Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

a reply to: micpsi

Where did I ever say the WTC pancaked? Please quote where any of my post say the WTC pancaked?

Thanks for trying to create a false argument.


Funny how I can actually reference video, and provide evidence.....
what do you reference....

Here in this linked thread is a video clip showing the inward bowing and buckling that initiated the moment of collapse.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.
www.metabunk.org...

The columns bowed inward. The strain of the 29 floors above the buckling no longer transferred the load to the foundation. The bends could not take the stress, the top 29 stories as a unit fell to the static floor below. This started the process of the upper 29 floors acting as a wrecking ball, smashing floors and floor connections. The vertical columns standing above the pile of ruble, not stacked up pile of floors, stood on end for seconds proving the floor system fails first.


I was trying to explain and use examples to show turbonium1 that any give floor of any given high rise has a load limit. If that limit is exceeded, that floor will experience failure. All to combat ignorant statements like this

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your 'massive weight' excuse is a perfect example. 'No building could ever withstand such a massive load dropped on it!!'

a reply to: micpsi

WTC close up of South Tower buckling
m.youtube.com...

9/11: Absolute Proof NO DEMOLITION at WTC Twin Towers -- "THE TOWER IS LEANING" & Buckling
m.youtube.com...

Mechanics of Collapse of WTC Towers Clarified by Recent Column Buckling Tests of Korol and Sivakumaran
Jia-Liang Le1, and Zdenˇek P.

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

Conclusion
The experiments of Korol and Sivakumaran help in clarifying the mechanics of energy dissipation in the columns of WTC and in reducing the previously stated range of uncertainties of analysis. They indicate that if the column ends were rigidly supported and if the ductility of steel was unlimited, then the simple plastic three-hinge mechanism with constant bending moments [7, Sec.8.2], of the type used for small-deflection buckling, would have dissipated about 3.5-times as much energy than considered in previous studies.
But calibration by matching of the video record of initial collapse implies that this energy must have been reduced to about 2/3 of the energy predicted by the three-hinge model. This estimated 2/3 reduction must have been caused by the fracturing of steel and by the flexibility of spandrel beams which reduced the rotations of the plastic hinges at column ends. With this update of input data, all the observed features of the WTC collapse remain to be closely matched by the gravity-driven mechanics of progressive collapse.

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
Failure of connections, as a result of overloading, occurred within the heat-affected zone of the base metals

app.aws.org...

Analysis of the connections supporting the composite floor system of the WTC towers showed that at and below the im- pact floors, the greater majority (above 90%) of the floor truss connections were either bent downward or completely re- moved from the exterior column. This was probably related to the overloading of the floors below the impact region after col- lapse initiation. Depending upon weld joint geometry, detachment of the main load-bearing seats was a result of either fracture in the heat affected zone of the base material (standoff plate detached from spandrel) or through the weld metal (seat angle detached from standoff plate). Failure in both cases was assumed to be a result of a shear mechanism as a result of overloading from floors above impacting those below. There did not appear to be a significant change in distribution of failure modes of the floor truss connections when comparing those connections inside vs. outside of the impact region or those ex- posed to pre-collapse fires and those that were not.

a reply to: pteridine


Thank you for the details, but yes, I already knew that regarding the conductivity of steel and other matters.

Now, if you happen to think that with that post you just made the case that the official story brought by NIST is true and valid, you failed.

There is no way those low intensity fires generated enough heat to weaken any steel at all, much less enough steel to make the entire structure collapse and blow pieces out hundreds of feet while still "collapsing" at near free fall speeds.

Sorry dude. Kevin Ryan was correct, and that is why he was fired.

Compare him to Van Romero in New Mexico, who spoke the truth but then quickly retracted it to keep his job, and the difference in character between the 2 men is very obvious.

a reply to: Salander

Again, here is the thread with the video of inward bowing and collapse initiation....


www.metabunk.org...

Please give a theory of the collapse initiation if you don't think it was triggered by contracting floor trusses!

Care to cite any examples of a high rise building implosion by charges by a top down CD? Not the false claim at the WTC.

Care to cite and examples of a high rise building brought down by thermite before 9/11. Not the false claim at the WTC.

How about since 9/11?

There has been a high rise building collapse since 9/11 because of fire.

Title: Tehran fire: Twenty firemen killed as high-rise collapses

www.bbc.com...

At least 20 firefighters were killed when a high-rise building in Tehran caught fire and collapsed, the mayor of the Iranian capital has said.

