9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...

[SFC Ollie]

Fires testing by NIST to prove this guess, failed. The tests are results are available in the NIST link some pages back. The truss theory is a fail. Whatever failed them could not have been the temps from the kerosene fires.

Fire as the cause is doubtful, if they even bowed. So which is it bowed in, or bowed out?

Get your shit straight. NIST clearly says in their paper that they aren't sure if the results scale up to the actual size of the floor trusses.

Also, was there any deflection of bowing of the trusses at any time reported in their report?

What caused the perimeter columns to pull inward?

That's not fair, you know if they answer that then their theories go all to shit........

 

[SAYIT]

It is clear that the top block, far from being a rigid hammer, was disintegrating and cannot possibly provide the impact which Bazant and Zhou/NIST have calculated and depended on. There was a mass of fragmented material falling, which can deliver many very small blows but we can predict that it will be unable to deliver a blow representing its total mass, as the official story requires.

Really? So if I dropped a pile of gravel on your head, it wouldn't hurt a bit because the pile was composed of fragmented material?

No damage possible. That's why he wears his foil hat.

 

[Gamolon]

It is clear that the top block, far from being a rigid hammer, was disintegrating and cannot possibly provide the impact which Bazant and Zhou/NIST have calculated and depended on. There was a mass of fragmented material falling, which can deliver many very small blows but we can predict that it will be unable to deliver a blow representing its total mass, as the official story requires.

Really? So if I dropped a pile of gravel on your head, it wouldn't hurt a bit because the pile was composed of fragmented material?

No damage possible. That's why he wears his foil hat.

 

[Gamolon]

Mr. Jones.

Please explain in your own words how load redistribution works. How does the load of a particular floor (say floor 90 of the tower) gets transferred to the grillages/concrete pads on the ground.

Atfter you think about that for a while, tell us what the design load was for floor 90? Was it designed to handle people, cubicles, desks, chairs, computers, etc. or was that floor designed to have the upper structure impact it?

 

[Mr. Jones]

If the top block were to deliver destructive energy through impact to the lower portion of the building, the energy consumed would result in a reduction in its acceleration. No such reduction can be detected, as shown in the paper by MacQeen and Szamboti, The Missing Jolt.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

Total garbage.

The connections within the buildings could not hold up to the force of the falling debris.

Or so you would like to assume. What makes your assumption plausible?
Every undamaged part of the lower seemingly provided very minimal resistance to the smaller, heavily damaged upper, why would this be?
Why would these massive lower towers succumb to the failed top sections, in such short amount of time.
Perhaps you could explain how the expected violent collisions of all the connections you site, were not visibly noticed, or measured.
How far did the top travel when it met the lower undamaged bottom sections?
Why wasn't there a creeping, halting, staggered collapse as would be expected, as the lower floors succumbed one by one to the ground?

Show us how your assumption this is correct, and physically possible, so far all your doing is making wild assumptions and nothing to certify they are even possible..

 

[Mr. Jones]

Fires testing by NIST to prove this guess, failed. The tests are results are available in the NIST link some pages back. The truss theory is a fail. Whatever failed them could not have been the temps from the kerosene fires.

Fire as the cause is doubtful, if they even bowed. So which is it bowed in, or bowed out?

Get your shit straight. NIST clearly says in their paper that they aren't sure if the results scale up to the actual size of the floor trusses.

Also, was there any deflection of bowing of the trusses at any time reported in their report?

What caused the perimeter columns to pull inward?

According to them it was fire.
Here is a major problem in their report-

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increases, further increasing the demand of the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass. (p 146/196)

There is no explanation as to why there was only "little resistance"
Nothing mentioned, measured, or otherwise that quantifies the "tremendous energy released",
They said themselves that the "the building section above came down essentially in free fall" as "seen in the videos".
They state "as the stories below sequentially failed"-This alludes to the fact that the stories below would be failing one by one, and thus take time to be overcome "sequentially".
None of this NIST actually can substantiate, and it is telling how they found the need to involve "essential freefall" when explaining this part of the collapse initiation.
Yet again they go against what they were saying in regards to mass providing resistance and no FF or close to FF was possible.

