Derde fase sloop Bouwkunde TUDelft - 02

[MiaRyanne]

That doesn't look like fire collapsing the building...I swear they're cranes and a wrecking ball. Not to much visible steel in this building, yet it still didn't have a global collapse after burning for 7 hours.

[proudfootz]

Just more evidence fire does not cause 'global collapse'.

[datzfast]

@proudfootz well i hope the global planet earth doesnt collapse. did you mean to say the entire bulding didnt fall down? i think only certain colums were melted buy heat in certain aeras. wind and water kept most of this struture cool. its a fine example of partial building collaspe due to fire. in time we will see total building collaspe when coditions are met. i dont supose they found thermite bombs. why dont you run with that for a while. its getting good milage at the WTC collaspe.

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

maybe they should have flew a plane into it, and not have fire fighters spray water at the fire.

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

...or put some explosives and accelerants in it.

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

A plane crashing into a building will have an explosive effect, when the accelerants ignite. Plus the added weight load will over stress the structure

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

Maybe so.

But that's not what happened at WTC apparently.

Withstood impact just fine.

Fires not hot enough to weaken steel in time allowed before demolition.

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

it didn't withstand the impact. It put a hole in the building. Which had to spread the load to already stressed vertical columns. and those columns wouldn't be able to withstand 500,000,000lbs of moving weight

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

Impact damage wasn't very severe considering the kind of redundancy built into skyscrapers.

Weight above was stationary - it can't move unless support is cut from beneath.

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

What redundancy? the outer columns were hollow steel and had weak floor trusses unlike other I beam box construction buildings. And how is 209,350,000 lbs of force from the airplane not going to do any damage?

The weight above moved when the building had to redistribute its load which caused tremendous amount of stress on the other vertical columns.

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

No one is claiming 'no damage' - please try to stick to what's actually at issue.

Best estimates are about 15% of the vertical supports were compromised.

Best estimates are that it would take in excess of 25% to compromise the ability of the towers to stand.

Weight was redistributed - as redundancy in support was designed to do.

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

I need better than estimates from you to prove that. I need actual weight loads that each vertical column is designed to hold and their tolerances.

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

Hm.

I was responding in the same vein you were posting.

Your estimate of 'tremendous stress' leaves a lot to be desired. You provided no such information about 'actual weight loads' or 'tolerances' did you?

But the estimates I quoted come from NIST and the WTC builders, respectively.

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

I'm asking you for the weight loads and tolerances.?  You guessing a percentage doesn't cut it. Just like I said in my previous post.

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

You're in no position to make 'demands' of anyone - especially when you fail to provide the level of detail you're asking from others. It's doubtful you'd know what the numbers mean anyway.

The percentages aren't mine - they are estimates provide by WTC builders and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

If you have a problem with these numbers take it up with them.

You fail.

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

How would the WTC builders know how much damage the airplane caused?

Looks like you are a fraud and not an engineer when you can't prove anything

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

WTC builders talked about the redundancy - they estiamted in excess of 25% of the columns could fail and the building would not collapse.

Looks like you are a fraud like most would-be debunkers.

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

so 99% of the columns would be missing, and the building wouldn't collapse. ROFL

good job in proving you are an engineer by grasping at straws.

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

Sorry you don't like the facts as reported by the designers of WTC and NIST.

I guess you'll be keeping your job as a useless troll, then?

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

still waiting for you to say, that only 1 vertical column will support 20 floors. which is impossible

maybe they don't need the inner column even because according to you, you only need 1 vertical support

i bet you will say, a dog can stand with one leg.

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

Just FYI - there were a couple of hundred columns in the WTC towers, not just one.

This is why you fail.

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

You fail at reading what I typed. Good job in lying to people that you are an engineer with your 2nd grade drawings.

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

You typed some BS about one vertical column.

That has nothing to do with WTC - there were a few hundred vertical columns only 15% of which (according to NIST) were compromised by the jetliner impact.

You fail again.

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

You still can't read. I'm still waiting for proof that you are an engineer. Just by you not being able to read what I typed about the 1 vertical column proves you are a fraud.

So you don't believe the government, yet you are using NIST as a source.