People that see the truth movement's lies have science, logic, evidence, literally 100s of accounts by civilians, video evidence to expose those lies.

What evidence do you have of CD at the towers?

By the way, the floor system at the towers fell at 2/3's the rate of free fall. The cores fell about 40% of the rate of free fall.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine


Thank you for the details, but yes, I already knew that regarding the conductivity of steel and other matters.

Now, if you happen to think that with that post you just made the case that the official story brought by NIST is true and valid, you failed.

There is no way those low intensity fires generated enough heat to weaken any steel at all, much less enough steel to make the entire structure collapse and blow pieces out hundreds of feet while still "collapsing" at near free fall speeds.

Sorry dude. Kevin Ryan was correct, and that is why he was fired.

Compare him to Van Romero in New Mexico, who spoke the truth but then quickly retracted it to keep his job, and the difference in character between the 2 men is very obvious.

You misunderstood in that you were claiming that the steel didn't conduct heat well enough for collapse to occur. I explained it to you. Fires in closed spaces can generate significant heat and drive temperatures up. Set your oven to self clean and watch how such a small gas flame over an hour can get to 750+ *F. Look at any video on fire in closed spaces and watch the temperature climb in short order. The inability of the structural steel to conduct the heat away results in weakening of the steel as its temperature rises.

Sorry dude, Kevin Ryan couldn't find his own butt if it was on fire. He was fired because he represented his opinion as that of UL. He doesn't know what he doesn't know.

Pieces were not "blown out," think gravity and lever arms.

a reply to: pteridine


You explained it to me, but you did not prove it to me. I agree with Kevin Ryan, there is no way that bit of heat in a steel structure could make the entire structure collapse as it did, all things considered.

Some explanations turn out to be inaccurate in certain details. A proof is something altogether different.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine


You explained it to me, but you did not prove it to me. I agree with Kevin Ryan, there is no way that bit of heat in a steel structure could make the entire structure collapse as it did, all things considered.

Some explanations turn out to be inaccurate in certain details. A proof is something altogether different.

You may prove it to yourself if you so desire. Ignore Kevin unless you really, really want a conspiracy.

a reply to: pteridine


Assuming we're speaking English here, and using dictionary definitions of words, a conspiracy did indeed get planned and executed.

The only matter undecided is just who the players were, who the conspirators were.

Hint: they were not 19 arabs with box cutters.

a reply to: Salander

You explained it to me, but you did not prove it to me.

So when for just once will you explain your claims?

After explaining them will you attempt to prove them?

Assuming we're speaking English here, and using dictionary definitions of words, a conspiracy did indeed get planned and executed. The only matter undecided is just who the players were, who the conspirators were. Hint: they were not 19 arabs with box cutters.

So care top explain and prove who and what happened then?

Yes, the 19 hijackers weren't the only conspirators they were the executioners of the plan.

Is your hint saying like you have alluded to before that there weren't any hijackers, I mean if there were no people on the planes then there were no hijackers right?

You explained it to me, but you did not prove it to me.

OK so now for the first time, how about you explain it to us.

a reply to: InhaleExhale


My claims, for the most part, are simply disbelief in the details of the official story that you defend here.

For example, that story claims that 4 flights were hijacked that day, and that certain cell phone calls were made from those hijacked airliners. None of that can be proved, has been proved, and my knowledge of the cell phone technology of 2000 tells me those calls were impossible in the real world.

Further, there is no proof regarding the hijacking, and the plane that struck the south tower was NOT AA175. Nor was 93 present in that field in Pennsylvania.

For those of you who believe those elements to be true, I say prove them. You are claiming those elements to be true, yet you cannot prove your claims. Why should I believe false claims?

a reply to: Salander


NVM

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: micpsi

Where did I ever say the WTC pancaked? Please quote where any of my post say the WTC pancaked?

Thanks for trying to create a false argument.


Funny how I can actually reference video, and provide evidence.....
what do you reference....

Here in this linked thread is a video clip showing the inward bowing and buckling that initiated the moment of collapse.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.
www.metabunk.org...

The columns bowed inward. The strain of the 29 floors above the buckling no longer transferred the load to the foundation. The bends could not take the stress, the top 29 stories as a unit fell to the static floor below. This started the process of the upper 29 floors acting as a wrecking ball, smashing floors and floor connections. The vertical columns standing above the pile of ruble, not stacked up pile of floors, stood on end for seconds proving the floor system fails first.


