Challenge to OCT'ers

[freedom fighter jh]

In discussions about physical evidence, specifically about the way the towers fell, the underlying question is whether it's possible for a steel-frame structure to fall in this way -- that is, at nearly free-fall speed -- under any circumstances other than controlled demolition. It seems the structure would have too much strength to collapse so quickly into so many pieces while so much of the energy that would be needed to make that happen was dissipated in other ways.

The usual answer is "Of course it's possible."

So my question to you is this: Can you document any other case of a steel-frame high-rise structure collapsing at nearly free-fall speed, that is, within twice the time that free fall would have taken?

I'm talking to you William, Vincent, Bolo and the rest.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Oh, no, not this again

*sigh*

[freedom fighter jh]

2. When did you see it before?

I missed it.

[greyl]

3. Check here for starters:

www.911myths.com
www.debunking911.com

Motivation for discussing this again, is very low.
If those sites don't answer your questions, get back to us.

[freedom fighter jh]

5. There's a lot to sort through on those pages.

Can you tell me a word to search on or give me some other guideline to find it?

[greyl]

6. Yes, yes there is. nt

[wildbilln864]

50. doesn't matter where it was...

discussed! Where's the proof? :shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Like you think this is an original challenge?

Like no CTer has ever thought to ask this question?

C'mon, you're not only insulting our intelligence, you're insulting the intelligence of everyone here!

[freedom fighter jh]

7. I did not say it's original.

I said I have not seen anything to indicate that any steel-frame high-rise has ever collapsed at a speed near free-fall unless it was demolished intentionally.

If you have seen anything, I ask you to post a link to it rather than throw around comments about insulting intelligence.

[greyl]

8. Links at post 3.

It should take a while.

[freedom fighter jh]

13. I looked at them

And as far as I can tell, it looks like a wild goose chase.

If there is anything there that answers the challenge in the OP, tell me where to find it.

My refusal to waste my time on your wild goose chase does not mean you have answered the challenge.

[greyl]

14. Waste time learning? Whatever. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

9. Looks like they failed your challenge, ff jh. n/t

[greyl]

10. The "challenge" is basically a mealy straw argument.

You guys have been challenged to do some reading that deals with the OP, and it looks like you're refusing due to the fact that the links provided don't confirm your bias.
Whatever.

[John Q. Citizen]

11. You guys have been challenged to read "Welcome to Terrorland" and

"Triple Cross" among other works, but that doesn't mean you are up to the challenge.

So far, i haven't seen you answer the OP's challenge.

If and when you do, i will gladly retract my statement.

[greyl]

12. Maybe one of those mentioned in the OP will show up and want to discuss it.

The links are plenty, really.

edit: spling

[freedom fighter jh]

15. I have to agree, JQC. n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. Notice the lack of content from the OCTers?

They'd much rather post endless threads trying to discredit CTers, yet they seem to avoid offering real explanations of their own.

The OP asked the OCTers of this forum what they think. Links to other websites isn't not an anwser.

[greyl]

18. The objection was that there was TOO MUCH CONTENT.

www.911myths.com
www.debunking911.com

That explains the lack of response regarding the enormous amount of content at just those 2 links.
Also, I can't believe you're acting as though the issues in the OP haven't been discussed to death already, here. That's ridiculous.

[DoYouEverWonder]

20. Like I said

posting links to sites and expecting people to wade through them to figure out what your response is, is not a response.

[greyl]

21. Sometimes I don't feel like chatting it up.

The links were (edit: the bulk of /edit) my response, and now you're objecting that I provided too much content, just after you posted the claim that there was a lack of response (just an hour or so after the OP's creation)

What the hell is so strange about posting a link on a website and expecting people to check it out and respond thoughtfully?

[DoYouEverWonder]

22. If you don't want to 'chat'

then why do you hang out on a discussion board?

We've already discussed and debunked your favorite debunking sites. The poster asked a question. Is it so hard to give a direct answer?

[Twist_U_Up]

23. *

why hang out on a discussion board :rofl: :rofl:

[greyl]

27. Read what I typed again.

Now, you've added another false claim to this thread. Thanks.

Gotta link to those debunking threads of the 2 links?
I mean, if you'd rather not be chatty about it.
A few links shouldn't be too hard, eh? Not that a few links would debunk the hundreds of pages at those 2 sites...

[greyl]

53. I notice a lack of content (lack of a reply) regarding my question.

I probably haven't waited long enough.

[MervinFerd]

48. Yes, when will this factual information be refuted?

[Bolo Boffin]

17. First off, point to any building whatsoever that has collapsed in over twice free-fall speeds.

That is a ludicrous benchmark.

You're saying that you are willing to consider an unassisted collapse of the WTC towers ONLY IF they fell at twice free fall speeds?

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Read that. Deal with it. Try again.

[MervinFerd]

36. www.911myths.com / WTCREPORT.pdf -- Yes. REFUTE that.

While you are at it, read the DemoWorld report.

Then get back to us.

[freedom fighter jh]

42. Check the OP again, Bolo

I said twice the *time* of free fall, not twice the *speed.*

[Bolo Boffin]

43. My mistake on using the word speed for time. However...

The benchmark is ludicrous in either case.

Read the PDF. Deal with it. Try again.

[LoZoccolo]

19. It wouldn't even have fallen that fast with a conventional controlled demolition.

I would like to throw down the gauntlet and challenge everyone to show me a video of even a controlled demolition with the conventional means falling that fast. There is no question in my mind that it was done with a potato.

[Twist_U_Up]

24. Back to the OP...The question is .................for clarification.......

Can you document any other case of a steel-frame high-rise structure collapsing at nearly free-fall speed, that is, within twice the time that free fall would have taken?