It doesn't matter it the truss failed, for the sake of making my point. What is in great doubt is that the lower parts were to be expected to arrest, halt, and severely slow the collapse fronts.
Estimates have them somewhere in the 10,12-15 second range and some maybe 20 seconds. This is too fast for the energy to overcome against the more robust, lowers.
Estimates have suggested times in the 50 to 60 second range if not more for a collapse of buildings without the assistance and use of other means, to remove the underneath mass.
This is the main problem, that NIST has not addressed. But the fire temperatures that they say initially cause the weakening of the steel is also in question, as steel by its nature spreads heat around to other attached parts, thus actually cooling the effects, unless something is used to apply rapid, intense local heat, and we all know that kerosene, office combustibles, burns at much cooler temps then the construction grade steel is able to withstand.

So there is the problem with the heat, and the intensity, and the problem with the potential energy of the falling mass even when gravity is taken into account. It seems to come up short, in the NIST narrative.
Why is this?



Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increases, further increasing the demand of the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass. (p 146/196)

This does not explain either why the structure below failed to arrest the falling mass or how the structure failed to appreciably slow the falling mass. As in the preceding paragraphs, NIST begs these questions using a kind of circular argument: The towers fell rapidly because the stories below could not resist the tremendous energy of the falling mass. Videos clearly show that the upper section fell essentially in free-fall. Therefore the structures below offered minimal resistance to and were destroyed by the falling mass. The argument pre-supposes the conclusion that the force that overcame the resistance of the structures below was the falling mass, not some other force such as energy of explosives.

The fact that there is not a single example of total top-down progressive collapse outside of the alleged examples of the Twin Towers makes it entirely unscientific to pre-suppose that the alleged phenomenon was operative here.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/#bowed

 

[Gamolon]

According to them it was fire.
Here is a major problem in their report-

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increases, further increasing the demand of the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass. (p 146/196)

There is no explanation as to why there was only "little resistance"

Come on Mr. Jones... Really?

Let's go over this again. There was little resistance below because the structure was designed to support the load of the building itself and it's contents in normal, everyday use. The resistance of the lower portion of the tower was not designed to resist the uppers floors in motion.

Can you tell me the numerical difference between the load applied to a certain floor and the load applied to all the upper floors smashing into the same floor?

They state "as the stories below sequentially failed"-This alludes to the fact that the stories below would be failing one by one, and thus take time to be overcome "sequentially".
None of this NIST actually can substantiate, and it is telling how they found the need to involve "essential freefall" when explaining this part of the collapse initiation.
Yet again they go against what they were saying in regards to mass providing resistance and no FF or close to FF was possible.

WHAT COMPONENTS FAILED?

How can you possibly think that all the floor trusses of one floor, sitting upon the angle connections attached to the perimeter columns and core columns, could in any way momentarily cause a slowdown of the descending mass?

It doesn't matter it the truss failed, for the sake of making my point. What is in great doubt is that the lower parts were to be expected to arrest, halt, and severely slow the collapse fronts.

Again.

WHAT PARTS were expected to resist?

Estimates have them somewhere in the 10,12-15 second range and some maybe 20 seconds. This is too fast for the energy to overcome against the more robust, lowers.

The robust lowers?

These truss connections circled in red???:

But the fire temperatures that they say initially cause the weakening of the steel is also in question, as steel by its nature spreads heat around to other attached parts, thus actually cooling the effects,

Is that why they apply fireproofing to structural steel? Because steel framed internal structures dissipate heat in such an efficient manner? Have you read anything about fireproofing? I suggest you do so.

 

[Gamolon]

If the top block were to deliver destructive energy through impact to the lower portion of the building, the energy consumed would result in a reduction in its acceleration. No such reduction can be detected, as shown in the paper by MacQeen and Szamboti, The Missing Jolt.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

Total garbage.

