Blacksmith debunks 9/11 conspiracy theory

[konradv]

Sorry if this has been posted before. I don't frequent the forum, just thought this was interesting and present it for your consideration.

 

[psikeyhackr]

He heated a piece of steel that was NOT UNDER STRESS so it retained its original shape. Then he showed it could bend like taffy.

Wasn't the steel in the towers always under the stress of holding up the building. So if it was heated wouldn't it go to 99% strength, then 98%, and down and down. So wouldn't the building slowly sag as the steel got hotter and hotter and weaker and weaker?

Is that what you saw in the videos?

What exactly do you think he PROVED?

psik

 

[konradv]

He heated a piece of steel that was NOT UNDER STRESS so it retained its original shape. Then he showed it could bend like taffy. Wasn't the steel in the towers always under the stress of holding up the building. So if it was heated wouldn't it go to 99% strength, then 98%, and down and down. So wouldn't the building slowly sag as the steel got hotter and hotter and weaker and weaker?

Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.

So are you saying that if he had pressed on the bar axially it would not have bent?

psik

 

[konradv]

Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.

So are you saying that if he had pressed on the bar axially it would not have bent?

If he pressed down on the bar, it wouldn't have bent as easily.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.

So are you saying that if he had pressed on the bar axially it would not have bent?

If he pressed down on the bar, it wouldn't have bent as easily.

So, "as easily" isn't the same as not bending at all. So why wouldn't the building sag in the area of the fire instead of suddenly giving way all of the way down?

psik

 

[konradv]

Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.

So are you saying that if he had pressed on the bar axially it would not have bent?

If he pressed down on the bar, it wouldn't have bent as easily.

So, "as easily" isn't the same as not bending at all. So why wouldn't the building sag in the area of the fire instead of suddenly giving way all of the way down?

It did start where the fire was. It didn't give way all the way down. That was the result of added weight of the floors collapsing, not the fire.

 

[TheCrusader]

He heated a piece of steel that was NOT UNDER STRESS so it retained its original shape. Then he showed it could bend like taffy. Wasn't the steel in the towers always under the stress of holding up the building. So if it was heated wouldn't it go to 99% strength, then 98%, and down and down. So wouldn't the building slowly sag as the steel got hotter and hotter and weaker and weaker?

Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.

And then 18 floors would just bounce off 92 floors unaffected by the whole thing?

Are you people stupid?

How does 18 floors destroy...PULVERIZE the other 92 floors that are STILL STRONG.

 

[TheCrusader]

Ok take a 10 foot steel bar, super heat and melt the last 1 foot of it...then smash it with a hammer.

Tell me if you don't have a 9 foot steel bar left standing after the incident, and I'll give you $1 Billion Dollars of Trump's money.

 

[psikeyhackr]

It did start where the fire was. It didn't give way all the way down. That was the result of added weight of the floors collapsing, not the fire.

There is just the little matter of the conservation of momentum and the energy required to break/crush the supports in solving the speed of collapse. Curious how we don't get data on the steel and concrete distributions down the towers.

I have proposed a simulation numerous times. Create the north tower in a computer simulation and remove levels 91 through 95. This would leave a 60 foot gap, more damage than aircraft impact and fires could possibly do. Drop the 15 stories onto the 90 and compute the effect. I bet more than 45 stories would remain standing.

I just also find it curious that engineering schools can't suggest or do such a simulation in 14 years in the nation that put men on the Moon 46 years ago. Of course it would really be embarrassing if they did the simulation and I was right. It would not bother me to be wrong because the simulation would require accurate data and I have never seen it. The 10,000 page NIST report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers, but they do it for the steel. Another curious anomaly!

psik

 

[Hossfly]

He heated a piece of steel that was NOT UNDER STRESS so it retained its original shape. Then he showed it could bend like taffy. Wasn't the steel in the towers always under the stress of holding up the building. So if it was heated wouldn't it go to 99% strength, then 98%, and down and down. So wouldn't the building slowly sag as the steel got hotter and hotter and weaker and weaker?

Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.

And then 18 floors would just bounce off 92 floors unaffected by the whole thing?

Are you people stupid?

How does 18 floors destroy...PULVERIZE the other 92 floors that are STILL STRONG.

Weight, gravity, momentum, Mr. Scientist.

