Sorry, but am I questioning your knowledge and understanding of the physics involved?Parker wrote:
LOLScorpion0x17 wrote:
Says me with my understanding of physics.Parker wrote:
very unlikely?
says fucking who?
you...with what experience beyond youtube?
ignorance is bliss.
Or jet fuel (which burns hot, but fast) and office equipment (which burns slow, but cold) fires would have had to have weakened the same number of primary supports and caused the building to collapse without any charges being used at all.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Or jet fuel (which burns hot, but fast) and office equipment (which burns slow, but cold) fires would have had to have weakened the same number of primary supports.Parker wrote:
but dont let logic spoil your fun guys...Bertster7 wrote:
You also have to remember that you need to cut most of the way through a number of primary supports to get a controlled implosion. It could not have been done. It is simply impossible.
Office equipment does not burn at sufficient temperature to weaken steel and jet fuel does not burn for long enough, unless contained, which it clearly was not.Bertster7 wrote:
Or jet fuel (which burns hot, but fast) and office equipment (which burns slow, but cold) fires would have had to have weakened the same number of primary supports and caused the building to collapse without any charges being used at all.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Or jet fuel (which burns hot, but fast) and office equipment (which burns slow, but cold) fires would have had to have weakened the same number of primary supports.Parker wrote:
but dont let logic spoil your fun guys...
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_graphic.gif
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdfScorpion0x17 wrote:
Office equipment does not burn at sufficient temperature to weaken steel and jet fuel does not burn for long enough, unless contained, which it clearly was not.Bertster7 wrote:
Or jet fuel (which burns hot, but fast) and office equipment (which burns slow, but cold) fires would have had to have weakened the same number of primary supports and caused the building to collapse without any charges being used at all.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Or jet fuel (which burns hot, but fast) and office equipment (which burns slow, but cold) fires would have had to have weakened the same number of primary supports.
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_graphic.gif
The big red fireball when the planes hit - that's the jet fuel exploding and burning off.
The big clouds of thick black smoke - that's the slow burning, oxygen deprived, office equipment fires.
I've had a look through that, and quite frankly, without looking at in more detail, it's really quite laughable.Bertster7 wrote:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdfScorpion0x17 wrote:
Office equipment does not burn at sufficient temperature to weaken steel and jet fuel does not burn for long enough, unless contained, which it clearly was not.Bertster7 wrote:
Or jet fuel (which burns hot, but fast) and office equipment (which burns slow, but cold) fires would have had to have weakened the same number of primary supports and caused the building to collapse without any charges being used at all.
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_graphic.gif
The big red fireball when the planes hit - that's the jet fuel exploding and burning off.
The big clouds of thick black smoke - that's the slow burning, oxygen deprived, office equipment fires.
Oh, yeah, never from the top down. Always from the bottom up.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
All true controlled demolitions happen from the ground up!!! People site the explosions being shot out from the sides as the building falls. This would NEVER happen in a real controlled demolition. If you demo a building from the top down, you lose total control of the fall.
Oops. I've posted the wrong link there.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I've had a look through that, and quite frankly, without looking at in more detail, it's really quite laughable.Bertster7 wrote:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdfScorpion0x17 wrote:
Office equipment does not burn at sufficient temperature to weaken steel and jet fuel does not burn for long enough, unless contained, which it clearly was not.
The big red fireball when the planes hit - that's the jet fuel exploding and burning off.
The big clouds of thick black smoke - that's the slow burning, oxygen deprived, office equipment fires.
As I've already said, the big thick clouds of black smoke indicate that what fires were burning were burning in an oxygen deprived environment, and so burned relatively cold.
Those test were done by heating the underside of the floor structures with a 2000F furnaces.
Yeah, steel weakens when heated for 2hrs at 2000F, no, shit, sherlock!
But heating, from below, for 2hrs, at 2000F, doesn't seem, to me, to be a very accurate simulation of the likely conditions.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-07-19 03:29:30)
Ok, I've had a quick skim, and saw the thermal contour diagrams, now maybe I missed this in my skim, but, just how, exactly, were those thermal contour diagrams obtained?Bertster7 wrote:
Oops. I've posted the wrong link there.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I've had a look through that, and quite frankly, without looking at in more detail, it's really quite laughable.
As I've already said, the big thick clouds of black smoke indicate that what fires were burning were burning in an oxygen deprived environment, and so burned relatively cold.
Those test were done by heating the underside of the floor structures with a 2000F furnaces.
Yeah, steel weakens when heated for 2hrs at 2000F, no, shit, sherlock!
But heating, from below, for 2hrs, at 2000F, doesn't seem, to me, to be a very accurate simulation of the likely conditions.