[Bolo Boffin]

29. See Post #17: I reject this ludicrous benchmark in totality. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

38. No. I do not believe the OCT. But I do not believe the CCT either.

It was a potato plain and simple.

[MervinFerd]

47. Yes!!! Spud-power brought it down!

But,

HOW MANY spuds do you think would be needed for Free Fall?

Bag and bags, I would say.

[wildbilln864]

51. Well that makes plenty of since.

BTW, what's CCT stand for? And if you don't believe the government's PNACCT, what is your CT?
Thanks! :hi:

[LoZoccolo]

55. CCT = commercial conspiracy theory

Those promoted by people who wish to sell the conspiracy theory for profit by selling books and DVDs.

[MervinFerd]

25. OH. Good. Grief. Get out the Viagra again.

The buildings DID NOT fall at "Free Fall" speeds. This has been proved HERE ---SO--- many times.

LOOK AT THE FRIGGIN' VIDEOS. The debris falls -much- faster than the buildings. QED.

Here's a challenge that has been up for days now:
<<
This has gone unrefuted for days:
http://www.implosionworld.com

Implosionworld's paper on the World Trade Center Collapse's... http://www.implosionworld.com/news.htm#1


Above, we have the opinion of --actual-- authentic experts on the collapse of the towers. Posted days ago. Begging for refutation. No such has been provided.

It's very clear that the Truther's wad is shot on this one. I've prescribed Viagra, but that hasn't helped in days.

What's stronger than Viagra?>>

And, no, calling the experts names is NOT a refutation.

[Twist_U_Up]

26. One more time.....try to stay on topic

Can you document any other case of a steel-frame high-rise structure collapsing at nearly free-fall speed, that is, within twice the time that free fall would have taken?

[MervinFerd]

31. No, but I'm no more an expert than you. Can you refute the expert opinion?

I'm not playing by CT rules. I'm playing by Real World Rational Thought Rules.

Can you name one other building hit by a 767?

[Twist_U_Up]

34. You dont know me

I dont know you

answer the question

[MervinFerd]

37. Are you a structural engineer? I am not.

So neither of our opinions is worth a warm bucket of piss.

Unless you can refute the expert opinions--that means finding errors of logic or fact, not calling them names--I've no real interest in your opinion.

Or in "Answering the Question". The question has --already-- been answered by people who actually know what the fuck they are talking about.

[Twist_U_Up]

65. Are you implying that I dont know what the fuck I'm talking about ?

My father was an Union Ironworker,My Grandfather was a Union Ironworker, My son is just becoming a Journeyman Ironworker and Yes yes I am also a Union Ironworker of 20 years for that matter.

I dont have to be an engineer to determine if these buildings fell on their own or not, I understand how they are put together you see. I also feel as if I might be able to tell a natural building collapse to one that falls at near free fall speeds into a nice neat little pile.

So yes I feel that my opinion is worth "a warm bucket of piss"

Why do you involve yourself in these threads if you feel that your knowledge is worth that "warm bucket of piss"?
Let alone accuse me of being too stupid to see what I see with my own eyes, when you dont even know me.

So who's calling who names? You just might need to look no further than yourself.

Heres an old Engineer joke for you.

Why do Engineers wear ties ?
So they have something to grab when their head slips up their ass.

Now thats funny

[MervinFerd]

86. Yes.

As a Union Iron Worker, how much experience do you have with Finite Element Analysis? The Mechanics of Solids? Differential Equations? Computer Modeling? Calculus I?

I don't expect a structural engineer to get a steel beam properly fastened in place. And I don't expect a Steel Worker--however skilled-- to know a damn thing about design and analysis of structures.

[Bolo Boffin]

66. See Post #17: I reject this ludicrous benchmark in totality.

With the caveat of changing the word "speed" to "time", which you too have confused.

Since you understand engineering matters, tell me: what's wrong with the NIST final report? Have you read that yet? Or only the parts Dylan Avery and Alex Jones told you to?

[LARED]

89. Lets put a little math to your definition of near free fall

Free fall at 9.2 seconds gives us a building about 410 meters tall - the height of the WTC. Free fall of 18 seconds (the actual time for the 410 meter tall building to fall) is nearly 1600 meters (or about 1 mile)

1600 meters is not near 410 meters.

[freedom fighter jh]

67. For the nth time, Mervin . . .

The debris from near the tops of the towers fell faster than the collapse front because the debris from the top had a head start -- gravity had been accelerating it for some time while the collapse front was just beginning to accelerate.

The Implosion World piece has been refuted (and I don't mean by calling anyone names) despite your assertion that it has not.

[William Seger]

92. How does that happen?

> The debris from near the tops of the towers fell faster than the collapse front because the debris from the top had a head start...

Huh? How does that happen when the debris from near the top of the towers originated from the collapse front, when it was near the top of the tower! In what sense could the debris get a "head start" on the collapse front? Only in the sense that the collapse front did not accelerate at free-fall speed, because it was slowed somewhat by the collision with each floor, as expected -- which is exactly the point.

> ... gravity had been accelerating it for some time while the collapse front was just beginning to accelerate.

That doesn't make any sense; the first debris and the collapse front were the same thing when the collapse started, so obviously they started accelerating at the same time.

According to Dr. Greening's calculations, the collapse front lost about half it's velocity when it impacted the first floor, then less than half in the collision with the next floor, then even less than that in the collision with the next floor, and so on until the collisions were hardly slowing the falling mass at all. That's because the falling mass was rapidly picking up both more mass and more speed, hence much more kinetic energy, while the energy it took to break through each floor was only increasing slowly (i.e. only by the amount that the columns at each level were slightly stronger than the level above, because they were carrying one more floor's load).

