9/11

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:The only people who find the symmetric collapse 'unusual' are people who don't know anything about structural engineering.

You find the structural collapse normal but yet know absolutely nothing about even the most elementary concepts in science as shown by your quotes below:

"The laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems."

"Themodynamics has nothing to do with building collapses."

"Consider a table with four legs that is supporting a 1000kg mass. Assume the following:

1) The gravitation constant is 10 (i.e. 1000kg requires a 10000N force to keep it stable)

2) Each leg can support 4000N - if the force exceeds this it will collapse.

3) Each leg is attached to the ground and the table top is rigid.

In a normal situation each leg will have a 2500N force acting on it - well within its capabilities with room to spare.

Assume a catastrophic event occurs that exposes the legs to fire that gradually weakens two of the legs. Assume the fire does not act on each leg equally. Eventually, one leg weakens to the point where it cannot support the 2500N force and collapses.

At this point the weight will shift instantaneously to the other 3 legs because the structure is rigid and attached to the ground. This means that each leg will now have 3333N of force acting on it. Still within the tolerances of the undamaged legs which means the structure should remain standing."

"Heat is nothing more than energy. When something burns it releases energy. The amount of heat generated by something burning depends on the substance being burned, however, once the heat is created it has to go somewhere. If this heat is trapped for some reason then this energy can accumulate in a location and theoretically cause the temperature to rise higher than the temperature of the flame."

"Quantum mechanics is the theoretical underpinning for all matter"

So, I would advise readers to ignore the parts of your posts that imply that you actually know something about science.

[kuzadd]

If there had been sufficient debris to compromise WTC7, it could not have created a complete perfectly symmetrical collapse.

Structures, such as these tall buildings, are not built with a lot of redundancy. That means the failure of one support can trigger a near-simultaneous failure of another support which, in turn, triggers the failure of another. This domino effect can cause all supports in a building to fail almost simultaneously which leads to a near symmetrical collapses like we observed on 9/11.

ya know what riverwind?Buildings such as this are built with mucho mucho redundancy!

I wish you had even an iota of a clue, of what you speak?

EVERY building is built with redundancy factored in for safety reasons.

Your entire premise is completely false.

You remember that Eager report, even he acknowledges the WTC buildings were built with lots of redundancy.

IMO, you know nothing about construction, PERIOD!

Your whole scenario is faulty, flawed and sheer quackery.

The egg-crate construction made a redundant structure (i.e., if one or two columns were lost, the loads would shift into adjacent columns and the building would remain standing). The WTC was primarily a lightweight steel structure; however, its 244 perimeter columns made it “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers.1

not to speak of it's massive core columns!!

“one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers.

“one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers.

that reference came from here

1. Presentation on WTC Collapse, Civil Engineering Department, MIT, Cambridge, MA (October 3, 2001).

do some homework for yourself, ok?

nevermind the super reinforcement of building number 7!

non-credible, completely, just like the official story.

[kuzadd]

Riverwind:The only people who find the symmetric collapse 'unusual' are people who don't know anything about structural engineering.

You find the structural collapse normal but yet know absolutely nothing about even the most elementary concepts in science as shown by your quotes below:

So, I would advise readers to ignore the parts of your posts that imply that you actually know something about science.

PN, truly, why do you bother??

I admire your patience, but, ...........

BTW: riverwind "The only people who find the symmetric collapse 'unusual' are people who don't know anything about structural engineering."

clearly you are referring to your own lack of knowledge. Quite clearly.

[PolyNewbie]

You can't convince everyone that 9/11 was an inside job directly but showing that the viewpoints of people that support the official version have foolish reasoning might help.

9/11 & monetary reform are the main tools for waking people up about the beast. 9/11 exposes the underbelly, monetary reform is the weapon.

The North American Union is more perilous but people automatically assume its a good thing because - I guess - we are neighbors and the word "union" sounds like a good thing. Of course they have no understanding of economics because they took it in school.

[kuzadd]

You can't convince everyone that 9/11 was an inside job directly but showing that the viewpoints of people that support the official version have foolish reasoning might help.

it's not just limited to foolish reasoning, it's out and out lack of knowledge and a total lack of willingness to inform oneself.

[PolyNewbie]

I'm reading about this stuff - John McMurty has a paper on Science for Peace website called The Regulating Group Mind that was interesting. I think these guys on here are working with the secret police or the have comfortable jobs and comfortable homes and think the globalists need them and that they will never be affected. Some are just completely ignorant - many are afraid of this truth. We have two more years before the bubble bursts - a globalist said this on the prisonplanet site so at least the economy won't break fora while.

I'm concerned about Russia because the globalists are really mad at Putin - he has thrown the bankers and oligarchy out and doesn't want to go along with globalism - when the Bushes and Co came in to start wrecking the Russian economy and rob everybody the Russians woke up and arrested some of them and threw others out of the country. They learned what globalism is really about.

