steel framed building does not have enough kinetic energy to rip itself apart without help. Do you understand why? Because they are designed to hold their own weight many time over. To completely collapse the building would take more kinetic energy than the building itself could create.

Please show some evidence for this, otherwise you have invented it without evidence.
edit on 22/9/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
When a building collapses and damages buildings on every side of it and spills across major multi-lane roads I do not claim it has fallen 'in its footprint'. You have already backed down and included the word 'mostly'. Are we to expect you next to claim that it was 'somewhat' inside the footprint and that is sufficient?


You are being to rigid in your definition of in it's own footprint. The majority of the mass of the building stayed in the footprint.

I always use 'mostly' because otherwise you all take it too literally.


No. The definition of "in its own footprint" would be that the debris did not significantly spill outside the footprint of the building. In this case the building caused terminal damage to another building and millions in damage to two others, all separated by a full sized road.


Wrong again you take the term too literally. Go look at any post implosion collapses and you'll see the term is not literal, some rubble will be outside of the footprint.

If the outer walls are on top of the rubble it has to be an implosion demolition, otherwise the walls would have fallen outwards as the rubble would have pushed them out as it fell.


Verinage demolitions also cause some moderate debris spilling due to the lack of any mechanism to pull walls inward. Would you like to address the point now please? How are steel buildings so fundamentally different that you have been able to create a law based on no calculations or physics or anything but your own speculation?


Of course steel framed building are that much different. There is a huge difference in the weight to strength ratio of steel and concrete. Drop a chunk of concrete on a chunk of concrete and you get damage to the concrete, try that with steel.


A steel framed building does not have enough kinetic energy to rip itself apart without help. Do you understand why? Because they are designed to hold their own weight many time over. To completely collapse the building would take more kinetic energy than the building itself could create.


I stand by that claim. Explain to me where the kinetic energy is coming from. What initiated the collapse in the first place? Loss of one core column according to the OS. Buildings don't collapse from the loss of one core column. All other columns would still be able to handle the load (FoS). So where did all the kinetic energy come from?


Please show some evidence for this, otherwise you have invented it without evidence.


You have heard of factor of safety (FoS) right? For a steel high-rise each component has a factor of between 4 and 6. Meaning they can hold much more weight than they are designed to hold, which means they are not going to fail as easily as you seem to think.

edit on 9/22/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
You are being to rigid in your definition of in it's own footprint. The majority of the mass of the building stayed in the footprint.

Anything else would be practically impossible. I'm being rigid in the definition because you are trying to use this as proof of Controlled Demolition, but then using words like 'mostly' when needed because you know that it doesn't really meet the definition.


Wrong again you take the term too literally. Go look at any post implosion collapses and you'll see the term is not literal, some rubble will be outside of the footprint.

I agree, however if a post implosion collapse involves millions of dollars in damage to the surrounding buildings, so much so that one of them has to be torn down I would not say that it was successful.


If the outer walls are on top of the rubble it has to be an implosion demolition, otherwise the walls would have fallen outwards as the rubble would have pushed them out as it fell.

WTC7 didn't have rubble falling through the building in the way WTC1/2 did. It failed primarily at the base, so this mechanism wouldn't work.


Of course steel framed building are that much different. There is a huge difference in the weight to strength ratio of steel and concrete. Drop a chunk of concrete on a chunk of concrete and you get damage to the concrete, try that with steel.
...
You have heard of factor of safety (FoS) right? For a steel high-rise each component has a factor of between 4 and 6. Meaning they can hold much more weight than they are designed to hold, which means they are not going to fail as easily as you seem to think.

So because steel is stronger than concrete, this is sufficient for you to come up with unreferenced numbers and decide based on your own intuition what collapse mechanisms are plausible? If I did a similar thing you would cry foul so loud that I'd be able to hear it IRL!

The factor of safety in the towers was not 'between 4 and 6'. It was very rarely 2. Please show the analysis you've done on the buildings or any other analysis that proves this DCR (Demand to Capacity Ratio)


I stand by that claim. Explain to me where the kinetic energy is coming from. What initiated the collapse in the first place? Loss of one core column according to the OS. Buildings don't collapse from the loss of one core column. All other columns would still be able to handle the load (FoS). So where did all the kinetic energy come from?

WTC7 was not a normal steel framed building. As you (should) know, they relied upon existing foundation pilings in order to construct it. As a result you had particularly large columns and particularly large spans. It was a large column that failed, leaving a portion of the building unsupported. This local collapse initiated the global collapse.

This is explained fully in NISTs report, but you seem to have decided that that must be impossible, despite no counter evidence. Where is this evidence you're relying on? It's been purely personal speculation so far and you keep adding claims instead of clearing them up. Perhaps you could just prove one before you move on to others?



