|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 29, 2013 7:56:26 GMT -5
"This paper discusses the failure due to fires of a number of steel-framed buildings and other structures that have been cited as evidence that the World Trade Center buildings that “collapsed” on 9/11 could well have done so because of damage and fire alone. Of the buildings cited by those who adhere to the official story of 9/11, almost none are high-rise skyscrapers, a point brought out by the author. This paper provides a solid basis and a photographic reference for rebutting the claims of the official story of fire and damage-induced collapse of the World Trade Center buildings." - John D. Wyndham www.scientificmethod911.org/docs/Other_Collapses_Apr27_2013.pdfby Adam Taylor, contributing writer for www.ae911truth.org and 911debunkers.blogspot.com
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 29, 2013 8:29:26 GMT -5
Some steel buildings have no fireproofing, the parts of the windsor tower that did collapse for example had no fireproofing and collapsed early on.
Some steel buildings have both active and passive fireproofing systems, the world trade centre buildings did, but this was all damaged in the plane crashes.
Some steel buildings have intumescent paint on steel which bubbles up in heat forming a char layer which insulates steel and delays it from heating up and weakening. Others have steelwork protected by spray foam or concrete (concrete performs best).
The height of any building is pretty much irrelevant it is the effect of load upon a structural member and it's resistance to the effect of load which is reduced by heating so it's not the height that's important it's the weight.
Bending moments can destroy any load bearing structure, they can take place progressively beginning with the failure of one support, weight then redistributes to other supports but if weight is too great they'll fail too. Say 200 tonnes supported across eight columns each supporting 25 tonnes of that 200 tonnes, one fails, now seven columns support 28.571 tonnes each, another column fails, six columns now support 33.33 tonnes two more fail now four columns support 50 tonnes each, and if eight couldn't support 25 tonnes each what do you think will happen to the four supporting 50 tonnes each ?
When the Twin Towers were hit columns were severed, fireproofing was damaged and load was redistributed across the remainder of the columns in the impact zones, each one had to support part of the weight that severed columns had previously supported and then in the fire, their load bearing capacity was destroyed by the heating effect of the fire. The metallurgy of the structure was altered. Floor trusses buckled and failed, columns attached to the trusses bowed inwardly. Each column was overloaded and weak. This is not a theory, this is a fact.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 29, 2013 8:42:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 29, 2013 9:21:36 GMT -5
"When the Twin Towers were hit columns were severed, fireproofing was damaged and load was redistributed across the remainder of the columns in the impact zones, each one had to support part of the weight that severed columns had previously supported and then in the fire, their load bearing capacity was destroyed by the heating effect of the fire. The metallurgy of the structure was altered. Floor trusses buckled and failed, columns attached to the trusses bowed inwardly. Each column was overloaded and weak. This is not a theory, this is a fact."
No, it's your opinion. But even if it's 100% true for a small fraction of the building, the vast majority of the tower was unaffected.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 29, 2013 9:26:32 GMT -5
And your qualifications are? Oh yes, you claim to be a pilot.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 29, 2013 9:37:32 GMT -5
"When the Twin Towers were hit columns were severed, fireproofing was damaged and load was redistributed across the remainder of the columns in the impact zones, each one had to support part of the weight that severed columns had previously supported and then in the fire, their load bearing capacity was destroyed by the heating effect of the fire. The metallurgy of the structure was altered. Floor trusses buckled and failed, columns attached to the trusses bowed inwardly. Each column was overloaded and weak. This is not a theory, this is a fact."No, it's your opinion. No it's physics mate. If you place a concrete breeze-block on your foot it wouldn't do damage, if you dropped it even two feet onto your foot it would hurt. That is because the breeze-block now has kinetic energy added to it's mass and has hit your foot like a hammer: Force = Mass x Acceleration. When the upper floors of the twin towers fell kinetic energy was added to their mass and they hit the floors below like a hammer. F = M x A simple.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 29, 2013 9:42:22 GMT -5
And your qualifications are? Oh yes, you claim to be a pilot. BTEC Civil Engineering. City and Guilds Electronics. Open University Maths. BGA solo gliding certificate. What are your qualifications may I ask ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 29, 2013 9:48:49 GMT -5
"No it's physics mate."