[freedom fighter jh]

93. It seems Dr. Greening presumes all the falling mass contributed to acclerating the mass below it.

Is that correct?

But if you look at a video, that does not seem to be what happened. Is not your argument that debris falling outside the footprint of the tower fell faster, so the tower itself could not have been falling at free fall speed? Well, what's that debris whose rate of fall you're comparing? Falling pieces of tower. There was lots and lots of it outside the footprint -- meaning not contributing momentum to the collapse front. If Dr. Greening's assumptions are not correct, then neither will be his calculations.

[William Seger]

95. No

He did in his original "simple model," which is why that question keeps coming up, but he accounted for that (and other objections) with reasonable estimates in a later paper. Like the assumptions about how much energy was required to break through each floor, it made very little difference in the collapse time. It appears that gravitational collapses always happen at "near free-fall" (less than twice free-fall, at least) or they don't happen at all; and Greening, Bazant, and many others have demonstrated that the energy of the WTC collapses was more than the building could absorb.

[MervinFerd]

28. What's your hypothesis? How many TONS of explosive would that take?

Is the hypothesis that explosives were placed on -each- support beam on -each- of 80-odd floors in order to destroy all the support?

HOW MUCH EXPLOSIVE DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD TAKE? 100 TONS? 200 TONS?

And WHY, fer Gawd sake, would any nefarious Secret Shadow Government do such an idiotic thing?

[MervinFerd]

49. A simple question: STILL NO ANSWER!

How many TONS of explosive (in orders of magnitude) would be required to cause those towers to fall faster than they actually did?


Just a really basic, simple question.

[freedom fighter jh]

58. My hypothesis is that the it makes no sense . . .

. . . that airplane impacts caused the towers to fall the way they did, and that if it were possible for a steel-frame high rise to fall in this way because of anything other than controlled demolition then one would expect that there would be at least one historical example of such a thing.

[MervinFerd]

63. Then, your hypothesis is false. Wasn't that easy?

First, the consensus of experts is that airplane impacts, combined with fire, would cause just the collapse observed. Your uninformed opinion is of no relevance. This is not a matter of taste or political debate. The stresses within each of the beams of those towers can be calculated--in their normal state and after any hypothesized damage. Those calculations determine whether the collapses were reasonable or unreasonble--not your, or my, gut instincts.

Second, there is no reason to expect that "at least one other" high rise should have fallen this way. The number of 110-story buildings in the entire world is very limited. Only a very few have ever collapsed for any reason, an no others have ever been hit by jetliners. And, there --are-- no other buildings of the same design as the WTC towers. They were unique. Very probably there will not be any more of that design built in the future.

You ---really--- should read the ImplosionWorld paper. You might learn something.

[freedom fighter jh]

68. All right, then consider just a few floors below the height . . .

. . . where the collapse started. It's still a nearly free-fall collapse. And the top part of a building would be expected to behave like a shorter building.

Both towers clearly could sustain the airplane crashes. We know this because they *did* sustain them for a while.

What's left? Fire. What reason is there to believe that a fire can cause a building to collapse at nearly free-fall speed, when there is no record of such a thing ever happening? The towers' unique construction? You mean with the supporting columns at the core, away from the flammable stuff?

[AZCat]

69. You are incorrect.

It is not clear that the towers could survive the damage from the impacts. It is possible that overloaded structural members began to plasticly deform after the initial damage shifted the weight. This plastic deformation takes time (depending on a number of factors) and could possibly have resulted in failure of the building without fires, although the time necessary for failure is unknown.

[freedom fighter jh]

82. Plastic Deformation

*For people not familiar with this terminology, the terms "plastic" and "elastic" are explained below.

OK, let's consider plastic deformation. How would airplane impacts stress the columns? Let's say the crash knocked out x columns. Then 47 - x columns are left to carry a load (plus airplane) for which 47 columns were designed. Now let's say those 47-x columns slowly move into plastic deformation. It takes an hour or two. Even when collapse starts, tho, those x columns, which were disconnected only at the impact floor, are still able to carry load at lower floors. They are still there, intact, connected. They are underloaded, so there is no reason why they should be an hour or two into plastic deformation. They had only a fraction of a second to fail at each floor. Where did they get their plastic deformation time?

*The terms "plastic" and "elastic" have special meanings in engineering and material science. "Elastic" means that the "stretch," called "deformation" or "strain," is proportional to the stress (force per unit area) on an object. In effect, when the stress goes away, the strain goes away -- meaning that any change in an object's shape goes away when the stress causing elastic deformation goes away. "Plastic" means deformation or strain increases under constant stress and remains when the stress is gone. Under normal loading conditions, steel deforms elastically: When stress is removed from it, it regains its original shape. When steel is stressed to the point of failure, before it fails completely it goes through a phase where it deforms plastically: It stretches in a way that is not undone if the stress is relieved. In fact, under a constant stress it continues to strain (stretch). This is what AZCat is referring to when s/he says "plastic deformation."

[AZCat]

84. Plastic deformation occurs rapidly during certain conditions.

My personal theory is that the initial plastic deformation changed the configuration of the building structure enough to change the loading on certain structural members from axial to transverse, therefore speeding up the rate of deformation. Once the first members failed completely the mass began to move, gaining enough kinetic energy to create forces on impact with the next set of structural members sufficent to cause failure of those members almost instantly.