LOL you fail

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

Your thinking the WTC towers were only supported by one vertical column shows you are very ignorant of the construction.

That's why I don't rely on what trolls like you write, but on the engineers and architects who built and studied the skyscrapers.

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

You still don't know how to read. Can you quote me where I claimed the WTC has only one vertical column?

architects are not engineers. wow you failed twice in your post

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

I don't know why you keep talking about 'one vertical column' when I never said any such thing.

The problem seems to be that you make up some convenient BS and then start believing it yourself.

Have your English tutor tell you what the word 'and' means when I put it between architects and engineers...

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

no shit, i know what and means. And architects don't study the engineering of a collapse. FAIL again dumbfuck

because you claimed I said the wtc only has one vertical column. since you fail at reading, I'm still waiting for you to quote me where I claimed the WTC only has 1 vertical beam holding the entire building up.

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

But the architects who designed it know about the redundancy designed into the system - which goes right over your pointed little head.

Why are you talking about 'one vertical column'? NIST said only about 15% were damaged by the impact - do you have any reason to think otherwise?

Do try to stay focused.

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

architects designed how it will look like. The structural engineers designed the actual structure. HUGE DIFFERENCE FAIL AGAIN

You are making accusations that I said the WTC only had 1 vertical column. I'm still waiting for the proof of that lie.

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

You brought up the 'one vertical column' gag - you tell me where it comes from.

Yes, WTC architects AND engineers know more about WTC than you seem to.

This is why you fail - you know nothing and make sure everyone knows you know nothing.

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

I brought it up, and you don't know how to read to understand what it meant.

Architects are not structural engineers. wow you suck at reading again.

Still waiting for you to prove that 75% of the vertical columns can support 500,000,000lbs while the tensil strength of steel decreases

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

I don't need to prove it - this was the opinion of the people who built the towers.

You need to prove that with the minor damage from the impacts and low temp fires the buildings would fail symmetrically.

Get to work!

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

I already did snce 500,000,000lbs of momentum will destroy floor impact rating of 4,000PSI

1000 degree fire doesn't seem like a low temperature to me.  that makes steel lose 1/3 of it structural stength. missed engineering class again

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

The gas temp of the fire is not the temp the steel reached.

This is why you guys fail - can't tell the difference between air and steel.

Sorry you missed your class - someone could have explained it to you.

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

and you still fail at reading since I said the temperature of steel.

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

Funny - NIST tested the steel from WTC and says it wasn't exposed to temps above 600 and didn't go above 250C - at which temperature it loses zero percent of its strength.

Try again.

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

So the steel wasn't exposed to thermite/thermate or any explosives.

i guess that solves that problem. And what did NIST say made the building collapse

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

Yes, NIST's science proved fire couldn't do it.

So you have nothing.

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

I have nothing what?

That means the building collapsed from the airplane according to your NIST comprehension. ROFL

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

You fail to comprehend - which is why you have nothing to offer in trying to understand what happened at WTC on 9/11.

NIST's own scientific tests do not support their preconceived conclusions.

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

I already understand since I use my own engineering calculations while dumb people like you use NIST evidence and your 4th grade education of drawing stick figures of a car hitting a van.

And based on the evidence YOU are providing since you believe NIST is accurate. The steel beams were never introduced to exothermic reactions.

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

At least NIST had the advantage over you in actually studying some physical evidence - while you pull your 'facts' out of your hat.

Since NIST assumumed fire-did-it from the start, they didn't look for evidence of demolition and of course they didn't find any - what a surprise!

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

they didtest for demolition. That ould be he temperature the steel columns were exposed too. And you stated the beams didn't get hot.

therefore there was no demolition from the facts you posted.

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

There are other facts which NIST did not take into consideration.

The presence of thermite is one.

Demolition is the first thing they should have been looking for.

[proudfootz]

@taledarkside

They only studied steel from the fire zone - not the initiation zone.

They didn't know what we know today - thermite found at WTC site.

[taledarkside]

@proudfootz

They studied all the steel beams from the WTC. another lie from a conspiracy theorist.

they found aluminum oxide and iron oxide stuff the WTC was made from. Yes, there is no heat signatures of thermite being in a exothermic reaction. which you already proved .