marko Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 you say it takes months of precise planning and stairwells need to be cut etc etc , but you accept random office fires can achieve the same effect ? don't you see a problem with that ? No, not really. Anyway, I'm all ears as to how it was achieved.
MooseBreath Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE Collapse of a major reinforced concrete structure in fire, as occurred with this building, is a rare event. Consequently, it is important to understand the factors that led to the collapse, and the implications these factors have on our understanding and practices for assessing the structural fire resistance of reinforced concrete structures. i've just had a quick read about this partial collapse and i rather doubt that there were any solid upright steel core columns , it has a steel reinforced flooring but that's not really the same thing. it only mentions concrete reinforced columns http://www.dr.dk/nr/rdonlyres/fecddba8-7428-460d-846f-0c3d424d3a81/2748348/delft_brandrapport.pdf You're right, it's not a perfect example. But you could quite easily turn this whole argument on its head by asking for a precedent showing a large high rise steel framed building allowed to burn uninhibited by sprinklers or firemen on several low floors for hours on end which HASN'T collapsed. You won't find a perfect precedent because this was an unprecedented event. So what did we learn? Nothing. Just that maybe all the professional structural engineers who believe the official story might be right afterall, and maybe all the Nutjobs on YouTube trying to make a few dollars might just be talking crap.
Zingari Posted 21 December 2013 Author Posted 21 December 2013 No, not really. Anyway, I'm all ears as to how it was achieved. so why do they go to all the weeks of preparation , cutting stairwell , rigging up tons of explosive , if all you need is some paper bins and a box of matches
MooseBreath Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 at best , you can only describe as a bit falling off the side I don't think so, I think it collapses. Certainly if you picture the weight of another 40 or so floors coming down on top of it, you can see it could have been nothing other than a straight collapse
marko Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 so why do they go to all the weeks of preparation , cutting stairwell , rigging up tons of explosive , if all you need is some paper bins and a box of matches Because it's a far safer method and guarantees a controlled fall.
Zingari Posted 21 December 2013 Author Posted 21 December 2013 Because it's a far safer method and guarantees a controlled fall. How can using explosives be safer than waste paper and matches ? It only had a few fires on a couple of floors burning for a few hours and the whole lot came down into a lovely neat pile . Surely this method should be studied intensely and copied. After all nist has explained how it all happened so re creating the effect should be child play. yeah right
shen Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 Brilliant response Yeah, just as brilliant as your video which proves absolutely jack squat about the WTC 7 collapse, which has been covered MULTIPLE times in this thread alone. Not that you bothered actually sifting through it before posting your enlightening post. Troll.
Zingari Posted 21 December 2013 Author Posted 21 December 2013 You're right, it's not a perfect example. But you could quite easily turn this whole argument on its head by asking for a precedent showing a large high rise steel framed building allowed to burn uninhibited by sprinklers or firemen on several low floors for hours on end which HASN'T collapsed. You won't find a perfect precedent because this was an unprecedented event. So what did we learn? Nothing. Just that maybe all the professional structural engineers who believe the official story might be right afterall, and maybe all the Nutjobs on YouTube trying to make a few dollars might just be talking crap. there are many examples of steel framed buildings burning for much longer and with far more serious fires than wtc 7 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html this is a good un ain't it ? impressive eh ? they don't just collapse symmetrically like wtc7
MooseBreath Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 Most of those were faught by firefighters and sprinklers, the one you've picked out was an entirely different type of construction to WTC7. Not perfect precedents. Proves nothing.
Zingari Posted 21 December 2013 Author Posted 21 December 2013 Most of those were faught by firefighters and sprinklers, the one you've picked out was an entirely different type of construction to WTC7. Not perfect precedents. Proves nothing. you're not seriously suggesting that firefighters and sprinklers hadn't ceased to have any effect on that building are you?
MooseBreath Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 you're not seriously suggesting that firefighters and sprinklers hadn't ceased to have any effect on that building are you? The Chinese one? I'm saying it was a totally different type of construction therefore it is not a valid comparison. For the others on that page you linked to, availability and use of water, plus things like the location of the fires make enough of a difference for them not to be valid comparisons. No perfect precedent = it can't be true. This is your logic remember.
Zingari Posted 21 December 2013 Author Posted 21 December 2013 The Chinese one? I'm saying it was a totally different type of construction therefore it is not a valid comparison. For the others on that page you linked to, availability and use of water, plus things like the location of the fires make enough of a difference for them not to be valid comparisons. No perfect precedent = it can't be true. This is your logic remember. i don't think we're getting anywhere soon . :xmasbiggrin: so i'll bow out as gracefully as i can for now :xmaswink: Merry Christmas Moosey and to all the other participants
Strokes Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 Most of those were faught by firefighters and sprinklers, the one you've picked out was an entirely different type of construction to WTC7. Not perfect precedents. Proves nothing.If that doesn't prove anything then nor does your little clip.Anyway I'm staying out of the argument, the evidence is pretty clear to me.
shen Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 This thread is hilarious. I find it pretty tragic, really.
OzFox Posted 22 December 2013 Posted 22 December 2013 edit; How did they explain the collapse of WTC 7 in that 911 report book ? Did it give a good explanation of the reason for the collapse ? Were you convinced by the explanation? or did it actually say anything about it at all ? :xmassmile: You mean.....gasp....you haven't read it??? I know what to put under your Christmas tree then
Zingari Posted 22 December 2013 Author Posted 22 December 2013 You mean.....gasp....you haven't read it??? I know what to put under your Christmas tree then No I haven't , What does it say about the collapse of WTC7 ?
MooseBreath Posted 22 December 2013 Posted 22 December 2013 No I haven't , What does it say about the collapse of WTC7 ? Have you read the NIST report into the collapse or their clarifications on common questions?
Zingari Posted 22 December 2013 Author Posted 22 December 2013 Have you read the NIST report into the collapse or their clarifications on common questions? No. only the relevant clips that have been selected by the critics of it. I've just left that sort of stuff to Dave Chandler , Richard Gage etc , have you read either of them ? I've watched Shyam Sunder talking enough complete crap though :xmassmile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
fleckneymike Posted 22 December 2013 Posted 22 December 2013 No I haven't , What does it say about the collapse of WTC7 ? No. only the relevant clips that have been selected by the critics of it. I've just left that sort of stuff to Dave Chandler , Richard Gage etc , have you read either of them ? I've watched Shyam Sunder talking enough complete crap though :xmassmile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA perhaps you should then http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/
MooseBreath Posted 22 December 2013 Posted 22 December 2013 No. only the relevant clips that have been selected by the critics of it. I've just left that sort of stuff to Dave Chandler , Richard Gage etc , have you read either of them ? I've watched Shyam Sunder talking enough complete crap though :xmassmile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA So you mean to say, all this time you've been banging on about not believing the official explanation, you've never actually known what the official explanation is?? Bloody hell zing
Mike Oxlong Posted 22 December 2013 Posted 22 December 2013 No. only the relevant clips that have been selected by the critics of it. I've just left that sort of stuff to Dave Chandler , Richard Gage etc , have you read either of them ? I've watched Shyam Sunder talking enough complete crap though :xmassmile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA Who is Dave Chandler? Is he the bastard child of Dave the Caveman and Chandler? Does he post on here under another name?
Zingari Posted 22 December 2013 Author Posted 22 December 2013 So you mean to say, all this time you've been banging on about not believing the official explanation, you've never actually known what the official explanation is?? Bloody hell zing i don't see why i should waste even a moment of my life reading a waffle ridden 2000 page piece of crap explaining how something happened that can't possibly happen . It is highly unlikely that i'd be able to find out any more problems than have already been exposed and questioned . i haven't read the bible because it i'm not going to believe that god made the world in 7 days however much it says so or however many clerical experts believe it. The way I look at it is this . I am just a juror in a court room listening to expert testimonies and given that I know how steel behaves and how it always has behaved in fires then I'm siding wih the AE 911 version of the truth in this. And given that demolition experts are on record as stating positively it was a controlled demolition , i wouldn't be able to argue with them either. So i have to make my mind up on who to believe by my own reasoning . :xmassmile: have you read both books btw ?
MooseBreath Posted 22 December 2013 Posted 22 December 2013 If you were a juror you would listen to both sides of the argument. So you're not like a juror at all. You're someone who is completely dismissing the credibility of something you've never even looked at never mind understood. Ludicrous stuff.
Zingari Posted 22 December 2013 Author Posted 22 December 2013 If you were a juror you would listen to both sides of the argument. So you're not like a juror at all. You're someone who is completely dismissing the credibility of something you've never even looked at never mind understood. Ludicrous stuff. No not really , I've "listened" to both sides of the argument at the conferences available on youtube by both NIST , and the critics . This is all i would do as a juror listening to expert testimonies. What else would i be expected to do? We listen to experts picking out relevant points , we listen to criticisms and answers , we decide on that who and which explanation is more credible. I have listened to Shyam Sunder's waffling ( and other nist mouthpieces)and don't find his or the others explanations credible in the slightest And in this particular theory , i find the critics are more credible than the official spokespersons . Why are so many experts in many fields openly critical if it is all so all definite ? Once again have you read the final nist report ? you seem to be avoiding the question that i've been honest enough to answer .
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.