Part of your claim is physics and part is your opinion of what happened. That's not physics, it's your opinion, mate. Physics is physics, what actually happened is what actually happened, it's not necessarily your version of what happened.
"If you place a concrete breeze-block on your foot it wouldn't do damage, if you dropped it even two feet onto your foot it would hurt. That is because the breeze-block now has kinetic energy added to it's mass and has hit your foot like a hammer: Force = Mass x Acceleration.
When the upper floors of the twin towers fell kinetic energy was added to their mass and they hit the floors below like a hammer. F = M x A simple."
9/11 is always "simple" for you. What you're describing is a pancake collapse and your opinion of what happened. So you're contradicting NIST (you said it was 100% accurate) who dismissed the pancake collapse theory because the video evidence didn't support it. They instead redefined it as a "gravitational collapse", which is a generic term for any kind of collapse. A collapse caused by controlled demolition is also a gravitational collapse.
I know you like to claim that physics = your opinion and your opinion = physics but that's not the case.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 29, 2013 9:54:24 GMT -5
There is photographic proof of pancaking. Parts of three floors crushed together. It wasn't globally pancaking as debris fell away also.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 29, 2013 10:17:34 GMT -5
That's your opinion that it's photographic proof of pancaking and that it's parts of three floors crushed together. NIST disagrees with you as to the "pancaking", there goes your 100%.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 29, 2013 10:55:09 GMT -5
No mate it's facts as determined logically by study of the laws of physics. I'm explaining it more simply than NIST because you haven't had the background training you'd need to fully understand their reports. The floors pancaked, the outer columns didn't. See? The upper block fell onto the floors below which fell onto the floors below those. And in this, there are three distinct layers with steel wedged between concrete: On the surface of that piece of debris there's paper.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 29, 2013 11:26:33 GMT -5
"No mate it's facts as determined logically by study of the laws of physics."
It's still your opinion, nothing more.
"I'm explaining it more simply than NIST because you haven't had the background training you'd need to fully understand their reports."
Says the alleged pilot who hasn't had the background training needed to fully understand anything. Your "simplistic explanations" are just that, simplistic.
"The floors pancaked, the outer columns didn't."
I know, you contradict NIST and yourself (when you said you agree 100% with NIST). So the building pancaked but the outer columns stayed upright, disintegrated, were blown out, melted, what? The video shows EVERYTHING went down at the exact same rate at the same time and tons of material peeled away like a banana, some steel columns weighing more than 50 tons shot out at speeds upwards of 70 MPH and imbedded themselves in adjacent buildings. Some material shot down at speeds exceeding free fall speed. That's a "pancake collapse"?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 29, 2013 15:38:54 GMT -5
It's a partial pancake collapse. The floors themselves pancaked. The outer columns did not pancake. The core columns did not pancake, the floor slabs pancaked. The stills I showed earlier in this thread show the outer columns of WTC 2 bent inwardly at the impact zone in which fire and structural damage had taken place, the ones lower down were flung out when the bolts holding the structure together were stripped and sheared by the force of the upper block hitting them.
The mass of the upper block was immense, and struck with enough force to fling those spandrels (not individual columns) and burning debris away from the twin towers as they fell, it is this that did the structural damage to WTC7 and what set WTC7 on fire. There's enough evidence out there to prove what I'm saying but you're too blind to see it and too proud to look. You've already decided that it was an 'inside job controlled demolition' and you're willing to ignore all facts that prove otherwise.
Steven 'thermite' Jones has never approached a real science journal to have his theories peer reviewed. Everyone who has tried to prove Jones's theory has failed.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 29, 2013 16:58:03 GMT -5
"It's a partial pancake collapse."
I see, so part of it was pancake and the other part was what, bacon? I understand. NIST, that 100% honest as the day is long entity, still disagrees with you.
"The outer columns did not pancake. The core columns did not pancake, the floor slabs pancaked."
So what happened to the columns? The videos all show every single part of the building disintegrating top down at the exact same time and same rate, after the chunk on top fell over and disintegrated.