The talk that supports this official version is coined in Europe as "Austrian Talk". I'm reading about the science of evil that was first written by a group of scientists in Poland in the 20's. Brzezinsky suppressed the manuscript. The book is called Ponerology - the science of evil.

Anyways we have more time before everything caves in and we can wake up more people.

[PolyNewbie]

In fact, one of the buildings adjacent to WTC7 had to be later demolished because of damage sustained when WTC7 fell on it.

No. That building was the one that was on fire and causing all the smoke that looked like it was comming from building 7. Building 7 only had a few small fires and comparatively light damage.

wtc7 damage

wtc7 did in fact collapse into its own footprint and only broke windows in a few places on other buildings that stood as close as less than 50 feet. It was an absolutely perfectly executed conventional controlled demolition and was text book example of how to CD a building. Its collapse didn't damage any other buildings.

The damage to ther buildings were due to the projectiles being shot out from wtc1 & wtc2 during the explosions that gradually demolished the building from to to bottom.

Anyone can see how the wtc7 went down perfectly on any of the videos. These videos also show wtc1 & wtc2 being blown apart. The propoganda will only be believed for so long - particularly when all the evidence you need to see explosions is right on video. People only fall for the power of suggestion for so long.

[buffycat]

Poly, has there ever been a building which has collapsed into it's own footprint outside of CD being performed?

[kuzadd]

In fact, one of the buildings adjacent to WTC7 had to be later demolished because of damage sustained when WTC7 fell on it.

I've missed, whomever made this statement, please, which building ,adjacent to wtc7 had to be demolished because of wtc 7's collapse??

adjacent meaning: next to, ADJACENT may or may not imply contact but always implies absence of anything of the same kind in between a house with an adjacent garage

[stignasty]

Sorry, I made a mistake. Fiterman Hall hasn't been demolished yet. They're concerned about the amount of toxins involved.

World Trade tower 7 was in between tower 1 and Fiterman Hall at 30 West Broadway. http://www.debunking911.com/fig-1-7.jpg

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/constructio...hall_39764.aspx

[Riverwind]

BTW: riverwind "The only people who find the symmetric collapse 'unusual' are people who don't know anything about structural engineering."

clearly you are referring to your own lack of knowledge. Quite clearly.

No structural engineer has come out and said that buildings cannot symmetrically collapse after experiencing asymmetric damage.

A tall steel framed building does _not_ behave like a tower of LEGO. These building can sustain a lot of damage and remain standing. However, once they start to collapse the domino effect can cause a near simulatenous failure of supports which leads to a symmetric collapse.

The word 'can' is critical - it implies that it does not always occur. But it does also means the symmetric collapse is _not_ evidence of a controlled demolition - no matter how many times you repeat it.

[kuzadd]

BTW: riverwind "The only people who find the symmetric collapse 'unusual' are people who don't know anything about structural engineering."

clearly you are referring to your own lack of knowledge. Quite clearly.

No structural engineer has come out and said that buildings cannot symmetrically collapse after experiencing asymmetric damage.

A tall steel framed building does _not_ behave like a tower of LEGO. These building can sustain a lot of damage and remain standing. However, once they start to collapse the domino effect can cause a near simulatenous failure of supports which leads to a symmetric collapse.

The word 'can' is critical - it implies that it does not always occur. But it does also means the symmetric collapse is _not_ evidence of a controlled demolition - no matter how many times you repeat it.

You demonstrated a total lack of knowledge regarding structural redundancy in the WTC buildings.

Don't admonish me, when you own knolwedge is severely and I mean severly lacking.

You should acknowledge your huge error, one of many, I may add.

I'll repeat your faux pas, as you breezed right on by it, without acknowledging it

riverwind:

"Structures, such as these tall buildings, are not built with a lot of redundancy. That means the failure of one support can trigger a near-simultaneous failure of another support which, in turn, triggers the failure of another. "

completely false!

I said to you......

"You remember that Eager report, even he acknowledges the WTC buildings were built with lots of redundancy.

IMO, you know nothing about construction, PERIOD!

Your whole scenario is faulty, flawed and sheer quackery.

The egg-crate construction made a redundant structure (i.e., if one or two columns were lost, the loads would shift into adjacent columns and the building would remain standing). The WTC was primarily a lightweight steel structure; however, its 244 perimeter columns made it “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers.1

not to speak of it's massive core columns!!

“one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers.

“one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers.

that reference came from here

1. Presentation on WTC Collapse, Civil Engineering Department, MIT, Cambridge, MA (October 3, 2001).

my answer was to the fact that you yourself, clearly know nothing of structural engineering, hence your lack of realization of wind as lateral load, along with your totally bogus statement on construction redundancy, as lacking which is blatantly false wrt wtc structure or by extension any other building.

