Merged Why WTC7 should not have collapsed

Status
Not open for further replies.
JihadJane said:
If, as as been hypothesised, means other than gravity and fire were used to bring down the building, is it really fair to call Column 79's subsequent non-existence a "failure"?
Click to expand...

I hope that was a joke.

In engineering terms, a failed structural member is one that is no longer able to provide the structural support it is intended to provide, due to loss of load carrying ability. In this context, "failure" is used as shorthand for "structural failure", for a definition of which see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_failure .

Note that structural failure due to an intense shockwave which stresses the material beyond its strength limit (i.e. an explosion) is still defined, in this context, as failure. Therefore, the process of controlled demolition with explosives involves an induced failure of the lower load bearing structures in a building.

Fair or not, failure is what it's called.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
I hope that was a joke.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was.

If the column was cut, rather than shock-waved like the rest of us, would it still be fair to call it a failure?

Anyway, enough frivolity, I came here to have a few words with the angry Funky daFino.
 
Heiwa said:
Most local failures in steel structures luckily do not progress to create a critical failure that causes the complete structure to globally collapse. The destruction is generally arrested long before that.
Click to expand...

I think you are going to wave your hand off in short order by over-use.

What is the arresting mechanism?
 
Pecks?

funk de fino said:
I have seen other truthers use Bill Manning's words to bolster a false claim. You have copied them. Do you have anything original?
Click to expand...


A surprising number of “debunkers” claim to have psychic abilities.


Care to admit your or Bill's mistake?
Click to expand...

“Bill’s”?

Are you on first name terms with “Bill” or are you playing silly, pecking-order status games?

Neither Bill Manning nor I have made a mistake. The wikipedia NFPA article you to linked to says:

“While not every recommendation in NFPA 921 will apply to any particular fire or explosion investigation, the document itself recommends that if a particular fire investigator does not apply certain sections to an investigation where they are called-for, the investigator must be prepared to justify the exclusion.”

This is exactly what Manning appeal is asking the investigators to do - justify the removal and destruction of key evidence

Manning’s appeal was first brought to wider public attention by the New York Daily News.
 
Hi Guys. I am on a mission. Sorry! These threads are wasting a huge amount of great brain power! These wo woos post some baloney and you all chase them ad infinitum. Good on you for your pure motivation, but...

Why not leave it at the point where someone asks them a sensible question e.g. show your proof? Then, unless they come up with something sensible, just leave them alone(o.k. I know the odds of them coming up with something sensible are pretty long).

Instead, let's concentrate on bombarding media outlets who perpetrate woo woo. That way we will make a much bigger difference.

Dubious Dick hates wasted energy, but loves his fellow skeptics!
 
funk de fino said:
Perhaps you could do this yourself? I have given you a name already of someone who backs up the claim I made. You only need to contact him and ask him for clarification and any documents he may have supporting his claims. He may also give you contacts for people who carried out the examinations. You may want to contact the demolition companies that were involved and see if they have any info or are willing to talk to you about it.

I know for a fact you will do none of these though. Same old pathetic MO. Handwave everything that contradicts your false claims and expect someone here to do all your legwork for you.
Click to expand...


Sorry about your overworked legs!

I was not asking for help or charity. I was asking you to back up your bare assertions with some substance. I asked for the reports detailing the investigations and inspections you and the "name" claim took place because I have not seen any evidence that such reports even exist. Have you?

An attitude of "If you have a problem with his claims then please take it up with him and not me" suggests that you do not feel it necessary to check the credibility of your sources of information.
 
JihadJane said:
A surprising number of “debunkers” claim to have psychic abilities.
Click to expand...

Nothing original then. I suspected so.

Jihad said:
“Bill’s”?

Are you on first name terms with “Bill” or are you playing silly, pecking-order status games?

Neither Bill Manning nor I have made a mistake. The wikipedia NFPA article you to linked to says:

“While not every recommendation in NFPA 921 will apply to any particular fire or explosion investigation, the document itself recommends that if a particular fire investigator does not apply certain sections to an investigation where they are called-for, the investigator must be prepared to justify the exclusion.”

This is exactly what Manning appeal is asking the investigators to do - justify the removal and destruction of key evidence

Manning’s appeal was first brought to wider public attention by the New York Daily News.
Click to expand...

It is his name jihad is it not. no pecking order games the only ones playing games here are trolls......