I meant to post this one: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
Those tests you refer to were control tests to establish the systems resistance to fire. Which are certainly very relevant but don't give the whole picture at all. The thermal imaging from 100mins after the jet hit WTC1 shows that the temperatures on the top surface of the 96th floor hit 900C in some areas (see page 31 of the second chapter of the report for the thermal contour diagrams - the whole of that chapter (2) is very informative).
It is quite clear that you don't understand and will not understand the "factors" that contributed to this collapse. I guess hundreds of studies, findings, even from the people who designed these buildings mean nothing to you. I wonder why the designers of these buildings are not out there campaigning for a conspiracy as well. After all, they would know better than anyone why they fell and if they believed anything else, they would be speaking out....right? Or is that another conspiracy why they are silent.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I've had a look through that, and quite frankly, without looking at in more detail, it's really quite laughable.Bertster7 wrote:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdfScorpion0x17 wrote:
Office equipment does not burn at sufficient temperature to weaken steel and jet fuel does not burn for long enough, unless contained, which it clearly was not.
The big red fireball when the planes hit - that's the jet fuel exploding and burning off.
The big clouds of thick black smoke - that's the slow burning, oxygen deprived, office equipment fires.
As I've already said, the big thick clouds of black smoke indicate that what fires were burning were burning in an oxygen deprived environment, and so burned relatively cold.
Those test were done by heating the underside of the floor structures with a 2000F furnaces.
Yeah, steel weakens when heated for 2hrs at 2000F, no, shit, sherlock!
But heating, from below, for 2hrs, at 2000F, doesn't seem, to me, to be a very accurate simulation of the likely conditions.
NIST fire dynamics simulator (I imagine). Shows temperature, thermophysical properties and gas phase and has been demonstrated to be highly accurate - which is why it is the standard used for all such analysis.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Ok, I've had a quick skim, and saw the thermal contour diagrams, now maybe I missed this in my skim, but, just how, exactly, were those thermal contour diagrams obtained?Bertster7 wrote:
Oops. I've posted the wrong link there.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I've had a look through that, and quite frankly, without looking at in more detail, it's really quite laughable.
As I've already said, the big thick clouds of black smoke indicate that what fires were burning were burning in an oxygen deprived environment, and so burned relatively cold.
Those test were done by heating the underside of the floor structures with a 2000F furnaces.
Yeah, steel weakens when heated for 2hrs at 2000F, no, shit, sherlock!
But heating, from below, for 2hrs, at 2000F, doesn't seem, to me, to be a very accurate simulation of the likely conditions.
I meant to post this one: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
Those tests you refer to were control tests to establish the systems resistance to fire. Which are certainly very relevant but don't give the whole picture at all. The thermal imaging from 100mins after the jet hit WTC1 shows that the temperatures on the top surface of the 96th floor hit 900C in some areas (see page 31 of the second chapter of the report for the thermal contour diagrams - the whole of that chapter (2) is very informative).
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-07-19 03:50:19)
I should have said "almost all'..I can accept that but did you notice a big thing in that video....that this structure was taken down to its skeletal form. That is how most implosions are done. They will remove as much of the base structure as possible and please understand that I am talking about demos of buildings that a taller than a few stories. The demo you show was a building that is low, wide and had no chance of falling out of its footprint. So this proves nothing to me or my experience being involved with demos over the years. Again, please go talk to a demo firm and ask them yourself. Be involved in one demo process.....see how much it takes for even the building you show here to take it down. Like I said, it is a joke if you believe that no one would have seen anything for buildings over 100 stories. I guarantee that it took weeks of preparation to even take that small building down....exterior demolition by machine, by man, cutting, inserting chord and charges....do you see the work they did to get it to that stage for even a small building in this video????? With that video you prove to me even more that WTC wasn't controlled.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Oh, yeah, never from the top down. Always from the bottom up.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
All true controlled demolitions happen from the ground up!!! People site the explosions being shot out from the sides as the building falls. This would NEVER happen in a real controlled demolition. If you demo a building from the top down, you lose total control of the fall.
I don't doubt that terrorists flew planes into the towers.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
The only people you should be blaming are the "cowards" that flew those planes into civilian buildings to kill as many as they did. The strategy for using planes as suicide bombs has been around since the 70's, it just finally happened and it is funny that even they (terrorists) tell you they did it, but you can't accept that fact.
Sorry, but simulators are not real life.Bertster7 wrote:
NIST fire dynamics simulator. Shows temperature, thermophysical properties and gas phase and has been demonstrated to be highly accurate - which is why it is the standard used for all such analysis.