The connections within the buildings could not hold up to the force of the falling debris.

Or so you would like to assume. What makes your assumption plausible?
Every undamaged part of the lower seemingly provided very minimal resistance to the smaller, heavily damaged upper, why would this be?

Because the entire lower structure is NOT taken into account when trying to figure out how the building would have reacted to the descending mass of debris? When doing calculations, you wouldn't be able to get past the connections when checking for the stress of the descending load. There is no way on God's green earth those connections wold have remained intact. They were designed for NORMAL everyday use.

THINK LOCALIZED FAILURE.

I'll ask you a question yet again using your logic.

How is it I can throw a baseball at a glass window of a house and smash it? According to you, the entire house and it's mass/support should be used to figure out that the window should have resisted.

You need to look at what has the potential to fail when a force/load it applied to something.

Why would these massive lower towers succumb to the failed top sections, in such short amount of time.

See above.

Perhaps you could explain how the expected violent collisions of all the connections you site, were not visibly noticed, or measured.

I did explain. Many times. The force of the descending debris was no match for the floor truss supports.

How many times greater was the descending debris force compared to the design load of one of the floors?

Numbers please.

What caused the perimeter columns to fall outward instead of straight down?

If the entire tower was demolished, how did the partial core survive in this next photo? How come there are no floors/perimeter columns attached to it?

 

[Gamolon]

Taken from:
FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

12.

Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren’t the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

Now Mr. Jones, show me exactly where they fail to explain how the towers collapsed and where their calculations are incorrect.

 

[SAYIT]

Fires testing by NIST to prove this guess, failed. The tests are results are available in the NIST link some pages back. The truss theory is a fail. Whatever failed them could not have been the temps from the kerosene fires.

Fire as the cause is doubtful, if they even bowed. So which is it bowed in, or bowed out?

Get your shit straight. NIST clearly says in their paper that they aren't sure if the results scale up to the actual size of the floor trusses.

Also, was there any deflection of bowing of the trusses at any time reported in their report?

What caused the perimeter columns to pull inward?

According to them it was fire.
Here is a major problem in their report-

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increases, further increasing the demand of the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass. (p 146/196)

There is no explanation as to why there was only "little resistance"
Nothing mentioned, measured, or otherwise that quantifies the "tremendous energy released",
They said themselves that the "the building section above came down essentially in free fall" as "seen in the videos".
They state "as the stories below sequentially failed"-This alludes to the fact that the stories below would be failing one by one, and thus take time to be overcome "sequentially".
None of this NIST actually can substantiate, and it is telling how they found the need to involve "essential freefall" when explaining this part of the collapse initiation.
Yet again they go against what they were saying in regards to mass providing resistance and no FF or close to FF was possible.

It doesn't matter it the truss failed, for the sake of making my point. What is in great doubt is that the lower parts were to be expected to arrest, halt, and severely slow the collapse fronts.
Estimates have them somewhere in the 10,12-15 second range and some maybe 20 seconds. This is too fast for the energy to overcome against the more robust, lowers.
Estimates have suggested times in the 50 to 60 second range if not more for a collapse of buildings without the assistance and use of other means, to remove the underneath mass.
This is the main problem, that NIST has not addressed. But the fire temperatures that they say initially cause the weakening of the steel is also in question, as steel by its nature spreads heat around to other attached parts, thus actually cooling the effects, unless something is used to apply rapid, intense local heat, and we all know that kerosene, office combustibles, burns at much cooler temps then the construction grade steel is able to withstand.

So there is the problem with the heat, and the intensity, and the problem with the potential energy of the falling mass even when gravity is taken into account. It seems to come up short, in the NIST narrative.
Why is this?