[quickesst]

30. Be aware....

of the strategy that takes a query such as yours, rolls the eyes, and bleats, "Oh no, not this stuff again. It's been done to death. There's not much interest. Go read these convoluted links to show you how silly you are. Yadda Yadda Yadda." All this, when they, as well as we, know the original query was never settled in the first place to the satisfaction of one side or the other. In other words, they're trying to head you off at the pass in the hopes of letting one of the controversial issues die with the blessing of your resignation to the issue. They believe themselves to be clever, probably too clever, hoping to achieve their goal using the above mentioned tactic, a little pschyops camaign if you will. How clever. Thanks.
quickesst

[Bolo Boffin]

32. See Post #17: The benchmark is ludicrous.

[MervinFerd]

33. Can YOU refute Demo World? HOW MANY 100s of TONs of TNT?

How much explosive do you think woud be required to create "Free Fall"?

I'm talking Orders of Magnitude (powers of 10). Nothing precise. 100 tons, 1000 tons. A mini-nuke? Disruptor Beam from Space?

[MervinFerd]

35. Name one bldg caused to "Free Fall" by explosives.

That's not how Controlled Demolition works.

No damn fool, even "the Government" would put enough explosives in a building to remove support on -all- floors so that the building would fall at "Free Fall".

You initiate a collapse and then let gravity do the rest.

Good Grief.

[dailykoff]

40. Why don't you just answer the question? (n/t)

[MervinFerd]

44. Because it is an irrelevant and ignorant question. But....

For your amusement and for the sake of argument:

No building has ever fallen at twice Free Fall, or whatever.

So? It's meaningless.

[MervinFerd]

46. Why don't YOU answer the question? And refute the expert's opinion...

that your question is irrelevant.

[dailykoff]

39. LMAO! See how they run.

The complete destruction of perfectly sound steel-frame highrises seen on 9/11 was a one-off (make that three-off) that could not and has not ever been accomplished before or since without the use of high explosives or a wrecking ball.

Sorry OCT faithful, but he nailed you. Boo hoo. :nopity:

[MervinFerd]

45. Right. WHEN WILL YOU REFUTE THE DEMOWORLD DOC????

The opinion of experts who actually know what they are talking about....

Oh hell...What's the f'ing point?

[vincent_vega_lives]

78. That was not the question FF put forth! (n/t)

[salvorhardin]

41. Why should there have been any other structure?

Why should there have been any other structure other than the WTC towers to collapse in this manner? They were unique in their design and scale. It seems obvious to assume that they collapsed the way they did because they were built that way. Experts seem to bear that out. I don't understand why the Truthers keep trying to compare them to other structures.

This is like saying that Kewpie's (a local hamburger establishment in the 1950s) failure was the result of corporate conspiracy because McDonald's and Burger King both did well and yet both sold hamburgers.

[wildbilln864]

52. welcome to the dungeon!

:hi:
As you see, they cannot answer the OP's challenge! They surely can change the subject and talk about how it's been discussed before. Or refer you to other posts that still do not answer the challenge! But they cannot show you where any other steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed completely for any other reason that wasn't deliberately demolished because none ever have! :shrug:

on edit: And especially, three? In one day!? Shitfire!

[greyl]

54. As you see, everyone is typing in Sanskrit.

The background of the page is blinking between black and white, and there's a huge gif of Donald Trump floating up and down the right side. There's also a midi file of a 140bpm White Label Remix of Battle Hymn of the Republic playing.

[MervinFerd]

56. Nor can we name any other 110 story bldg hit by a jetliner and having....

the same design.

What a bunch of wimps we are.

When will you answer the Implosion World document? That's a considered, expert rebuttal of CD theories. Not a ridiculous and meaningless challenge.

Levitra?

[freedom fighter jh]

57. Thanks, Wildbilln. Happy to be here. nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

59. What you don't understand is

that there is nothing special about "controlled demolition" (I assume you mean the type using explosives as of course you realize that controlled demolition can occur by mechanical means and is obviously MUCH slower than free fall).

The use of chemical explosives is used to initiate collapse by compromising key structural components and allowing GRAVITY to collapse the structure. In the case of the WTC 1, 2 & 7 those structural components were compromised by thermal and kinetic energy instead of chemical energy. But the effect is the same as is the force of Gravity.

I hope that explains it for you, because the the way you ask the question implies that you don't understand the concept.

[freedom fighter jh]

60. Thank you, Vincent Vega, for explaining . . .

. . . this difficult problem to poor, ignorant little Freedom Fighter.

There is indeed something special about controlled demolition: That which holds the building up is destroyed deliberately. If fire destroys a building, it will destroy various structural members in a much more haphazard way than will controlled demolition. Yes, in both cases gravity provides the force that brings the building down. But buildings are designed to stand up against gravity, and steel-frame high rises generally do that very well unless either they are deliberately demolished or they fall because of some kind of accident. In the first case collapse is completed within seconds of its onset. In the second? I'm asking if there are instances where it happens within seconds of onset. So far no examples have been offered.

[vincent_vega_lives]

61. Your welcome

Your response is interesting.

There is indeed something special about controlled demolition: That which holds the building up is destroyed deliberately.

But what does CD have to do with the speed of which a building falls? Controlled demolition can be very slow, or very fast, or sectional.

If fire destroys a building, it will destroy various structural members in a much more haphazard way than will controlled demolition.

Why does everyone leave out the kinetic damage done to all three of the buildings. Haphazard or not, if you degrade the structural integrity of part of a building there is risk of collapse. In the case of WTC 1&2 you have a three part structural system. The planes and resulting fire removed enough of one or two of them and gravity did the rest. In the case of WTC 7 it was the fire and physical damage combined with a rather unique structure that involved a large internal void.

