Brian, that might be rephrased as a question unless you really want to put words in the mouths of others.
Particularly when teasing or baiting you may lose capital with that approach. Of course you should do as I say and not as I do and watch the masters. They know how and where to draw the lines, AND how to not cross them.
You want facts on a "conspiracy"! I give you facts (for your hometown) nontheless, on a silver platter, and you are still to slow to catch on to what I am talking about? Obviously this "conspiracy" works, and you and the other mindless are the ultimate proof of its success.
I thought he said a building would fall down onto its footprint irrespective of where the charges were placed or what part of the structure begins to crumble first. That is the question I clearly asked him. If he did not give an answer to that question then he evaded it.
First off, Ted is correct. What I said was that buildings don't topple.
Thanks, Ted, good to know that someone can at least follow. :)
Also, again, I'm not the scientist here, but I have posted thier work, which should clear things up for you. Now, if only you were willing to learn! That you don't wish to and instead continue debating from a position of ingnorace is stunning.
Do you wish to understand progressive collapse, or not?
Incidentally, chairs are not designed to progressively collapse. :rolleyes:
Now, just one example from one of the papers I posted talks about EXACTLY the type of damage the YOU claim should topple a building;
Did you note the part that said "that took out only a few lower floors"? Isn't that just the type of damage you were curious about? Did the building topple? Nope. Did it progressively collapse? Yep.Quote:
Many disasters other than the WTC attest to the danger of
progressive collapse, e.g., the collapse of Ronan Point apartments
in the United Kingdom in 1968 Levy and Salvadori 1992, where
a kitchen gas explosion on the 18th floor sent a 25-story stack of
rooms to the ground; the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building
in Oklahoma City, Okla., in 1995, where the air blast pressure
sufficed to take out only a few lower floors, whereas the upper
floors failed by progressive collapse; the 2000 Commonwealth
Ave. tower in Boston in 1971, triggered by punching of insufficiently
hardened slab; the New World Hotel in Singapore; many
buildings in Armenia, Turkey, Mexico City, and other earthquakes,
etc. A number of ancient towers failed in this way,
too, e.g., the Civic Center of Pavia in 1989 Binda et al. 1992;
the cathedral in Goch, Germany; the Campanile in Venice in
1902, etc. Heinle and Leonhardt 1989, where the trigger was
centuries-long stress redistribution due to drying shrinkage and
creep Ferretti and Bažant 2006a,b.
This is only one paper as well. There are many examples in the history of progressive collapse.
The idea of progressive collapse can be seen in the design diagrams of, AGAIN, the articles that I posted. It's about weight distribution. Either the system is overwhelmed or it is not. Partial failures DO NOT cause toppling. PERIOD.
Now, that's not to say that it is theoretically impossible to topple a building. If you were paying attention (that's a laugh in itself right there!) I implied otherwise when I said that the aircraft did not have sufficient mass. So, yes, an object with sufficient mass could very well topple a building. Would you mind telling me, in the name of logic, what such an object might be?
Maybe you could hire godzilla to throw an aircraft carrier at the empire state building.
Brian, get real. Buildings are designed for "real life" incidents. Even after the MIT studies, no engineer or scientists recommended a re-design. Here's what Thomas Eagar, The Lord Professor of Materials Science at MIT said;
In other words, while building codes certainly were affected, no one called for structural redesign as preparing for an aircraft strike would be impratical from a cost to benefit ratio standpoint. Instead, we focus on other systems that allow the building to be evacuated in the shortest amount of time possible.Quote:
It would be impractical to design buildings to withstand the fuel load induced by a burning commercial airliner. Instead of saving the building, engineers and officials should focus on saving the lives of those inside by designing better safety and evacuation systems.
One more chance;
I suggest that you either read it, or concede the issue. You comments only show how much you DON'T know.
Why would I bother continuing to debate someone who is CLEARLY clueless on the matter, especially when I have provided a way for you to become educated to some extent on the matter but refuse?
