University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11

[Spendulus]

These 9/11 conspiracy theory nutters ...

The universal constant they have is to ask people to watch Youtube Videos.

ill just leave this as my settled conclusion of the debris from twin towers ended up so far away.. by actually studying the video


enjoy playing your "needs huge force".. "horizontal"

it does not need very much to tip a large panel into a lean.. and then later the top of the panel brake off in a spin to then lodge into the winter garden buildings roof

That's entirely plausible as an explanation, and it's quite easy to calculate if the leverage by a long arm pivoting would impart the small percentage of energy required for 500-600 foot landings.

Such a thing is determined not by trying to impress people with words like "MASSIVE BEAM" and "EXPLOSIVE FORCE" but by simply calculating the force required or imparted by a simplified model.

In this case it's extremely easy because you are arguing against the assertion "ONLY EXPLOSIVES COULD HAVE DONE THIS!!!"

Any number of perspectives and approaches can show there are many other ways, as has been done easily here. Then, the assertion is refuted. End of subject.

And then, a rational person might say "I STILL BELIEVE IT WAS EXPLOSIVES!" but he cannot say "ONLY EXPLOSIVES COULD HAVE DONE IT!!!"

[1714908260]

1714908260

[1714908260]

1714908260

[1714908260]

1714908260

[1714908260]

1714908260

[1714908260]

1714908260

[1714908260]

1714908260

[franky1]

wel techshare is atleast taking a step forward.
away from his original

mega explosive force---------------># horizontal
to now atleast be considering.
lessser force .
                     ' .
                        '.
                          :
                          #diagonal

but the next step he needs to take is about the force.
if you ever had a windy day had one door open. then opened another door at the other end of the house. causes the first door to move.
its just basic small force of air pressure.. no explosives
air pressure from each floor being compressed and blowing out the windows from air pressure.. or as i dumb it down as 'wind' along with the gravity . and also the lean/spin of the large pillar. and the other debris impacting to break off a section. spinning that off..

it aint rocket science. but if you were to put maths to it. the numbers would be low for that requirement to happen.
along with the observation of seeing a large pillar break of into a lean/spin.

yet i have yet to see any explosion. nor any horizontal.

[BADecker]

wel techshare is atleast taking a step forward.
away from his original

TECSHARE isn't moving away from what he said. It's just that he has figured out a better way to say what he meant all along. And it still isn't as simple as it could be.


The simple thing is that the explosives from the demolition cause all kinds of building destruction, this way and that, which can never be figured out without a carefully thought-out computer model.

[Mr. Tom]

There are enough study online that confirms it was an engineering failure and the impact was just a catalyst.

[franky1]

wel techshare is atleast taking a step forward.
away from his original

TECSHARE isn't moving away from what he said. It's just that he has figured out a better way to say what he meant all along. And it still isn't as simple as it could be.


The simple thing is that the explosives from the demolition cause all kinds of building destruction, this way and that, which can never be figured out without a carefully thought-out computer model.

we already debunked the computer model of building 7 because it doesnt represent actual events.
so thats where you go wrong. believing computer models which dont represent actual events. but have been 'carefully thought out'... carefully thought out to show something different than actual events. thus defeating the purpose of actually doing it

[Spendulus]

Next thing you gonna say moon landing was faked?

Badecker used to argue that. I think he's gave up on that one.

,,,
The simple thing is that the explosives from the demolition cause all kinds of building destruction, this way and that, which can never be figured out without a carefully thought-out computer model.

Then your initial assertion, that it could have been nothing except explosives, is falsified.

[TECSHARE]

These 9/11 conspiracy theory nutters ...

The universal constant they have is to ask people to watch Youtube Videos.

ill just leave this as my settled conclusion of the debris from twin towers ended up so far away.. by actually studying the video


enjoy playing your "needs huge force".. "horizontal"

it does not need very much to tip a large panel into a lean.. and then later the top of the panel brake off in a spin to then lodge into the winter garden buildings roof

That's entirely plausible as an explanation, and it's quite easy to calculate if the leverage by a long arm pivoting would impart the small percentage of energy required for 500-600 foot landings.

Such a thing is determined not by trying to impress people with words like "MASSIVE BEAM" and "EXPLOSIVE FORCE" but by simply calculating the force required or imparted by a simplified model.

In this case it's extremely easy because you are arguing against the assertion "ONLY EXPLOSIVES COULD HAVE DONE THIS!!!"

Any number of perspectives and approaches can show there are many other ways, as has been done easily here. Then, the assertion is refuted. End of subject.

And then, a rational person might say "I STILL BELIEVE IT WAS EXPLOSIVES!" but he cannot say "ONLY EXPLOSIVES COULD HAVE DONE IT!!!"

Yeah who ever heard of people showing photographic evidence of an event? Fucking nutters!

Quick question. Lets assume for a second your tilting theory is correct. The panels were thrown in at least three different directions as documented by the FEMA debris field map I linked earlier. How exactly did the building tip in more than one direction simultaneously? The video of the event clearly shows material being ejected up and out. Things don't collapse upward.

[franky1]

the building. did not tip in 3 directings


but the external paneling broke off from the sides whilst the main building structure fell down
as shown in my example the BLUE is the building. and the black is just the external panelling

.. to pre-empt yo trying to meander this into some kind of mindgame of confusing the external panneling to the main internal columns. no they are different things

here


the long deep red | are the main structural columns and the white squares are the floors
the main strcuture column are in the centre of the floor plan.


as for the smaller
############
############ this is the external panelling
like the one that ended up in the roof of the winter garden

i know you want to twist this into how you think the previous posts must mean that the main building tilted. but no. only the external panelling fell away from the main building while the main building collapsed down on itself

[Spendulus]

wel techshare is atleast taking a step forward.
away from his original

mega explosive force---------------># horizontal
to now atleast be considering.
lessser force .
                     ' .
                        '.
                          :
                          #diagonal

but the next step he needs to take is about the force.
if you ever had a windy day had one door open. then opened another door at the other end of the house. causes the first door to move.
its just basic small force of air pressure..

Small force?

Assuming each floor was 10' high the surface area of the glass was

S= 10x 4 x 208

And atmospheric pressure is 14.7 PSI, so at the point where a floor is half collapsed and the PSI is doubled, you have an excess pressure equal to:

total F = S x F/sq in * Area

          = 144 sq in/sq ft * (10*4*208) * 14.7

          = 17,611,776 lb

Which certainly makes Tecshare's MASSIVE 22 TON BEAMS look puny, each of those MASSIVE 22 TON BEAMS weighing a puny ...

quarter of ONE PERCENT of this force!

And that's for each of the 110 floors. Since the excess pressure is 2116 lb/sq ft, Tecshare's MASSIVE 22 TON BEAM's weight would be matched by the force projected outward by a 4'x6' side area of one floor of the tower at the moment it was collapsing.

Now please go back to your Iranian or Chinese handlers who generate and maintain this garbage and ask them how to respond now that the MASSIVE BEAMS have been shown not to require EXPLOSIVES to generate the HUGE FORCES. Please tell them that their house of cards blaming the US government 911 has collapsed. When you get instructions will you tell us please?

[BADecker]

^^^ The buildings were designed to handle everything that happened on 9/11, without collapsing, without burning down, without destruction of the buildings. Yet the buildings came down against all odds, and against construction design that should have easily handled what happened. All the silly idea of pancaking, is stuff that couldn't have worked... except in the following way.

The best of building designers and contracting builders are still not all-knowing. They can only do a tremendously excellent job. In order to find a flaw in their construction, other expert contractors and builders would have to laboriously pour over the designs of the designers until they find some hidden a flaw or potential flaw that might exist in the construction.

The point is, the failure of the Trade Center buildings in 9/11 was an inside job:

1. If it was a job done by the planes and the fire, it was done by critical examination of the plans and construction to find the only way that it could be done by planes, and then to have the planes hit the exact places necessary to make the building collapse work. Remember, the design and construction was such as to be able to protect against exactly what happened.

2. More than likely it was done by demolition.

Either way, it was absolutely an inside job.

[Spendulus]

^^^ The buildings were designed to handle everything that happened on 9/11, without collapsing, without burning down, without destruction of the buildings. Yet the buildings came down against all odds, and against construction design that should have easily handled what happened. All the silly idea of pancaking, is stuff that couldn't have worked... except in the following way.

The best of building designers and contracting builders are still not all-knowing. They can only do a tremendously excellent job. In order to find a flaw in their construction, other expert contractors and builders would have to laboriously pour over the designs of the designers until they find some hidden a flaw or potential flaw that might exist in the construction.

The point is, the failure of the Trade Center buildings in 9/11 was an inside job:

1. If it was a job done by the planes and the fire, it was done by critical examination of the plans and construction to find the only way that it could be done by planes, and then to have the planes hit the exact places necessary to make the building collapse work. Remember, the design and construction was such as to be able to protect against exactly what happened.

2. More than likely it was done by demolition.

Either way, it was absolutely an inside job.

Were there chemtrails in the sky over the twin towers too? You know, when the nano thermite that had been mixed into the concrete since the buildings were erected was set off?

Also, I'd like clarification as to what it means for it to have been an "Inside Job."

Does it mean that guys were running around with windbreakers that said in big letters "Inside Jobbers"?

[TECSHARE]

the building. did not tip in 3 directings


but the external paneling broke off from the sides whilst the main building structure fell down
as shown in my example the BLUE is the building. and the black is just the external panelling

.. to pre-empt yo trying to meander this into some kind of mindgame of confusing the external panneling to the main internal columns. no they are different things

here
[img ]https://cdn.hswstatic.com/gif/wtc-tube.jpg[/img]

the long deep red | are the main structural columns and the white squares are the floors
the main strcuture column are in the centre of the floor plan.


as for the smaller
############
############ this is the external panelling
like the one that ended up in the roof of the winter garden

i know you want to twist this into how you think the previous posts must mean that the main building tilted. but no. only the external panelling fell away from the main building while the main building collapsed down on itself

The blue is the building huh? You can't even make any sense under your own terms. So the building just peeled like a banana in every direction huh? Cool story. I never once tried to confuse the external structure with the internal, not that you need a reason to just make shit up and attribute it to me. BTW just FYI the external panels were load bearing just so you know, but I am not sure what the purpose of even bringing this up was. Probably just more confusing the situation as you accuse me in the same breath of doing just that. Objects don't fall up and out regardless of all this nonsense you are rambling about.

Small force?

Assuming each floor was 10' high the surface area of the glass was

S= 10x 4 x 208

And atmospheric pressure is 14.7 PSI, so at the point where a floor is half collapsed and the PSI is doubled, you have an excess pressure equal to:

total F = S x F/sq in * Area

          = 144 sq in/sq ft * (10*4*208) * 14.7

          = 17,611,776 lb

Which certainly makes Tecshare's MASSIVE 22 TON BEAMS look puny, each of those MASSIVE 22 TON BEAMS weighing a puny ...

quarter of ONE PERCENT of this force!

And that's for each of the 110 floors. Since the excess pressure is 2116 lb/sq ft, Tecshare's MASSIVE 22 TON BEAM's weight would be matched by the force projected outward by a 4'x6' side area of one floor of the tower at the moment it was collapsing.

Now please go back to your Iranian or Chinese handlers who generate and maintain this garbage and ask them how to respond now that the MASSIVE BEAMS have been shown not to require EXPLOSIVES to generate the HUGE FORCES. Please tell them that their house of cards blaming the US government 911 has collapsed. When you get instructions will you tell us please?

That might make sense if everything was perfectly sealed, but it was not. That kind of air pressure would blow out windows, then the force would escape, not blow 22 ton panels 600feet. You are really stretching now desperate to come up with anything that even sounds close to a potential to find a reason why several 22 ton masses of steel traveled hundreds of feet laterally from their resting positions.

 Ah I see, now I am a disinfo agent am I? Because I have been so supportive of the CCP around here haven't I? Also, when was the last time you even heard me mention Iran? You are getting desperate now. Its sad.

[sirazimuth]

Does it mean that guys were running around with windbreakers that said in big letters "Inside Jobbers"?

Damn, couldn't find the meme ...someone get on that.

.... regardless of all this nonsense you are rambling about.....

no comment....lol

[Spendulus]

That might make sense if everything was perfectly sealed, but it was not. That kind of air pressure would blow out windows, then the force would escape, not blow 22 ton panels 600feet. You are really stretching now desperate to come up with anything that even sounds close to a potential to find a reason why several 22 ton masses of steel traveled hundreds of feet laterally from their resting positions.

Nope, you don't understand my intent. I only show the force in the air in a volume size of a single floor of WTC if a sudden collapse halves the volume. Then I explore how that compares to your MASSIVE BEAM.

Now you have asserted " That kind of air pressure would blow out windows, then the force would escape, not blow 22 ton panels 600feet. "

You are welcome to show the math and the numbers to support that. I suspect you are wrong, but you might be right. I KNOW that 20 square feet on the interior face of any beam will be subjected to the force I described during the collapse as described.

Because I got a MASSIVE FORCE. Your MASSIVE BEAM is 1/400 of that force.

It is what it is. Your breathtaking, awesome, massive forces that REQUIRE HIGH EXPLOSIVES just aren't and don't.

So next, why don't we take a 200 foot section of beam tilting under gravity only from the base point, and at 45 degrees the 50 top feet breaking off, and ask another simple, 1st semester physics problem.

How far does it go sideways before hitting the ground?

Now why would we do that? Because that's actually the way, and the only way, to examine problems of this sort.

[TECSHARE]

That might make sense if everything was perfectly sealed, but it was not. That kind of air pressure would blow out windows, then the force would escape, not blow 22 ton panels 600feet. You are really stretching now desperate to come up with anything that even sounds close to a potential to find a reason why several 22 ton masses of steel traveled hundreds of feet laterally from their resting positions.

Nope, you don't understand my intent. I only show the force in the air in a volume size of a single floor of WTC if a sudden collapse halves the volume. Then I explore how that compares to your MASSIVE BEAM.

Now you have asserted " That kind of air pressure would blow out windows, then the force would escape, not blow 22 ton panels 600feet. "

You are welcome to show the math and the numbers to support that. I suspect you are wrong, but you might be right. I KNOW that 20 square feet on the interior face of any beam will be subjected to the force I described during the collapse as described.

Because I got a MASSIVE FORCE. Your MASSIVE BEAM is 1/400 of that force.

It is what it is. Your breathtaking, awesome, massive forces that REQUIRE HIGH EXPLOSIVES just aren't and don't.

So next, why don't we take a 200 foot section of beam tilting under gravity only from the base point, and at 45 degrees the 50 top feet breaking off, and ask another simple, 1st semester physics problem.

How far does it go sideways before hitting the ground?

Now why would we do that? Because that's actually the way, and the only way, to examine problems of this sort.

Your intent has no bearing on the validity of your assertions. So you are implying that such a pressure wave would blow a 22 ton panel hundreds of feet but wouldn't blow out windows? This isn't rocket science, it is a simple comparison of materials. Glass is weaker than steel, air pressure takes the path of least resistance, thus once the windows are blown, the vast majority of that pressure simply would go around the panels and would have no where near the force required to eject them hundreds of feet laterally. Your tipping theory might make sense if the panels were not blown several different directions. For your model to make sense the panels would all have to peel off effortlessly like a banana peel on all sides, that makes zero sense.

[Spendulus]

That might make sense if everything was perfectly sealed, but it was not. That kind of air pressure would blow out windows, then the force would escape, not blow 22 ton panels 600feet. You are really stretching now desperate to come up with anything that even sounds close to a potential to find a reason why several 22 ton masses of steel traveled hundreds of feet laterally from their resting positions.

Nope, you don't understand my intent. I only show the force in the air in a volume size of a single floor of WTC if a sudden collapse halves the volume. Then I explore how that compares to your MASSIVE BEAM.

Now you have asserted " That kind of air pressure would blow out windows, then the force would escape, not blow 22 ton panels 600feet. "

You are welcome to show the math and the numbers to support that. I suspect you are wrong, but you might be right. I KNOW that 20 square feet on the interior face of any beam will be subjected to the force I described during the collapse as described.

Because I got a MASSIVE FORCE. Your MASSIVE BEAM is 1/400 of that force.

It is what it is. Your breathtaking, awesome, massive forces that REQUIRE HIGH EXPLOSIVES just aren't and don't.

So next, why don't we take a 200 foot section of beam tilting under gravity only from the base point, and at 45 degrees the 50 top feet breaking off, and ask another simple, 1st semester physics problem.

How far does it go sideways before hitting the ground?

Now why would we do that? Because that's actually the way, and the only way, to examine problems of this sort.

Your intent has no bearing on the validity of your assertions. So you are implying that such a pressure wave would blow a 22 ton panel hundreds of feet but wouldn't blow out windows? This isn't rocket science, it is a simple comparison of materials. Glass is weaker than steel, air pressure takes the path of least resistance, thus once the windows are blown, the vast majority of that pressure simply would go around the panels and would have no where near the force required to eject them hundreds of feet laterally. Your tipping theory might make sense if the panels were not blown several different directions. For your model to make sense the panels would all have to peel off effortlessly like a banana peel on all sides, that makes zero sense.

Those are your ideas, not mine. I'm just saying that we can figure the forces on that beam fragment. Not the same as advocating that as what happened.

I get the impression that you still don't really understand my approach to this problem. It is simply to show, via a variety of proofs at the level of beginning physics, that there are many ways these things could have happened, and thus to refute the argument that "high explosives were REQUIRED"...

which is a totally ridiculous assertion when the total energy in kinetic and potential of one of the WTT falling is a significant fraction of the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Deal with it, it is what it is.

Regarding...

Glass is weaker than steel, air pressure takes the path of least resistance, thus once the windows are blown, the vast majority of that pressure simply would go around the panels and would have no where near the force required to eject them hundreds of feet laterally.

Be my guest, show your work, prove that is true. You don't get to assume it's true because you feel that way. As for "The vast majority of that pressure" ? That does not matter, the force of the air is 400x greater, isn't it?
So yet again we see how truly puny and insignificant the 22 ton MASSIVE BEAM is...

[TECSHARE]

Those are your ideas, not mine. I'm just saying that we can figure the forces on that beam fragment. Not the same as advocating that as what happened.

I get the impression that you still don't really understand my approach to this problem. It is simply to show, via a variety of proofs at the level of beginning physics, that there are many ways these things could have happened, and thus to refute the argument that "high explosives were REQUIRED"...

which is a totally ridiculous assertion when the total energy in kinetic and potential of one of the WTT falling is a significant fraction of the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Deal with it, it is what it is.

Regarding...

Glass is weaker than steel, air pressure takes the path of least resistance, thus once the windows are blown, the vast majority of that pressure simply would go around the panels and would have no where near the force required to eject them hundreds of feet laterally.

Be my guest, show your work, prove that is true. You don't get to assume it's true because you feel that way. As for "The vast majority of that pressure" ? That does not matter, the force of the air is 400x greater, isn't it?
So yet again we see how truly puny and insignificant the 22 ton MASSIVE BEAM is...

You keep presenting "proofs" and I keep detailing why they make no sense even by your own terms. I understand you perfectly, I just reject your conclusions because they aren't supported by the facts or the laws of physics. You might as well calculate the total energy of the Earth's spin and throw that in there the way you are engaging in your premise.

Yes, it does matter, because that means a tiny fraction of that force will be applied to the object. Wait, you want me to mathematically prove glass is weaker than steel? Seriously? This is is just a pathetic roundabout game because you have nothing.

[Spendulus]

...You might as well calculate the total energy of the Earth's spin and throw that in there the way you are engaging in your premise.

Yes, it does matter, because that means a tiny fraction of that force will be applied to the object.
[/quote]

It matters? No, it results in about a one meter offset in the landing position from straight vertical. And the force is quite trivial.

See, there you go again. Saying something based on your brain's wild guess without actually knowing anything.

So, you are wrong again. Wrong by relying on a gut "feeling" about the level of a physical force.

[TECSHARE]

...You might as well calculate the total energy of the Earth's spin and throw that in there the way you are engaging in your premise.

Yes, it does matter, because that means a tiny fraction of that force will be applied to the object.

It matters? No, it results in about a one meter offset in the landing position from straight vertical. And the force is quite trivial.

See, there you go again. Saying something based on your brain's wild guess without actually knowing anything.

So, you are wrong again. Wrong by relying on a gut "feeling" about the level of a physical force.
[/quote]

You are telling me about "feelings" about the level of force as you arbitrarily pull numbers like "one meter offset" out of your ass. This isn't a wild guess. It is a fact. Even if enough air pressure was available, it could NEVER be efficient enough to blow out a 22 ton mass by collapse pressure alone because it would simply blow out the windows and then the force would no longer be applied to the panels.

This is exactly why a high explosive pressure wave would be required, because anything else wouldn't be fast enough to overcome the loss of pressure via the path of least resistance from windows and other gaps being blown out. Like I said before, your calculations depend on 100% of your calculated  force being applied to the mass. In reality much more force would be required, because most of that energy would be lost via the path of least resistance.

[Spendulus]

...You might as well calculate the total energy of the Earth's spin and throw that in there the way you are engaging in your premise.

Yes, it does matter, because that means a tiny fraction of that force will be applied to the object.

It matters? No, it results in about a one meter offset in the landing position from straight vertical. And the force is quite trivial.

See, there you go again. Saying something based on your brain's wild guess without actually knowing anything.

So, you are wrong again. Wrong by relying on a gut "feeling" about the level of a physical force.

You are telling me about "feelings" about the level of force as you arbitrarily pull numbers like "one meter offset" out of your ass. This isn't a wild guess. It is a fact. Even if enough air pressure was available, it could NEVER be efficient enough to blow out a 22 ton mass by collapse pressure alone because it would simply blow out the windows and then the force would no longer be applied to the panels.

This is exactly why a high explosive pressure wave would be required, because anything else wouldn't be fast enough to overcome the loss of pressure via the path of least resistance from windows and other gaps being blown out. Like I said before, your calculations depend on 100% of your calculated  force being applied to the mass. In reality much more force would be required, because most of that energy would be lost via the path of least resistance.
[/quote]

No, I calculated the offset being one meter. Which you'd know if you'd checked, but you didn't. You have not calculated anything. Everything you said, is you relying on your gut instincts.

That's going to get you wrong answers every single time on a matter like this. And it's clear you still don't understand the calculations. NONE of them "depend on 100% of the calculated force...."

So why don't we go back and see where and how you misunderstood that? Was it when I showed the force required to move a KG 500 feet and you tried to shoe horn that into a spherical gas expansion at 50,000 feet per second (which is your HIGH EXPLOSIVE) but you didn't know the way to compute the fraction of total force that would project on a side object?

There, you wanted to see the "Total force", right? It's easy enough, but all that does is give you the number such as 1.5 or 2.5kg of TNT which applies a force of 2-3 ounces of TNT on the piece that goes off 500 feet. But that's totally irrelevant, isn't it? That does not lead you to a proof that high explosive was used or needed. It gets that argument nowhere.

Meanwhile, what you absolutely know is the joules required to move each KG 500 feet. Period. End of subject.