[kuzadd]

Sorry, I made a mistake. Fiterman Hall hasn't been demolished yet. They're concerned about the amount of toxins involved.

World Trade tower 7 was in between tower 1 and Fiterman Hall at 30 West Broadway. http://www.debunking911.com/fig-1-7.jpg

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/constructio...hall_39764.aspx

correct! Fiterman hall has not been demolished yet, and, is NOT being demolished due to damage from WTC 7, which was only facade and not structural damage. Fiterman hall is being demolished due to mold and toxins from the WTC towers.

The Verizon building, was also structurally sound and has been/is being repaired

actually the building between wtc tower 1 and building number 7, was wtc building number 6.

wtc 6 did NOT collapse, but was demolished, at a later date.

see image

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winston...Images/Fig6.jpg

Fiterman hall was in fact behind building # 7.

http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc7/wtc_aerial.jpg

check image for building positioning.

[stignasty]

actually the building between wtc tower 1 and building number 7, was wtc building number 6.

Fiterman hall was in fact behind building # 7.

That's what I said when I stated: "World Trade tower 7 was in between tower 1 and Fiterman Hall at 30 West Broadway. From that, it is likely that damage to 30 West Broadway was much more likely to have been caused by the collapse of building seven than from the collapse of building one.

That's all beside the point. Damage to Fiterman hall regardless of whether it is going to be demolished or not is evidence that building seven did not fall straight down in a controlled demolition.

As this is going in the same manner as the other threads (in circles). I will remove myself from this discussion unless someone can bring something new into it.

[Riverwind]

"Structures, such as these tall buildings, are not built with a lot of redundancy. That means the failure of one support can trigger a near-simultaneous failure of another support which, in turn, triggers the failure of another. "

completely false! I said to you......

The term 'a lot of redundancy' is a relative term that means nothing unless you understand the reference point. When I made my statement I was comparing skyscrapers to smaller structures. IWO - my statement is correct.

You can make the case that the WTC1 & 2 towers had a fair amount of redundancy, when compared to other skyscrapers, however, that redundancy means nothing once the building starts to collapse. At that point the domino effect can lead to the near simultaneous collapse of the supports.

You have no scientific evidence to back up your claim that buildings could not have collapsed symmetrically from asymmetric damage. You are simply assuming it is true because it supports your fantasies.

[PolyNewbie]

RiverwindYou have no scientific evidence to back up your claim that buildings could not have collapsed symmetrically from asymmetric damage. You are simply assuming it is true because it supports your fantasies.

No, you have no scientific evidence to say it would. Everyday experience tells us that this is impossible. Things do not collapse naturally straight down with all supports breaking at the same instant. A simple force diagram would show this - after some supports break the remaining forces are not evenly distributed among the remaining supports - some get overloaded before others and the building tips. This intuition is backed up by the second law of thermodynamics.

Stop trying to sell yourself as someone who "understands science" this is easily shown not to be the case.

[PolyNewbie]

Buffycat Poly, has there ever been a building which has collapsed into it's own footprint outside of CD being performed?

This has happened but only due to specific faults that would cause a shearing force to cause a specific type of fault that initiates a collapse - all the walls sort of tip at once and the floors come crashing down. Its happened during the contruction phase of a few buildings when the building wasn't properly braced.

It happened in a shopping mall in Korea or Singapore ( I forget which) when the building was built in a way different from the design - the design was changed during construction and not verified as OK with engineering. The building sides tipped caused by a shearing force and the building collapsed onto itself.

This can be caused due to a specific fault during or after contruction which provides the needed element of control for a perfectly symmetrical collapse.

All of the examples put forth of natural building collapses brought forward by the apologists have their collapse initiated by exactly a shearing force. I can't draw it in here - but imagine how a card house collapses.

[Riverwind]

Everyday experience tells us that this is impossible.

Engineers who design buildings do not use experiments with lego blocks to tell them what should and should not happen.

Things do not collapse naturally straight down with all supports breaking at the same instant.

Wrong. The supports do not need to collapse at the same instant to produce a symmetric collapse. A progressive failure of supports can produce a symmetric collapse - this can be demonstrated with a simple force diagram.

after some supports break the remaining forces are not evenly distributed among the remaining supports - some get overloaded before others and the building tips.

Wrong again. The building CANNOT tip unless the remaining supports are able to support the weight of the building. If they cannot support the weight then they cannot impart any significant rotational momentum before they collapse. As a result, the building will hit the ground before an observable tipping occurs.

You cannot prove that a symmetric collapse is impossible without a demolition. You can scream 'it obvious' until you are blue in the face that does not prove a damn thing. You really need to go back to school and learn what a proof is - it is clear you don't have a clue.

[PolyNewbie]

Many scientists have said a symmetriucal collapse violates the second law of thermo. Jeff King, Stephen Jones + others (Hoffman I think) have said it. You have shown that you have no idea about what you are talking about wrt scientific principle so please stop argueing about science.