"The stills I showed earlier in this thread show the outer columns of WTC 2 bent inwardly at the impact zone in which fire and structural damage had taken place, the ones lower down were flung out when the bolts holding the structure together were stripped and sheared by the force of the upper block hitting them."
You don't need to explain in your terms what I saw for myself. I have eyes just like you do. I saw the entire collapse on video, in real time and in slow motion repeatedly with quite a bit of detail.
"There's enough evidence out there to prove what I'm saying but you're too blind to see it and too proud to look."
You don't need to continue to bulls**t me, haven't you spewed enough bulls**t yet? Very little you ever post is "proof" of anything, it's usually theory and opinion.
"You've already decided that it was an 'inside job controlled demolition' and you're willing to ignore all facts that prove otherwise."
At least if you're going to explain to me what I decided, try to at least state something somewhat similar to what I decided, not what you think I decided. You have it ass backwards. It was the facts, the science, the logic and common sense that made me conclude the collapses were not natural. You can add to that list the laws of probability. I have not seen any other facts or logic that disputes that the collapses were not natural. The 2+ seconds of free fall for WTC7 was enough to seal the deal but it was far from the only irrefutable FACT. A structure cannot free fall unless there's NOTHING to stop it (that's elementary physics as postulated by Newton himself). Even Shyam Sunder agrees with that.
"Steven 'thermite' Jones has never approached a real science journal to have his theories peer reviewed."
That's your opinion. He and several other experts working with him documented what they discovered and wrote a peer reviewed paper on it. It was independently corroborated and no one so far has been able to show that there was anything wrong or fallacious about what he discovered. Steven Jones himself has invited anyone who wants to review his work to try to do so if they can. The beauty of the scientific method is that it should be reproducible given the same materials and parameters. That's something that wasn't part of NIST's methodology, they refused to provide anyone with what they had in order to peer review their work.
"Everyone who has tried to prove Jones's theory has failed."
What Jones discovered in the 4 independent WTC dust samples wasn't theory, it was EVIDENCE.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 30, 2013 4:28:20 GMT -5
The other part of the progressive collapse was outwards as the twin towers showered debris away from their footprints. Bolts were sheared, spandrels were flung away propelled by the tonnes of dynamic force smashing down on them. What Jones discovered in 4 independent WTC dust samples was Iron oxide (which is what one would expect to find because iron oxide is rust), steel is an alloy of iron and carbon so of course iron rich particles would be found. When attempts were made to verify his theory by cutting steel with nano thermite, his followers failed, they even tried to cut a horizontal beam with it, and FAILED. Wikipedia Pay attention: If Jones has had even one of his papers PEER REVIEWED in a genuine science journal, pray tell me brother, WHAT JOURNAL would that be eh mucker? Those fires in the WTC's had enough fuel in the forms of carpet and wood and plastic to carry on burning and burning and burning. Photo taken 10/10/2001 by Michael Rieger www.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=4268Water sprays in use on debris pile: Any idea what water does to steel ? It increases the rate at which it RUSTS, and on hot steel can cause an exothermic reaction which produces Fe3O4 and hydrogen. Steelworkers cutting WTC columns: That's how the columns were cut neatly, not thermite. Now, see how all these bolts on the column middle right are pointing downwards ? That's because those bolts were stripped and pulled down as the building fell. Oxy-Acetylene cutting torches in use on WTC debris: As for "molten steel": The claw which lifted this glowing substance out is also made of steel, so it too would melt if that glowing substance were molten steel. More evidence of pancaking of floors:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 30, 2013 7:38:44 GMT -5
"What Jones discovered in 4 independent WTC dust samples was Iron oxide"
No, he discovered gold and made a fortune selling it. All those who peer reviewed his work knew it was iron oxide but they kept their mouths shut because Jones paid them off.
"which is what one would expect to find"
Naw, he expected to find diamonds and was thoroughly disappointed.
"When attempts were made to verify his theory by cutting steel with nano thermite, his followers failed, they even tried to cut a horizontal beam with it, and FAILED."
So they brought in a witch doctor and he danced, sang and played with colored stones and all of sudden, the beam was cut in half. What a miracle!