Do a search for 'building demolitions' or somesuch on youtube - I won't post them all here, but the vast majority of them are not skeletal (though very few are top-down) - the outer skin and structure of the building is kept largely intact.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
I should have said "almost all'..I can accept that but did you notice a big thing in that video....that this structure was taken down to its skeletal form. That is how most implosions are done. They will remove as much of the base structure as possible and please understand that I am talking about demos of buildings that a taller than a few stories. The demo you show was a building that is low, wide and had no chance of falling out of its footprint. So this proves nothing to me or my experience being involved with demos over the years. Again, please go talk to a demo firm and ask them yourself. Be involved in one demo process.....see how much it takes for even the building you show here to take it down. Like I said, it is a joke if you believe that no one would have seen anything for buildings over 100 stories. I guarantee that it took weeks of preparation to even take that small building down....exterior demolition by machine, by man, cutting, inserting chord and charges....do you see the work they did to get it to that stage for even a small building in this video????? With that video you prove to me even more that WTC wasn't controlled.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Oh, yeah, never from the top down. Always from the bottom up.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
All true controlled demolitions happen from the ground up!!! People site the explosions being shot out from the sides as the building falls. This would NEVER happen in a real controlled demolition. If you demo a building from the top down, you lose total control of the fall.
Sorry, but simulators are a damn sight more like real life than your opinion.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Sorry, but simulators are not real life.Bertster7 wrote:
NIST fire dynamics simulator. Shows temperature, thermophysical properties and gas phase and has been demonstrated to be highly accurate - which is why it is the standard used for all such analysis.
Exactly, simulators are not real life. Even as a designer of buildings and home for over 20 years, there are things that could happen that I have no control over. When I design a home or building I have to design within budgets, I have to fall within the minimums of the building codes presented to me. I design to make sure that I meet these codes and a lot of times we are on the edge of the minimums. Sometimes you just aren't able to design something that would be 3 or 4 times better than the minimum. Even then, after I design the building and it goes out for construction. I can not guarantee that every worker will do his job, that the best materials will be used. Here is a section of plan notes that I put on every drawing.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I don't doubt that terrorists flew planes into the towers.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
The only people you should be blaming are the "cowards" that flew those planes into civilian buildings to kill as many as they did. The strategy for using planes as suicide bombs has been around since the 70's, it just finally happened and it is funny that even they (terrorists) tell you they did it, but you can't accept that fact.
That doesn't mean I just accept the official explanation for the collapse.
But, equally I don't accept the 'it was all planned by the American government (or some other 'non-terrorist' organisation)' conspiracy theories either.
And, yes, I have looked at the official explanation, and, yes, I'll admit, I'm no expert, but, for me, there are just too many unanswered questions and unexplained coincidences.Sorry, but simulators are not real life.Bertster7 wrote:
NIST fire dynamics simulator. Shows temperature, thermophysical properties and gas phase and has been demonstrated to be highly accurate - which is why it is the standard used for all such analysis.
Than this scenario:Teams of engineers spend months cutting supports and planting explosive charges in three of the busiest buildings in the world. Two of those buildings have to have this done in the central core, where people walk constantly (stairwells are in the area, elevator maintenance is in the area). Teams. For months. Busiest buildings in the world. Yet no one notices. On behalf of an administration that can't keep a secret.
Hmmm...which one is the more plausible answer?Teams of terrorists execute an attack they have been planning for years. Fly fully-loaded large jet aircraft (hundreds of thousands of pounds), flying at top speed (over 600 mph) into buildings. Impact blows fire treatment off center supports. Center supports weaken from thousands of gallons of kerosene (jet fuel) that pours into the structure from ruptured fuel tanks of jets. Jet fuel and juel-soaked structure and contents burn, the heat weakening the supports until they cannot bear the weight above them. Collapse.
Yes, I understand that...but you have to read better. I said that the BASE area is USUALLY removed to it skeletal form, not all the way up and yes they are largely intact for the most part. Do you know why they try to remove areas to open up the base of buildings for demo??? Sometimes it is removed entirely like your video and sometimes it is proportional, sometimes a little here and there. Most of the time they try to remove as much as possible......baahhhhhh.....nevermind. It is like talking to a brick wall...you will find even a small crack and find another way out. Your video proved to me even more what I have said and its hard to talk to someone who is getting info from the net and not real life. Not trying to offend but it is obvious to me that you haven't experienced any of this. This is why I am passionate about this because it is what I do everyday. I could probably have 10 of my colleagues come in here and say the same thing but it wouldn't change anything for you.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Do a search for 'building demolitions' or somesuch on youtube - I won't post them all here, but the vast majority of them are not skeletal (though very few are top-down) - the outer skin and structure of the building is kept largely intact.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
I should have said "almost all'..I can accept that but did you notice a big thing in that video....that this structure was taken down to its skeletal form. That is how most implosions are done. They will remove as much of the base structure as possible and please understand that I am talking about demos of buildings that a taller than a few stories. The demo you show was a building that is low, wide and had no chance of falling out of its footprint. So this proves nothing to me or my experience being involved with demos over the years. Again, please go talk to a demo firm and ask them yourself. Be involved in one demo process.....see how much it takes for even the building you show here to take it down. Like I said, it is a joke if you believe that no one would have seen anything for buildings over 100 stories. I guarantee that it took weeks of preparation to even take that small building down....exterior demolition by machine, by man, cutting, inserting chord and charges....do you see the work they did to get it to that stage for even a small building in this video????? With that video you prove to me even more that WTC wasn't controlled.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Oh, yeah, never from the top down. Always from the bottom up.
