So you use this organization in your posts ... and they list Mr. Mackey (who is known WORLD WIDE) as a highly credible structural engineer ... and you still think they are credible? Can you explain this conundrum?
In that case there would have been a stack of collapsed floors 10 to 15 stories high, do tell where were they ? !
Why would you think that the debris pile would be 10 to 15 stories high? When a floor is designed to have a 1,300 ton capacity it will be obliterated by 45,000 tons collapsing down on it and the basement was 7 stories deep. Check this out... Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down. The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t. As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
You either stay in wonderland or on the other side (awakened from the dreamworld), you are still part of the same revolution (hidden war) AE911truth is part of the other side, not the safe side, there is non (AE911truth is a revolutionary movement) The current revolution has two sides, you are either a dreamer or woke up from that dream, but you stay part of the same revolutionary war (the hidden revolution) The current (hidden) revolution is a double sided revolution (the asleep vs the awakened from that dream) If you stay part of a revolution you take part of a hidden 'war' (political, thus imaginary), this struggle will cause movements and political parties (which are actually hidden movements) Stay out of wonderland and stay out of the other side, stay out of that (hidden) war. But the problem is that tyranny, bureaucracy, politics/propaganda and fear force you to take part of it.
Because every other building in history that has suffered a pancaking structural collapse has a portion of all the floors visible,HENCE THE PHRASE PANCAKING ! If the 9/11 and NIST finally reports are correct( absolutely no Proof By the Way) and the buiolings were brought down by OFFICE FIRES, these would be the first buildings in the history of high rise buildings to do so and all 3 on the same day SIMPLY AMAZING!!!!! I know you know all this already ,but it's good and cheap entertainment arguing with you. It's really fun!
Not just simple office fires, but unfought fires that started across multiple floors simultaneously. There's also the little incident of structural damage done by being hit by planes and other buildings. Don't forget that part.
No, what's "SIMPLY AMAZING" is that you consider all high rise buildings to be the same and that they should all act the same when certain scenarios are applied to them. That is just crazy. WTC7 How many of these high rise buildings that you compared to WTC7 were built the same? Did any of these other buildings use an existing structure as part of it's structural system? Did any of these other buildings utilize three transfer truss assemblies (do you even know what these are)? Did any of these other buildings have long span floor trusses? Were the fires in these other buildings unfought? Please supply your comparisons so everyone can see just how similar they were to WTC7 that show why you think they all should have acted the same way. WTC1 and WTC2 How many of these high rise buildings that you compared to WTC1 and WTC2 were built the same? How many were struck by jets in the upper third? How many of these buildings were of a tube in tube design? How many had hat trusses? How many had long span floor trusses? Please supply your comparisons so everyone can see just how similar they were to WTC1 and WTC2 that show why you think they all should have acted the same way. I suppose you think that a VW Beetle and a semi will have the same results when broadsided because you classify them as "vehicles" and disregard their design. Maybe you even think that a two story house and a twenty story office building should behave the same way when involved in a fire because they are "structures". I guess this goes into the same vein as you classifying WTC7, WTC1, and WTC2 as "high rises". Of course, all "high rises" should act the same to a fire... By all means. Let's see the buildings you consider to be the same as WTC7, WTC1, and WTC2.
The Twin Towers were NOT like every other high rise. Please READ the link I supplied instead of knee jerking.
Every Architect and Structural engineer on the planet when asked say these are the first HIGH RISE buildings in the History of HIGH RISE BUILDINGS TO BE BROUGHT DOWN BY FIRE AND THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, IMPOSSIBLE. Do you know the meaning of IMPOSSIBLE . IT CAN'T HAPPEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
REALLY ,Is that the best you've got .You really think that's a good analogy. PALEEZE. you might as well have said ," I KNOW YOU ARE ,BUT WHAT AM I !!!! YOU SO FUNNY!!!!!
Okay then,explain in detail why it's not a 'good analogy'... I'll wait. - - - Updated - - - That wasn't the point,donny
everyone who worked on, contributed to, and approved of the many reports on the WTC collapses who is a structural engineer. must be thousands if not hundreds. - - - Updated - - - the all-steel section of the Windsor Tower in Spain collapsed simply due to fire. no airplane impact.
How long did it burn before this collapse event and what were the characteristics of said collapse event? Just like WTC1, 2 ? or?
Simply asking for detail as to what happened, it makes a difference in that if one compares a burn time of < 2 hours to something that had been burning for considerably more than 2 hours before collapse, and also if the collapse happened slowly with obvious bending of structural elements rather than the rapid on-set of the collapse event. We do not want to be making apples/oranges comparisons here do we?
Hey, it's great to have you back G-bob! Maybe you could answer the couple of questions some of us had: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=372257&p=1064236332#post1064236332 http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=372257&p=1064236341#post1064236341 You were still logged in hours later, and must have been too busy to reply. At least that's what I'd like to assume: it just slipped you mind, as opposed to deliberately ignoring us.
HYSTERICAL! So because we provide evidence of steel structures collapsing due to fire, NOW you want to bring individual "characteristics" of collapse events into the debate? I thought it was just "high rise buildings". I have explained that your "no steel high rise structure has ever collapsed due to fire" was a bunch of garbage because no similarly designed high rise has ever had the same events applied to them. You ignored that. Now all of a sudden it's ok for YOU to bring in certain characteristics which further defines the "high rise" moniker to explain why the steel failed and collapsed? What a bunch of crap!
one building burned for a lot longer......but also had no impact damage from a large airplane and had its structural integrity severely compromised.
Since you bring up "US" that is I assume the faction that supports the 19 suicidal hijackers story.... Please note that a link was posted not too long ago that alleged to be a pointer to "PENTTBOM" with regards to documenting the physical evidence of there ever having been airliners crashed at the 4 locations that were alleged airliner crash sites, however, I have read this 52 page exercise in creative writing and nowhere within this document does it show any evidence at all that there had been 4 commercial airliners crashed on 9/11/2001. Therefore, I call FRAUD! the debunker faction is selling snake oil! In addition, it really doesn't matter if any given individual say Alex Jones or Richard Gage ( etc....) is making $ off the "movement" ... totally independent of any other factor, there is the bit about how poorly 9/11/2001 was documented by the authorities, and the fact that there are huge voids in the INFORMATION should have been collected up and indeed made a matter of public record. If there is a document that nails down the question of explosives ever having been tested for and not found, where is it? The debunker faction has a vested interest in shoving it in truther faces the INFORMATION that said truthers have been mistaken, so where is it?
I'm not sure what exactly you're addressing. You don't have to "assume" anything; I provided you with direct links to the relevant posts: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=372257&p=1064236332#post1064236332 http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=372257&p=1064236341#post1064236341 However from your reply, I gather that you cannot give Hannibal links to the papers that accompany the Toronto hearings presentations, as you stated. I also gather you will not explain why you denied using ae911truth.org as a reference when it was proven you did. Please correct me if I'm wrong on these points. If you cannot, then I have to wonder why you're here.