"If Jones has had even one of his papers PEER REVIEWED in a genuine science journal, pray tell me brother, WHAT JOURNAL would that be eh mucker?"
Mucker? I had to look that up. In Ireland, it's a friend, on a farm it's someone who shovels s**t, that would be someone just like you, no? What paper? Toilet paper of course. That's what you need to wipe s**t, right?
"Any idea what water does to steel ?"
I think it makes it wet, right mucker?
"That's how the columns were cut neatly, not thermite."
Don't lie, I'm sure I saw a pair of scissors in the picture.
"The claw which lifted this glowing substance out is also made of steel, so it too would melt if that glowing substance were molten steel."
So then it must be orange ice cream, right?
See I can be just as good a mucker as you with practice. What is your point? Do you really think your latest post convinced me of anything other than that you just posted more of your made up bulls**t? Do you think if you show me a bunch of pictures and videos and explain what you want me to see I'll just accept what you see and reject what I see?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 30, 2013 8:30:29 GMT -5
He may have discovered Fools Gold and made a fortune from people like you, but he did not find Gold, he found Rust and misrepresented the facts.
In the remains a building made of Aluminium and Steel, it's not exactly surprising to find oxides of Iron and Aluminium in the debris.
No the glowing substance must be a substance other than Steel which glows at a lower temperature. Could be Aluminium or Copper, Copper melts at 1000 degrees C Aluminium melts at 660.03 c so would be red hot a long time before that. It can't be molten Steel as the Steel claw would be heated up and glowing.
In comparison during controlled demolitions a demolition charge blasts through Steel so fast it remains cold to the touch. Thermites are incendiaries, they do not burn for weeks/months. Only the building's contents could have burned for so long.
Because the buildings contents were burning, water was sprayed on the debris & Water makes Steel rusty. Rust is Iron Oxide and Jones is a divvy.
In Yorkshire, Mucker is a slang term for mate aka friend as are the terms "me old" "old love" and "old son". I'm glad I haven't said Sither to you, you'd never understand that one.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 30, 2013 8:48:09 GMT -5
"He may have discovered Fools Gold and made a fortune from people like you"
People like me haven't paid him 1 penny. I don't believe he can make a "fortune" with that so you're making things up as usual. On the other hand, the military industrial complex and their puppets in government have collectively made trillions because of 9/11, partially thanks to people like you. People such as Larry Silverstein made billions and he's still looking for another payday. Personally, I hope Jones is making enough money to keep going, same with people such as Richard Gage. Without people like these, many would have no idea about the reality of 9/11. They are absolutely crucial and they're relentless.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 30, 2013 11:24:34 GMT -5
They take donations. Donations pay for staff. People LIKE you have been deceived by these frauds and some pay money to support their work. Dylan Avery earned enough from loose change to not have to do a real job anymore. Richard Gage earns a salary from his ae911'truth' organisation.
Check your facts mate, Larry Silverstein LOST a fortune because of the terrorist attacks. The empty unoccupied site costs him $10m a month in rent to the New York Port Authority.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 30, 2013 12:29:15 GMT -5
"They take donations. Donations pay for staff."
Good.
"People LIKE you have been deceived by these frauds"
How much did Shyam Sunder get paid to create his cartoon? How much did the 9/11 Commissioners get paid to push their lies? The real frauds earn a living deceiving people while stealing from their hard earned income. They're also the most dangerous terrorists on the planet. They use 9/11 as a pretext for genocide and racketeering. And they use people like you to push their subhuman filth.
"Dylan Avery earned enough from loose change to not have to do a real job anymore"
If it's true, he deserves it. Without people like him, many of us would be clueless.
"Larry Silverstein LOST a fortune because of the terrorist attacks."
Tsk, tsk, poor guy. If only that were true, the guy should be in jail instead of enjoying his billions in profit.
