Simulation shows why World Trade Center towers fell: it's the heat

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
So, I guess this is the part where you just continue to barrage me with insults, right?

No need for me to do that.

In other words, yes.

"No need" but then you happen to have been the one posting in the tone of a 2-year-old about "da troof." I thought that was intended as an insult, but I guess in addition to learning to discriminate up from down, you have dyslexia as well?

Val has already shown beyond a doubt, all pictures and relevant excerpts on this very page, that the seats on the core were not uniformly (or anything even close to uniformly) bent in a single direction. What you are looking at looks more like it happened while the columns were falling and smashing into other debris.

Originally posted by Valhall


Thank you for joining me. I have no idea why the majority of the external seats would fail in a downward direction (including being completely stripped from the external columns) while the majority of the of the inner seats remained intact and show no severe downward force.

It's stymied me for quite some time.

Do you have a tantalizing explanation for me? I hope so. Please remember - you have to keep the floor truss with the seat and the seat with the core column in your explanation...because now we have pictures that show that must be so.

Look here: 911research.wtc7.net...

The core seats have 2 -5/8" bolts only, from what I can see, correct?

The ext column seats have 2 - 5/8" bolts, a 3/8" gusset plate welded to the top chord and the column, 2 - 1" bolts holding the damper, and the occasional (?) strap holding it to the ext column.

Apply weight to a floor and it sags some, and puts these connections under tension, correct? Which will break free first?

If my belief is correct, and the core connection breaks first, there will be little to no downward bending.

The ect connection will "hold on" longer, and allow the floor to tilt, since the interior connection is now broken. And so, the seat will be bent and torn in a downward manner.

So...... like I've been saying..... the collapse progression depends on the strength of the floor connections. The columns had no part in it.....

Originally posted by bsbray11

Val has already shown beyond a doubt, all pictures and relevant excerpts on this very page, that the seats on the core were not uniformly (or anything even close to uniformly) bent in a single direction.

Yes he did. I also said that they were not similar, so there was no disagreement about that. But defending his hypothesis required him to deny that while slight, the seats are bent down.

His hypothesis about the floors and the core columns is wrong.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


The core columns were bolted and welded together, from the ground all the way up.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aa6ea9832bcd.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/262673140fa2.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So...... like I've been saying..... the collapse progression depends on the strength of the floor connections. The columns had no part in it.....

The lengths to which some people will go..

[edit on 21-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Wrong.

The core columns welded.

The ext columns were only welded AND bolted on the technical floors.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Joey Canoli]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Yes he did. I also said that they were not similar, so there was no disagreement about that. But defending his hypothesis required him to deny that while slight, the seats are bent down.

Can you guess which two assumptions you made here that stand out immediately as being wrong?

1) We were discussing the interpretation of NIST's report, not Val's "hypothesis," which I must have missed. So what did NIST say again about the seats in question? Remember the conversation on the last page? Val was asking for an explanation.

2) Val is a female. And actually the wife of Springer (a site administrator) if I'm not mistaken.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by bsbray11]

The columns WERE the building really, not incidential to it. They upheld it, and everything was connected to the core columns which WERE welded and bolted together during construction. They don't just fall away.

Those buildings should still be there. Even if fires RAGED across the their top section for days completely gutting the buildings from the impact area up.

They were made of steel, and the bulk of that welded bolted steel resided in the core group of columns. These buildings were OVER engineered by at least one whole order of magnitude. Not an earthquake, a hurricane, or FIRE could bring them down.

They were demolished, exploded - why can't people understand this, that the plane strikes were a RUSE for the entire psy-op, and I should add act of mass murder.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Originally posted by bsbray11

1) We were discussing the interpretation of NIST's report, not Val's "hypothesis," which I must have missed. So what did NIST say again about the seats in question? Remember the conversation on the last page? Val was asking for an explanation.

2) And actually the wife of Springer (a site administrator) if I'm not mistaken.

1- *Her* hypothesis is that the core columns and floors fell together, and *her* evidence of this is the core seats.

2- who cares. It doesn't make her arguments any stronger. Obviously, she realizes this, which is probably why she never would bother to mention it (guessing).

Originally posted by OmegaPoint

The columns WERE the building really, not incidential to it. They upheld it, and everything was connected to the core columns which WERE welded and bolted together during construction. They don't just fall away.

You're misinformed about a few things.

911research.wtc7.net...

"Apparently the box columns, more than 1000 feet long, were built as the towers rose by welding together sections several stories tall. "

No bolting.

The cores also didn't holdup everything. They supported ~50% of the gravity load.

Based on what you say about the floor connections, the core should have remained while they went down like vinyl records on a spindle, if anyone can remember what that is..

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
1- *Her* hypothesis is that the core columns and floors fell together, and *her* evidence of this is the core seats.

As opposed to what NIST says happened in their report, which was what again?

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Based on what you say about the floor connections, the core should have remained while they went down like vinyl records on a spindle, if anyone can remember what that is..

That kinda happened. So your observation is correct.

Remember the "spires" at the end of the collapse?

Originally posted by bsbray11
As opposed to what NIST says happened in their report, which was what again?

So you admit that you spoke out of turn?

That you had no idea what we were discussing?

That your desire to rant blinded you as to what was being discussed?

Arenyou really gonna get that paper?

Or will you whine about wasting gas and make more excuses?

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Hmm. No, I'm just trying to get you back onto the original topic of our discussion, which you are apparently avoiding like the plague now. Chicken much?

What was NIST's hypothesis with the core connection failures again?

Btw, I don't think you actually read the paper you are talking about. If you did, you didn't understand it, and you obviously don't remember what it said. There is no way you are possibly going to win an argument with me using a paper you can't even produce. So sorry that I'm not driving out to a closed college library right now. Want to get back to what we DO have in front of us right now? Or are you going to play chicken?


No more beating around the bush. What was NIST's hypothesis here again? Want to get back to defending your federal report Mr. Debunker, or do you finally concede?

[edit on 21-9-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Hmm. No, I'm just trying to get you back onto the original topic of our discussion, which you are apparently avoiding like the plague now.

Which would be creep.

And you're not gonna educate yourself and get that paper, are you?

reply to post by Joey Canoli


What was NIST's hypothesis again?

Let's see how many times in a row I will have to post this until you finally answer.

reply to post by bsbray11


Post away.

It's already aparent to everyone that you choose to remain in ignorance on the subject of creep.

Pretty standard for the TM, eh?

reply to post by Joey Canoli


What do you want me to do, seriously? Do you want me to spend $30, or do you want me to drive to a closed library? Oh, this just in: I just bought the pdf and read it, and turns out it's wrong. I would explain how but I want you to have the pdf in front of you again too before I try to explain, or else you won't have a clue what I'm talking about.

What was NIST's hypothesis again?



Man, I am honestly laughing out loud right now. You are ridiculous.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Joey Canoli

 

What do you want me to do, seriously? Do you want me to spend $30, or do you want me to drive to a closed library?

No.

I want you to take your time. Go when it's convenient.

Report back when you feel like it.

Then admit that you have no idea what you're talking about.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


So in the mean time, why not explain to us NIST's hypothesis again?