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increases, further increasing the demand of the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass. (p 146/196)

This does not explain either why the structure below failed to arrest the falling mass or how the structure failed to appreciably slow the falling mass. As in the preceding paragraphs, NIST begs these questions using a kind of circular argument: The towers fell rapidly because the stories below could not resist the tremendous energy of the falling mass. Videos clearly show that the upper section fell essentially in free-fall. Therefore the structures below offered minimal resistance to and were destroyed by the falling mass. The argument pre-supposes the conclusion that the force that overcame the resistance of the structures below was the falling mass, not some other force such as energy of explosives.
NIST Conceals the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers

And fully 11+ years later there is still no evidence of explosives, none of rigging for demo, none of a gov't conspiracy to destroy those buildings and none of a cover-up for the conspiracy which did not exist. All you really have is the foil-hat silliness based on half-truths, innuendo, and fabrications of web sites dedicated to making money from silly nutters.
BTW, did you send your check this month?

"No amount of evidence will dissuade a conspiracy theorist, but when they appeal to scientific evidence, they're fair game. And the 9-11 conspiracy sites have some very strange science..."
"A few months ago I agreed to be on a truther talk show (I'll try almost anything once. Almost.) and the commercial breaks were a revelation. There were endless spiels for crank medical remedies and nutritional supplements, investment schemes that ranged from shady to crazy, newsletters for conspiracy cults, and wacko theories on how to avoid taxes."

Steven Dutch, Professor of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
Nutty 9-11 Physics

 

[Mr. Jones]

According to them it was fire.
Here is a major problem in their report-

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increases, further increasing the demand of the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass. (p 146/196)

There is no explanation as to why there was only "little resistance"

Come on Mr. Jones... Really?

Let's go over this again. There was little resistance below because the structure was designed to support the load of the building itself and it's contents in normal, everyday use. The resistance of the lower portion of the tower was not designed to resist the uppers floors in motion.

Ok course but again, quantify the 'complex" events to account for the rapid descents. You again are making assumptions, like NIST did that collapse was a foregone conclusion, without taking into account the complex mass involved.

Can you tell me the numerical difference between the load applied to a certain floor and the load applied to all the upper floors smashing into the same floor?

Again you ask me questions that NIST should have provided the answers to you about. As a staunch believer in their theory, why do you not know these things?

They state "as the stories below sequentially failed"-This alludes to the fact that the stories below would be failing one by one, and thus take time to be overcome "sequentially".
None of this NIST actually can substantiate, and it is telling how they found the need to involve "essential freefall" when explaining this part of the collapse initiation.
Yet again they go against what they were saying in regards to mass providing resistance and no FF or close to FF was possible.

WHAT COMPONENTS FAILED?

Ask NIST I quoted from their report and observational guesses. Another question you might ask them is HOW, and WHY they failed in such rapid succession?

How can you possibly think that all the floor trusses of one floor, sitting upon the angle connections attached to the perimeter columns and core columns, could in any way momentarily cause a slowdown of the descending mass?

And how many of these connections were there? How long would it take to for the steel to reach its fail points...on each on.piece by piece?
How can you possibly assume the collapses were not to be even slightly momentarily halted, even noticed, instead of coming down without seemingly any hesitation, as though there was nothing underneath the smaller damaged upper sections?
You act as though,-the fires were proven to have gotten to the required temps to weaken the steel at certain isolated points, without taking into consideration that NIST ignored thermal conduction.
Since steel is a good conductor of heat, and the steel in the Twin Towers' structures was well connected together to form tons of connected steel mass, these huge steel structures would have drawn heat away from the parts that were exposed to fire.
The only time one can rightly theorize any very high temps would be only momentarily,during flash over, again only momentarily.

Again.

WHAT PARTS were expected to resist?

Are you serious? The ******* larger, undamaged, more heavily constructed and therefore, more robust parts of the lower building! Have you not payed attention to the collapse fronts? Especially given that much of what YOU want to assume was part of the weight that helped crush down the undamaged power, was being ejected AWAY from the collapse front. Less weight, less kinetic energy,=way slower collapse times...get it now?

