67,000 people believe something's wrong with what we were told about 9/11

Your quoted post.

For example, it would be less likely to be destroyed by a tidal wave.

 

by only a very slight margin .......

Ranks right up there with being destroyed by
KLINGONS fighting Vogons .... or something.
can U say collateral damage?

 

See here's the problem: all of your scenarios are rooted in fantasy and fiction. Black magic, Klingons ... The actual truth resides in mathematics, physics and evidence.

 

That's not what I asked you.

Do you believe that redundancy GUARANTEES that global collapse would never happen?

Yes or no?

 

Ummm, yes?



Truthers are trying to stipulate that structural engineers design their buildings with enough structural redundancy to prevent global collapse from ANY and ALL scenarios. Do you you even comprehend what you are asking? You are asking a structural engineer to test every single possible permutation/combination of damaged/structural elements.

How many structural components were in one tower? Let's give you an SMALL example. There were 47 core columns on the first floor. Using just those 47, how many possible damage combinations can there be? Let's let's forget weakening certain columns certain percentage of their strength and just considered 100% failure/severed.

Examples:
Column 1 severed, the other 46 remain
Column 2 severed, the other 46 remain
Column 3 severed, the other 46 remain
...
Columns 1, 2 severed, the other 45 remain
...
Columns 1, 15, 34, severed, the other 44

Get the picture? Are you suggesting that's what structural engineers do? That they will run their structure through every possible scenario to make sure their structure is 100% impervious to total global collapse regarding any of them?

 

If you were a customer you'd ask for this "liability covering statement" or the structural engineering would supply that statement? I don't follow you.

So in other words, you think it's still a possibility and that redundancy doesn't guarantee against global collapse.

 

This ranks right up there with a guarantee that
I will never be abducted by aliens.

Insurance companies bet on a sure thing
in that the insurance policies insure against
total loss of the building. They know that
total loss is a very low ( VERY LOW ) probability
event.

 

Wow. You know nothing about insurance, either.

 

I have no idea how you come up with that bullsh!t. It is just an idiotic accusation as far as I am concerned.

The Conservation of Momentum is not capable of giving a damn what engineers design. How do you analyse how the mass of the top of the north tower could force down the mass of the intact structure below the impact zone if we do not know the distribution of mass down the towers?

I have never said anything about what engineers can do. They must simply demonstrate that the supposed collapse could happen rather than expecting everyone to BELIEVE.

YOU can believe whatever junk you want.

psik

 

and without specifying WHY you claim I'm wrong
you simply call me wrong. Thank U very much.

 

The ignorant statement stands as its own evidence.

 

So in your claim, it's the mass of the entire upper section versus the mass of the entire lower, remaining section? For example, 10% versus 90%?

 

and if I may stick my oar in, additionally
the bits from above must have struck the
connections of the lower section of the tower(s)
in exactly the right place and exactly the right
direction to cause the disconnecting of critical
bits so as to cause the disintegration of the tower(s)
as observed.

 

Interesting you think of it this way because it's totally wrong.

You actually think there were parts of the first floor impacted below the descending section that were NOT impacted by something?

 

Yes I do believe it does guarantee for any fire scenario. The UNITIC Twin Towers (which are tube structures like WTC1,2 and 7) were deliverately shot at from tanks using incendiary shells in 1996 and survived despite having few and thin perimeter columns:





This is the result:

 

Questions about your example.

1. How much of the load did those perimeter columns support?
2. How many load bearing perimeter columns are there in that structure?
3. What the core made of steel or concrete?
4. Did the floors span from core to perimeter facade WITHOUT any columns in between?
5. Was there a hat truss at the top of the buildings?
4. Where the floors long span floors connected at the core to the perimeter columns with no columns in between?
5. How long were the floor spans from core to perimeter columns?

 

This is the crux of the argument, think about this, if a steel column
from above, were to descend upon the deck below and strike exactly between two floor trusses, it would more than likely punch a hole in the deck, however if it struck exactly centered on a floor truss, would it penetrate, or? and there in is the question, would ALL of the rubble from above, have a guaranteed sure thing impact upon the lower part in such a way as to cause sufficient damage to cause the observed result?

 

1. Not much probably.
2. Not so many as it can be seen in the pictures. Fewer than in the 3 WTCs and still stood.
3. Probably both. But the concrete floors of WTC1 and 2 should have acted as a fire insulator even when smashed to bits by the alleged planes. And where do you count the asbestos that was present everywhere, in the floors, ceilings, columns of all sorts, pipes, ventilation shafts, all the steel beams, core, elevator shafts, everywhere. NIST only assumes the asbestos fell off at the moment of impact but has no proof for this.

Answer me this question honestly... Can you believe that after the impacts in WTC1 and WTC2, the piles of broken concrete floors, glass, combined with the supposed bits of fallen off asbestos (as NIST claims) and with the office furnishings that are required to be fireproof by US regulation, in other words the great piles of fireproof rubble and with most of the jet fuel gone in the initial ball of fire would still create the conditions to heat so much steel that the whole building would just collapse?

4. Very likely yes. In fact, it looks like they take vertically a great percent of the floor load which would actually strengthen my argument that they did well although they were inferior to the WTC design and more prone to a banana peel like pancake.

5. I don't see one. Why?

6. I can't tell.

7. Proportionally longer than in WTC 1 and 2. One would expect them to sag very rapidly. Nevertheless remember that it was a warzone and the fires burned uninterrupted for a long time. The buildings are still in use today. Maybe I'll visit them one day.

