Topic: University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11 - page 15. (Read 2858 times)

I'm good with your alleging "statistically improbable" as long as you show the statistics that show it's statistically improbable, but in the absence of that, forget it. You don't get to use big words and assert they are Truey. You are not the arbitrator of what happened on that day. You are just one guy arguing that explosives were required without any evidence and without producing serious arguments for that premise.

It's pretty laughable to say something like "it's obvious that it's statistically improbable." What is the chance that of 30 people in a room 2 have the same birthday? If you are gambling, heads you win tails I win, start gambling with 1$ and double it every bet, you'll win it all after a while, right?

Huge fortunes and entire cities, such as Las Vegas, exist because of peoples' poor comprehension of statistical principles.

statistically probable that terrorists would do something bad. statistically probable that the damage to a building would cause the outer panels fall away when the main structure collapses

..
statistically improbably that terrorists just happened to hit a building which just happened to have been primed with explosives but where none of the office staff ever seen the explosives during the priors days/hours being installed.

i know you want to keep pushing that it must have been explosives to have the velocity needed to push a large object horizontal..

but the way the pillar was lodged in the roof and not slammed into the side shows it was not horizontal.
the video backs this up by showing the detaching of the pillars from the main structure and leaning over as it falls sending debris out with it. and breaking up on the way down in a curved diagonal motion.

so why are you keep on pressing the illusion of a horizontal high force theory when there is no evidence or video footage of a high force horizontal action.

Amazing how something so statistically improbable happened so many times that day isn't it?

We're in agreement with one important exception. YOU are the only one saying "Explosives, explosives, explosives, blah, blah, blah."

Any transfer of energy may be assumed somewhat inefficient. For example, suppose that two falling beams hit each other, just right, and one receives a energy transfer enough to create the 11 m/s vector force.  The impact likely created considerable heat, and perhaps the 2nd beam moved in some direction also. Therefore, perhaps the total energy transferred was 250 joules, and the part of interest to us is 192 joules.

watch the video you actually see the external panals falling of in a tilt.
if you think buildings should only lose their external panels on one side  is more foolish nonsense

if the main building structure is collapsing down. then there is nothing for the external panels to hold onto. so the fall away and because the external panels are surrounding every side. then yea every side will peel away

..
here is a test for you to try..
if you have a GF or spouse. pick them up and get them to wrap their legs around your waist and their arms around your neck
then ask them to let go of hugging u around the neck... they will lean backwards, without you needing to put a granade between you and her

tits called gravity and moment and balance.
the force needed does not need to be much. it just needs not having a building to secure against

if you stood ontop of a skyscraper, on the edge. it does not need a bomb to push you over the edge. just a little tap or a gust of wind will send you tumbling

You keep telling me the energy required to move the mass. I keep telling you that more than that amount of energy needs to be released in order to move that mass, because your calculation only accounts for the kinetic energy transferred to it, not the total energy required under the conditions to deliver that sum of energy to the mass. It is not complicated. You are calculating the bare minimum amount of explosives assuming 100% efficiency. Maybe you can argue with me some more about the question if glass is weaker than steel.

You are telling me about "feelings" about the level of force as you arbitrarily pull numbers like "one meter offset" out of your ass. This isn't a wild guess. It is a fact. Even if enough air pressure was available, it could NEVER be efficient enough to blow out a 22 ton mass by collapse pressure alone because it would simply blow out the windows and then the force would no longer be applied to the panels.

This is exactly why a high explosive pressure wave would be required, because anything else wouldn't be fast enough to overcome the loss of pressure via the path of least resistance from windows and other gaps being blown out. Like I said before, your calculations depend on 100% of your calculated  force being applied to the mass. In reality much more force would be required, because most of that energy would be lost via the path of least resistance.
[/quote]

No, I calculated the offset being one meter. Which you'd know if you'd checked, but you didn't. You have not calculated anything. Everything you said, is you relying on your gut instincts.

That's going to get you wrong answers every single time on a matter like this. And it's clear you still don't understand the calculations. NONE of them "depend on 100% of the calculated force...."

So why don't we go back and see where and how you misunderstood that? Was it when I showed the force required to move a KG 500 feet and you tried to shoe horn that into a spherical gas expansion at 50,000 feet per second (which is your HIGH EXPLOSIVE) but you didn't know the way to compute the fraction of total force that would project on a side object?