If we stop with the condescending remarks and clarify our comments a little better we might get somewhere. There is something about Building 7 that I would like you to comment on if we could just get there.
The reason I bring this up is the “Youtube” architects, structural engineers and demo professionals had these concerns and they made sense to me. You I assume are in opposition to their observations.
We are talking about two different aspects of progressive collapse. One is: Will exploding/severing one quarter to one half of the vertical columns in a high-rise cause the remaining half to tilt (topple)? It might cause a progressive collapse of the effected half but who is to know what will happen to the reamining half of something the size of Building 7. BTW, if you Google ‘implosions gone wrong’ you WILL see a building fall like a tree (topple). So it can happen when half the vertical supports are taken out.
The other aspect we are not clarifying properly centers on the evenness, levelness and uniformity of the collapse of Building 7. If some smaller portion of the building suffered vertical structural damage and gave way, why didn’t that portion of the build start dropping first? Why did the entire roofline drop in a level position if only a portion of the vertical structure beneath it collapsed?
I understand the concept of progressive collapse and that it would be impossible to engineer the strength to avoid it. Demo crews utilize progressive collapse. The “Youtube architects and Engineers” are also familiar with progressive collapse, so they are also saying that that concept does not answer the mysteries surrounding Building 7.
Ooooo, now THAT'S impressive grasshopper... No anger or malice, just reasonable. Nice.
In regards to your "scientific experts" (who'm you're so hung up on credintials yet ignore the whole of AE911 Truth), picture some of the most powerful people in the world perpetrating a ghastly criminal act upon the American people as a pretext to infinite war and a state of total contol. These people own and completely control the media, prestigious educational institutions, scientific organizations, ETC. Do you really think that they are not going to have their "experts" come out with reports to substantiate their fairytale?
You mentioned in an earlier post that there is no proof that the glowing molten liquid pouring from the building was molten metal framework. You fail to realize that there is no proof to substantiate the theory that its office materials mixed with aluminum from the planes. No experiments were done on your side to prove this theory, just babble. NIST neglected to prove their own theory. This guy on Youtube at least tried to mix burned organic material with molten aluminum with no success.
You ignored my first post that had a video and plenty of testimony stating that there was MANY cases of molten metal including but not limited to the red hot pit of molten metal at the base center of the building that burned for weeks. You need to address the molten metal that was found such as the "911 Meteorite". Don't dodge all this with a big post of hard headed babble. Please address the iron spheres, nan-thermite particles in the dust, and tons of evidence of molten STEEL. Lets keep it light and start with these items.
You and this nitwit would get along great!
Liberty, I am responding to multiple parties the best I can. I've already said that YouTube videos do not meet scientific standards.
Guess what? That is true no matter how many times you post them.
Dude, it's not my fault you slept through science class.
Your experts are welcome to present a case scientifically. Perhaps it would be useful to ask yourself why they do not if they know so much.
Not worth thier time? Too much work?
Fortunately, we do have scientists who know the methods. Unfortunately your experts are not among them.
So far. They still could but don't.
Why is that do you think?
Awesome, Brian! Coherent, dude!
Ok we'll go over the case if building 7 in great detail. Useful as it will serve to demonstrate many of the principles I've spoken of.
Won't have time until Monday though.
One thing, you mentioned the debris of building 7 what were you driving at there? Just so I can address if possible.
You also might consider retaining that posting style. :)
Your doing a great job there scrog and very time consuming if I may say so. Describing with logic and details why it there was no inside job or conspiracy to take down the buildings other than the one of Al Quadea and radical Muslims. Thank you, thank you very much
BTW – Regarding my posting style, I don’t believe I was the only one slinging insults here…but let’s put that behind us. The problem with offensive comments is that one begets another until you lose track of who started it. I would rather just discuss the subject and have neither of us assume the other is out to lunch… or at least say that.