I was trying to explain and use examples to show turbonium1 that any give floor of any given high rise has a load limit. If that limit is exceeded, that floor will experience failure. All to combat ignorant statements like this

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your 'massive weight' excuse is a perfect example. 'No building could ever withstand such a massive load dropped on it!!'

You can't account for NO resistance from the massive intact structural supports, directly below. Over half the buildings are intact. This cannot vanish away, like it magically morphed into balsa wood!

Steel core columns would ALWAYS offer extreme resistance against such loads. Even if an entire top half of the building smashed down on the lower half, it would offer great resistance.

All of you know that.

Your theory cannot hold up in real world situations. No example even exists in the real world, because it never could exist. It is a fantasy claim, which requires all of these so-called 'experts' to have ZERO accountability in all of these absurd conclusions.

Any collapse is based on actual structures which fail in various ways. So the cause(s) of failure will be understood, and can be physically demonstrated as the cause(s).

From any collapse, we can always replicate it. No matter how 'unique', or 'massive', the structure, it can always be replicated.

Any structure is based on the exact same physics - no exceptions.

Science always can prove the cause(s), of any collapse - no exceptions.



If I saw no proof for a theory which supported my argument, I would admit to it, and simply move along.

Because I already understand that any collapse can be proven. Replicated.

Everything boils down to one thing - proof.


When you argue the only causes were fires, and impact damage, it is simply a theory.

Saying the collapse was from the massive loads which impacted the structure below, is also a theory.


There must be an actual scientific explanation of the cause(s) for every collapse, true?


Think about how every collapse can be explained in scientific terms, now.

Think about how every collapse can be proven by physically demonstrating it.

Not by building the same massive structure again.

They replicate the exact same features, within the whole structure, that caused the collapse.

A connection point had a critical failure, which then loosened a heavy steel plate, and the plate crushed several trusses just below it, and so forth...


This can easily be proven, of course.


A theory of collapse cannot have any excuses. Either it is provable, or is not.


Not.

a reply to: Schmoe1223


John Muir Trust‏
@JohnMuirTrust
Читаю
Еще
Are you a member? We'd love to hear your wild moments: buff.ly... Please get in touch with us!

a reply to: turbonium1

Quote where I said the falling upper stories ever took out the vertical columns after the initial inward bowing by vertical columns in areas relative to the jet impacts.

I bet you can quote two or three times where I quote sources large sections of vertical columns were left standing after the complete of the floor system.

Quote where I ever said the falling upper floors sheared vertical columns outer the initial buckling. Bet bet you can quote where I cited the floor connections were sheared by over loading.

a reply to: turbonium1

Let's gauge your intellectual honesty.

Answer with a true of false. (I bet you cannot post a one word response. I bet you go on a ridiculous rant of innuendo.)

True or false, each floor of the WTC towers had a specific load limit in if that load limit was exceeded would cause structural damage or floor collapse.

True or false.....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Let's gauge your intellectual honesty.

Answer with a true of false. (I bet you cannot post a one word response. I bet you go on a ridiculous rant of innuendo.)

True or false, each floor of the WTC towers had a specific load limit in if that load limit was exceeded would cause structural damage or floor collapse.

True or false.....

True.

Now that I've answered your question, exactly as you requested....


Here's a question for you to answer, true or false...

Can you show me even one replication, or real-world example, to back up your patently absurd argument? Yes or no?

a reply to: turbonium1

What absurd argument? A floor loaded past its rated capacity may failure? And as the magnitude of the over loading increases, the faster and more catastrophic the failure?

I don't think this is quite what you want, but I thought it was interesting.

By the way? What proof do you have of a high rise building ever bright down by thermite in the first ever top down demolitions implosion of a high rise........

www.911myths.com...

Dr. Pal Chana of the British Cement Association demonstrated the relative likelihood of floor collapse in a steel versus concrete framed building, using the vivid example of the Madrid Windsor Tower fire which raged over 26 hours on 14-15 February 2005. This former landmark office block of 30 storeys featured a concrete core throughout, but with concrete columns up to the 21st floor and steel columns between the 22nd and 30th floors. Remarkably, despite the intensity and duration of the fire, the concrete floors and columns remained intact however, the steel supported floors above the 21st floor collapsed, leaving the concrete core in-situ and exposed.
www.concretefireforum.org.uk...

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

The Windsor Tower Fire, Madrid

The Damage

The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.

The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished. The estimated property loss was �72m before the renovation.

Based on the footages of available media filming, Table 2 summarises the estimated time frame for the structural collapses of the Windsor Tower.

Tehran fire: Twenty firemen killed as high-rise collapses

www.bbc.com...