1 Chop, 2 Chop & ALL 3 Fall Down

[duplicate]

[edit on 9-1-2009 by adam_zapple]

[duplicate]

[edit on 9-1-2009 by adam_zapple]

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
With such a question... you are obviously clueless... or just trolling.

My question was quite relevant.

Your question: Why didn't the WTC towers topple like trees?

My question: What other steel-framed skyscrapers have toppled like trees?

That's a logical question. If no relevant data exists to establish an expected "tree-toppling" behavior for steel-framed skyscrapers, then your expectation is invalid and unsupported.

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
Noting the angle at which wtc2 was hit, we should have seen the top half of the building tilt and fall in the direction of the corner/side where the plane entered.

This statement indicates that you don't know much about physics. Gravity pulls objects down, not to the side. There wasn't any force to make the building tilt to the side.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Go to your nearest university and mention your concerns to a physics professor. Most would be happy to explain to you why your expectation is incorrect.

You can't possibly mean what you say...
if you do then you need to get your head examined or
you are more interested in mind games then actually the purpose of this inquiry.
... either way you should get some help.

As much as i have found this exchange was of time and energy...
at least you have given me confirmation on an insight...
that people who are full of bull embrace bull.

Your whole angle has been derailment by proxy of detour, deception and derailment.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Did you happen to catch Mr. Gage's "cardboard box" demonstration?

That alone should cause anyone with basic physics knowledge to seriously doubt Mr. Gage's abilities in that area.

Yes, I did. It was a little... painful to watch, especially when combined with the audience response. It was grandstanding for the camera and had little bearing on the theories he posed. However that demonstration was used as a device to illustrate a concept, albeit incorrectly, to the audience and not as a point for scientific debate.

Defending it? No, but something tells me that was more showmanship than an ignorance of the topic. Somehow I doubt that little demonstration will make it into any papers for peer review, and I also find it difficult to believe that someone amongst the plethora of lettered individuals at AE911 would not have pointed this out long before us.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by cogburn]

reply to post by The All Seeing I
Is it possible for enough heat to be conducted to warp portions of steel not directly exposed to fire? What temperature were beams that were still coated in fire retardant? Were temperatures that could warp those beams possible? If it were possible, what percentage of deformation would be evident in those beams? How would this deformation contribute to the overall collapse?

From earlier in this thread:
"At 600C (1100F) steel has half the strenght versus room temp, at 1000 C
(1800F) only 10% of original strenght. Steel also expands as heated -
if the ends are restrained the steel will sag and buckle. As the steel deforms out of plumb will affect the load carrying ability. "

Damn, there's that physics again.

I know it seems like I'm hopping on both sides of the discussion that has arisen from this thread, but neither the OS supporters nor CTs have provided sufficient information to back either claim.

An intellectually honest individual would tell both camps to go back to their corners and crack out a slide rule. Your task is incomplete.... and like my 6th grade math teacher told me ad nauseum... show your work.


[edit on 9-1-2009 by cogburn]

Originally posted by cogburn
reply to post by The All Seeing I

 

From earlier in this thread:
"At 600C (1100F) steel has half the strenght versus room temp, at 1000 C
(1800F) only 10% of original strenght. Steel also expands as heated -
if the ends are restrained the steel will sag and buckle. As the steel deforms out of plumb will affect the load carrying ability. "

show your work.
[edit on 9-1-2009 by cogburn]

Damn this nearly sounds verbatum to what that guy in the Harley Davidson guy said to a reporter on 9/11, who looked like he just stepped out of "Disguises are us".

Funny how before this guy was interviewed, there were actual "live" witnesses reporting secondary explosions. TV anchors (think it was Dan Rather) saying WT7 looked like a CD, firemen reporting explosions sounding like gunfire, basement workers getting thier skin blown off by explosives.

But after Harley man came in ON 9/11 ,that very day with essentially would end up as the official "story" to me is just a tad suspicious.

Who was that guy anyway, wonder what his name is and what he does for a living??? I mean the guy figured out how the buildings fell on 9/11!!!!, shouldn't he be given some type of award.

Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, neither does anything else found within the twin towers (unless you count the thermite puring out of the side of one Tower for a good 10 minutes).

But it does burn hot enough to break the steels intergrity to carry the load it was ment to? This is your argument yes? Cogburn?

Well then how do you account for balls of steel metled, and fused together?
Steel melted into a "lava like" consistancy that dozens of fireman/clean up workers, heck I even saw on videos.

What did burn hot enough to make the basements of WT1 and 2, and even 7 look like molten steel foundaries?

Originally posted by cogburn

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Did you happen to catch Mr. Gage's "cardboard box" demonstration?

That alone should cause anyone with basic physics knowledge to seriously doubt Mr. Gage's abilities in that area.

Yes, I did. It was a little... painful to watch, especially when combined with the audience response. It was grandstanding for the camera and had little bearing on the theories he posed. However that demonstration was used as a device to illustrate a concept, albeit incorrectly, to the audience and not as a point for scientific debate.

Defending it? No, but something tells me that was more showmanship than an ignorance of the topic. Somehow I doubt that little demonstration will make it into any papers for peer review, and I also find it difficult to believe that someone amongst the plethora of lettered individuals at AE911 would not have pointed this out long before us.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by cogburn]

An architect should know better than to use such a flawed demonstration to try to prove a point. This guy designs buildings?! His whole canard about the "path of most resistance" is equally ridiculous. He seems to think that when you drop an object it will always take the "path of least resistance"...somehow avoiding anything below it.

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
You can't possibly mean what you say...

?! What...I can't possibly want you to justify your expectation for the towers to topple like trees based on prior data?! Heavens, no! I should just blindly assume that your feelings are correct despite the fact that there is no data to support your conclusion?

Originally posted by The All Seeing Iif you do then you need to get your head examined or
you are more interested in mind games then actually the purpose of this inquiry.
... either way you should get some help.

As much as i have found this exchange was of time and energy...
at least you have given me confirmation on an insight...
that people who are full of bull embrace bull.

Your whole angle has been derailment by proxy of detour, deception and derailment.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Let's summarize:

Despite the fact that you can name no steel-framed skyscraper that has ever toppled like a tree, you find the WTC collapses suspect because they did NOT topple like trees.

Tell me why that makes sense to you...I really want to know.

adam... you need to either fetch a cup of coffee (wake-up) or take your riddilin (slow-down).

I have already explained why the towers should have fell like a tree ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

... Gage is basically pointing out the same thing, just in a different way.
His claim that an object will fall with the "path of least resistance", is another way of stating Newton's law of momentum conservation.

As i have been saying, there are very basic science at play here, that you boys do everything in your power to attempt to ignore and discredit.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
I have already explained why the towers should have fell like a tree ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You've given your opinion with no supporting calculations. Since we know nothing of your qualifications in this area: Take this theory down to the physics department at your local university and let me know what the profs have to say about it.

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
... Gage is basically pointing out the same thing, just in a different way.
His claim that an object will fall with the "path of least resistance", is another way of stating Newton's law of momentum conservation.

Answer me this:

If we have a 50lb dumbbell suspended 10 feet above the ground, centered above a 5' x 5' x 5' box made of plywood, according to your understanding newton's law of momentum and the "path of least resistance"....where will the dumbbell land if dropped?

[edit on 9-1-2009 by adam_zapple]

What the freakin frackin foosballs (avoiding the censors) is wrong with you?

Try dropping a set of dumbbells on top of another set of dumbbells, then we can talk.

...and speaking of dumbells and dropping...
did someone drop you on your head when you were a kid?

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
What the freakin frackin foosballs (avoiding the censors) is wrong with you?

Try dropping a set of dumbbells on top of another set of dumbbells, then we can talk.

...and speaking of dumbells and dropping...
did someone drop you on your head when you were a kid?

I guess when science isn't on your side you have to resort to personal attacks?

Humor me....you just might learn something:

If we have a 50lb dumbbell suspended 10 feet above the ground, centered above a 5' x 5' x 5' box made of plywood, according to your understanding newton's law of momentum and the "path of least resistance"....where will the dumbbell land if dropped?

