Mr. Jones
Senior Member
- Jan 21, 2009
- 2,501
- 163
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.
Again you give a simple answer that defies explanation. Of course you say "The upper section hit the floors and sheared the connections." Your highlighted section is not giving the answer.The upper section hit the floors and sheared the connections. See the above explanation (ppertinent parts in red), complete with numbers.
You still fail to consider that the time required for all of these failures would not be in the 12-15 second range, You fail to account for the 2 masses colliding and that when this happens there would be a noticeable jolt, and hesitation as ech and every subsequent connection is overcome.
And you still fail to explain this by posting a totally non explanation from NIST!?
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?
It is you who has been saying that the NIST report is correct and yet you post nothing but assumptions and repeat the NIST flawed theory?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.
It discusses estimated, conservative loads asshole! It does not explain how the fuck these loads were able to overcome the equal, and opposite resistive loads by the lower, in the short collapse time!Read the NIST explanation I quoted above.
Read the NIST explanation I quoted above.
Bullshit, this is their assumption based on a guess, with no figures to substantiate it.Read the NIST explanation I quoted above. The force of the descending debris was WAY over the load that the floors could handle.
You want to insist that 2 1/4 mile long towers fell in such short collapse times because of localized failure due because of an unsubstantiated guess that fireproofing was dialoged, because they did a test of this theory with a fucking shotgun?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.
Thus causing the rapid collapses? You're a fucking loon, and when I ask you to post how you come to this conclusion besides all the speculative guessing that NIST did, you post even more speculative guess work!! Brilliant!
I've already explained this before. Now it's up to you to validate that unprotected steel the likes that are used in buildings like the WTC and others , can explode into themselves in just short of FF acceleration, and maybe you can explain why NIST themselves mentioned that the failed towers fell "essentially at FF"?WHY DO THEY FIREPROOF STEEL?
Read my answer to you attempt at being evasive.Read the NIST explanation I quoted above.
It explains nothing!
That's right localized failyre, that has not come close to being proven that it would automatically lead to a complete and total failure, with "essentially FF" (NIST)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?
Localized failure that had to advance a collapse sequence through the rest of the undamaged lower, more robust structure.
No asshole, I asked you to consider what I mentioned, and to show where NIST considers it as well, and you have failed!This puts a serious dent in your explanation.
Again justify how this automatically means total building collapse in such rapid times. Why do you not account for the mass of the lower? Where are your NIST calculations?Because it's the weaker floor truss connections that fail! Jesus H. Christ...
So how long should it take for these angle/floor truss connections to fail? And why did the lower building not halt the collapse fronts?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 fucking 20' diameter solid steel columns. It's the connections themselves that are the weakest links and they will SHEAR.
And depending on the size (mass) of said football player, it might take a few tries to bust through the fucking door you idiot!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.
Tell me, would it be faster to go through an open door then a closed one?
Can you, or this football player walk through the closed door in the same amount of time as if it was fucking open?
Think about that you fucking moron!
This is my fucking point. Things take time, these buildings had tons of fucking heavy steel components, and concrete. Now you actually believe it logical to assume that like the analogy you presented above, that a smaller damaged mass, will overcome the larger one with all these connections in the short amount of time witnessed?
Explain how this is so, but in your explanation do not fail to consider the mass of resistance below the collapse front like you've been doing.
Again the buildings were designed to withstand the impacts of airliners. They did. Even NIST admitted they did a good job of that, and base their collapse initiation on the fucking fires that they have not been able to explain, the intense heat that IS necessary to overcome steels properties.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.
This is no game I am stating historical facts, and use the buildings designers own statements, and NIST report against your failed logic, that is not based on any real world facts.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?
Yeah idiot...do you not understand this concept, Is it not prudent to do?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.
No where has a building fire been so hot as to cause a total 12-15 second global collapse of a hirise....NO WHERE!Office fires do not approach the heat required to cause this kind of damage that will leave 1500 degree rubble piles underneath them.
Go ahead and post a link to where you have seen this, and I'll post the Cardington Fire Tests Results. You are a mammoth idiot
How about one of my examples?
Take a semi truck and trailer. Stack it up vertically.... Now take VW and hoist it up 12 feet
above the cab, so it gets a running start like NIST has said the WTC tops had...
Do you think the semi will be crushed all the way down in mere seconds?
Actually replace the VW with an identical semi truck and do the same thing.. Do you still expect the lower semi truck to just be squished, and the top one have so much PE that it will totally pulverize the lower one? In mere seconds???
I don't know how fucking retarded you really are, but the answer to most rational and intuitive people would be NO! Absolutely not.
But yet this is the flawed thinking that you present.
The lower did not just consist of the damned truss/angle supports in a few spots. This is but a small part of the entire fucking building.
Fire takes time to damage steel to it's failure point, even if loaded, it takes time. We can expect to see its slow demise, and start to creep, then expect to see it fail towards that part.
Each subsequent lower floor, complete with those angle/supports presented another obstacle to the failed, falling part. Fuck common sense will tell anyone with the capacity to think, that these "collapses" should have taken much longer then what was observed.
You ever work with fire and steel?