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Anything else would be practically impossible. I'm being rigid in the definition because you are trying to use this as proof of Controlled Demolition, but then using words like 'mostly' when needed because you know that it doesn't really meet the definition.


That doesn't make sense, anything other than in it's own footprint?

I explained why I use mostly, because ALL demolitions land MOSTLY in their own footprints. To think the term is literal is to show your ignorance of the industry. No demolition can be exact.


I agree, however if a post implosion collapse involves millions of dollars in damage to the surrounding buildings, so much so that one of them has to be torn down I would not say that it was successful.


Again I said mostly, that's what it was, and that is what all implosion demolitions are. In a normal situation the other buildings would have been draped in tarps to protect them, like they did during the clean up.


WTC7 didn't have rubble falling through the building in the way WTC1/2 did. It failed primarily at the base, so this mechanism wouldn't work.


I never said it did. The failure point makes no difference the wall are still going to be pushed outwards as that is the path of least resistance, not inwards against the rest of the building.


So because steel is stronger than concrete, this is sufficient for you to come up with unreferenced numbers and decide based on your own intuition what collapse mechanisms are plausible? If I did a similar thing you would cry foul so loud that I'd be able to hear it IRL!


What unreferenced numbers? No, it is because steel has a higher weight to strength ratio (not just strength) that it will not collapse in the same way as concrete that has a low weight to strength ratio. Do you understand what strength to weight ratio means? It means the strength compared to its weight, if it is high it means it's light and strong, as steel is. If it is low it means it is heavy and not very strong, as concrete is.


The factor of safety in the towers was not 'between 4 and 6'. It was very rarely 2. Please show the analysis you've done on the buildings or any other analysis that proves this DCR (Demand to Capacity Ratio)


4-6 is the standard for high rise steel buildings. Where did you get 2 from?


Structural steelwork in buildings 4 - 6


Factors of Safety


WTC7 was not a normal steel framed building. As you (should) know, they relied upon existing foundation pilings in order to construct it. As a result you had particularly large columns and particularly large spans. It was a large column that failed, leaving a portion of the building unsupported. This local collapse initiated the global collapse.


Explain normal? Then explain how abnormal changes the laws of physics.


This is explained fully in NISTs report, but you seem to have decided that that must be impossible, despite no counter evidence. Where is this evidence you're relying on? It's been purely personal speculation so far and you keep adding claims instead of clearing them up. Perhaps you could just prove one before you move on to others?


You do realise that it is the NIST report that is in question eh?

What speculation? The NIST report is based on a pre-conceived conclusion, they just made it fit what they wanted to say. I have enough education and background to understand the very simple concepts we're discussing.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
That doesn't make sense, anything other than in it's own footprint?

I explained why I use mostly, because ALL demolitions land MOSTLY in their own footprints. To think the term is literal is to show your ignorance of the industry. No demolition can be exact.

But all collapses equally land mostly in their own footprints, so the position of post collapse debris proves nothing. If you're making a claim you need to provide evidence of it, and when you immediately dilute to 'mostly' then you include every collapse in your definition, making it useless.


Again I said mostly, that's what it was, and that is what all implosion demolitions are. In a normal situation the other buildings would have been draped in tarps to protect them, like they did during the clean up.

We're not talking broken windows here, we're talking structural and serious external damage.


I never said it did. The failure point makes no difference the wall are still going to be pushed outwards as that is the path of least resistance, not inwards against the rest of the building.

The path of least resistance is straight down as that is the direction gravity is pulling. Any deviation from perfectly vertical requires force.


What unreferenced numbers? No, it is because steel has a higher weight to strength ratio (not just strength) that it will not collapse in the same way as concrete that has a low weight to strength ratio. Do you understand what strength to weight ratio means? It means the strength compared to its weight, if it is high it means it's light and strong, as steel is. If it is low it means it is heavy and not very strong, as concrete is.

This fact alone doesn't give you any information other than X < Y. We need to know the actual force involved if we are to make any predictions. You act as if this is not a requirement despite the fact that it is the basis of empirical modelling.


4-6 is the standard for high rise steel buildings. Where did you get 2 from?

NIST modelled the actual ratios rather then relying on a random website. The fact is that the website you're linking explicitly says:

The content in The Engineering ToolBox is COPYRIGHTED but can be used with NO WARRANTY or LIABILITY
Important information should always be double checked with alternative sources

Yet you have not bothered to do this. Why is this? Do you really believe that buildings as slender as the WTC could even be made if the lowest sections had to support 4x the maximum possible load? Have you done any actual calculations or are you relying purely on engineeringtoolbox.com for your ideas?


Explain normal? Then explain how abnormal changes the laws of physics.

Normal is with control over foundations. Abnormal increases individual column load and size, which change the physics of the collapse. Why are you pretending like this doesn't change facts about the building?