[John Q. Citizen]

64. This, for one thing, is incorrect:

"NO building is designed to stand up to the type of assault they adsorbed on September 11th."-v-v-l

Yes, the Twin Towers were indeed specifically designed to take a hit from a fully fueled, loaded, and passengered 707, which is nearly equivalent to a 757 in size, weight, and cruising speed. Except the 757 wasn't fully passengered.

You might want to change that part.

Also, these building were designed to stand in, not just a wind storm, but a hurricane. Also, many buildings are designed to withstand large earthquakes, where warranted. Some use Teflon pads at the base to provide slippage room.

I don't believe you have answered FF's question.

But you are the first i've seen to actually make an attempt to do so, so that's a plus

[G Hawes]

70. And every bridge is "designed" not to fall

but sometimes they do.

Every highway overpass is "designed" to take X tons of weight for X number of years, but sometimes they don't.

Buildings are often "designed" to withstand fire for X minutes, but sometimes they don't.

Every car is "designed" not to have their gas tanks explode on impact, but sometimes they do.

Buildings are often "designed" to withstand hurricanes, but sometimes they don't.

Every space shuttle is "designed" to withstand re-entry to the earth's atmosphere, but sometimes they don't.

Buildings are often designed to withstand earthquakes, but sometimes they don't.

The Titanic was "designed" to be unsinkable, but it sank.

Maybe engineers sometimes overstate the "design" capacity of their projects. Maybe sometimes they're just wrong about their predictions. People are not infallible.

[wildbilln864]

71. and none of your....

irrelevent post answers the OP! :shrug:

[wildbilln864]

72. here, I'll make it easy for you guys.

Do you know of any steel framed skyscrapers that have ever completely collapsed from anything other than from maybe an earthquake or deliberate demolition? :shrug:

[AZCat]

73. First...

define "skyscraper" and "completely collapsed".

Second, please explain why this is relevant. There is a first for everything.

[G Hawes]

75. Here, I'll make it easy for you, "wildbill"

Since you seem to be afraid or incapable of responding to my post as posted, I'll repeat it and maybe you can consult with some of your fellow travellers and the lot of you can come to some kind of consensus and respond instead of running away from it next time.

Here you go:


Every bridge is "designed" not to fall but sometimes they do.

Every highway overpass is "designed" to take X tons of weight for X number of years, but sometimes they don't.

Buildings are often "designed" to withstand fire for X minutes, but sometimes they don't.

Every car is "designed" not to have their gas tanks explode on impact, but sometimes they do.

Buildings are often "designed" to withstand hurricanes, but sometimes they don't.

Every space shuttle is "designed" to withstand re-entry to the earth's atmosphere, but sometimes they don't.

Buildings are often "designed" to withstand earthquakes, but sometimes they don't.

The Titanic was "designed" to be unsinkable, but it sank.

Maybe engineers sometimes overstate the "design" capacity of their projects. Maybe sometimes they're just wrong about their predictions. People are not infallible.








edit to fix "wildbill's" name in the subject line

[vincent_vega_lives]

77. That wasn't even FF's question (n/t)

[G Hawes]

74. Your point?

Your post has nothing to do with the OP either, and mine was in direct response to another post which was also not in response to the OP.

Is your position so tenuous that you can't stand it when logic and rational thought show up so that you have to pipe up with your little shruggy shoulders smilie instead of actually addressing the content of my post?

So, address my post instead of playing childish games. Go ahead.

[John Q. Citizen]

79. Funny how fallible these engineers are when designing the towers and how

infallible they are when working for NIST determining what happened to the towers.

[AZCat]

80. Except no-one has claimed that.

But don't let me stop you from forming an appealing argument (irrelevant as it may be).

[William Seger]

99. You're ignoring the empirical evidence

The buildings did fall down, and while the original engineers worked from assumptions, NIST worked to find an explanation for the actual observations. Big difference. And try as they might, "truthers" can't come up with any credible evidence of explosives being used, so they've resorted to science fiction -- from thermite column-cutters to radiation-less mini-nuke "flashlights" to Death Star beam weapons -- to explain how the buildings were demolished without using explosives. And even using science fiction, they still haven't come up with explanations for all the observations.

So your logic doesn't hold; it worked much better the way I presented it to you, about how extremely selective the "movement" is in their appreciation of engineering and science.

Which reminds me: You ducked out on responding to my point about there being nothing at all special about the towers' fireproofing -- it was just "to code." So, even if they did do some (apparently undocumented) analysis of a fire caused by a plane crash, they apparently decided that standard fireproofing was good enough. Why is it so hard to accept that they were mistaken? (That's a rhetorical question.)

[dailykoff]

100. All the empirical evidence indicates explosives.

The photography, for instance, as I've explained. Absolutely none of it remotely suggests any other cause of collapse.

p.s. when you find those missing buckled columns (there would have been 62,700 of them if the WTC had collapsed according to your cockamamie theory) let us know.

[Bolo Boffin]

101. Bullshit.

http://wtc.nist.gov

Open your eyes.

[dailykoff]

102. That's a fair characterization of that report, yes. (n/t)

[Bolo Boffin]

103. Nuh-uh. n/t

[William Seger]

104. Photo analysis, eh?

Show me a video (not a still) that shows anything like explosives happening at the WTC, and I'll see if I can help you sort out your confusion over that matter.

But before you go dredging up the same old crap that's been posted here over and over, claiming to be "squibs," do me and yourself a favor: Go find some videos of actual explosives -- preferably actual controlled demolitions -- and watch them carefully. Very carefully. Then watch them agan. Now, go watch those videos you want to show me again, and see if there's really any resemblance.