 

[TheCrusader]

He heated a piece of steel that was NOT UNDER STRESS so it retained its original shape. Then he showed it could bend like taffy. Wasn't the steel in the towers always under the stress of holding up the building. So if it was heated wouldn't it go to 99% strength, then 98%, and down and down. So wouldn't the building slowly sag as the steel got hotter and hotter and weaker and weaker?

Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.

And then 18 floors would just bounce off 92 floors unaffected by the whole thing?

Are you people stupid?

How does 18 floors destroy...PULVERIZE the other 92 floors that are STILL STRONG.

Weight, gravity, momentum, Mr. Scientist.

I don't think you know how any of those work.

Gravity only accelerates 9.8m/s/s so how much momentum will be picked up by 16% of the total building weight, as it falls one floor to "theoretically" pancake it?

 

[psikeyhackr]

He heated a piece of steel that was NOT UNDER STRESS so it retained its original shape. Then he showed it could bend like taffy. Wasn't the steel in the towers always under the stress of holding up the building. So if it was heated wouldn't it go to 99% strength, then 98%, and down and down. So wouldn't the building slowly sag as the steel got hotter and hotter and weaker and weaker?

Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.

And then 18 floors would just bounce off 92 floors unaffected by the whole thing?

Are you people stupid?

How does 18 floors destroy...PULVERIZE the other 92 floors that are STILL STRONG.

Weight, gravity, momentum, Mr. Scientist.

Wow, that was informative. Here is weight, gravity and momentum:



psik

 

[konradv]

Gravity only accelerates 9.8m/s/s so how much momentum will be picked up by 16% of the total building weight, as it falls one floor to "theoretically" pancake it?

It works like dominoes. One floor destroys the next. The WTC buildings DID NOT collapse all at once. It was a chain reaction.

 

[TheCrusader]

Gravity only accelerates 9.8m/s/s so how much momentum will be picked up by 16% of the total building weight, as it falls one floor to "theoretically" pancake it?

It works like dominoes. One floor destroys the next. The WTC buildings DID NOT collapse all at once. It was a chain reaction.

No it doesn't, and you are wrong, I have scientific papers to back me up, you have hypothetical speculation. I made another thread about it tho. And I don't support the "explosives" theory so I'm working on an alternative explanation.

The top was held up by supposedly undamaged 93 floors of the rest of the tower, it could not have damaged the rest of the tower even if it fell on it from 10 floors up, but it didn't...it fell on it from only 1 to 2 floors at most.

But your explanation is stupid, it's like a RETARD came up with it.

 

[psikeyhackr]

It works like dominoes. One floor destroys the next. The WTC buildings DID NOT collapse all at once. It was a chain reaction.

Ever notice that dominoes do not sustain any damage? The same thing applies to Jenga blocks.

Damaging components requires energy. The only source of energy would be the kinetic energy of the falling mass. But the strength and mass of the lower portion of the towers would increase all of the way down. So the falling mass would slow down.

So the scientific problem of 9/11 is how did the north tower come down in less than 30 seconds if the only destructive force was the falling portion above the aircraft impact point. Why didn't it slow down A LOT?

psik

 

[TheCrusader]

It works like dominoes. One floor destroys the next. The WTC buildings DID NOT collapse all at once. It was a chain reaction.

Ever notice that dominoes do not sustain any damage? The same thing applies to Jenga blocks.

Damaging components requires energy. The only source of energy would be the kinetic energy of the falling mass. But the strength and mass of the lower portion of the towers would increase all of the way down. So the falling mass would slow down.

So the scientific problem of 9/11 is how did the north tower come down in less than 30 seconds if the only destructive force was the falling portion above the aircraft impact point. Why didn't it slow down A LOT?

psik

Check out my thread where I do offer a plausible explanation.

Basically floors do have to collapse before they are struck from above, this is true with controlled demolition to create a near "free fall" collapse. It is not true if each floor has to hit the floor below it to cause collapse.

I offer a theory that attempts to explain this phenomenon without explosives in my other thread.

 

[westwall]

He heated a piece of steel that was NOT UNDER STRESS so it retained its original shape. Then he showed it could bend like taffy. Wasn't the steel in the towers always under the stress of holding up the building. So if it was heated wouldn't it go to 99% strength, then 98%, and down and down. So wouldn't the building slowly sag as the steel got hotter and hotter and weaker and weaker?

Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.

And then 18 floors would just bounce off 92 floors unaffected by the whole thing?

Are you people stupid?