You do realise that it is the NIST report that is in question eh?

That doesn't mean you can just dismiss it. I could question your integrity but that wouldn't mean I could just ignore what you say. In order to disprove the NIST report you have to provide some convincing alternate version rather than just dismiss it out of hand.


The NIST report is based on a pre-conceived conclusion, they just made it fit what they wanted to say. I have enough education and background to understand the very simple concepts we're discussing.

You have no evidence of that, and I have no faith in your education and background as I have never seen you produce your own significant research and you repeat classic tropes such as "path of least resistance".



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
But all collapses equally land mostly in their own footprints, so the position of post collapse debris proves nothing. If you're making a claim you need to provide evidence of it, and when you immediately dilute to 'mostly' then you include every collapse in your definition, making it useless.


No they don't. Please show me an example of a natural collapse of a steel frames high rise that landed mostly in it's own footprint. And quit picking on 'mostly' you just sound ignorant, I am not diluting anything as I have explained to you. Are you just trying to piss me off? Again you just take the term too literally. No controlled collapse can ever actually put 100% of the building in it's footprint. The idea is to make the building collapse vertically to minimize the spread of the rubble, you can not completely control where all the debris will go.


We're not talking broken windows here, we're talking structural and serious external damage.


But you exaggerating, there wasn't that much damage to buildings around WTC 7. If it had collapsed to one side, as OSers claim, then there would have been serious damage to other buildings.


The path of least resistance is straight down as that is the direction gravity is pulling. Any deviation from perfectly vertical requires force.


Straight down and out would be the path, inwards again the rest of the building wouldn't. The WTC 7 outer walls did not just fall straight down and they did not fall outwards, they fell inwards after the building center had dropped, that is classic implosion demolition. It can not happen from a natural collapse because in the inner building would push the wall outwards, not inwards. Path of resistance.


This fact alone doesn't give you any information other than X < Y. We need to know the actual force involved if we are to make any predictions. You act as if this is not a requirement despite the fact that it is the basis of empirical modelling.


The weight to strength ratio of steel and concrete is known, so it's a known fact that concrete is not going survive a collapse as well as steel. You are just doing all you can to not agree with that fact.


NIST modelled the actual ratios rather then relying on a random website. The fact is that the website you're linking explicitly says:
The content in The Engineering ToolBox is COPYRIGHTED but can be used with NO WARRANTY or LIABILITY


So where did NIST get the figures from, can you please show this. 4-6 IS the standard no matter what site I find to show you.

Here is another source...

Safe Or Working Stresses For Cast Iron, Wrought Iron, And Steel

An FoS of 2 is never used in steel framed buildings.


Important information should always be double checked with alternative sources
Yet you have not bothered to do this. Why is this? Do you really believe that buildings as slender as the WTC could even be made if the lowest sections had to support 4x the maximum possible load? Have you done any actual calculations or are you relying purely on engineeringtoolbox.com for your ideas?


But neither have you, you just take what NIST said as gospel.

An FoS of 4 does not mean the component can take 4x the load. What has the slenderness of the building have to do with the required FoS?

Calculations? An FoS is a fixed number, it is not calculated. You can calculate from that number how much load the competent has to handle, and then design the component to withstand that load.


The working stresses are obtained by dividing the known breaking strength of the particular class of material to be used, by the factor of safety applicable to the structure and load for which it is to be used.


Safe Or Working Stresses For Cast Iron, Wrought Iron, And Steel

You obviously do not understand this.


Normal is with control over foundations. Abnormal increases individual column load and size, which change the physics of the collapse. Why are you pretending like this doesn't change facts about the building?


It doesn't. A building, no matter it's design, must be made to certain standards. This old argument that WTC7 was not a "normal" building, which allowed it to completely collapse MOSTLY into its own footprint from sporadic fires, is just nonsense.


That doesn't mean you can just dismiss it. I could question your integrity but that wouldn't mean I could just ignore what you say. In order to disprove the NIST report you have to provide some convincing alternate version rather than just dismiss it out of hand.


I am not dismissing it, it is in question. If you want to use it as 'proof' of something it's no good. You have to show me something outside of the NIST report. If the NIST report is correct that shouldn't be too hard.


You have no evidence of that, and I have no faith in your education and background as I have never seen you produce your own significant research and you repeat classic tropes such as "path of least resistance".


I didn't say I did. It is my opinion. Path of least resistance is not a trope, it is a physical reality. (and down is not always the path of least resistance) It's not my fault you fail to understand that.

edit on 9/22/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
No they don't. Please show me an example of a natural collapse of a steel frames high rise that landed mostly in it's own footprint.

Steel framed high rises do not collapse with any regularity. There are no reasonable comparisons.