If you don't do that and waste my time with a bunch of junk, then be prepared to be mocked and ridiculed mecilessly for being a crappy video analyst, too.

[dailykoff]

105. I'm talking about the steel, not the pyrotechnics.

You know, that long thread where you kept making claims you couldn't support and then running out of things to say?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=127965&mesg_id=127965

That thread.

[William Seger]

106. Running out of things to say?!?

LMFAO! There's only one thing that can be said about that thread: As usual, you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about. But that didn't stop you from claiming to have "conclusive evidence of premeditated murder," and then when you were called on the bullshit, to just keep talking and talking and talking anyway, as if that would save your sorry ass from the embarrassment it richly deserved for making a claim like that based on pure ignorance.

And, that certainly wasn't the first or last time you've done exactly that same thing, either. You really ought to change your sig line to, "For entertainment purposes only."

[dailykoff]

107. Let me know when you're ready to discuss the evidence. (n/t)

[William Seger]

108. Let me know when you've got some

You have convinced me that you will never understand buckling, so you'll have to take my word for this: that bullshit won't float, and everything that needs to be said about that was said at least five times.

But no, actually you don't have to take my word for it. As I've mentioned before, there are several engineers on JREF. Go sign up over there and post your "conclusive evidence of premeditated murder" and see how impressed they are with your structural knowledge. That would be entertaining.

[dailykoff]

116. Thanks, but I'll leave the magician's forum

to the magical thinkers.

[AZCat]

114. That thread? The one where you repeatedly displayed...

a lack of knowledge or experience about these matters (one that I might add is necessary to understand the NIST report)?

Yeah, I remember it.

[dailykoff]

115. Please be specific in your claims of "lack of knowledge."

As I recall none of the OCTs had even read the NIST reports and had no knowledge of what's actually in them.

Has that changed?

[AZCat]

117. "Specificity" is impossible when discussing...

a lack as vast as yours. I wonder whether you have any technical knowledge or experience at all. Of course, that by itself isn't a black mark on a person, but when someone supposes that they can "fake" such an understanding and tries to fool the masses with what amounts to gibberish - that's what is wrong and unethical.

[dailykoff]

118. Thanks, I knew you couldn't. (n/t)

[AZCat]

119. Did you know that like...

you know what "buckling" is?

Or did you know it like you knew that the NIST and FEMA "deliberately and dishonestly obscured" information in their reports? Because I'm still waiting for a legitimate explanation of that allegation (but I'm not holding my breath).

[vincent_vega_lives]

76. As usual a little information is dangerous

First of all, the twin towers were designed to take a hit from a 707 and still stand. Each took a hit from a 767 not a 757...so you might want to change that part.

Second. I notice you left out the resulting inferno. Don't feel bad...this is a regular occurrence by now and I will learn to live with the fact that "CT'ers" cant handle more than once concept at a time.

I don't find anything especially wrong with the rest of your post except that I didn't answer FF's question because it is based on a fallacious premise.

[John Q. Citizen]

81. Yes I mistakenly wrote 757 instead of 767, yet the argument isn't changed

by that, or proved false by that.

The Towers were designed to withstand a fully fueled 707, so your inferno argument is moot.

Your inability to take responsibility for the errors in your post is telling.

[vincent_vega_lives]

83. Actually NO the fire was never a consideration

it was a kinetic force impact calculation.

Leslie E. Robertson, one of the two engineers who designed New York’s World Trade Center, gave the Felix Candela Lecture Tuesday evening, discussing buildings he has designed around the world and the future of the Trade Center site.

The towers were “designed to withstand the accidental impact of a Boeing 707,” the largest aircraft flying in 1966, when the project broke ground, he said.

Robertson said that the towers could have survived that fateful Tuesday morning, but “the fires that were ignited by the fuel were the real problem.”

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N61/61wtc.61n.html

[William Seger]

85. So...

... according to the "truth movement," engineers in the 60s knew how to design a building "to take a hit from a fully fueled, loaded, and passengered 707)," but engineers in the 21st century just don't understand that the collapses violated the laws of physics? "You" seem to have a very selective appreciation for the science of structural engineering.

Anyway, as I have noted here numerous times before, the irrefutable proof that the buildings were NOT "specifically designed" to take both the structural damage AND the subsequent fire of a plane crash is that there was nothing at all special about the fireproofing -- it was just "to code," intended to handle typical office fires -- no extra thickness, nothing to prevent the spray-on stuff from being ripped off by the shrapnel of the disintegrating plane and concrete, and nothing to compensate for the destroyed sprinkler systems. Furthermore, even if the fireproofing had remained intact, it wouldn't have made the towers invulnerable; it would have just delayed the inevitable if the fires had continued long enough. And, the fact that the fire was confined to a few floors is completely irrelevant; those buildings (like virtually all buildings) were simply not designed to withstand having a complete failure of even one floor.

[John Q. Citizen]

88. Give me the names of some independent engineers

who have access to the evidence.

Also, the towers didn't fail at the impact floors, so how was the fire proofing stripped from the non impact failure floor?

And of course there is nothing to indicate that the fire proofing wasn't fully intact in building #7.

[LARED]

90. How's this for an idea

Burn the entire NIST report on WTC investigation, hire a competent civil engineering firm that has the correct experience and ask them to review the report for completeness and accuracy. It's your nickel so you can ask them to analyze the available public, and academic information (of which there is an enormous amount) to determine if there is some other explanation for the collapse.