There, you wanted to see the "Total force", right? It's easy enough, but all that does is give you the number such as 1.5 or 2.5kg of TNT which applies a force of 2-3 ounces of TNT on the piece that goes off 500 feet. But that's totally irrelevant, isn't it? That does not lead you to a proof that high explosive was used or needed. It gets that argument nowhere.

Meanwhile, what you absolutely know is the joules required to move each KG 500 feet. Period. End of subject.

It matters? No, it results in about a one meter offset in the landing position from straight vertical. And the force is quite trivial.

See, there you go again. Saying something based on your brain's wild guess without actually knowing anything.

So, you are wrong again. Wrong by relying on a gut "feeling" about the level of a physical force.
[/quote]

You are telling me about "feelings" about the level of force as you arbitrarily pull numbers like "one meter offset" out of your ass. This isn't a wild guess. It is a fact. Even if enough air pressure was available, it could NEVER be efficient enough to blow out a 22 ton mass by collapse pressure alone because it would simply blow out the windows and then the force would no longer be applied to the panels.

This is exactly why a high explosive pressure wave would be required, because anything else wouldn't be fast enough to overcome the loss of pressure via the path of least resistance from windows and other gaps being blown out. Like I said before, your calculations depend on 100% of your calculated  force being applied to the mass. In reality much more force would be required, because most of that energy would be lost via the path of least resistance.

...You might as well calculate the total energy of the Earth's spin and throw that in there the way you are engaging in your premise.

Yes, it does matter, because that means a tiny fraction of that force will be applied to the object.
[/quote]

It matters? No, it results in about a one meter offset in the landing position from straight vertical. And the force is quite trivial.

See, there you go again. Saying something based on your brain's wild guess without actually knowing anything.

So, you are wrong again. Wrong by relying on a gut "feeling" about the level of a physical force.

You keep presenting "proofs" and I keep detailing why they make no sense even by your own terms. I understand you perfectly, I just reject your conclusions because they aren't supported by the facts or the laws of physics. You might as well calculate the total energy of the Earth's spin and throw that in there the way you are engaging in your premise.

Yes, it does matter, because that means a tiny fraction of that force will be applied to the object. Wait, you want me to mathematically prove glass is weaker than steel? Seriously? This is is just a pathetic roundabout game because you have nothing.

Those are your ideas, not mine. I'm just saying that we can figure the forces on that beam fragment. Not the same as advocating that as what happened.

I get the impression that you still don't really understand my approach to this problem. It is simply to show, via a variety of proofs at the level of beginning physics, that there are many ways these things could have happened, and thus to refute the argument that "high explosives were REQUIRED"...

which is a totally ridiculous assertion when the total energy in kinetic and potential of one of the WTT falling is a significant fraction of the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Deal with it, it is what it is.

Regarding...

Glass is weaker than steel, air pressure takes the path of least resistance, thus once the windows are blown, the vast majority of that pressure simply would go around the panels and would have no where near the force required to eject them hundreds of feet laterally.

Be my guest, show your work, prove that is true. You don't get to assume it's true because you feel that way. As for "The vast majority of that pressure" ? That does not matter, the force of the air is 400x greater, isn't it?
So yet again we see how truly puny and insignificant the 22 ton MASSIVE BEAM is...

Your intent has no bearing on the validity of your assertions. So you are implying that such a pressure wave would blow a 22 ton panel hundreds of feet but wouldn't blow out windows? This isn't rocket science, it is a simple comparison of materials. Glass is weaker than steel, air pressure takes the path of least resistance, thus once the windows are blown, the vast majority of that pressure simply would go around the panels and would have no where near the force required to eject them hundreds of feet laterally. Your tipping theory might make sense if the panels were not blown several different directions. For your model to make sense the panels would all have to peel off effortlessly like a banana peel on all sides, that makes zero sense.

Nope, you don't understand my intent. I only show the force in the air in a volume size of a single floor of WTC if a sudden collapse halves the volume. Then I explore how that compares to your MASSIVE BEAM.

Now you have asserted " That kind of air pressure would blow out windows, then the force would escape, not blow 22 ton panels 600feet. "

You are welcome to show the math and the numbers to support that. I suspect you are wrong, but you might be right. I KNOW that 20 square feet on the interior face of any beam will be subjected to the force I described during the collapse as described.

Because I got a MASSIVE FORCE. Your MASSIVE BEAM is 1/400 of that force.