Estimates have them somewhere in the 10,12-15 second range and some maybe 20 seconds. This is too fast for the energy to overcome against the more robust, lowers.

The robust lowers?

These truss connections circled in red???:

You are isolating on a small segment that comprised the whole ******* lower parts of the buildings,plus you or NIST have not proven that the temps actually got hot enough and were sustained for the duration needed to overcome the parts you point out.
You leave out much of the lower mass, including core columns, and perimeter columns.
Again show us where in the NIST report this is conclusive? How about their testing?

But the fire temperatures that they say initially cause the weakening of the steel is also in question, as steel by its nature spreads heat around to other attached parts, thus actually cooling the effects,

Is that why they apply fireproofing to structural steel? Because steel framed internal structures dissipate heat in such an efficient manner? Have you read anything about fireproofing? I suggest you do so.

A historical look at other buildings have never shown total global collapse in 12-20 seconds, and which produced a FF time as NIST has said the falling tops experienced..Do you think that the temp needed to destroy steel will remain at that initial contact location? Do you not think that perhaps there are other things that can catch on fire before STEEL WILL, AND THAT IS A GOOD REASON TO USE FIRE RETARDANT? Are you that dense that you can not conceive any of this? and base the collapses on missing fire retardant? Highly elevated localized temps?
And that the massive lower towers had only truss supports to impede a total global collapse in the rapid times mentioned?
Pleas point out where NIST can back up their hypothesis, and assumptions with anything other then just guesses. Show us where in the reports do they convince you?

The Report describes a model of "The Fire-Structure Interface", and describes the computation of heat transfer between the air and the steel structure, but it does not mention the conduction of heat along spans of the steel structure. (p 131-2/181-2) The suspicion that NIST simply ignored the conduction of heat within the steel is corroborated by the Report's disclosure that they used heat transfer tests on isolated steel elements to calibrate their model. (not connected elements as the WTC had) (p 134/184)

 

[SFC Ollie]

The bowing in of the buildings outer core proves that the fire were hot enough.

There is no other explanation for it......

 

[Mr. Jones]

Taken from:
FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

12.

Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren’t the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

Now Mr. Jones, show me exactly where they fail to explain how the towers collapsed and where their calculations are incorrect.

This does not explain what I have asked you to produce. Where do they substantiate such rapid collapses? You posted the mass of these floors, and their estimated, conservative load limits, but again fail to point out how all of this mass, and components should be expected to come down in such rapid descents.
It does not describe how the components, from the upper are ejected away, from the collapse fronts, and therefore can not be used in the mix to apply crushing down forces!

You have failed to point out, how they explain the properties of the steel mass being overcome in such rapidity, as though it is supposed to be instantaneous!

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically.Where are the safety factor that are designed into the buildings addressed?....
Then the upper fell onto the lower. When this happens the lower pushes back with equal force. The lower floor of the upper, then experiences some destruction from colliding with the first floor of the upper in cam into contact with! And so on, however much of the material from this destruction was ejected away from the collapse front! Further suggesting that less weight, and therefore less time until the NEXT parts in collision with themselves are in turn overcome, and so on and so forth!
Where are the visible "jolts" or hesitations as the falling force overcomes the lower stationary one?

We next come to the fact that it would take very high temps to reach the steels fail point,
where is the evidence of this?

You have to wait until the rubble pile fires and notice their extreme temps, that most of you all deny even existed!
So you want it both ways, you need high temps to kick off the sequence, but knowing that the NIST did not find any evidence of these temps, and knowing kerosene does not burn at such high temps, you dismiss the obvious presence of the high temps after the collapse? In the rubble piles?
You also have to seriously consider the bending
and fracturing energy, that must be expended to collapse each floor. And also that the velocity before collision is related
to the velocity after collision, by the law of conservation of momentum.
LOL...You post up picks of truss supports and call it a day, when there is so much more to it, that you leave out of consideration.
This is what you do not think about, and what NIST was hoping people didn't.