Also while I'm thinking along these lines, you can have them perform some reverse engineering by asking them to determine how the WTC towers would be collapsed as seen on video using controlled demolition methods. Once you have established potential scenarios you could determine if existing information fits within the findings.

If the costs are too high for you, the CT community could easily raise the funds to do this if they wanted to.

[LARED]

94. Edit

The first sentence should read

Burn the entire NIST report on WTC investigation on CD.

[William Seger]

91. "Independent" of what?

The government? Almost all of the engineers who participated in the initial FEMA investigation were private-sector volunteers. The various private industry and academic bodies involved in the NIST study, which was the majority of the principle participants, are documented here: http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC%20Response%20Presentation%2011122002%20text.pdf
It's not my concern that that isn't sufficiently "independent" for the no-conspiracy-too-large theorists, but then again, that's one important reason why such theorists haven't been (and never will be) taken seriously by anyone other than their fellow fantasists. Especially considering that such fantasists don't trust anyone who doesn't tell them what they want to hear. The rather obvious reason why the "movement" can't seem to find any qualified experts to tell them what they want to hear seems to elude them.

> Also, the towers didn't fail at the impact floors, so how was the fire proofing stripped from the non impact failure floor?

Nice try "truther," but you need to check your facts: WTC 1 was damaged at least between the 93rd and 98th floors and the collapse started at about the 97th floor. WTC 2 was damaged at least between the 78th and 84th floors and the collapse started at about the 80th floor.

> And of course there is nothing to indicate that the fire proofing wasn't fully intact in building #7.

Nor is there anything to indicate that it was fully intact. Nor is there any reason to think that even if it was intact, the building was invulnerable to fire.

[MervinFerd]

62. No, you still don't understand.

Any -limited- damage is going to produce a collapse that is mostly due to gravity. You knock out supports on the 1st floor, or you knock out supports on the 80th floor. That starts a collapse process, which proceeds the same, whatever the initial cause.

To make those towers fall much much faster than this, would require -----VAST-----HUGE-----ENORMOUS------STUPENDOUS-----UNBELIEVEABLE----- amounts of explosives. Explosives on every beam on every floor.

Got it?

[William Seger]

87. Some examples

It seems to be hard to find collapse times for any kind of collapse, but here are a couple of videos that someone posted on JREF.

The first one is a hospital that was being demolished by a crane when it suddenly experienced a gravitational collapse. The building appears to be 8 stories high, so if each is 10 feet, that would be 80 feet. The free-fall time from 80' would be about 2.25 seconds. As you can see, the collapse time is hard to pin down exactly because of the dust (just like with the towers), but it appears to be complete within about 3 seconds -- definitely less than 4.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHbC9gc_Ylo

The second is a parking garage that was being demolished by a wrecking ball, which triggered a horizontal progressive failure, one bay at a time, but near the end you see the last few bays collapse all at one time, and for that section it's also about 8 stories in about 3 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmiApjHn4e8

OK, now it's your turn: Please document any cases where a gravitational collapse took longer than twice free-fall time.

[William Seger]

97. Yoohoo! Down here!

Sorry I was out of town when this topic got started, but doesn't anyone have any comments? Any examples of a gravitational collapse taking longer than twice free-fall? Or, is everyone satisfied that, without any such examples, the question was moot in the first place?

[treestar]

96. I don't see why they don't just come out and set forth the

chemical reactions. If we found it hard to understand, at least we would have a start.

Since their theory is scientifically provable as they say, they should just state if flat out - then as more people come to understand it, the conspiracy theories will die down.

It is known how much steel there was in the WTC, how much jet fuel there was, the melting and weakening points of the substances are all known, so they need only be worked out and expressed in a chemical equation.

[William Seger]

98. Not sure what you're asking for

The general behavior of steel under heat is well known: it loses strength. The fact that the perimeter walls slowly bowed inward in one wall of each tower is indisputable (and no thanks, petgoat, I don't care to hear the "heat waves" nonsense again). For those columns to bow in like that, it's a logical conclusion that the floor diaphragms on those sides couldn't have been intact, so the sagging floors pulling the columns in is a logical theory. But regardless, even if a slumping core somehow pulled the columns in (although it isn't clear why that would happen on only one side), the perimeter columns were bowed in, so they certainly no longer had their designed buckling resistance. The tilting of the tower tops immediately before the collapse started is also a documented fact, and it's easy enough to understand how that tilting was caused by a combination of the buckling perimeter walls and the resulting unequal redistribution of loads to adjacent columns and the core, which would cause the core columns on that same side to begin to bend. Once that bending became "plastic" buckling of the core columns, the top sections gained more downward and lateral momentum and the tilting became greater, and the unequal distribution of loads also became greater, so the bucking continued to failure. Those load were then redistributed to other core columns, which also failed due to overloading, and it quickly became a total horizontal progressive failure at that level. The top section then fell at least one full floor -- maybe two -- with very little resistance.

From the outset, the fires are presumed to have played major a role in all that, simple because we know for a fact that fire weakens steel. But the NIST study did (or rather contracted out) the most elaborate modeling of the fire and its effect on the floor trusses and columns that has ever been done, and that modeling found a plausible theory. However, all we have is indirect evidence of what was happening inside the towers, and according to some engineers (e.g. Dr. Greening) fires might not even have necessary for the collapses to occur. The fact that the towers stood for an hour and an hour-and-a-half after the crashes does not really mean that they were stable. Greening believes that the tower tops began tilting, very slowly, immediately after the plane crashes, and he believes that tilting alone would have eventually brought the towers down by redistributing loads unequally. So, he believes that the fires didn't do anything but perhaps speed up the inevitable.