Engineers say World Trade Center collapse was planned

Improbable Collapse

Riverwind: You really need to go back to school and learn what a proof is - it is clear you don't have a clue.

This is your explanation of how a building can collapse perfectly straight down:

"Consider a table with four legs that is supporting a 1000kg mass. Assume the following:

1) The gravitation constant is 10 (i.e. 1000kg requires a 10000N force to keep it stable)

2) Each leg can support 4000N - if the force exceeds this it will collapse.

3) Each leg is attached to the ground and the table top is rigid.

In a normal situation each leg will have a 2500N force acting on it - well within its capabilities with room to spare.

Assume a catastrophic event occurs that exposes the legs to fire that gradually weakens two of the legs. Assume the fire does not act on each leg equally. Eventually, one leg weakens to the point where it cannot support the 2500N force and collapses.

At this point the weight will shift instantaneously to the other 3 legs because the structure is rigid and attached to the ground. This means that each leg will now have 3333N of force acting on it. Still within the tolerances of the undamaged legs which means the structure should remain standing."

"

The underlined statement above written by Riverwind proves that Riverwind is incompetent.

[Riverwind]

This has happened but only due to specific faults that would cause a shearing force to cause a specific type of fault that initiates a collapse - all the walls sort of tip at once and the floors come crashing down. Its happened during the contruction phase of a few buildings when the building wasn't properly braced.

Prior experience does not mean much since there are no other examples of steel frame buildings that experienced the amount of damage that the WTC towers experienced on 9/11. Furthermore, the fact that something never happened before does not mean it could never happen.

[ScottSA]

Whatever happened to the magic ray gun that the truthies were talking about? Is that old boring hat by now?

[Riverwind]

The underlined statement above written by Riverwind proves that Riverwind is incompetent.

Gawd you are an idiot. I explained the reasons for my assumptions and I re-did the analysis assuming a unequal distribution and demonstrated that the DISTRIBUTION OF THE LOAD ACROSS THE LEGS HAS NO EFFECT ON MY ORIGINAL CONCLUSION.

For example: assume that the entire load is balanced on the two legs closest to the collapsed legs. This means they would have to support a load of 5000N. This load would cause those legs to collapse immediately BEFORE any significant rotation could occur. Once those legs collapsed the entire 10000N load would shift to the remaining leg which would collapse immediately as well.

Yet you completely ignore that part and post and re-post my original statement over and over again. You are acting like a typical truthie: nit piking on irrelevant details while ignoring the bigger picture.

[PolyNewbie]

Yet you completely ignore that part and post and re-post my original statement over and over again. You are acting like a typical truthie

No one scientifically competent would make such a statement and your correction is still wrong as I have pointed out. That is not your only scientific statement that can be shown to be wrong or in better terms "completely ridiculous".

Stop waving you scientific stick around in these threads as if you are some kind of authority because you are not as clearly indicated in the quote below:

"The laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems."

"Themodynamics has nothing to do with building collapses."

[PolyNewbie]

ScottSA:Whatever happened to the magic ray gun that the truthies were talking about? Is that old boring hat by now?

There is nothing new or magic about an energy beams. Microwave ovens, flashlights & loudspeakers all emit energy beams. One must assume that there are other types of energy beams that are weaponized that you have not seen mentioned in Popular Mechanics or on the Discovery Channel.

What is important is that the collapses were a controlled event not how they happened. The fact that they were controlled events form strong circumstantial evidence for the events to be the result of an inside job by government.

[Riverwind]

That is not your only scientific statement that can be shown to be wrong or in better terms "completely ridiculous".

Assuming the load was equally distributed was a reasonable assumption to start with because I knew that it would be the worst case scenario (i.e. if the load is distributed equally then the structure is less likely to collapse). I also knew that any other load distribution would make a symmetric collapse EVEN more likely. IOW - there is nothing wrong with my initial approach or the conclusions that I drew. You are grasping at straws.

Why don't you try to answer the real questions raised by my example:

The legs cannot support the load so where would the torque required to start rotation come from?

How long would this torque be applied?

How much rotational momentum would be acquired while this torque is applied?

How can you know if this momentum is sufficient to cause significant rotation before the table hits the floor?

If you were intellectually honest you would have to admit that the answer to these questions depends on how quickly the legs fail after they are overloaded. If the legs took a long time to fail even then tipping is a likely outcome. However, if the legs failed quickly then the table would collapse straight down because the legs would not be able to impart any rotational momentum before they collapsed.

It is impossible to know how quickly/slowly the supports in a skyscraper would collapse once they are overloaded which means it is impossible to make any claims about whether the buildings 'should have' tipped. However, my example demostrates that a symmetric collapse is possible and is even an extremely likely outcome for some buildings.