|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 10/28/2006 : 14:19:08
|
So what is the official story of why the WTC 3 fell?
FEMA says “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building” (FEMA, 2002). Remember, FEMA isn't really sure what caused Building 7 to collapse.
NIST says: “The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However the towers withstood the impact and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires… In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse.”
Before I spend time trying to prove this story is impossible, I want to make sure we are all comfortable with the language of both the FEMA and NIST conclusions of why at least the twin towers fell.
Specifically: Are we agreed that the buildings “totally collapsed” as stated by FEMA?
Are we agreed that the buildings underwent an abrupt structural collapse? If so, are we agreed that by this phrase, NIST is referring to the sudden or unexpected collapse of each building—and not the speed at which the buildings totally collapsed?
Are we agreed that neither source claims that any structural steel melted? If so, we can ignore having to prove that the fires were not hot enough to melt the steel.
If there is no hair-splitting to be done, I will continue with this thread either later tonight or tomorrow.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 14:38:57 [Permalink]
|
Ergo, every thread you've started has been the same topic, as has been increasingly often pointed out to you. Could you please consider keeping these confined to a single thread? Once there are too many posts in such a hypothetical unified thread, a Part 2 (etc.) could follow, as has been customarily done here.
Spreading the same old stuff out into more and more threads is inefficient, confusing, and, frankly, irritating.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 15:00:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Ergo, every thread you've started has been the same topic, as has been increasingly often pointed out to you. Could you please consider keeping these confined to a single thread? Once there are too many posts in such a hypothetical unified thread, a Part 2 (etc.) could follow, as has been customarily done here.
Spreading the same old stuff out into more and more threads is inefficient, confusing, and, frankly, irritating.
What he said.
I ain't goin' through all this yet again.
PWWWWWWWUUUTE!!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 19:22:06 [Permalink]
|
ergo, if your intention in this thread is to finally present the theory that you favor, with whatever evidence you have to support that theory, I will let the thread stand.
Or, if this thread was started for you to present a focused and as compelling a case as you can against the official theory, bringing with you your own sources, I will let it stand.
If however, this thread is not focused on one of the above areas, with you taking your best shot with whatever sources you have, it will be locked.
If this thread is indeed a continuation of all but one of the other threads you have started, it will be locked.
Do not open another thread on this subject until the existing threads are maxed out. If you do, it will be locked and you will have earned your second official warning…
Kil
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 21:02:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If there is no hair-splitting to be done, I will continue with this thread either later tonight or tomorrow.
By all means, please continue.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 21:15:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
ergo, if your intention in this thread is to finally present the theory that you favor, with whatever evidence you have to support that theory, I will let the thread stand.
Or, if this thread was started for you to present a focused and as compelling a case as you can against the official theory, bringing with you your own sources, I will let it stand.
If however, this thread is not focused on one of the above areas, with you taking your best shot with whatever sources you have, it will be locked.
If this thread is indeed a continuation of all but one of the other threads you have started, it will be locked.
Do not open another thread on this subject until the existing threads are maxed out. If you do, it will be locked and you will have earned your second official warning…
Kil
Well, my intent is to present a focused and compelling case against the official theory. I don't have my own sources--in that I am using sources that are publicly available; I don't have any inside information I can share with you (although I have some that has shaped my opinion). Although, I guess you might consider my brother--the one who worked as a mechanical engineer for 20+ years at a couple of steel companies--a source of my own.
And what was my first official warning? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 21:17:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well, my intent is to present a focused and compelling case against the official theory.
By all means, please continue.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 21:39:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
Well, my intent is to present a focused and compelling case against the official theory. I don't have my own sources--in that I am using sources that are publicly available; I don't have any inside information I can share with you (although I have some that has shaped my opinion). Although, I guess you might consider my brother--the one who worked as a mechanical engineer for 20+ years at a couple of steel companies--a source of my own.
That's fine. What I meant by “your own sources” is that you back your argument up with sources that you provide.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 22:50:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
That's fine. What I meant by “your own sources” is that you back your argument up with sources that you provide.
Though I don't want to be mistaken for speaking for the staff, what I think Kil means, Ergo, is that you better not throw out any more unevidences assertions and expect Dave or anyone else to follow up on them in order to "disprove" them.
