WTC Collapses

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by scott3x, Nov 14, 2008.

?

How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

  1. Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    18 vote(s)
    43.9%
  2. Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    9 vote(s)
    22.0%
  4. Allah!

    2 vote(s)
    4.9%
  5. People keep flogging a dead horse!

    12 vote(s)
    29.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Am i required to answer every malcontent on the internet?

    You are lucky i even respond to you.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Are those your credentials for the thread?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    The Windsor Tower in Madrid, Round 2, Part 1

    This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 640 from this thread.

    From what I remember, Headspin said that the Cardington fire tests were done to see what happened to steel at varying temperatures, not to simulate what the WTC office fires were like. Tests -were- done to simulate what the WTC office fires were like; well, not quite, as they were put under more stress then the WTC office fires would have normally taken. Nevertheless, while the steel beams did sag a bit (I believe it was 3 inches), they certainly didn't sag the 40 inches as in the NIST report and even though they steel beams used were half the size of the WTC ones, it wouldn't mean that it would go from 3 inches to 40.


    Splendid. The WTC office fires couldn't have reached 1000C unaided for more then a few seconds, however, in what is called 'flashover', unless they got significant help from certain incendiaries/explosives.

    Actually, it does. You see, steel has this property called conductivity and your idea that the office fires could have reached 1000C isn't supported by the evidence. And if the office fires didn't reach 1000C, then conductivity is definitely a factor.


    Actually, it's not, but I can certainly believe that you don't understand it.


    True. The top part of the steel reinforced (as opposed to steel framed) perimeter did not, however.


    What you don't seem to understand is that the steel reinforced perimeter collapsed precisely because it was mainly composed of concrete, with a bit of steel to reinforce it. This differs radically from a steel framed building.


    IF the WTC had the same concrete core it probably wouldn't have stood long enough to have tenants. The WTC was a much bigger building then the Windsor tower and thus required a much stronger core. The WTC core was a concrete one, reinforced by steel beams; a tube (concrete core) within a tube (of steel beams).
     
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    To earn credibility, you have to back up your claims

    This is in reponse to John99's post 884 in this thread.

    You did nothing of the kind, as the link above makes clear. What you actually did was claim that Silverstein would have received the amount he did regardless if WTC 7 fell or not. I'm not privy to the insurance contract Silverstein had on the building, but I think it's a fairly safe bet to say that he wouldn't have gotten the same amount if the building had remained standing. Still, I gave you ample opportunity to provide evidence that he would have gotten the same amount due to the fact that that was "how insurance works". I waited in vain and have since realized that you are rather fond of making claims but are frequently not so keen on actually trying to back them up.


    Formal education isn't always what it's cracked up to be. Conversely, one can learn a lot on one's own. I'd like to get more of the formal kind and I may actually get a bit soon enough, however. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just trying to point out how wrong you can be at times.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2009
  9. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    If you are responding to Headspin's post 1000, it appears you are once again delaying actually answering the question, as you have done with me in regards to "how insurance works" in the past. I strongly suspect you don't understand Tony's calculations. I don't myself but I'm not afraid to say so.
     
  10. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
  11. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    I am a structural engineer, in a different field than building construction. Mechanical and civil engineers have the same exact curriculum when it come to materials, mechanics, statics, dynamics, and fluids. They only diverge when civils go towards soils and drainage and mechanicals towards thermal science.

    Structures are structures whether they be buildings, bridges, ships, airplanes, towers, machines, antennas, etc. High rise buildings use structural elements called columns and beams and the stress equations are the same.

    I kind of resent these type of silly ass comments from someone who doesn't seem to have any expertise to analyze what went on here, or to judge who is qualified to comment on it professionally. What do you do for a living?
     
  12. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    And what will you be tomorrow?
     
  13. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Higher, but it did not have to be ‘much higher’. So, assuming that the sulfur can be accounted for, these results could be explained by the fires. Correct?

    How is quoting him different from David Ray Griffin, Kevin Ryan, Jones?

    lol ok.

    You asked a question, and then bumped it, so I responded. Then you criticise me for showing “blind faith”. ?

    I did, by the way, do chemistry at high school and Uni (Computer Science). I just never liked it.

    There were UPS in the building. UPSs don't last very long so there is usually a generator as well. They will provide a continuous power source if the power drops for a second. If the power is out for a significant time the servers can be shut down neatly or the generator can be fired up.

    Apparently sulfuric acid was found at the site during sampling a few weeks after the event.

    Couldn’t it still react with the steel as a gas?

    The other theory I have seen is that sulfur dioxide gas reacted with the metal. This could have come from several sources such as the drywall. Have you heard of this possibility?