You have linked to a piece from WIKI i gave you that debunks Bills claims. It is not a standard that is to be enforced. It is guidelines. There are no need for exemptions as the guidelines themselves tell you that you do not need to carry out all instrcutions. If the investigator has good reason not to carry out any of the guidelines and is asked why not he must state why. It is not illegal if you do not carry them out. Well done you have debunked Mr Bill Manning.

wiki said:
While not every recommendation in NFPA 921 will apply to any particular fire or explosion investigation, the document itself recommends that if a particular fire investigator does not apply certain sections to an investigation where they are called-for, the investigator must be prepared to justify the exclusion.
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed post # 202 and 203?

ps i am not angry
 
funk de fino said:
heres one study of a piece of steel from WTC7

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

heres a description of the steel coollection and inspection process

http://www.civil.columbia.edu/ce4210/FEMA_403CD/html/pdfs/403_apd.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks for providing some links, despite your tired legs. An inspection of one piece of steel, however, isn't very impressive, is it? Nor are the 150 pieces described in your second link, which portrays the haphazard and inadequate nature of the claimed thorough investigation and forensic inspections, conducted under the pressure of a rapid recycling regime which even swallowed up some of the chosen samples. What chance is there of reconstructing any part of the building from such a small collection? I linked to this report myself when you gave me the "name". This seems to indicate that you do not follow up my links before replying to my posts. :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp
 
Dave Rogers said:
Because it will not "always be conjecture"; it's already far more than that. It's a fully formed hypothesis that agrees with all the available evidence, and so far the only hypothesis that agrees with the available evidence, your continuing attempts to claim that it's unfounded because of the lack of one class of evidence notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

It is either misinformed and deliberately misleading to call physical evidence “one class of evidence” as if other classes of evidence were equal to it. All other classes are greatly inferior. Computer reconstruction is a very poor substitue for physical, real life reconstruction.



It's informally known as the 9-11 Commission Report.
Click to expand...

Is this a joke? Made me laugh anyway.
 
JihadJane said:
It is either misinformed and deliberately misleading to call physical evidence “one class of evidence” as if other classes of evidence were equal to it. All other classes are greatly inferior.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting statement, given that it's perfectly general. Would you claim, therefore, that documentary evidence was "greatly inferior" to physical evidence in a libel or a fraud case? Or are you simply limiting your comments to the specific field of the investigation of building collapses? (In which case, you're the one being deliberately misleading.)

Dave
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Regardless of what goal posts you shift the analogy is invalid. In building structures there's a concept called the square-cube effect.

Say for example we have an umbrella shaped shelter that is 10 ft & 10 ft deep with a flat concrete roof 1 ft thick and a single center column having an area of 1ft2.

Concrete is roughly 150 Lbs/ft3, the total load on the column is about 15 kips, and the compressive stress is 15 kips/ft2
Note: 1 kip = 1,000 lbs

Take the same structure and increase the size 3 fold, overall size increases to 30 ft in each dimension; The roof slab would increase in thickness to by 3 fold as well resulting in a slab with about 2700 ft3, and a weight of 405 kips. The area of the center column would increase to 9 ft2. The column stress would be 45 kips, which is three times that of the original smaller structure. In order to effect the same compressive stress , the column area would have to triple to 27 ft2 with column dimension increasing to 5.2 ft on each side.


In other words even using the same materials in you "analogy" would result in drastically different results. The problem is compounded just by using different materials... A 1 ft3 volume of concrete can be loaded with many times it's own weight, however a slab of concrete the size of a building may only support double it's own weight.
Click to expand...

Then you tell me what needs to be done to get it to collapse.

For instance.

If one were to build a WTC model made of say some steel brackets used in industrial shelving or maybe an Erector Set and build the core, outer columns, and floor trusses.

Use sheet metal for floor pans.

Use maybe ceramic tile in place of concrete floors.

Stuff it with fabric and paper.

Put a small balloon filled with lighter fluid inside near the top.

Get the balloon to explode. Shoot it if you have a gun if you think it will help.

This is maybe 1/10 - 1/20 the size of the original.

What needs to be added for it to completely be destroyed down to the ground?


And no I'm not doing this I'm just asking.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Well I own a microphone and a video camera. Will you loan me your bad wardrobe and then maybe I can do as much as you?
Click to expand...

LOL

Transmitting a TV show from your garage to 16 libertarian bores in New York is far more important than actually trying to recreate the collapses.
 
mchapman said:
LOL

Transmitting a TV show from your garage to 16 libertarian bores in New York is far more important than actually trying to recreate the collapses.
Click to expand...



Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm just marking time until NIST releases its report on the Towers. Who do you think will win: Bush or Kerry?
 
pomeroo said:
You'd need sixty more IQ points.
Click to expand...

IQ means nothing. In fact, the higher the IQ, the less likely the person is to have any kind of social awareness or skills. Autistic people can have very high IQs, and I suspect many debunkers are autistic.
 
mchapman said:
IQ means nothing. In fact, the higher the IQ, the less likely the person is to have any kind of social awareness or skills. Autistic people can have very high IQs, and I suspect many debunkers are autistic.
Click to expand...



You're wrong. Wow! Stop the presses!
 
pomeroo said:
Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm just marking time until NIST releases its report on the Towers. Who do you think will win: Bush or Kerry?
Click to expand...

I always knew Bush would win because the Republican crooks like to fiddle the vote.

Now, you have made the specific claim that NIST have recreated the collapses. Please provide evidence of this. (Computer simulations are not what I nor homeland insurgency were talking about)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom