Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

[geistkiesel]

You are incorrect. As soon as the steel outer structure lost the integrity to support the floors above, or the steel floor structures lost the integrity to keep the sides verticle, the whole floor would have collaped catastrophically. A small portion of the outer wall could not have survived long enough to induce tilting in the building above.

All walls have to collapose at the same time, the north, south , east and west walls have to fail at the same time!!! otherwise the upper floors will begin to tilt as soon as one side gives way.
The loss of support integrity must have been uniform over all critical positions. The outer structures must collapase simulrtaneously in order to insure a straight line down collapse.

If the west wall collapses before the east wall the upper floors impose a force on the collapsing structures thereby inducing an irrevovcable tilting fall of the upper floors in a westward direction from the vertical axis of the building.

It's not improbable at all. And once this started, it was impossible for the whole thing not to go down uniformly. After all, the structure is identical from floor to floor and would thus collapse uniformly

.
You are making a ton of assumptions regarding the effect of a "free falling" building upon the lower floors as the upper floor descend. The straight line down direction of travel requires a perfect timed collapse of the first floor to fail. The slightest significant deviation of uniform collapse over the entire floor of the building, simultaneously, would have been amplified many times over by the massive structure above the collapsing floor.

I say this even if the entire collpase was due entirely to thge structures failing due to heat effects. Can you consider the difficulty in insuring that the heat must be uniformly distributed such that no one side of the the first floor to collapse preceded another side, or sides?
This condition as a requirement of uniform collapse alone is sufficient to establish probable cause to believe the building collapse was assisted by controlled explosions.

The fact that popping sounds sounded like explosive charges is interesting, but hardly proof that they were due to charges and not just snapping steel. I imagine that they would sound similar.

The ones relating the sounds were firemen shortly after the collapse that had experience with other controlled demolitions. It has been a while since I last saw the firemean interview, but they made it clear that it was explosions they referred to as the "pop".

You might imagine they pops sound similar, but the matter is too serious to resolve the questions on "imagination" and to exclude real possibility based on less than perfectly investigated event.
Geistkiesel​

 

[geistkiesel]

IF the insulation around the steel survived the impact of an aircraft, which it didn't. Steel loses much of it's strength at HALF that temperature, to say nothing of uneven stresses caused by heat.

So Spidergoat, you are saying that the impact of the aircraft destroyed the insulation around all the steel structures on the floor of impact? From my recollection this was impossible. The airplanes shown in the videotapes were not of a size or construction that provided the slightest possibility that all insulation was detroyed throughout any one floor, or even that a significant amount of insulation was destroyed to have any measured affect on the subsequent collapse of the buildings. I do not recall any investigation of the loss of steel structure insulation. Me thinks this is all speculation. Remember, both buildings collapsed straight down, therefore perfect heat distribution as well as insulation destruction to all cokkapsing steel support structures is an absolute necessity to insure the straight down direction of collapse of both buildings.

Two instances of perfect damage conditions imposed by a massive and extended aircraft are not the kind of "missile" that has these necessary elements of pertfection. The laws of improbability tend to weaken the structure of your statements. There need be some outside assisitance.

You are playing games with the facts.
Geistkiesel​

 

[Facial]

Did you see what I had to say on page 6?

Yes. Via catastrophic collapse and the inertia of the upper portions.

None of the exterior tubes are nearly of any strength to act as a hinge, which is probably what I deem you imagine in your head. In tower two, there was indeed a slight angle to the top portion's fall but largely because of the smaller mass.

The only substantial portion left to support were the interior columns. Substantially stronger, but in both cases still seriously damaged. Their interior positions 1)made them more susceptible to the fires, regardless of tilt or wind, and 2)made it more susceptible to a much greater moment immediately prior to the time of collapse.

Let me see your reply before I continue.

 

[Facial]

A symmetrical collapse for a large structure does NOT entail uniform heat distribution, for the reason specified above.

 

[Facial]

They plant explosives in critical locations​

So basically what you're saying is that... they planted them smack BULLS-EYE in the areas where the airplanes hit?

Because I did not see failure slightly above, or slightly below the impact zone. The failure occured AT the impact zone.

Name one explosive that does not go off with fire, say 900F to be realistic if you're picky with numbers.​

 

[leopold]

Name one explosive that does not go off with fire, say 900F to be realistic if you're picky with numbers.

i have already asked this question and g doesn't know

i requested some info about this subject from an explosives website and i will post it when i get it.

 

[leopold]

I told you I did not know what kind of explosives were used. That I do have this answer does not negate the facts nor the possibillity they were used.
Geistkiesel​

this question is VERY important
if there are no explosives that aren't detonated by fires of the wtc 1 and 2 then this explosive theory is shot all to hell.

 

[Facial]

Your reference to "creep" does not negate the fact that the straight down motion of collapse requires a uniform and simultaneous failure over the entire floor area.​

Why do you put the term creep in quotation marks?

It wasn't mathematically simultaneous, but practically so. The columns failed sequentially fast enough that there was no bending or twisting moment whatsoever. This is in line with my page 6 explanation.

What lateral force exceeds gravity in this case? Anything trying to act as a hinge would utterly fail in comparison with the enormous weight of the loads of the upper floors and the moment of inertia thereof. And remember that the hinges probably would've creeped considerably to fail at the exact instance something else failed.

Large objects behave differently from small objects.​

 

[Facial]

So basically what you're saying is that... they planted them smack BULLS-EYE in the areas where the airplanes hit?

What are the chances of this happening?

How about comparing this with the chances that the fires alone precipitated the collapse?

Even with an artificial bias, I'd choose the latter in any case.

 

[geistkiesel]

Absolutely correct.
Remarkably accurate.
A really astute perception.
A casual observation could indeed lead to that conclusion. Fortunately, most of us make more than casual observations and so arrive at different conclusions.

Most of who you refer to as you, don't give a shit about NOvember 22, 1963, the coup d'etat or the significance of its inferences. SO if you have made more than a casual observation what are your different conclusions about the succession of presidents, the signficance of the coup, the fact of the conspiracy and successfull furtherance of that conspiracy to murder JFK? Educate us with your knowledge.

Was this a one time assasination that had no intended effect over the future? Your conclusions may be that you agreed with the necessity to whack JFK. The lack of substance in your post leaves that possibility open. Maybe the country and the world is a better place, a higher state of security and peace among the the people of the planet was the natural outcome.

Maybe you truly believe in the Islamic Fundamentalist Theory of the 911 Conspiracy. Maybe your belief in the dogmatic and official version makes youe susipatable to arguing only in support of what the others view as acts of treason (for those who are citizens of the US) murder, and complete indifference to human life, or any other form of life.

Maybe the total absence of any observed and docoumented evidence that any Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist had anything to do with 911 is what you base your opinions, excuse me, your conclusions on. This way you can simply show that are with "them". If "they" succeed you walk, perhaps even rewarded. If they fail, you just made a mistake--The tragedy of it all confused your mind. Any way you look at it, you have selected a "no harm, no foul position". Either outcome you fall off the fence in an assured soft spot.

And what is so fucking "fortunate" in the conclusions of, "most of you", anyway? Your remaining superior, is this it?
Geistkiesel.​

 

[Facial]

Facial, The exact tempoerature of failure, the protection of insulation losses can be debated forever wiothout any foreseeable resolution. Pick the temperature of choice.
​

Debated? There is no debate. There is only understanding and ignorance.

You said that the steel structure was designed to 2000F ?

This is nonsense. Steel starts to creep well before it even gets red-hot, 1200F. That's definitely well beyond the upper barrier, since you lose more than half of the time-independent strength there as well. This is why people are spraying steel with extra-thick coatings of shortcrete to insulate against fires in case a similar scenario ever happens. No design ever implements "2000F" tolerance of steel under any load. Talking about this for standard ASTM A36 steel in structural engineering is impractical.​

 

[geistkiesel]

So basically what you're saying is that... they planted them smack BULLS-EYE in the areas where the airplanes hit?

What are the chances of this happening?
How about comparing this with the chances that the fires alone precipitated the collapse?

Even with an artificial bias, I'd choose the latter in any case.

So, choose away. I said that the firemen stated that they reqard the esxplosions going off as the structure collapsed. Assuming the charges had been in place prior to the attack and assuming that the charges were placed many stories above the floor the aircraft impacted, this would effectively correct errors in the impact of the targeted floors. Those setting off the charges remotely could pick a convenient time to collapse the buildings. The fires by themselves do not account for the collapse of the buildings, straight down or in any other direction.

For the buildings to collapse due to the failure of the steel support structures the first floor to collapse must have collapsed uniformly over the entire floor other wise an induced tilting of the upper floors would begin and fall to the side where the first collapse was initiated.

The collapse due entirely to heat effects would necessarily require destruction of the fire insulation covering all (or most) the steel structures, which would have been impossible. There was nothing to account for the loss of insulation except for a small amount due to the impact of the airplane, but this could not occur throughout an entire floor.

What is sio comforting about your, "artificial bias" and why would you choose anything? You chose to believe that Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists attacked us onm911, without any discussion, or offer of proof. You probably believe that the Arabs the Marines are holding in Gitmo are terrorists, yet you have seen not one shred of proof or offer of proof.

You have bought into the story as presented to you on TV, again with no evidence or offer of proof. You confine your investigation to a very narrow scope of 911 and probably are content to believe what you are told by the politicians in Washinbgton, D.C. , elected or otherwise. This is only speculation on my part, but this is what my instincts reveal.
If I err, so be it.

Your choice of the artificial is extremely dangerous in the sense that if you choose the wrong side the implications could be enormously disadvantageous.

Do you believe that you are "supporting the government" by your holding true to what you are told.
Geistkiesel​

 

[geistkiesel]

this question is VERY important
if there are no explosives that aren't detonated by fires of the wtc 1 and 2 then this explosive theory is shot all to hell.

If the matter is so important to you then google on the issue of fire ignited explosives.

In any event the charges need not have been placed anywhere that were accessible to the expected fires. The fires and desctructive heat was not necessarily uniform over the entire floor that first collapsed in both buildings. The fires would have had to weaken the structures to the point of complete failure uniformly, in order to insure the straight down collapse. If one side of the floor collapsed before another the upper floors would topple, or at least fall other than in a perfect straight down plunge.

Like I said, if the answer you demand are so important investigate the matter, if you have the requisite skills for such research.
Geistkiesel​

 

[geistkiesel]

Debated? There is no debate. There is only understanding and ignorance.

You said that the steel structure was designed to 2000F ?

This is nonsense. Steel starts to creep well before it even gets red-hot, 1200F. That's definitely well beyond the upper barrier, since you lose more than half of the time-independent strength there as well. This is why people are spraying steel with extra-thick coatings of shortcrete to insulate against fires in case a similar scenario ever happens. No design ever implements "2000F" tolerance of steel under any load. Talking about this for standard ASTM A36 steel in structural engineering is impractical.

Thios was the number I saw, 2000F. I will take another look. If the failure point is below this then so be it. However, the failure must have been uniformly distributed over the entire floor to insure the straight down collapse mode. As you said, the use of heat insulation would delay or even prevent reaching a temperature conducive to complete failure.

From your post you appear to be knowledgeable regarding the specifications for gheat and it failure characteristics so why not provide us with some information.

Whart was the grade of steel used throughout the Towers?

Whatr was the layout of the steel support structures.

What would be the distribution of heat from the jet fueled fire expected after impact?

Would the fire concentrate in any specific areas? If so where are the points of most likely concentration?

Assume for the sake of argument that one side of the building escaped aby contact by fire and that the opposite side of the building received a massive dose of heat and that this heat resulted in a complete failure of structural integrity, more or less simultaneously, along that one side: What would be the most likely collapse mode resulting?

geistkiesel​

 

[leopold]

Like I said, if the answer you demand are so important investigate the matter, if you have the requisite skills for such research.
Geistkiesel

like i said, i emailed an explosive company with my request
we will have the answer shortly

 

[leopold]

In any event the charges need not have been placed anywhere that were accessible to the expected fires.

yes they do because that is where the collapse initiated, at the location of the fire

 

[geistkiesel]

Why do you put the term creep in quotation marks?

It wasn't mathematically simultaneous, but practically so. The columns failed sequentially fast enough that there was no bending or twisting moment whatsoever. This is in line with my page 6 explanation.

What lateral force exceeds gravity in this case? Anything trying to act as a hinge would utterly fail in comparison with the enormous weight of the loads of the upper floors and the moment of inertia thereof. And remember that the hinges probably would've creeped considerably to fail at the exact instance something else failed.

Large objects behave differently from small objects.

So, I understand that your analysios of creep , the moment the structures failed is all speculation. WE both agree there was no tilting of the upper floors sufficient to negate any possibilityh the building crashed straight down as this is what occured.

If the columns failed fast enough to satisfy "effective simultaneous failure" how do we rsolve the dispute? Explosions used in commercial demolitions is an advanced technology. Little is left to chance and only the sloppy or the one time careless (both rarities) ever results in deviation from he expected collapse mnode.

Are you saying, for an extreme example, that if one side of the floor escaped any effects of heat and the opposite side of the floor bore the brunt of the heat, such that the heated side reached a temperature guaranteeing complete failure of structural integrity that the unheated side of the building would fall when the heated side failed?

In other words are you saying that the unaffected side would not act as a hinge as the failed side collapsed?

And if there was a hinge effect would not this prevent the kind of collapse we observed?

Geistkiesel

 

[geistkiesel]

Why do you put the term creep in quotation marks?

It wasn't mathematically simultaneous, but practically so. The columns failed sequentially fast enough that there was no bending or twisting moment whatsoever. This is in line with my page 6 explanation.

What lateral force exceeds gravity in this case? Anything trying to act as a hinge would utterly fail in comparison with the enormous weight of the loads of the upper floors and the moment of inertia thereof. And remember that the hinges probably would've creeped considerably to fail at the exact instance something else failed.

Large objects behave differently from small objects.

So, I understand that your analysis of creep and the moment the structures failed is all speculation. We both agree there was no tilting of the upper floors sufficient to negate any possibility the building crashed straight down as this is what occured.

If the columns failed fast enough to satisfy "effective simultaneous failure", how do we resolve the dispute? Explosions used in commercial demolitions is an advanced technology. Little is left to chance and only the sloppy or the one time careless (both rarities) ever results in deviation from he expected collapse mnode.

Are you saying, for an extreme example, that if one side of the floor escaped any effects of heat and the opposite side of the floor bore the brunt of the heat, such that the heated side reached a temperature guaranteeing complete failure of structural integrity, that the unheated side of the building would fall when the heated side failed?

In other words are you saying that the unaffected side would not act as a hinge as the failed side collapsed?

And if there was a hinge effect would not this prevent the kind of collapse we observed?

Geistkiesel​

 

[geistkiesel]

yes they do because that is where the collapse initiated, at the location of the fire

Where do you get the information that the collapse was initiated at the location of the fires?
And how do you conclude that the explosions would have to have been where the fires were?
How do you know that the explosive devices were not contained in insulated housings?

After all you don't even know of any explosive materials that are impervious to fires.
Geistkiesel​

 

[leopold]

Where do you get the information that the collapse was initiated at the location of the fires?

by watching the video