Oh, yes... slow but cold. I can see the hand of that "MIT engineer" at work in your argument. What you are overlooking is that when he said "cold," he was comparing it to a blowtorch. That does not make it cold, it is still sevceral hundred degrees. Also, fires to not burn at uniform tempuratures.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Or jet fuel (which burns hot, but fast) and office equipment (which burns slow, but cold) fires would have had to have weakened the same number of primary supports.Parker wrote:
but dont let logic spoil your fun guys...Bertster7 wrote:
You also have to remember that you need to cut most of the way through a number of primary supports to get a controlled implosion. It could not have been done. It is simply impossible.
THe Sears catalog warehouseCDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
And here is a VERY interesting text from some of these demolition experts, The Biltmore hotelApproximately 2,700 lb. of explosives were placed in 2,918 holes on six levels of the structure. CDI’s delayed detonation of charges, the product of 50 years of explosives demolition experience, pulled the massive warehouse structure away from a U.S. Post Office facility only 18 -ft away without damage.
You are not questioning any more. Your mind is as closed as an after-hours bank vault, and about as easy to reach.Biltmore Hotel
Seconds after the final warning signal blared Sunday afternoon at a downtown redevelopment site in Oklahoma City, precisely placed explosive charges dropped a 28-story building almost in its tracks. When it fell, the 245-ft-high structure became the tallest steel-frame building to be demolished with explosives.
Built in 1932 of heavy beams and beefed-up steel columns, the Biltmore Hotel stood in the way of a $39-million urban renewal plan to construct a cultural and recreational complex. Some structures on the site have been removed while others await demolition.
But none presented the problems that the Biltmore did. "It’ s the heaviest steel we’ve ever worked on," says Mark Loizeaux, of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI), Towson, Md., which dropped the brick-clad structure for contractor Wells Excavating Co., Inc., Oklahoma City.
"Because of the thickness of the steel, a single charge wouldn't penetrate completely through," he says. “We had to attack a single 3-in.-thick stem plate from both sides." Each 16-in. steel column with built-up flanges totals 2.5 to 3 tons per floor.
To blast in this fashion, says Loizeaux, it is imperative that the charges on opposing sides go off simultaneously. If one goes off too soon, it will dislodge the other before it can cut through the steel.
CDI placed 991 separate charges, about 800 lbs. of explosives in all, on seven floors from the basement to the 14th floor and detonated them over a five-second interval. CDI’s detonation sequence aimed to drop the building in a southerly direction in what is called a controlled progressive collapse in order to lay out the demolished structure to ease removal of debris.
Besides concern over the size of the steel frame members, CDI took a hard look at the type of steel, which Loizeaux describes as malleable. He says such steel doesn't break readily and "can get real testy." But the building fell, as planned, and CDI walked away with its share of the $207,000 demolition general contract.
In 1975 CDI demolished a 32-story reinforced concrete building in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the only building taller than the Biltmore to be dropped with explosives (ENR 11/27/75 p. 11). That building stood 361 ft high.
No, the big red fireball was merely a PORTION of the fuel being burned off. The remainder of the fuel stayed around and kept burning for about 10 minutes after the crash.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The big red fireball when the planes hit - that's the jet fuel exploding and burning off.
The big clouds of thick black smoke - that's the slow burning, oxygen deprived, office equipment fires.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-07-19 07:59:14)
If that is true (and I have no reason to question you), where does all of this explosive force come from as the building goes down? Huge chunks of concrete is thrown hundreds of feet away. For a building that came down into it's own footprint, I dont get where this horizontal force comes from. Those aledged squibs as the tower went down are somewhat suspect.imortal wrote:
No, the big red fireball was merely a PORTION of the fuel being burned off. The remainder of the fuel stayed around and kept burning for about 10 minutes after the crash.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The big red fireball when the planes hit - that's the jet fuel exploding and burning off.
The big clouds of thick black smoke - that's the slow burning, oxygen deprived, office equipment fires.
