For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Can you quote the individual where they believe ever aspect of the offical account? But that's not the conspiracists game! Just use innuendo to spin a narrative totally void of facts.

No, just questioning your silly conspiracy theory.

Not to mention all the firestop spray broke off the beams from the vibration of the impact. I don't really know anything though I'm a structural engineer.

originally posted by: libertytoall
Not to mention all the firestop spray broke off the beams from the vibration of the impact. I don't really know anything though I'm a structural engineer.

I doubt you would know. We hire fire stopping engineers for fire stopping and we hire structural engineers to tells what we already know lol

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

I think you have no idea what to do when someone doesn't state a theory so your system just glitched.

If a truther ever stated a coherent theory that is when my system would glitch.

You can't give us anything resembling a coherent theory. You are just another average truther.

Wait! Someone who wants a proper investigation but has no personal theory is an average truther, and someone that does hold theories is also a truther?

Do you have any other derogatory names that you could give? I feel like there might be a difference between the two.

Or do you feel that the OS is the absolute truth and anyone that doesn't believe and/or believes something else is classified as a truther?

Is this the whole either I'm with you or I'm with the terrorists ultimatum?

Nice rant and waste of time when you could lay out a specific theory, provided evidence, and cite sources.

Nice response. Not one of his questions answered.

Here's some questions... Why when both towers got hit in different positions and different heights, that they fell the exact same?

Now, I've never said free fall or footprint, but the speed of fall was pretty quick considering the amount of resistance/mass and undamaged material underneath (90 floors).

How did the beginning asymmetrical collapse of the south tower regain its symmetrical fall?

What was to account for the already enormous mushroom cloud of pulverized dust and debris appearing so close to the start and onset of collapse?

There was not enough weight from the above floors that has yet fallen down on the below mass to create enough explosive power to account for the size and speed of the photographed blast.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Lets work on Malbosia and see if your questions are answered along the way?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Can you quote the individual where they believe ever aspect of the offical account? But that's not the conspiracists game! Just use innuendo to spin a narrative totally void of facts.

Ok, so your a truther too?

Help me out here. I'm trying understand this..

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Lets work on Malbosia and see if your questions are answered along the way?

What's to work on? I have questions and instead of pointing me to an honest investigation it's fricken amateur hour here and everyone thinks they are engineers. Then an engineer comes on here as meek as a beaten puppy and can't offer squat.

This place is a three ring circus.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Lets start with floor connections and floor loading?

True or false, each floor of the towers had a specific max load rating?



True or false, exceeding load limits would result in failure of flooring components.

2WTC1andWTC2

www.fema.gov...


Floor construction typically consisted of 4 inches of lightweight concrete on 1-1/2-inch, 22-gauge non-composite steel deck. In the core area, slab thickness was 5 inches. Outside the central core, the floor deck was supported by a series of composite floor trusses that spanned between the central core and exterior wall. Composite behavior with the floor slab was achieved by extending the truss diagonals above the top chord so that they would act much like shear studs, as shown in Figure 2-6. Detailing of these trusses was similar to that employed in open-web joist fabrication and, in fact, the trusses were manufactured by a joist fabricator, the LaClede Steel Corporation. However, the floor system design was not typical of open-web-joist floor systems. It was considerably more redundant and was well braced with transverse members. Trusses were placed in pairs, with a spacing of 6 feet 8 inches and spans of approximately 60 feet to the sides and 35 feet at the ends of the central core. Metal deck spanned parallel to the main trusses and was directly supported by continuous transverse bridging trusses spaced at 13 feet 4 inches and intermediate deck support angles spaced at 6 feet 8 inches from the transverse trusses. The combination of main trusses, transverse trusses, and deck support enabled the floor system to act as a grillage to distribute load to the various columns.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Lets work on Malbosia and see if your questions are answered along the way?

Lol... Why not just answer them??

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Load rating of tower floors...

www.fema.gov...

At the exterior wall, truss top chords were supported in bearing off seats extending from the spandrels at alternate columns. Welded plate connections with an estimated ultimate capacity of 90 kips (refer to Appendix B) tied the pairs of trusses to the exterior wall for out-of-plane forces. At the central core, trusses were supported on seats off a girder that ran continuously past and was supported by the core columns. Nominal out-of-plane connection was provided between the trusses and these girders. Figures 2-7 and 2-8 illustrate this construction, and Figure 2-9 shows a cross-section through typical floor framing. Floors were designed for a uniform live load of 100 pounds per square foot (psf ) over any 200-square-foor area with allowable live load reductions taken over larger areas. At building corners, this amounted to a uniform live load (unreduced) of 55 psf.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Lets work on Malbosia and see if your questions are answered along the way?

What's to work on? I have questions and instead of pointing me to an honest investigation it's fricken amateur hour here and everyone thinks they are engineers. Then an engineer comes on here as meek as a beaten puppy and can't offer squat.

This place is a three ring circus.

Speaking of amateur hour.

Every single topic that you have brought up has been addressed.