Anyway, the fires had virtually nothing to do with what happened after the collapse got started. That was strictly the result of gravity, or more precisely, the kinetic energy of mass in motion due to the acceleration of gravity. Dr. Greening and Dr. Brant have done the best known analyses of that, using very different methods but arriving at the same conclusion: The impact of the falling sections was more than the structures could resist.

So, what are you looking for exactly?

[treestar]

109. So reduce it to a chemical formula

[William Seger]

110. Reduce what to a chemical formula?

[treestar]

111. How much steel was there in the towers, what quantity of fire

weakens its weight bearing capacity to what degree?

The quantities of material are known, so the fact that this amount of fire at this amount of temperature weakens the weight bearing steel to the point where it can support a weight less than it had to in order to keep the building up - that should be possible to set forth in terms of chemistry.

Without rudeness, snideness, condescending comments, or references to any person or report.

[William Seger]

112. WIthout references to any person or report?

Strange; the usual request is for sources. The NIST document NCSTAR 1-6D has the results of both their fire and structural damage studies: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf

That study estimated (by simulation) the various temperatures reached in different locations at different times. But there isn't any simple formula that you can use to estimate the effects on the different steel structural components involved. The "rules of thumb" about percentage losses at various temperatures are just that -- ballpark estimates -- and there are lots of other things going on (such as differential expansion and shifting loads) that will affect the shape and/or stability of a structure and thus its reaction to a fire. To know how a particular element will behave at a particular temperature or a particular fire pattern, you either have to test it empirically or do what the NIST simulation did: estimate the effects with a numeric analysis technique called "finite element analysis." An FEA essentially models the components of the structure, sometimes as a single object but often as a collection of particles or arbitrary chunks, depending on what you need to do. An FEA mathematically models the elements' reaction (shape or displacement, for example) to different environmental conditions (stresses and temperatures, for example) using individual formulas based on physics principles, and it also mathematically models the effects of connected or nearby elements on each other. The FEA then cycles through as many iterations as necessary to arrive at a "solution," which would be a lot of iterations in the case of studying fire effects over time.

That is the type of analysis that NIST used to determine that the sagging floors pulled the perimeter columns in, and that this bowing of the columns caused the buckling that initiated the collapse. Again, there isn't any simple formula that you can use to duplicate that result. You would either need to do your own FEA, or you would need to reconstruct the towers and run experiments.

And, BTW, my "rudeness, snideness, condescending comments" are reserved for people who tick me off. Getting on that list may be easy, but staying off it ain't so hard, either.

[William Seger]

113. (dup deleted)

[Nederland]

120. Question

How fast to you believe the towers fell? 9 sec? 12 sec? 15 sec?

I just need a baseline before responding.

[freedom fighter jh]

121. Summary

Thank you everyone for a good, energetic discussion.

I did not see an example of a building collapsing within twice the rate free-fall would have taken. (Forgive me if I missed something; there are a lot of responses and I'm pressed for time.) This does not mean that it can't happen. It does mean that there is no known history to cite to support the assertion that fire -- or anything else besides controlled demolition -- can bring a building down at a rate near free fall.

[William Seger]

122. Yes, you missed my examples in reply #87 (n/t)

[freedom fighter jh]

123. Your Examples

I was not sure you were serious.

In the first example, the whole building does not come down. The question is about whole buildings coming down.

In the second example, the demolition is intentional -- done by a wrecking ball. Do you have any documentation for this? If a wrecking ball is used, is it not reasonable to think there may have been something else used to make the building collapse? The way the collapse proceeded, it does not look like it just kept going by itself after the wrecking ball did its thing. That's why I'm asking about documentation. And anyway it does not speak to the question. The structure is concrete, and the question is about steel.

[William Seger]

124. They were both gravitational "progressive collapses"

Yes, both building were being demolished, but at some point, the damage led to a gravity-driven "progressive collapse" -- a chain reaction of failures -- which is what happened at the WTC. I thought you were looking for some evidence that gravity-driven progressive collapses can happen in less than twice free-fall. The answer is yes, and those videos prove it. As for concrete vs. steel, the material is not the determining factor for collapse times. Once the mass is in motion, the only thing that's going to slow it down is having some of the kinetic energy used to break or bend the structure in its way, and the amount of slowing will depend on the amount of energy necessary, not the material. Steel-reinforced concrete is plenty strong in compression.

Anyway, besides dodging those examples, you're also dodging the repeated request to show an example of a building taking longer than twice free-fall time to collapse under gravity. If you don't have any, this whole thread was pointless. If you can show me just one, and I'll do some digging for more examples of less than twice free-fall. Otherwise, I'll have to assume that this whole thread was just your way of saying that no buildings like the WTC towers ever collapsed like the WTC towers -- which doesn't quite cut it as evidence of anything since no buildings like the WTC towers ever got hit with 500mph 767s, either.

[freedom fighter jh]

125. Answers to your issues.

I've asked you to establish that the second collapse was simply gravity driven, but you have not done that. Was nothing external used to make it happen? How do you know?

Different materials have different properties and different expected failure modes. The "amount of energy necessary" that you refer to itself depends on the material. Concrete fails quickly in tension -- it cracks. Steel does not do that. The materials are not comparable.

An example of a building taking longer than twice free fall time to collapse is easy -- it's your first example. In the video it does not collapse completely. Only the top goes.

[William Seger]

126. Whatever

You don't believe those videos are telling you anything, and you don't believe the theoretical calculations either. And even though you don't have any evidence of a gravitational collapse taking longer than twice free-fall time, you'll go on believing that it should, based on nothing but imaginary physics. Carry on.