What you posted still does not explain what I am asking. Doesn't take into account the short collapse times, or the mass that fell away from the collapse fronts.

 

[SFC Ollie]

And yet there is nothing that shows anything else being possible or even plausible.

 

[Mr. Jones]

The bowing in of the buildings outer core proves that the fire were hot enough.

There is no other explanation for it......

Alright then please post up the testing that complies with this theory. And yes there are other possibilities but they are not up for consideration apparently.
By all means link up to what you feel explains the high temps.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The bowing in of the buildings outer core proves that the fire were hot enough.

There is no other explanation for it......

Alright then please post up the testing that complies with this theory. And yes there are other possibilities but they are not up for consideration apparently.
By all means link up to what you feel explains the high temps.

No testing needed since you cannot produce any other reason for the bowing......

 

[Gamolon]

Ok course but again, quantify the 'complex" events to account for the rapid descents. You again are making assumptions, like NIST did that collapse was a foregone conclusion, without taking into account the complex mass involved.

The upper section hit the floors and sheared the connections. See the above explanation (ppertinent parts in red), complete with numbers.

Again you ask me questions that NIST should have provided the answers to you about. As a staunch believer in their theory, why do you not know these things?

Yet you come in here and say that this didn't happen and this should have happened, blah, blah, blah. If you don't have answers to my questions, then you have no proof or reason behind your claims.

Ask NIST I quoted from their report and observational guesses. Another question you might ask them is HOW, and WHY they failed in such rapid succession?

Read the NIST explanation I quoted above.

And how many of these connections were there? How long would it take to for the steel to reach its fail points...on each on.piece by piece?

Read the NIST explanation I quoted above.

How can you possibly assume the collapses were not to be even slightly momentarily halted, even noticed, instead of coming down without seemingly any hesitation, as though there was nothing underneath the smaller damaged upper sections?

Read the NIST explanation I quoted above. The force of the descending debris was WAY over the load that the floors could handle.

You act as though,-the fires were proven to have gotten to the required temps to weaken the steel at certain isolated points, without taking into consideration that NIST ignored thermal conduction.

Again, at what temperature does steel start to weaken? If steel conducts heat as well as you say, then why do they fire proof it? This shoots a complete hole in your claim.

Since steel is a good conductor of heat, and the steel in the Twin Towers' structures was well connected together to form tons of connected steel mass, these huge steel structures would have drawn heat away from the parts that were exposed to fire.
The only time one can rightly theorize any very high temps would be only momentarily,during flash over, again only momentarily.

WHY DO THEY FIREPROOF STEEL?

Are you serious? The ******* larger, undamaged, more heavily constructed and therefore, more robust parts of the lower building! Have you not payed attention to the collapse fronts? Especially given that much of what YOU want to assume was part of the weight that helped crush down the undamaged power, was being ejected AWAY from the collapse front. Less weight, less kinetic energy,=way slower collapse times...get it now?

Read the NIST explanation I quoted above.

You are isolating on a small segment that comprised the whole ******* lower parts of the buildings,plus you or NIST have not proven that the temps actually got hot enough and were sustained for the duration needed to overcome the parts you point out.

It's called localized failure. I will ask you yet again. How can a baseball thrown at a window smash said window when the entire mass/structure of the house is behind it?

This puts a serious dent in your explanation.

You leave out much of the lower mass, including core columns, and perimeter columns.

Because it's the weaker floor truss connections that fail! Jesus H. Christ...

I f I want to see if one floor of the towers will support it's intended load, one of the thins I'm going to check is if the floor truss CONNECTIONS can handle it. If the angle/floor truss connections around the perimeter columns can't handle the intended load, it doesn't matter if they were welded to ******* 20' diameter solid steel columns. It's the connections themselves that are the weakest links and they will SHEAR.