Answer is so obvious it doesn't merit an answer... thus you are truly a dumbell, troll or officially lost your mind.

Now you can answer my question, dumbbells dropped on dumbbells, that also has an obvious answer... only difference between my model and yours is that mine relates to the towers, yours on the other hand is a joke.

With each progressive post of yours, it gets harder and harder to take you seriously. I find myself swearing less and laughing more.

...or maybe i totally over looked the construction of those towers... bottom half made of wood ... top half made of concrete/steel... if so then i owe you and the rest of the debunkers here, a long over due apology.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
Answer is so obvious it doesn't merit an answer... thus you are truly a dumbell, troll or officially lost your mind.

Now you can answer my question, dumbbells dropped on dumbbells, that also has an obvious answer... only difference between my model and yours is that mine relates to the towers, yours on the other hand is a joke.

A joke? Kind of like Gage and his cardboard boxes? hah! THAT was a joke.

Since you either don't know the answer to my question or are simply afraid to answer it, I'll answer it for you. The dumbbell will drop directly onto the plywood box, or the other dumbbell, or anything else that's directly between it and the ground.

That's exactly the place that gage calls "the path of most resistance".

reply to post by cogburn


How able FDNY deputy chief Vincent Dunn And Battalion chief Arthur
Scheuerman analysis of the collapse

Long article

www.icivilengineer.com...

Yes adam you are absolutely correct.

That was really brilliant how you came up with that model and result.

Amazing how it illustrates what happen on 911...
and that the OS doesn't make any sense.

This is equivalent to you running a football into your own end zone...
thank you for the free point.

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
Yes adam you are absolutely correct.

That was really brilliant how you came up with that model and result.

Gage thinks this shouldn't happen. His "path of most resistance" argument is BS.

Originally posted by The All Seeing IThis is equivalent to you running a football into your own end zone...
thank you for the free point.

Wow...this went further over your head than I thought. Seriously, take a college level physics course before you further embarrass yourself.


[edit on 9-1-2009 by adam_zapple]

reply to post by The All Seeing I

You said; "Which brings us to Occam's Razor and our 2 most prominent theories to date:
1. CT: a hybrid thermite controlled demolition
2. OS: 2 planes brought down 3 buildings due to key structural damage and fire"

How much hybrid thermite do you propose was needed?

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
So if i flip further into your Brain Operators Manual, will i find a proclamation that all CT SEs are anti-american? Seems to me that those who love their country the most expect more from their government and fellow citizens... like this CT SE explains:

One of our primary responsibilities as architects and engineers is to ensure public safety in and around our structures, and we take this seriously. It is also our responsibility as concerned American citizens to ask questions and seek honest answers. I encourage everyone to read the numerous books, technical reports and papers about the WTC; look closely at the photographs and videos; listen to the speakers with an open mind. Decide for yourself, and take a stand for what you believe. As a structural engineer I believe in the laws of physics and rely on them every day.

After much reading and studying it is obvious that NIST, FEMA and the 9/11 Commission have all fallen short of a detailed accounting of the catastrophic collapses of the three World Trade Center buildings in Manhattan on 9/11/01. A few examples of unexplained details include the "severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel" as described in Appendix C of the FEMA Building Performance Study, the complete symmetrical collapses following asymmetric structural damage and short-term fires, and the chemical signature of incendiary compounds found in the toxic WTC dust.

[edit on 6-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

You know this is why I just love the CT. So much fun to take apart and laugh at. But before that allow me to explain what this engineer failed to learn about (or wasn't taught this as aprt of his degrees) that I put in bold. He apparently forgot the part of what happened in the pile after collapses. He probably wasnt required to take a chemistry class, because those that did study the "corrosion" on the steel did not find it strange at all.
This can be found here:

www.debunking911.com...
911research.wtc7.net...

Now as there is a lot of reading, I encourage you read through this very carefully and see what so many of you CTists ignored or missed. If you still think its all bunk, please provide some evidence of it and some facts. As Seymour said, show us the math, the physics, the chemistry, the metallurgy, the science as to why this explanation is wrong.