    Well he was not specifically answering your question at the time.

    So what about sulfur dioxide?

    It was not a full answer to your question or a published document but some text that I cut from a post in an attempt to answer a question asked by a scornful poster in a forum.

    Really? You are the one dismissing possibilities and going for the thermite answer every time. You don’t seem interested in mundane explanations. You retreat from the absurdities that dominate the 911 conspiracy (bombs in the basement, selective witness testimony to prove high temperatures, ignoring evidence to claim low temperatures, squibs, “pull it” ect) and concentrate on the chemistry. While you may feel that this legitimizes the conspiracy you are still avoiding the evidence which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that explosives/incendiaries weren’t needed to bring these buildings down.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2009
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I haven't seen John intentionally lie about anything. However, there are a few points in it that do seem to apply to him. One can go as is, the other 2 needed a little modification:
    * They act very defensively when you question their statements.
    * Fools people at first [into thinking he actually has evidence for his claims] but once they get to know him [they're much more skeptical].
    *Never fesses up to [being wrong]
     
  15. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
  17. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634

    This post is a joke and you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

    The columns and beams in the towers were not sheet metal configurations like you show here. The core columns were structural steel per ASTM A36 and the perimeter columns were fabricated from several grades of high strength steel as well as from ASTM A36 steel.

    The floor beams outside of the core were trusses, but still made from structural steel. They had a damper on the bottom at one side to damp any wind induced motion to below the perceptible level. They had solid connections top and bottom.
     
  18. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    I have been an engineer for a long time. Bets are that I'll be doing just that.

    What do you do for a living John?
     
  19. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Intriguing link isnt it? and Freudian Slip as well.

    If i had to diagnose three posters primary posters here i would say this is a fairly good description:

    Pathological liars, or "mythomaniacs," may be suffering from histrionic personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder.
     
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    so? what has NASA got to do with anything?
    unbelievable.
     
  21. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I simply assumed that if he's an engineer at NASA, he could handle the calculations of a building. He made a much stronger defense of his credentials, has reinforced his argument and has questioned your own credentials in post 1008.


    What's unbelievable?

    What I wish we had more of in this forum are people who actually understand structural engineering. Failing that, I hope Tony can explain it to laymen such as me so that I can use the same arguments. I personally like spending more time on the arguments not on wrangling about credentials.
     
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    ah yes, the quote from tony i was wondering about.
    i'm sure you are proud of your achievements tony but aren't you just a little worried that NASA might be reading this stuff?
    would you trust me to hire people for you?
     
  23. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Irrelevant. You are trying to dodge a key point. The last test was done using office furniture and the temperature was near 1000C. NISTs own workstation fire tests reached temperatures near, and over 1000C. There have been several other fires where the steel collapsed. You never looked at the link Kenny provided and it has been given to you four times. Regular fires can reach temperatures hot enough to weaken steel.


    You are referring to tests done on components with fireproofing intact.

    In these test you mention, which were done to simulate office fires, what temperatures were reached?

    Your response is nothing more than a baseless assertion. Read it for yourself. Now that you have learnt the term flashover you are throwing it around as if simply using it carries weight.

    Scott, there is a very simple point to be made here. If the fires couldn't reach temperatures high enough to weaken steel then why was the steel fireproofed?


    The steel in the Cardington tests did not conduct very well between two connected pieces. There were significant differences in temperature.

    I’m showing you evidence that if most certainly could have. You are doing everything you can to avoid accepting this evidence.

    What point are you making here?

    1000C is not surprising at all a temperature for an office fire to reach, particularly if it has been helped along with an explosion of a few thousand gallons of jet fuel and then the rest splashed around.


    Isn’t that comment a little insulting for you?

    No, that paragraph is unclear scott. The key difference is that the Madrid tower had a concrete core while the WTC had a steel inner tube. Your interpretation about ‘poor design’ is baffling. You claim that the reinforcement was weak but refuse to accept that the weakness here is that steel is more susceptible to fire and say the load bearing was done by the (concrete!) core. What point are you making?


    ? Because it was steel! ? You are making some puzzling distinction between steel framed and steel reinforced. The issue here is that, from your own favourite article - “Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete” Somewhere you are confused I think.

    What are you talking about? The concrete remained while the steel collapsed.

    That’s right, they are more susceptible to fire, particularly is the fireproofing is removed.



    The Petronas Twin Towers are mainly concrete scott.

    But the core was concrete and handled the fire better than the damaged steel of the WTC did.

    No, it wasn’t.

    No. The ‘tube’ was steel box columns not concrete. There was concrete in the floors.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page