To drive my point through your head, let's look at the door of a house. If I run a football player into said door, how does the load propagate through all the components? If the door itself holds up, the load it transferred to the hinges attached to the door jamb with screws. Those screws will probably rip out of the door jamb. But according to you, the mass and structure of the entire house behind that door should make everything resist.

A historical look at other buildings have never shown total global collapse in 12-20 seconds, and which produced a FF time as NIST has said the falling tops experienced..Do you think that the temp needed to destroy steel will remain at that initial contact location?

A historical look??? Look in the mirror jack. A historical look shows that there has never been a 208' x 208' square, 100 floor, tube in tube designed, steel tower, that was struck by a 767 in the upper third, that remained standing.

I can play your stupid historical games also.

Do you not think that perhaps there are other things that can catch on fire before STEEL WILL, AND THAT IS A GOOD REASON TO USE FIRE RETARDANT?

THAT made no sense whatsoever. SO because OTHER things catch fire, they fireproof the steel?? Go read about fireproofing on steel and get back to me. Better yet, I'll help you out.

STRUCTUREmag - Structural Engineering Magazine, Tradeshow: Fireproofing Steel Structures

Obviously, structural steel is a non-combustible material; however, the high-sustained temperatures of a fire can severely damage unprotected steel. Structural steel will lose approximately 50% of its load carrying capacity as temperatures approach 1100°F. Fireproofing works by encasing the steel and insulating it, keeping the steel temperature below the point where design strength is compromised. In order to determine the amount of fireproofing required in to achieve this goal, UL tests fireproofing products in accordance with ASTM E119 (UL 263). The results of the test are published in the UL Directory, which specifies the thickness and density of the material, as well as how the assembly is to be constructed in order to achieve various levels of hourly rating.

So you can take your "conduction" bullshit and try it elsewhere. You need to learn a few things before parroting your garbage from other sources that have no clue what they are talking about.

Yeah, they fireproof steel in case OTHER things catch fire.

Good ******* grief!

I'm a SO glad you don't design buildings for a living. You'd be fired in minutes for your stupidity.

 

[Gamolon]

More knowledge for you Mr. Jones...

Fireproofing – what is it and why
do we need it?

Steel structures, consisting of structural steel
members, connections, fasteners and frames,
act together in resisting imposed actions (loads,
pressures, displacements, strains, etc).
Load bearing steel framed buildings or building
structures need to cater for all the loads that
building can experience, including the dead load
of the building itself, live loads applied to the
building in use, wind and snow loading.

We need to pay special attention to the
fireproofing of steel framed buildings to ensure
that during pre-determined fire scenarios that the
steel does not get above critical temperatures,
where the yield strength limit (the amount of
load that can be carried prior to collapse) are
not exceeded.

http://www.pfpa.com.au/docs/Steel Fireproofing/Rakic - Type of Fireproofing materials.pdf

How does that fit into your "steel conducts heat away from the fire" bullshit. Sounds like that what they're saying right?

 

[Gamolon]

Taken from:
FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

12.

Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren’t the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

Now Mr. Jones, show me exactly where they fail to explain how the towers collapsed and where their calculations are incorrect.

This does not explain what I have asked you to produce. Where do they substantiate such rapid collapses?

READ THE ******* EXPLANATION!!!

The mass was WAAYYYYYYYYYY over the design limits for the floors to resist. The mass went straight through all the floors, shearing the connections. The math is right there in front of you.

If I shot a cannon at your head, do you think we'd see the cannonball slow down when it impacted your face?

No?

Why?

Because the resistance your neck/head provided is next to nothing when compared to the force of that cannonball.

LOOK AT THE NUMBERS!!!!!

 

[Gamolon]

Estimates have suggested times in the 50 to 60 second range if not more for a collapse of buildings without the assistance and use of other means, to remove the underneath mass.

Let's see the numbers of these "estimates" you claim exist. Let me guess...

You don't want to waste your time looking for them or I should know them already right?