I don't know the precise answers. What I know is that they were made by a small, undeveloped country like Yugoslavia in the 1980s and survived the skyscraper fire like any other building in the world while Americans like you insist yours are the weakest and most fragile in the world because of their uniqueness. Do you genuinely think that you Americans make card skyscrapers while everyone else in the world made them indestructable? The WTCs were made to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707, earthquakes, ocean storms, etc.

The fact still stands that on the same day, in the same place the WTCs were the only skyscrapers in history to collapse because of smoke (it wasn't even a proper fire in any of the 3 buildings) while others burned like torch.

 

Still assuming things not in evidence,I see

they collapsed due to fire and impact damage.

Period.

NOT 'smoke'

 

NIST is also assuming what happened to the asbestos in the Twin Towers. How about the fireproofing in Building 7?

 

Asbestos was only used up to the 38th floor of the first tower built and none was used in the second.

 

That's not true. Both towers were full of it from top to bottom except for a few isolated locations.

 

It IS true.....http://ibasecretariat.org/lka_world_trade_center.php


Asbestos Use in the Construction of the World Trade Center
by Laurie Kazan-Allen

It is with disbelief and growing horror that we watched the events which took place in Manhattan and Washington last week. Words are meaningless in the face of wanton terror and the loss of so many innocent lives. Yet, words are all we have to express our loss and solidarity with those people so suddenly and totally bereaved. Our hearts go out to all of those affected by these atrocious and barbarous acts.
Asbestos at the WTC
Many people enquired about the presence of asbestos at the World Trade Center (WTC) last week. At that time I had no information about this subject. In awe of the superhuman efforts being made to locate survivors, I felt it inappropriate to highlight these questions. Since then, information has been forthcoming about the use of asbestos on the twin towers. One contact informed me that prior to the complex being built, the New York Port Authority had planned to use 5000 tons of asbestos-containing sprayed fireproofing on floors 1-40 of the buildings. Above the fortieth floor, non-asbestos alternatives were to be used. This is confirmed by an article which appeared in the New York Times on September 18, 2001: "Anticipating a ban (on the use of asbestos in construction in NY), the builders stopped using the materials by the time they reached the 40th floor of the north tower, the first one to go up…" According to a spokesman for the Port Authority "more than half of the original, asbestos-containing material was later replaced."
An extremely useful factsheet (available at: http://www.nycosh.org ) produced by the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health Inc. states: "Asbestos was a major material used in the construction of the World Trade Center. That asbestos is a constituent of the dust and debris." Practical advice is given for the protection of emergency workers at or near ground zero which includes "protective clothing should be worn so you can change out of your work clothes before returning home. Work clothes should be bagged at work and washed separately from personal laundry to prevent contamination."
Controversy
In recent days, allegations have been made that the lack of asbestos in the twin towers contributed to the rapid collapse of the buildings. The New York Times article referred to in the second paragraph: Did the Ban on Asbestos Lead to Loss of Life examined claims that the non-asbestos containing fireproofing materials used during the construction of the WTC performed less effectively than similar asbestos products thereby shortening the time available for occupants to escape. Most of the experts consulted were unanimous: "no standard treatment of the steel, asbestos or otherwise, could have averted the collapse of the towers in the extraordinarily hot and violent blaze." The need for detailed research on building designs and materials was endorsed by many including Dr Yogesh Jaluria, an engineering expert from Rutgers University, who said: "tests for very violent and very large-scale fires have not been done." The sober tone and balanced approach of the New York Times article contrasts with a one-sided and spurious article which appeared on the Junkscience.com website. Steven Malloy, the author of Asbestos Could Have Saved WTC Lives says Dr Irving Selikoff was "wrong to press the panic button about any use of or exposure to asbestos. For example no adverse health effect has ever been attributed to Levine’s technique of spraying wet asbestos…"
Preliminary enquiries reveal that the Levine technique, as developed by the US company Asbestospray Corporation, was based on a ceramic-fibre spray which did not contain asbestos. In the UK, the sprayed asbestos fireproofing process pioneered by Turner & Newall Ltd was a market leader: Sprayed Limpet was sold worldwide from the 1930s-mid 1970s. According to Dr. Geoffrey Tweedale: "Limpet was a mixture of asbestos and cement… At the end of the hose was a gun with a water spray, which ensured that Limpet would stick to its target." Large numbers of sprayers and others who worked in the vicinity of sprayers applying Limpet have died from asbestos-related diseases in the UK and abroad.
It is bizarre that an article in The (London) Times on September 18, 2001 quoted Malloy’s assertion that: "Asbestos is the best insulator we know of and not to use it because of hysterical public health reasons is absurd." The national bans adopted by governments in more than thirty countries were not knee-jerk reactions to mass hysteria but pragmatic decisions intended to reduce the incidence of asbestos-related deaths and disability. The consultation in the European Union (EU) about the proposed asbestos ban was long-ranging and thorough. The performance of non-asbestos alternatives was studied and it was concluded that effective alternatives were available. A European amendment adopted in July, 1999 imposes a 2005 deadline on the use of asbestos in all Member States. In the meantime, 13 out of the 15 EU states have adopted national bans or published their intentions to do so
In light of the devastation and horror of the tragedies which took place in NY and Washington, there will be many questions raised about the construction of the twin towers and the performance of the fireproofing materials used. It is a time to reflect and review; to identify ways in which we can protect our citizens and the infrastructure of our countries. This must be done with open minds and all the technological and scientific innovation we can muster. Do not let us get misdirected by a smokescreen of blame and misunderstanding.
_______
September 19, 2001

 

To put it simply, asbestos or no,
the "collapse" of WTC1, 2 & 7
constitutes and UNNATURAL ACT.

{ eot }
.

 

Terribly sorry, but it is more complicated than that.

psik