9/11 Poll

Oh, I see we just get reasonable locations. This proves my point that it wasn't a forensic analysis.

Astaneh was used to provide a facade of an examination, so it could be said the steel was examined, when in fact this was far less than what a full blown investigation would have done. If you can't see that then you aren't thinking.

How would he know thermite damage from hot fire damage?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The NIST didn't get into the fact that the core was self-supporting and they would be the only official source available. But since we know the material and size of the core anyone trained in mechanics and stress analysis can calculate whether it was or not. I have done a simple calculation which shows it was self-supporting. Are you saying I am wrong?

Are you talking about the five to seven story portion of the perimeter from WTC 1 that was left standing after the collapses? If so, that isn't significant in any way like the 60 to 70 story spires composed of inner core columns, which stood for about ten to fifteen seconds after the outer core columns and perimeter had completely collapsed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1) Not only did he not find evidence of steel columns cut by magic horizontal cutting thermite

2) ...Or hush-a-boom bombs

3) He DID find steel subjected to temperatures described by civil engineers that could cause the steel to fail.

That's three strikes. Your religion is false.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Those temperatures were probably not caused by fires. If they were the NIST would have gotten that steel to show they experienced high temperatures due to fire.

The thermite in the fire affected zones would probably have been used to simply weaken the strength of the joints to the point of collapse, not to cut the structural members.

 

yeah right

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. . . . no proof, mine eyes are blind, and I am dumb.

 

So what else other than fire could have softened the steel enough for it to become twisted and warped "like licorice"?

Pulled out of your ass.

 

You don't know what you are talking about if you are trying to say the stress in the steel from in service loads would be anisotropic due to rolling or pressing during fabrication. Rolling and pressing cause cold work hardening and increase the strength but have nothing to do with the stress field due to the loads.

Engineering stress strain curves would consider a 30% decrease in youngs modulus to be a 30% decrease in yield strength. You are trying to talk true stress and strain which isn't really applicable here.

You are obviously looking for a hook by picking on insignificant and inapplicable items because you don't have a good argument.

I think you have an agenda Trippy and are some sort of shill for the official story.

 

Are you saying it would be impossible to weaken the joints with an incendiary and then for the collapse to produce the types of damage that Astaneh saw?

 

all i'm saying here tony is that i have never seen anything on the cores ability to freestand.

no, it was more like 2/3 the height of the building, and it was the perimeter.
this fact is easily seen in original footage of the collapse.

 

Leopold, please show a video or photo of 2/3 of the perimeter standing in the North Tower after the collapse. I think you are quite mistaken here.

The central cores were freestanding. There just hasn't been much said about it in direct terms officially. Many people know they were freestanding and a simple calculation by anyone who is trained in mechanics and stress analysis will prove it.

 

I have absolutely no idea, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. Especially to do so in such a way were it doesn't completely detatch the joints as soon as the aircraft hits thus causing instant collapse. To this day, I'm curious as to why the truth movement hasn't done any tests with thermite on structural elements. The stars of the truth movement have always talked about thermite cutting columns, thus instantly discrediting thermite entirely. Especially since there is no reason for anyone in the government to demolish the WTC.

Not when that damage is accompanied by scorch marks indicating fire caused the softening of the steel.

 

.
Oh right, there aren't any principles involved in one mass hitting an even greater mass.

A skyscraper must get stronger and therefore heavier from top to bottom. So how do you analyze the effect of the fall of the top 10% by volume without knowing the distribution of steel and concrete all of the way down.

Doesn't some PRINCIPLE have to be involved in that? Something like the conservation of momentum.

I had to tell someone on Richarddawkins.net that inertia works the same way whether the force is horizontal or vertical. We need to know the distribution for the collapse and the airliner impact so why weren't the experts pointing that out in 2002?

Newtonian physics is only 300 years old. This ain't rocket science like the Moon landing. Oh yeah, the WTC was designed before the Moon landing.

psik

 

Psikey is onto something in his videos on youtube. Those are real physics labs. Someone from the other side should try to try to make a similar lab to demonstrate their side of the explanation. Would the model "collapse" or would it be "crushed"?

 

No, what he has are toys.

At such tiny scales the kinetic energies in his models are neglegable. It's like a toddler trying to replicate car damage from a freeway collision with a toy car.

 

God.. What is it with you people? Talk about tin hats...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

it wasn't 2/3 of the perimeter, it was approximately 2/3 the height of the building. if i was to estimate how much of the perimeter was left standing i would guess 1/8 to 1/4. i cannot remember which building it was, i'm almost certain it was the second collapse.

probably why i've never heard of it.
from my understanding all 3 of these elements was required to keep those buildings erect, remove enough of any one of them and they will collapse into a pile of dust.

 

Fair enough -- small scale models behave differently than full scale models. But he covers that in the video. His model is obviously not meant to replicate the towers, otherwise it would have to end up as a pile of rubble at the end of the video.

Are you claiming that because a full scale model is too big to make, that it would be impossible to model a collapse similar to the towers on 911? I would think it would be possible, and even if it did not really prove anything due to scale, it would be very interesting to see.

So, is there a computer simulated model of the collapse anywhere? I have seen the computer simulated airplane careen through the building, but the simulation seems to end there. Does anyone know of any physical or computer models of the collapse that I could refer to? Thanks in advance.