What that means is you must be much more rigorous in the manner you present evidence. It should be like: A proposes Z, which should not happen under Y, because of c, d, and e, therefore N.
So no more of your usual style, which is more like "I heard of a guy who says he saw a guy who claims he saw molten metal, maybe. Explain that!"
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 23:38:39 [Permalink]
|
The Official Story claims that the floor system, heated by the fires, sagged and failed--falling onto the floor below it and thereby starting the progressve colapse that destroyed the towers.
However, in a study Underwriter's Laboratory conducted--to test the robustness of the flooring system, they found: "Both assemblies continued to carry load beyond the point where steel temperature criteria were exceeded; unrestrained rating from restrained test is based on maximum steel temperature criteria. Rating established by deflection limitations; the specimens had not collapsed and the unexposed slab temperature criteria was not yet exceeded. (Their emphasis.)
"The ASTM E119 Standard does not provide guidance for continuing a test to collapse while safeguarding the test facility from damage." (Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, Fire Resistance Testing of WTC Floor System, August 25, 2004.)
In other words, both the ½-scale and the full scale specimens failed to collapse under the temperature criteria set forth by NIST (which one would assume was their estimate of the maximum temperature attained within the WTC buildings). Furthermore, UL were worried that if they raised the temperature to the point where the flooring would actually collapse, it might damage their facility—suggesting they felt, given the robustness of the flooring design, their facility would not safely be able to reach temperatures high enough to actually make the floor specimens fail.
BTW: This is just the start of my proof that the Official Story is at best not credible and at worst, impossible. But it's late and I'm going to bed.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 10/28/2006 23:47:46 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 07:07:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
... resulted in the total collapse of each building
I think we need to agree on a definition of "total collapse" before continuing.
Dave posted a picture in another thread that clearly shows several stories of the perimiter wall standing. Is that a total collapse? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 08:43:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
... resulted in the total collapse of each building
I think we need to agree on a definition of "total collapse" before continuing.
Dave posted a picture in another thread that clearly shows several stories of the perimiter wall standing. Is that a total collapse?
So FEMA's assessment isn't good enough for you, eh? Okay. FEMA are experts in assessing damage. They categorized the damage as a total collapse. What evidence do you have that FEMA got it wrong? How many stories remained completely intact? Because if one of the lower floors managed to hault the collapse, we have a bigger threat to the official story than what I've posted so far--namely, if a lower floor could stop the collapsing mass of dozens upper floors, why didn't the first impacted floor stop a much smaller mass? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 09:04:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
So FEMA's assessment isn't good enough for you, eh? Okay. FEMA are experts in assessing damage. They categorized the damage as a total collapse. What evidence do you have that FEMA got it wrong? How many stories remained completely intact? Because if one of the lower floors managed to hault the collapse, we have a bigger threat to the official story than what I've posted so far--namely, if a lower floor could stop the collapsing mass of dozens upper floors, why didn't the first impacted floor stop a much smaller mass?
Wow! Mab asked a simple question, and instead of answering "yes," ergo starts ranting about how a statement from a government authority ought to be good enough, and introducing, again, his own personal "no floors equals total collapse" definition. ergo seems to be less and less capable of answering questions rationally as time goes by. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 16:38:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
So FEMA's assessment isn't good enough for you, eh? Okay. FEMA are experts in assessing damage. They categorized the damage as a total collapse. What evidence do you have that FEMA got it wrong? How many stories remained completely intact? Because if one of the lower floors managed to hault the collapse, we have a bigger threat to the official story than what I've posted so far--namely, if a lower floor could stop the collapsing mass of dozens upper floors, why didn't the first impacted floor stop a much smaller mass?
Wow! Mab asked a simple question, and instead of answering "yes," ergo starts ranting about how a statement from a government authority ought to be good enough, and introducing, again, his own personal "no floors equals total collapse" definition. ergo seems to be less and less capable of answering questions rationally as time goes by.
Indeed, especially since none of the federal governments are to be trusted, they are all under the suspicion of being involved in the Conspiracy to Cover up The Truth(tm).
But the question is basically left unanswered. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What did cause the Towers to collapse?
