It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
That thread was specifically about collapse continuation. He stated that he agrees with his maths, etc. No where does he say that he disagrees with the conclusion that the collapse would continue, that I can find. Nowhere has he stated that "the collapse defied physics by collapsing through the path of most resistance", or any other similar stupidity.
However, he clearly states that he disagrees with NIST's initiation. This is clearly a different scenario than continuation.
So again, I'll ask. What in your c.v. would trump the collective experience of those that have clearly demonstrated expertise?
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You sir, are a loser.
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Donny 4 million
Boy Donny, do you have a LOT to catch up on. Like try reading into the official fire exposure limit for fire-proofing. Usually most are rated for a few hours. NOT for 7 hours. Also, some was knocked off the beams on impact from debris from the South Tower collapse.
also there was no real firefighting effort later in the day since there was no hope for the building. And lets not forget damage to one critical beam. The rest was thermal expansion and creep of the steel beams exposed to fire. Donny, please if you are going to act incredulous, then please at least be SOMEWHAT informed of the facts.
Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Your back paddle is working overtime here again.
So, I guess you can prove that one particular beam was melted by fire?
Please apply all those previous pages of scientific knowledge to that one beam. Tell us step by step how it got so melted. Should be simple. One beam one very precise scientific explanation.
thanks in advance
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You're all over the map, mate. Try reading for context. The discussion was clearly about 1 and 2, and now you're bringing up TE, which isn't a major part of that collapse scenario.
You are a delight. Do you read for context? You have already been corrected a few times so let me jump on the bandwagon. The discussion, as I followed it, was about NIST and their misrepresentation of natural laws. You needed some clarification and 'thermal expansion' was raised as an example. Did I miss something here? Now that your assumptions have been settled and things explained and re-explained to you, you try to just wave off the entire concept of failed physics in the NIST report. Interesting tactic. I cannot wait to see where it goes.
Originally posted by GenRadek
Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Your back paddle is working overtime here again.
So, I guess you can prove that one particular beam was melted by fire?
Please apply all those previous pages of scientific knowledge to that one beam. Tell us step by step how it got so melted. Should be simple. One beam one very precise scientific explanation.
thanks in advance
Again, enough with the incredulity.
NIST has traced the structural failure to a key transfer beam that was damaged and exposed to high temps. Who said anything was melted? Way to read things that arent there. Reading comprehension is a must in today's society. Especially when trying to have a debate or understanding facts, or what is written. For some reason, its always lacking in the "truther" camp.
So I take it, you have never bothered doing any real research outside the conspiracy world have you? No surprise.
The combination of impact damage, and fires that went pretty much unchecked for 7 hours, was more than enough to warrant full structural failure and collapse. The fact that fire-proofing is rated for only a few hours should be a clue, because that is based on the understanding that there will be a firefighting effort with water to put the fire out. Once the limit is up the steel is at the mercy of the fires. Steel loses integrity from the heat and begins to succumb to a property of steel exposed to fire which is known as creep. It is the deformation of the steel when exposed to high temps, which does not need to be melted, but exposed to temps of 400C. Seeing as regular fires can easily exceed this, the steel was under these conditions for 7 whole hours.
Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Oh! So now your saying silverstine is a liar for saying Pull It just before SEVEN is demolished.
Originally posted by bsbray11
what collapse model he is basing his math on is beyond me
I don't change my opinions simply because someone disagrees with me. I change them based on why they disagree, and whether or not I personally see any sense in it.
You need to learn how to conduct a civil argument
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Oh! oh! I got it teach!!! Why are they coated in fireproofing?
I got it, I got it!!! SO buildings like BUILDING SEVEN won't fall down.
AM I right, am I right teach
No, you're incorrect.
They get fire protection so that the fire brigades have enough time to go fight the fires before the buildings are in danger of collapse.
Originally posted by GenRadek
Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Oh! So now your saying silverstine is a liar for saying Pull It just before SEVEN is demolished.
*headslap*
Lordy lordy lordy.
What the heck did you do? Just come off a conspiracy site, and regurgitate the same garbage word for word as if you know all? You are not really up to date on facts, are you?
LS was speaking to the fire commander on site. He was talking about how the building is not going to be saved. So LS was talking about pulling the firefighters out of WTC7 so that no more lives would be put in jeopardy.
At best you are poorly informed of the facts, at the worst you are the liar for perpetuating this outright lie.
I dont recall seeing cables attached to WTC7 prior to the "pulling". Also I wonder why so many firefighters at WTC7 mentioned getting PULLED from 7. gee because they did get PULLED from 7 by the commander?
Originally posted by Donny 4 million
From one side of your mouth you say there were Fireman in SEVEN.
From your backside you say there were no Fireman for seven hours.
Take a look back there, smarty pants they are on fire.
I wouldn't call for a NEW YORK CITY Fireman for help to put them out.
Your headslap might not be from yourownself .
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Are you familiar with upper and lower bounding? Szamboti's paper was regarding an upper bound case that Bazant explored. In this context, upper bound = the maximum theoretical resistance to collapse progression that could be hypothesisized. Therefore, there are no, as in zero, other models that could offer more resistance to collapse progression.
Now, this twoof agrees with this upper bound case while, according to you, he at the same time believes that more energy was needed. If what you say is true, then he has either contradicted himself, or has changed his mind after examining and/or being made aware of Bazant's paper. Both cannot be true.
While it's commendable that you don't listen to just ayone, I personally give more weight to those with demonstrated expertise. As far as WHY they disagree with troofers.... they have shown it with facts.
He lost. Therefore......
Originally posted by GenRadek
I dont recall seeing cables attached to WTC7 prior to the "pulling".
Originally posted by twitchy
ABSG-QRVZ-WRWG-7PGL-36Z5
No cables, but oddly enough, I do recall however that after insurance payyee Larry Silverstien said Pull it, and after someone had warned NYC Mayor Ghouliani to evacuate the building because it was GOING to collapse, the BBC and CNN both reported the building's collapse (Look for yourself), BEFORE it collapsed. I'm guessing that you also know full well that 'Pull it' is also term widely used in controlled demolitions for bringing down the structure.
The dude says pull it, the news reports that it HAS COLLAPSED, Rich and Powerful people are told to get out of the building, then this happens...
Originally posted by mmiichael
The reason Truthers get no respect is they repeat and repeat and repeat the same disinformation factoids again and again and again.
Originally posted by GenRadek
Originally posted by turbofan
Originally posted by CameronFox
This looks like it is going to be rather informative:
At the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center in New Mexico, the remains a steel column in an open field after of a thermite test.:
Oh wow, you are just going to swallow this info up without raising any questions?
Did you happen to see the youtube video of some thermite eating through
and engine block which is much more dense than that piece of steel in
your photo?
I'll be watching this 'documentary'...
Hey turbo, refer to the MYthbusters episode of thermite. Why couldnt 1,000lbs of thermite cut through a pickup truck?
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Joey Canoli
Hey Joey, you might be interested in this video on progressive collapse:
two very interesting videos showing progressive collapse, without explosives. Feel free to use these at your pleasure!