How much more s**t are you going to continue to shovel? Don't you get tired of making up things as you go? What's your real agenda? Do you actually believe your next post is finally going to be the one that convinces me? Why don't you do something real about 9/11, like questioning what you don't believe is true about the official fairy tale? There must be something, you don't really expect me to believe that there is not one single thing that smells for you about the official story. As ridiculous as some of your posts are on the subject, I find you intelligent enough to be able to see at least one lie. Unless of course you're just pretending because you have some sort of agenda. If that's the case, then of course, you'll make believe you don't see anything wrong with the official story.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 30, 2013 18:37:28 GMT -5
Sorry but you are clueless, because of your liar heroes.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 30, 2013 20:34:01 GMT -5
Sorry but you are clueless, because of your liar heroes. Great answer to my questions. It's really pathetic that all you did was answer the first two questions. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to know that the official story is riddled with problems. In fact, the majority of the 9/11 Commission members admitted that and you know full well they did. But you won't budge an inch and all you can do is come up with an incredibly lame statement, rather than risk pointing out even one thing you have a problem with. It's ok, given all your posts, I really didn't expect you to and I fully expected something similar to the above quote. You can play the pretend game all you want but you are quite transparent, to me anyway.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 1, 2013 2:47:43 GMT -5
The conspiracy theories are the most questionable of all.
The controlled demolition theory has ZERO scientific evidence to back it up, it's all based on hearsay and "it looks like", there's no true forensic evidence for it either. Rust my dear friend is not Thermite. And Jones evasions are pathetic, he dare not send his thermite thesis to a true science journal for peer review, he effectively got himself kicked out of Brigham Young University for failing to follow scientific process, and invented a pretend journal to wrap his thesis in a false blanket of credibility that real scientists can see through.
No mate the conspiracy theories are riddled with holes, not least a failure to understand logistical realities, or the impracticalities of going into three buildings in which thousands of people work, stripping away the walls, pre cutting load bearing columns with torches (the only way to make it possible for them to be blasted), fitting explosives and cladding, miles and miles of detcord, employing hundreds of workers, getting very large custom made plastic explosives mounted onto the structure all without being noticed. Detonating these without a sound and fooling every genuine expert in the world at the same time. Thermite just does not work in this application. It's been tested by 'truthers' and it failed.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 1, 2013 5:37:40 GMT -5
The above video is of Nanothermite btw
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 1, 2013 7:57:09 GMT -5
Your last post convinced me that the official narrative is still a complete lie. Thanks. You have another one like that?
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 1, 2013 8:58:33 GMT -5
That video came from Jesse Ventura, he commissioned the test to prove Jones theories (and failed). You didn't like it ?
It proves that Nano Thermite doesn't work in controlled demolitions.
You have a reverse logic, opposed to scientific principles of trying and testing in which you start with a belief and rule out all evidence that contradicts your belief. All scientific proof of the behaviour of steel in fire has so far been ignored by you.
I do not understand how you can ignore the overwhelming evidence in front of you that proves structural damage & fire, not controlled demolition, are what caused the collapses.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 1, 2013 9:13:05 GMT -5
"I do not understand how you can ignore the overwhelming evidence in front of you that proves structural damage & fire, not controlled demolition, are what caused the collapses."
What you believe is "in front of me" and what I know is actually "in front of me" are not one and the same. The EVIDENCE that the 3 collapses were NOT natural collapses are all on video. There is an enormous amount of additional evidence that supports the video evidence that not one of those collapses were natural collapses. What you don't "understand" is irrelevant to me. It's not my job to try to convince you of anything. Who's paying you to try to convince me of your bulls**t? You need to refund that person's money.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 1, 2013 9:44:05 GMT -5
The three collapses were due to the combination of structural damage and fire.
If you want to close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears like a child that's your choice but the evidence disproving your ridiculous controlled demolition theory is as clear as day, which you'd see if you put aside your bias and your prejudice and used your brain.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 1, 2013 9:48:09 GMT -5
I'm trying to figure out who's paying you. Any hints?
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 1, 2013 9:57:21 GMT -5
I work in a family business.
Can you make your next question sensible, or answer one of mine.
Like how the structure of the twin towers could withstand the high speed collision of a Boeing 767, the severe fires on many floors, and the weakening of load bearing structure by more than 80% and yet not suffer a structural failure due to the load acting on the structure ?
Please use maths to support your claim.
|
|