How steel has to be distributed for skyscrapers to hold themselves up is of "little practical significance". Ask any skyscraper.
Correct. They obviously did not care about lives. In fact it appears they wanted many deaths for maximum effect. However they still had to try to make it look like 3 collapses as much as possible. And it worked to fool the ignorant, especially when they used a prestigious entity such as NIST to try to cover their collective asses.
Ask any skyscraper? … do you have any clue how most skyscrapers are built these days? do some research grasshopper … I will buy you a beer if you can get this one correct …
This is where you take each one and demonstrate it is false. But you can't. Everything on that list is 100% accurate and you ran away from it yet again. I state x is missing from a report. To demonstrate this I need to show it is missing? WRONG! You, need to show it is not. Ahhh, the invisible model only visible to people who look. Specific to fires. Unlike Hulsey who did no fire modelling then concluded it wasn't fire. Now you want a "LOL" ? Right there you have one! Totally false. LSdyna has no relevance to fire! It's essentially crash simulation software. https://www.ansys.com/en-gb/products/structures/ansys-ls-dyna Abicus(sic) or Abaqus as used by Hulsey is a simulation tool and has no fire modeling. The nearest it gets is having specific thermal conductivity algorithms. But since Hulsey didn't actually do any proper fire modeling, this would be largely useless! https://www.3ds.com/products-services/simulia/products/abaqus/ Magic fire-surviving, invisibly-planted "thermate" and in places totally useless to actually bringing down the building. You're not very good at this are you! Besides, you said: And to repeat - explosions that nobody heard. Your silly animated gif showed windows breaking or changing orientation. Foot-shooting at its finest The building didn't "come straight down". There was a 30 second pause from first signs, then a 5 second pause as the penthouse's support gave way. Well slap my forehead but that was my damn point! Showing the ACTUAL demolition and the flashes are all accompanied by loud cracking noises heard over the sound of the helicopter! Pointing out the inadequacies of the available data for every report, doesn't discount the best model for what data there is. In terms of establishing the cause from fires, using software developed to do this, used by the US Defense is as good as you are going to get.
Regarding the collapse Tony Szamboti suggested it only went down a few floors, but that is probably not true. It goes right down to at least 3 major support columns! Just look at that wave through the windows. Then 5 seconds later the rest gives way.
no, thats not an evasion, its an accurate description to the false premise you proposed nice try thats on the outside of the building, not the inside. LOL the best way to see what was going on in the inside is to look through the windows. you can see it in the bright light through the windows as well as in the darkened version by looking through windows, try it take a lott through the windows it helps.
A Brief Synopsis of the Major Engineering Studies for WTC7 So I touched on this briefly, that all the major engineering studies (Arup, Nordenson, Weidlinger and Hulsey) disagree with NIST's key collapse initiation hypothesis with respect to WTC7 and in fact invalidate it. In other words, NIST's collapse initiation hypothesis is a complete failure and an impossibility according to all other major engineering studies. The Arup and Nordenson studies agree with Hulsey that column 79 could not have been dislodged due to thermal expansion because "girder A2001 would become trapped behind the western side plate of Column 79 after less than 4 inches of lateral travel when pushed to the west, and that its web could not have been pushed beyond its bearing seat in that direction". It should be noted that according to NIST, girder A2001 is the primary structural component that dislodged column 79 due to thermal expansion. So Arup claims that "the five beams to the east of girder A2001 (K3004, C3004, B3004, A3004, and G3005) were heated enough to sag and pull the girder to the east and off of its seats, creating the same situation as claimed by NISTwhere the girder and the flooring it supported fell onto Floor 12 below. The global collapse analysis (the Nordenson section of the report) then attempts to show how the load from the impact between the falling Floor 13 girder and Floor 12 girder below was sufficient to cause the lower floor to fail, which then precipitated a multi-story cascade similar to that claimed in the NIST report." Following some calculations, Hulsey determines: "This 61,950 lb. impact force is less than 10% of the 632,000 lb. force required to shear the girder bearing seat support welds and is thus quite insufficient to do so. This analysis was performed at room temperature; higher temperatures would soften the girders, causing even lower impact forces. Therefore, the northeast corner of Floor 12 would not have collapsed if a girder from Floor 13 came off its seat at Column 79 and fell onto it. As a result, the Nordenson portion of the Arup analysis does not demonstrate that propagation could occur after the supposed initiating failure, even if the girder were to fall off its seat at Column 79. This is a fatal flaw in the Arup and Nordenson analysis." An additional problem with the thermal hypothesis in both NIST (pushed off its seat) and Arup/Nordenson (pulled off its seat) is that the fires in that specific area of WTC7 were out long before this event allegedly took place (according to photos taken of WTC7) so the thermal hypothesis in both cases is an impossibility. According to Hulsey, Nordenson claims (in agreement with Hulsey) that "it would take a 632,000 lb. load to shear the welds of the 2” thick x 14” high x 18” wide support plate under the bearing seat of girder A2001 at Column 79. Nordenson also correctly determines the stiffness of girder A2001 on the 12th floor at a point 10 inches from its support at Column 79." However, Hulsey also claims "there was an error in Nordenson’s calculation of the impact force of 4,133 kips, which resulted from considering the above girder as a point load, thus implying it had an infinite stiffness and no deflection." In other words, Nordenson introduced yet another impossibility into their hypothesis. The Weidlinger study also agrees with Hulsey and both disagree with Arup/Nordenson: "As would be expected, the Weidlinger report attempts to rebut the Arup and Nordenson reports. Among its points of rebuttal, it corroborates our finding that the falling Floor 13 beam and girder assembly could not break through the next floor down." Where Weidlinger disagrees with Hulsey is as follows: "The collapse initiation hypothesis presented in the Weidlinger report, which is based on fire modeling performed by Dr. Craig Beyler of Hughes Associates, is that Floors 9 and 10 were simultaneously heated to between 750° and 800°C in the exact same area of each floor. This extreme heating eventually caused Floor 10 to give way and break through Floor 9, which was possible only because of the extreme heating of Floor 9. The falling debris from these initial floor failures was sufficient to cause a cascade of floor failures through the unheated floors down to Floor 5, diminishing the lateral support for Column 79 and two nearby columns, Column 80 and Column 81, thus causing the columns to buckle and trigger a progressive collapse of the entire building." But again, that might make some sense IF these temperature estimates were accurate which is not provable and highly unlikely given the location of the fires at the moment of failure. Hulsey further claims: "It is important to understand that steel structural members reaching temperatures of 750°C due to office fires can be considered extraordinary. Without any analysis provided to substantiate such temperatures, Weidlinger’s collapse initiation hypothesis must be viewed skeptically and can only be assumed to have a very low probability of occurrence." What is also important to note is that neither Arup/Nordenson nor Weidlinger mentioned the free fall of WTC7 or even modeled its "collapse". https://files.wtc7report.org/file/p...ollapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf See chapters 3.3 and 3.4, pages 87-91
A Brief Synopsis of the Major Engineering Studies for WTC7 (Addendum) Sorry, I missed the edit window. What is most important to note is that even though 4 major engineering studies contradict NIST to a level rendering NIST's hypothesis for the "collapse" of WTC7 impossible and invalid, it is still to this day, more than 14 years after its release, the official party line for the destruction of WTC7.
I will re-post about the ASCE corruption since the point was raised in another thread. Note I will no longer engage in any discussion with anyone who defends the official 9/11 narrative and fails to question any of it.
As previously stated. We are talking about a rather uniquely designed building that was burning on multiple floors for 7 hours and that had its south corner destabilized by a very large impact. Being unfought meant that there was nobody inside to accurately record every detail of how this was affecting the building. In short, this vacuum of data must be applied through guesswork. This is why all experts are disagreeing on what happened. Don't also forget, that whilst they disagree, they also have good reason to. Weidlinger used specialist software that does fire modeling for the floors reported to be on fire. Hulsey, amazingly did NOT do this, he only modeled the fires on 2 floors! When reports and images show at least 10 floors affected. Kind of but they used their own software for their own modeling. They used Beyler as a reference for the steel temperatures: "We undertook a series of high-fidelity nonlinear thermo-mechanical computational analyses to track the highly complex evolution of the structural system response over time under the steel temperatures that Dr. Beyler [Beyler, 2010] derived. We did so by using Weidlinger–developed commercial software, which has been extensively validated for the regime of physics associated with the collapse and destruction of structures, called FLEX. Our analyses include detailed modeling of the entire floor plate east of column line 76-77-78, where the level of resolution includes explicit representation of every element – to the level of every bolt, connection plate and shear stud – that was used in the construction of WTC7." Hulsey has no grounds to determine the building and/or steel temperatures given that he did fire modeling on only two floors! Once again, Hulsey did NOTHING himself to substantiate the temperatures since he only modeled 2 floors. And as for stating that these temperatures would be extraordinary is provably absurd: House Fire Temperature: How Hot Does It Get? (firefighterinsider.com) "A standard house fire can reach temperatures of up to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit (815 Celcius). It will always be hottest at the ceiling, as heat rises. However, it can still easily be a few hundred degrees or more at the floor level." What is the Temperature of Fire? | News - Target Fire Protection (target-fire.co.uk) "While weaker, red flames can still range from 525°C to 1000°C. The more faint the colour, the lower the temperature. A more vibrant red, something closer to orange, will hit the higher end of the scale measuring nearer the 1,000°C mark. Orange flames range from around 1100°C to 1200°C. White flames are hotter, measuring 1300°C to about 1500°C. The brighter the white, the higher the temperature."
Just that animated gif, all on its own puts to bed this claim about controlled demolition. Clearly and irrefutably there is an interference wave that begins as the penthouse section finally gives way and flows all the way to the bottom in a steady way that proves internal collapse! Just on the right edge is where the building kinks indicating exactly what has been claimed all along.
Roland Angle WTC 5/22/23 Interesting at 12:00 sort of talks about distribution of steel. At 46:00 discusses impact of falling top against stationary bottom.
One would naturally expect more support the lower you went. The problem though, is that the lower the falling building + associated compacting debris fell, the more the kinetic energy exponentially increased. He discusses the various engineering exchanges which amount to speculation. I covered the way the buildings collapsed here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-demolition-specific-to-wtc1-and-wtc2.610194/
steel distribution doesn’t matter. Have you any clue of how much weight came down from the collapses starting high up in the the buildings that started at the impact zones?
It is now time for Twilight Zone music and psikey paranoia: I posted 4 comments on a YouTube video featuring Sam Harris. Since Harris mentioned "conspiracy theories" and "9/11" multiple times, 2 of the comments were about steel in the towers and the NIST. Those 2 comments were deleted in less than 3 minutes. I did copy most of one to my clipboard before I sent it. I would appreciate it if anyone else posted this on the video. Is the YouTube algorithm just targeting me. Or am I delusional. LOL ======================== OK! I just tried it again. It was deleted in less than 2 minutes and one of my comments that had nothing to do with the WTC disappeared also.
Instead of confusing everyone with your 20 year campaign to fail to read the blueprints, can you answer the post? Here it is again since you all seem to be evading it: Regarding the collapse Tony Szamboti suggested it only went down a few floors, but that is probably not true. It goes right down to at least 3 major support columns! Just look at that wave through the windows. Then 5 seconds later the rest gives way.
Haha, don't be daft. You can see the penthouse collapse and the downward wave is in perfect sync with it dropping. How can you stand there and deny it? In your face. It's not even up for debate, just admit it. The actual WTC7 penthouse collapse clearly shows the mechanism that subsequently brought down the building.
no its not, anyone can see that, it was doing that all freakin day from the smoke and heat! That just refraction nothing more. Stop trying to push such nonsense on us. If you want to see a demolition sequence you need to look at the one I posted where it compares it to the original so you can see it both when dark and light. You are confused, clearly you have no idea what a real demolition sequence looks like to bring down that type of building. Shees Give it up already
Hilarious. Magic "refraction" that was "doing that" all "freakin day". It's actually a game over moment, so it's easy to see why there will never be any concession! Next post, explain EXACTLY what is being "refracted" and how.. Then explain why it is perfectly synchronized with the penthouse section dropping! You can see the penthouse collapse and the downward wave is in perfect sync with it dropping. How can you stand there and deny it? In your face.The actual WTC7 penthouse collapse clearly shows the mechanism that subsequently brought down the building.
Im not here to be your free tutor unless you want to pay me, sorry. coincidence that trashy miniature 1/2" fuzz blob is not a demolition sequence. Thanks purely imagined.
I'm guessing you don't actually have a clue what refraction is, let alone why it would do this perfect wave in sync with the penthouse collapse. But you stay quiet about huh? Nobody will notice anyway.
I gave you the real demo sequence and it looks nothing like your shadows and blobs. I dont know why you dont simply accept that what you have isnt worth a pinch of sand!