How does 18 floors destroy...PULVERIZE the other 92 floors that are STILL STRONG.

It happened because of the design of the building. Had it been a conventionally designed structure the collapse would not have happened. As it wasn't the collapse when it began was unstoppable....

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

 

[TheCrusader]

He heated a piece of steel that was NOT UNDER STRESS so it retained its original shape. Then he showed it could bend like taffy. Wasn't the steel in the towers always under the stress of holding up the building. So if it was heated wouldn't it go to 99% strength, then 98%, and down and down. So wouldn't the building slowly sag as the steel got hotter and hotter and weaker and weaker?

Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.

And then 18 floors would just bounce off 92 floors unaffected by the whole thing?

Are you people stupid?

How does 18 floors destroy...PULVERIZE the other 92 floors that are STILL STRONG.

It happened because of the design of the building. Had it been a conventionally designed structure the collapse would not have happened. As it wasn't the collapse when it began was unstoppable....

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

No, absolutely not, this is standard building practice in New York it's part of a safety system designed to cause floors that collapse not to also collapse wall supports.

You wouldn't understand, but you've never worked around building collapses, I have worked a number of rubble piles in my life.

What they are trying to say is the floors breaking away tore down the core, but as I have said else where this is about as stupid as saying branches falling out of a tree would tear the whole tree down...think about that for a second. How stupid does that sound? That's how dumb this "pancaking floor" theory sounds.

But I do offer an alternative explanation that can explain why the core became so weak on such large scale.

Remember, 18 floors is not a lot of weight or size for a building that is for 92 floors, completely strong and unbroken....

The top SHOULD have just fallen off like a top heavy cake breaking off the base.

All that being said let's criticize your "resource".

They say:

The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature). Further information about the design of the WTC can be found on the World Wide Web

Are they fucking stupid? Who do they fucking think they are kidding?

The WTC are specifically and WELL KNOWN to have been designed to withstand AT LEAST a 707 Jet impact.

The WTC were also never designed to withstand 4 hours of fire, they were designed to NEVER COLLAPSE because of fire. The WTC were over engineered so that they could hold 4x their weight.

The claim they were only designed to withstand 4 hours of fire means you are building a bomb that can fall over and destroy entire city blocks.

That is the STUPIDEST thing I ever heard.

 

[westwall]

He heated a piece of steel that was NOT UNDER STRESS so it retained its original shape. Then he showed it could bend like taffy. Wasn't the steel in the towers always under the stress of holding up the building. So if it was heated wouldn't it go to 99% strength, then 98%, and down and down. So wouldn't the building slowly sag as the steel got hotter and hotter and weaker and weaker?

Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.

And then 18 floors would just bounce off 92 floors unaffected by the whole thing?

Are you people stupid?

How does 18 floors destroy...PULVERIZE the other 92 floors that are STILL STRONG.

It happened because of the design of the building. Had it been a conventionally designed structure the collapse would not have happened. As it wasn't the collapse when it began was unstoppable....

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

No, absolutely not, this is standard building practice in New York it's part of a safety system designed to cause floors that collapse not to also collapse wall supports.

You wouldn't understand, but you've never worked around building collapses, I have worked a number of rubble piles in my life.

What they are trying to say is the floors breaking away tore down the core, but as I have said else where this is about as stupid as saying branches falling out of a tree would tear the whole tree down...think about that for a second. How stupid does that sound? That's how dumb this "pancaking floor" theory sounds.

But I do offer an alternative explanation that can explain why the core became so weak on such large scale.

Remember, 18 floors is not a lot of weight or size for a building that is for 92 floors, completely strong and unbroken....

The top SHOULD have just fallen off like a top heavy cake breaking off the base.

All that being said let's criticize your "resource".

They say:

The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature). Further information about the design of the WTC can be found on the World Wide Web

Are they fucking stupid? Who do they fucking think they are kidding?

The WTC are specifically and WELL KNOWN to have been designed to withstand AT LEAST a 707 Jet impact.

And structurally it was capable of withstanding the impact. What it was not capable of, and the designers had no clue about in the 1960's was the result of a multi story jet fuel powered inferno and the effect that it would have on the steel structure. Add to that the fact that at the altitude where the jets impacted there is a constant high velocity wind blowing and the 1500 degree flames were increased to much higher levels by the blast furnace effect of the blowing wind.

It's all pretty simple.