| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Double standards | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 5 2008, 04:39 PM (2,616 Views) | |
| beantownfan247 | Jun 26 2009, 10:20 PM Post #26 |
|
Here you go sir. I knew I had a link somewhere. Here is one http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm Download Chp. 5 <~~~~ Slow Download, large file. |
 |
 
|
| ULTIMA1 | Jun 26 2009, 11:36 PM Post #27 |
|
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable. The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Edited by ULTIMA1, Jun 26 2009, 11:38 PM.
|
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Jun 27 2009, 11:12 AM Post #28 |
|
What about Landing gear?? What about engines?? Both of those engines are quite tough. The landing gear is designed to hold 100,000 tons of direct force energy. Could they have damaged something?? I bet so. |
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Jun 27 2009, 11:15 AM Post #29 |
|
BTW, when they say that a building is designed to hold up to 130 MPH winds, it means the ENTIRE building. Take this into consideration. My house is designed for 140 MPH winds. It has withstood 120 mph winds not too long ago (Hurricane Charley) and it survived fairly well. But, if a jet crashed into it, would the jet not hurt my house?? Yes, it would. Because a building is designed to spread a load over a large area. Its called "Sheer". While a building can withstand a hurricane, if we were to focus the entire potential energy of a hurricane on one small section of a house, it will not withstand it. Same with WTCs. |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Jun 27 2009, 11:20 AM Post #30 |
|
Not even a comparison as houses aren't made out of steel massive steel columns. Your post above shows your lack of knowledge/comprehension of building contstruction. |
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Jun 28 2009, 10:22 PM Post #31 |
|
Its called an analogy. Ok, I use a different one. My house as a whole can withstand (by design) winds of 140 MPH. Now, if I took all the energy my house could withstand, and focused it into just one single part, say, a corner, it would not hold. Another way of explaining this. A single stand of rope on its own, is very weak. Now, take hundreds of strands and weave them together, its very strong. Now do you understand?? BTW, yes, my house has about 1500 LF of steel built into it. I am an engineer, and live in a hurricane prone area. |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Jul 10 2009, 12:22 PM Post #32 |
|
This is what the structural engineer David Scott had to say when speaking to colleagues at the Institution of Structural Engineers in the UK. Perimeter columns designed to endure hurricanes, Scott says, were loaded only to "about 10% of their ultimate capacity" in the gentle breeze on 9/11. The Twin Towers were overbuilt to prevent office workers from getting seasick on windy days. Dennis Kollar, P.E., said "There's so much redundancy....The building has to be stiff enough so it doesn't sway." Kollar cites a claim by the Towers' engineers Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson that even with all the columns on one side cut, and several around the two corners, the Tower would still withstand 100 mile-per-hour winds. MM |
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Jul 19 2009, 11:57 PM Post #33 |
|
Winds- Yes!! Fires- Nope, sorry. Why do you think that they spray fire retardant on steel, if the steel cannot be compromised by fire??? Because its fun to do??? |
|
|
|
| T3QuillAMocKINGbird | Jul 20 2009, 03:03 AM Post #34 |
|
You still haven't researched Kevin Ryan and the UL tests? That gives alot of explanation to how they ran tests and why NIST had to throw the test out to make their model collapse, along with errors in floor plan info too. The columns that did have fireproofing left on them are not affected by the fire and are capable of holding the partial load of any weakened segments. Again the designers stated that you could take the corner out at the bottom perpendicularly from the center and still have the building stand. So take that into consideration as much of the columns are still intact and fireproofed. Another purpose of Fireproofing is to stop the spread of fire not just to protect the integrity of Steel that would also act as an enormous heat sink. The steel was also a higher grade than most steel and forged to rid it of impurities that weaken most steel. |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Jul 20 2009, 07:03 AM Post #35 |
|
Do you have enough question marks at the end of your last sentence??? I think they use fire retardant on steel, not out of fear that without it a building might collapse from an intense fire, but because it greatly reduces the risk of structural steel damage. The cost of repairing a floor with intact steel compared to one where the steel has been distorted by lack of fire protection would be astronomical. MM |
|
|
|
| KenyonG | Jul 20 2009, 12:17 PM Post #36 |
|
You are basically saying that fire cannot weaken steel? You think that no matter how long it burns are how high the temperature is, a fire will never cause a steel beam to loose its ability to do what it was put there to do? They sell physics books for people like you. |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Jul 20 2009, 02:57 PM Post #37 |
|
Where did I say that? Of course fire can weaken steel. Do I believe it's reasonable to accept that the collapse of the 110-story South Tower, 56 minutes after the aircraft impact, was the result of heat-related floor truss perimeter column pulling"? And, that it's reasonable to accept the collapse even though the WTC floor fires were characterized as office cubicle contents fires, gradually spreading forward, cubicle by cubicle, each with only enough fuel for 20 minutes? And that the NIST, who determined that most of the insulation had to be removed so their computer model would give them the result they sought, judged that there was nothing incredible about testing foam removal by spraying it on plywood, and then blasting it with a shotgun. Can you explain how the fire was so widespread and intense that the intact supporting columns collapsed uniformly across the impact floor and in the time it takes to "snap your fingers!"? MM Edited by Miragememories, Jul 20 2009, 05:00 PM.