The only three ring circus that I see is one in which you seem to think that you are the ring leader.

You care not to look up actual design specifications or actually learn as to which part of a building is designed to do what. Such as your truss "comeback" several pages ago. The trusses have multiple duties to withstand and aid in the structural integrity of the entire structure. But you don't care about that. You seem to only think that they hold up "furniture".

Your arguments and rebuttals lack attention to the details that are critical in making a building structure perform the duties that entail a full and successful structural design.

The complete ignorance in your knowledge of building design and construction and your unwillingness to look at the facts and structural design details make your arguments, which seem to go round and round a complete waste of time.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

I hate using NIST, but they outline the facts....

Is there truth movement material you can find do contradict the live load capacities list by NIST and FEMA?

www.nist.gov...

12. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren't the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?
Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

originally posted by: liejunkie01

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Lets work on Malbosia and see if your questions are answered along the way?

What's to work on? I have questions and instead of pointing me to an honest investigation it's fricken amateur hour here and everyone thinks they are engineers. Then an engineer comes on here as meek as a beaten puppy and can't offer squat.

This place is a three ring circus.

Speaking of amateur hour.

Every single topic that you have brought up has been addressed.

The only three ring circus that I see is one in which you seem to think that you are the ring leader.

You care not to look up actual design specifications or actually learn as to which part of a building is designed to do what. Such as your truss "comeback" several pages ago. The trusses have multiple duties to withstand and aid in the structural integrity of the entire structure. But you don't care about that. You seem to only think that they hold up "furniture".

Your arguments and rebuttals lack attention to the details that are critical in making a building structure perform the duties that entail a full and successful structural design.

The complete ignorance in your knowledge of building design and construction and your unwillingness to look at the facts and structural design details make your arguments, which seem to go round and round a complete waste of time.

I think your just mad because I won't put forth a theory.

And now your all "blah blah blah" about it, twitching and falling apart at the seams. Did the mafia steal some of your rivots and thin your steal and now your having a melt down?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

No I'm not mad at all.

Your posts and your demeanour tells me everything that I need to know about you.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I hate using NIST, but they outline the facts....

Is there truth movement material you can find do contradict the live load capacities list by NIST and FEMA?

www.nist.gov...

12. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren't the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?
Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

So is there a visual model of this? If it is so easy and so natural that this occurred it shouldn't be hard to display visually and have the hole process NIST requires bring the building down in 10 seconds.

Sure SOMEONE has made dramitizatio of the structural failure to show this happen in 10 seconds. Surely.

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: MALBOSIA

No I'm not mad at all.

Your posts and your demeanour tells me everything that I need to know about you.

Does it tell you that I don't buy into your silly conspiracy theory? Cause I don't.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Warning, video has cussing....
WTC close up
m.youtube.com...

9/11: North Tower Collapse (Etienne Sauret)
m.youtube.com...

-Note: this video shows that dust production was not instantaneous.
South Tower Falls, shot front of Trinity Church.
m.youtube.com...

The videos show the collapse of the towers initiated with an event that caused the buildings to buckle inward in a isolated area. There was no audible cue or visible pressure wave from demolitions.

The falling upper portion of the buildings first pushed out large amounts of smoke individuals confused for dust production. Dust production happened after a second or two, and grew in intensity.

If you watch the video of large buildings collapsing from earthquake damage, the dust production is similar in quantity.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: libertytoall
Not to mention all the firestop spray broke off the beams from the vibration of the impact. I don't really know anything though I'm a structural engineer.

I doubt you would know. We hire fire stopping engineers for fire stopping and we hire structural engineers to tells what we already know lol

I'm the inspector for all of them. I'm sure I do know what I'm talking about. And for the record, I've yet to see a construction company that's hiring engineers to do the actual work. Usually there's an architect and 1 engineer assigned to a project unless it's massive in which case you might have a team of engineers but neither way does the engineer get 'hired for fire stopping' and another group of engineers 'hired for structural projects.' That would be asinine unless you're building a shopping mall or the new apple complex and even then they would have 1 - 3 architects and 1 - 3 engineers. None of them are getting their hands dirty.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

I posted various videos of collapse initiation. Produce a theory to supersede inward bowing and buckling as outlined in this thread....

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

Then cite supporting evidence and sources....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Warning, video has cussing....
WTC close up
m.youtube.com...

9/11: North Tower Collapse (Etienne Sauret)
m.youtube.com...

-Note: this video shows that dust production was not instantaneous.
South Tower Falls, shot front of Trinity Church.
m.youtube.com...

The videos show the collapse of the towers initiated with an event that caused the buildings to buckle inward in a isolated area. There was no audible cue or visible pressure wave from demolitions.

The falling upper portion of the buildings first pushed out large amounts of smoke individuals confused for dust production. Dust production happened after a second or two, and grew in intensity.

If you watch the video of large buildings collapsing from earthquake damage, the dust production is similar in quantity.

The pictures I posted pages ago show that dust was instantaneous so stop cherry picking to back your silly conspiracy theory