And quit picking on 'mostly' you just sound ignorant, I am not diluting anything as I have explained to you. Are you just trying to piss me off? Again you just take the term too literally. No controlled collapse can ever actually put 100% of the building in it's footprint. The idea is to make the building collapse vertically to minimize the spread of the rubble, you can not completely control where all the debris will go.

No uncontrolled collapse will ever collapse entirely outside its own footprint. Your claim here is completely meaningless. Both controlled demolitions and natural collapses obey the same rules, they are pulled by gravity. The only difference is that the structural damage is done instantly in a controlled demolition, and progressively in a collapse. The difference to debris distribution is that controlled demolitions often stay almost entirely within their footprint. This didn't happen to any building on 911.


But you exaggerating, there wasn't that much damage to buildings around WTC 7. If it had collapsed to one side, as OSers claim, then there would have been serious damage to other buildings.

Except there were millions of dollars of damage caused to buildings on both sides, and on the opposite side the damage was so severe they tore the building down. That is as you say, "serious" damage.


Straight down and out would be the path, inwards again the rest of the building wouldn't. The WTC 7 outer walls did not just fall straight down and they did not fall outwards, they fell inwards after the building center had dropped, that is classic implosion demolition. It can not happen from a natural collapse because in the inner building would push the wall outwards, not inwards. Path of resistance.

Again a trope you don't understand. The interior of the building failed and it collapsed unevenly. How you would expect to see the building explode outwards without leaving one of the exterior walls on top is beyond me. Your argument is 'because it would ok' but there's no reference or evidence that I can see.


The weight to strength ratio of steel and concrete is known, so it's a known fact that concrete is not going survive a collapse as well as steel. You are just doing all you can to not agree with that fact.

What part of we need the actual numbers to make predictions are you disagreeing with? It seems that you just want to pretend like you have discovered a universal rule that makes it impossible for buildings to collapse, but you've just invented this idea.


So where did NIST get the figures from, can you please show this. 4-6 IS the standard no matter what site I find to show you.

Here is another source...
...
An FoS of 2 is never used in steel framed buildings.

NIST got the figures from analysing the as-built condition of the building. Do you really think that chestofbooks.com is an authoritative engineering resource? Come on this is just silly now. You're not remotely honestly researching this, just looking for sites that agree with you. If the factor of safety is indeed 4-6, then why were the towers under a DCR of 2? You just want to deny this fact and then find random websites to support your intuition.

I snipped out your insult as there was nothing to respond to.


It doesn't. A building, no matter it's design, must be made to certain standards. This old argument that WTC7 was not a "normal" building, which allowed it to completely collapse MOSTLY into its own footprint from sporadic fires, is just nonsense.

Could you show me where they required fire modelling in the code and the standard it was done to? WTC7 was built before modern simulation existed. I don't think you realise this.


I am not dismissing it, it is in question. If you want to use it as 'proof' of something it's no good. You have to show me something outside of the NIST report. If the NIST report is correct that shouldn't be too hard.

This is nonsense. You're using the same argument as the Global Warming Deniers. They say that a report is in question so they must see other calculations. When these calculations are provided then the report producing them is included in the list of reports to be questioned. This process is never ending and based purely in denial.


I didn't say I did. It is my opinion. Path of least resistance is not a trope, it is a physical reality. (and down is not always the path of least resistance) It's not my fault you fail to understand that.

Define it then. Rigorously please. I want to know the unit for 'resistance' (it's Ohm lol)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



Between 1995 and 1997, British Steel's Swinden Technology Centre, co-sponsored by the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) with TNO (The Netherlands) and CTICM (France) as partners, carried out a fire research programme on a modern multi-storey composite steel framed structure built within the BRE large scale test facility at Cardington. The research programme aimed to understand and develop numerical calculation procedures that are capable of describing and predicting the structural behaviour of modern multi-storey composite steel framed buildings subject to fire attack. This involved four major fire tests being carried out on different parts of the frame to study various aspects of structural behaviour and included a real full scale demonstration fire in an open plan office. This document and the accompanying test data has been prepared so that researchers in the field of Fire Safety Engineering have ready access to the actual data electronically logged during each of the four fire tests.


The tests have already been done on steel frame buildings -- no total collapse with symmetrical free fall has every happened because it's not possible.

These tests include "old" steel frame versus "Modern" steel frame.
edit on 23-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


Now, which part of the study, studied the effects of a wide body airliner slamming into the structure? Could you point that out?



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
The tests have already been done on steel frame buildings -- no total collapse with symmetrical free fall has every happened because it's not possible.


The Cardington fire tests are well known and don't provide any evidence against the 'official story' I'm afraid. They used a regularly framed steel shell which doesn't represent either WTC 1,2 or 7 to any significant degree. They also show that fire temperatures very quickly affect steel and cause loss of strength. If you want more information you can search my previous posts as I have answered questions about these tests many times.





new topics
top topics
 
50
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join