|
|
|
|
| espresso | Jul 20 2009, 09:15 PM Post #38 |
|
The same reason the supports of this walkway collapsed in a similar fashion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse Google "Cascading failure" Edited by espresso, Jul 20 2009, 09:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
| shevy19 | Aug 3 2009, 03:02 AM Post #39 |
|
If you think the WTC collapsed because of Explosives your wrong. The landmark tower a 30-35 story building was demolished which took four months to rig so how do you rig two 110 story buildings in a few weeks. Second a controlled demolition looks much different then how any of the WTC collapsed. This is the landmark tower being demolished and it looks very different. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ And third thermite never would be used in a controlled demolition as it isn't an explosive. |
|
|
|
| TDX | Aug 3 2009, 08:56 AM Post #40 |
|
Uh, here we go: 1)The landmark tower was different, you can't just compare it like that. 2) the drilling and the planting of the charges took minimal time, other jobs like window removal took the 4 months. 3) if you belive that it would take years to prepare WTC, then why do you think that it collapsed because of the fires? That's a logical falacy, kid ( do you want to give me a ban?). 4) controlled demolition means to demolish building intentionaly = you can do it whatever way you do it, you can use tens of procedures. 5) the towers should look like collapse 6) it isn't explosive, but thermite can definitely weaken the steel structure..better than fire |
|
|
|
| espresso | Aug 3 2009, 11:47 AM Post #41 |
|
All controlled demolitions are different. Can you name one that would be a valid comparison?
How much time? How do you know?
Which fallacy would that be? |
|
|
|
| TDX | Aug 3 2009, 02:28 PM Post #42 |
|
The veringe technique for building demolition. It's a mechanism, which can not be recognized as superficial/ unnatural http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE just replace the hydraulic jaws with thermite/whatever you want I don't remeber the exact nuber, but I think that it was around 4000 charge in less than a week or so.......... And remeber that NIST blames the collapse of the towers on cca 10 missing core columns and cca 40 missing perimeter columns i.e. the towers should go after 50 charges/cuts for WTC7 it's one collapsed column..(1 charge) ___________ ad fallacy- You belive that 50 missing columns (due to aircraft impact/heat) took the towers down........so you have to admit that even one charge would make demolition..because ...51 missing columns, right? If you belive in natural collapse, then you can't argue about the number of charge/time to prepare the demolition. |
|
|
|
| tedscotland | Aug 3 2009, 02:34 PM Post #43 |
|
having watched programmes about controlled demolition companies and their work, something became apparant quite quickly. And that is that if any of the wiring looms connecting the explosives, which was needed in order for them to go off in sequence, failed the building would probably not collapse. So if you hold the belief that the towers were brought down by explosives going off in sequence, i would have thought the last thing the people responsible would want would be a boeing 757 crashing into the building, which would in all probability wipe out carefully planted wiring or explosives. |
|
|
|
| TDX | Aug 3 2009, 03:05 PM Post #44 |
|
Yeah, that would me miserable fail, because another plane hitting the building would be unfortunate  ...I mean..both planes were 767.......Look, there are 1E510 ways to accomplish the demolition, even if godzilla you can have a beacon on a floor, you know where the plane will crash..,,,,the core columns in those heights were H columns, which offered cover against the aircraft debris (armor).............. you don't need wires, simple radio signal and clcoks inside the charge would suffice......" I see plane..ok, on my mark......bum...all charge are activated and the clocks inside the charge are running the temperatures inside the core were low, so no need to wory about the temperatures and yes, you could some accelerometr at the very top with radio..the same story The point is that accomplishing the demolition wouldn't be that problematic, you only have to think a little bit./ad the point applies - if you belive in natural collapse, than you can't attack the time or technology of th demolition/* |
|
|
|
| espresso | Aug 3 2009, 03:16 PM Post #45 |
|
It's a mechanism, which can not be recognized as superficial
So you believe NIST when they say it would only take 50 column failures? If no: Then it would require way more than 50 charges If yes: Then fire/impact damage was responsible for the collapse
No. Its an interesting idea but if it were true fire & impact are still over 98% responsible for the collapse. |
|
|
|
| tedscotland | Aug 3 2009, 03:37 PM Post #46 |
|
Godzilla? "accomplishing the demolition wouldn't be that problematic" Really? Are you a demolition expert? Bringing down two of the worlds tallest buildings, not that problematic? |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Aug 3 2009, 06:41 PM Post #47 |
|
here we go again with the wire and how long it would take to rig it...  what's next ?...somebody would have noticed someone planting explosives... For all I care these towers could have been built with thermite pre-installed...noone will know untill/or if new info surfaces...but this NWO, TPTB thing has been in the works for a long time...the destruction of these buildings and the use of a proxy terror group took our freedoms and privacy down in one fell swoop..easier than you think if you have the money and the motive.. |
|
|
|
| TDX | Aug 4 2009, 02:10 AM Post #48 |
|
Well, I don't have to be demo expert, nobody has to. If a plane can do that, than a few additional charges will bring the tower donw, ok? As I've already explained, you can't logically argue that it would not be possible when you belive that it was all due to the planes.
|
|
|
|
| TDX | Aug 4 2009, 02:13 AM Post #49 |
|
That's what I call Ifail. We don't have evidence for the 50 missing columns (NIST). It wouldn't be responsible for 98% of the collapse.Imagine that the building would still stand if 50 cuts, but - collapse if 51 cuts. Is the charge responsible only for 2% of the demolition? No. It's 100% percent responsible for the collapse/demolition.
|
|
|
|
| espresso | Aug 4 2009, 01:12 PM Post #50 |
|
There's a problem with your logic. Suppose 51 columns must fail to initiate collapse, and let's say that 50 columns were taken out with explosives first then 1 more column failed due to fire. According to your logic would the fire be 100% responsible for the collapse? If 51 columns must fail in order to initiate a collapse then the cause of each of those failures are responsible for the collapse. No single column failure can initiate a collapse by itself....50 other columns must also fail. You also failed to answer my question in the previous post: Do you believe NIST when they say it would only take 50 column failures to cause collapse? |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
4:09 PM Nov 9