It is what it is. Your breathtaking, awesome, massive forces that REQUIRE HIGH EXPLOSIVES just aren't and don't.

So next, why don't we take a 200 foot section of beam tilting under gravity only from the base point, and at 45 degrees the 50 top feet breaking off, and ask another simple, 1st semester physics problem.

How far does it go sideways before hitting the ground?

Now why would we do that? Because that's actually the way, and the only way, to examine problems of this sort.

Damn, couldn't find the meme ...someone get on that.


no comment....lol

The blue is the building huh? You can't even make any sense under your own terms. So the building just peeled like a banana in every direction huh? Cool story. I never once tried to confuse the external structure with the internal, not that you need a reason to just make shit up and attribute it to me. BTW just FYI the external panels were load bearing just so you know, but I am not sure what the purpose of even bringing this up was. Probably just more confusing the situation as you accuse me in the same breath of doing just that. Objects don't fall up and out regardless of all this nonsense you are rambling about.



That might make sense if everything was perfectly sealed, but it was not. That kind of air pressure would blow out windows, then the force would escape, not blow 22 ton panels 600feet. You are really stretching now desperate to come up with anything that even sounds close to a potential to find a reason why several 22 ton masses of steel traveled hundreds of feet laterally from their resting positions.

 Ah I see, now I am a disinfo agent am I? Because I have been so supportive of the CCP around here haven't I? Also, when was the last time you even heard me mention Iran? You are getting desperate now. Its sad.

Were there chemtrails in the sky over the twin towers too? You know, when the nano thermite that had been mixed into the concrete since the buildings were erected was set off?

Also, I'd like clarification as to what it means for it to have been an "Inside Job."

Does it mean that guys were running around with windbreakers that said in big letters "Inside Jobbers"?

^^^ The buildings were designed to handle everything that happened on 9/11, without collapsing, without burning down, without destruction of the buildings. Yet the buildings came down against all odds, and against construction design that should have easily handled what happened. All the silly idea of pancaking, is stuff that couldn't have worked... except in the following way.

The best of building designers and contracting builders are still not all-knowing. They can only do a tremendously excellent job. In order to find a flaw in their construction, other expert contractors and builders would have to laboriously pour over the designs of the designers until they find some hidden a flaw or potential flaw that might exist in the construction.

The point is, the failure of the Trade Center buildings in 9/11 was an inside job:

1. If it was a job done by the planes and the fire, it was done by critical examination of the plans and construction to find the only way that it could be done by planes, and then to have the planes hit the exact places necessary to make the building collapse work. Remember, the design and construction was such as to be able to protect against exactly what happened.

2. More than likely it was done by demolition.

Either way, it was absolutely an inside job.

Small force?

Assuming each floor was 10' high the surface area of the glass was

S= 10x 4 x 208

And atmospheric pressure is 14.7 PSI, so at the point where a floor is half collapsed and the PSI is doubled, you have an excess pressure equal to:

total F = S x F/sq in * Area

          = 144 sq in/sq ft * (10*4*208) * 14.7

          = 17,611,776 lb

Which certainly makes Tecshare's MASSIVE 22 TON BEAMS look puny, each of those MASSIVE 22 TON BEAMS weighing a puny ...

quarter of ONE PERCENT of this force!

And that's for each of the 110 floors. Since the excess pressure is 2116 lb/sq ft, Tecshare's MASSIVE 22 TON BEAM's weight would be matched by the force projected outward by a 4'x6' side area of one floor of the tower at the moment it was collapsing.

Now please go back to your Iranian or Chinese handlers who generate and maintain this garbage and ask them how to respond now that the MASSIVE BEAMS have been shown not to require EXPLOSIVES to generate the HUGE FORCES. Please tell them that their house of cards blaming the US government 911 has collapsed. When you get instructions will you tell us please?

the building. did not tip in 3 directings


but the external paneling broke off from the sides whilst the main building structure fell down
as shown in my example the BLUE is the building. and the black is just the external panelling

.. to pre-empt yo trying to meander this into some kind of mindgame of confusing the external panneling to the main internal columns. no they are different things

here


the long deep red | are the main structural columns and the white squares are the floors
the main strcuture column are in the centre of the floor plan.


as for the smaller
############
############ this is the external panelling
like the one that ended up in the roof of the winter garden

i know you want to twist this into how you think the previous posts must mean that the main building tilted. but no. only the external panelling fell away from the main building while the main building collapsed down on itself