The girls run the website Implosion world.
The girls got a tour from the contractor (obvious from the inside shots of the set up for demolition)
So WHY do you not believe them about what the contractor told them?
YOU think you know more then them BUT YOU DON'T.
In November of 1998, we established our own "implosion" website, and the Reading Grain Elevator became the first entry on our Upcoming Implosions page. We had little information on it, and hoped in our wildest dreams that someone out there would know something, and help us out.
We didn't have to wait long. In February of 1999, a representative from the project's vibration consulting firm happened across our site, and before we knew it we were getting a tour of the head house while blast preparations were underway.
A British company was in charge of the blast. It was our first (and so far only) chance to see their work in our area. The vibration consultant arranged for us to meet the blaster, and to watch the very first hole for dynamite drilled into a concrete column. The blaster described to us the very unusual way in which the head house would be demolished.
Due to the close proximity of nearby buildings, only the top half would be removed, leaving the base to be demolished conventionally. Furthermore, the top half had been split into two separate halves, each of which would fall to a different side of the structure. Which is EXACTLY how it went.
And NO it did not fall like the WTC top.
Take a post-it
Stick it to your terminal so it makes a vertical line with the base of the building.
The top is, as the girls said, split into two halves and the larger right hand section of the top falls almost completely PAST the SIDE of the structure as does the largest piece of the bottom section on the left hand side.
Just like the girls said.
Arthur
Because I found the information on the blasters website and not from a website designer!
AND no, It did not split in half and fall on opposite sides!
adoucette
15th June 2007 - 03:27 AM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 14 2007, 09:53 PM)
You DO realize their is a DIFFERENCE between an indoor (DRY) and an outdoor (oil) transformer?
Indoor transformers can be OIL or DRY.
The ONLY difference is the OIL used has to be LESS FLAMABLE than mineral oil (used extensively outside) when used inside.
Typically Silicone based OILS are used.
Both versions can BLOW when overheated though, the difference is the Silicone (or HFCs) ones don't start massive fires when they go.
http://205.243.100.155/frames/longarc.htm#BlowupArthur
Alan (ex elevator man)
15th June 2007 - 03:32 AM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 14 2007, 09:08 PM)
OIL transformers blow up all the time (gases above the oil). Why would they put them inside?
I would have to disagree. "All the time" is a little rich, doncha think? Now, if the oil level was low and if there was an arc above the oil...
What we did was (this is building maintenance, after I gave up the dangerous elevator construction work), once a year every substation was shut down, one at a time (each substation had a xformer with a 277/480 secondary, and a separate one with 120/208 secondary) and EVERY connection in that room, every screw and bolt was tightened, oil levels checked, contacts filed and/or sanded and lightly oiled. We "routined" everything in that substation. Took our whole crew all night per substation. Anyway, the most tense time of the whole ordeal was putting the xformer back online. Arcs suck and we tried to avoid 'em. *one guy did that by himself, with the others outside the room
reasonwhy
15th June 2007 - 03:36 AM
QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+Jun 14 2007, 07:32 PM)
I would have to disagree. "All the time" is a little rich, doncha think? Now, if the oil level was low and if there was an arc above the oil...
What we did was (this is building maintenance, after I gave up the dangerous elevator construction work), once a year every substation was shut down, one at a time (each substation had a xformer with a 277/480 secondary, and a separate one with 120/208 secondary) and EVERY connection in that room, every screw and bolt was tightened, oil levels checked, contacts filed and/or sanded and lightly oiled. We "routined" everything in that substation. Took our whole crew all night per substation. Anyway, the most tense time of the whole ordeal was putting the xformer back online. Arcs suck and we tried to avoid 'em. *one guy did that by himself, with the others outside the room
And this is inside a building regular office building?
How do you put out the fire if it arcs?
adoucette
15th June 2007 - 03:37 AM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 14 2007, 10:24 PM)
Because I found the information on the blasters website and not from a website designer!
AND no, It did not split in half and fall on opposite sides!
WRONG AGAIN
As EVERYONE can see.
Tell me, do YOU also think that was a Fire Truck in the Hlava video?
Oh and from the Philly Blast site
http://www.phillyblast.com :
While the site may seem wide open, leaving plenty of room for the building to fall, this is not the case. On one side is a small building that must be protected, and on the other are 2 steel molasses tanks that need to be saved.
The head house is constructed of solid concrete, reinforced with steel rebar. A building like this does not fragment well, making it hard to contain the fall to a small area.To work around the problem, only the top half of the building will be demolished in the blast.
A vertical cut in the building will separate the top into 2 smaller halves, with one falling to one side, one to the other side. The bottom half will remain standing, and will be wrecking balled, or imploded at a later date.GOSH, just like the girls said and the pictures showed.
Arthur
Pierre-Normand
15th June 2007 - 03:39 AM
QUOTE (Palpatane+Jun 15 2007, 01:16 AM)
Were the structures in the Cardington tests similar to the WTC buildings?
Not at all. I was responding to Malmoesoldier who inferred from the fact that the girders did not collapse that therefore the trusses in the WTC wouldn't have collapsed either. I just called his attention to the deflection (actually to the delection(sic)) of the girders he himself proposes to be evidence that the NIST is wrong about the effects of fire on steel. You read too much into my post.
reasonwhy
15th June 2007 - 03:56 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 14 2007, 07:37 PM)
WRONG AGAIN
As EVERYONE can see.
Tell me, do YOU also think that was a Fire Truck in the Hlava video?
Oh and from the Philly Blast site:
While the site may seem wide open, leaving plenty of room for the building to fall, this is not the case. On one side is a small building that must be protected, and on the other are 2 steel molasses tanks that need to be saved.
The head house is constructed of solid concrete, reinforced with steel rebar. A building like this does not fragment well, making it hard to contain the fall to a small area.To work around the problem, only the top half of the building will be demolished in the blast.
A vertical cut in the building will separate the top into 2 smaller halves, with one falling to one side, one to the other side. The bottom half will remain standing, and will be wrecking balled, or imploded at a later date.GOSH, just like the girls said and the pictures showed.
Arthur
Finally found it (much better information then the web designers)!
Are they cutting the budget in the shill reserch department?
ANYONE can see for them self it did not go as planned (falling to both sides).
All of the concrete fell on top of the lower structure when the columns were blown out (no crush-down). This caused it to start splitting and fall to the side.
They KNEW it would not Crush-Down ,so yes it went EXACTLY as EXPECTED.
Crush-Down has only been around since the WTC so why would they expect the lower structure to be Crushed?
Show me any other CRUSH-DOWN besides the WTC towers?
Alan (ex elevator man)
15th June 2007 - 04:02 AM
Arthur, good link with all the electrical clips. From my point of view, there would've been ALOT of this happening in the towers, and especially below WTC 7.
There had to be dead shorts going straight back to the Con-Ed plant below 7 that could've compromised the moment frame it was built on.
adoucette
15th June 2007 - 04:05 AM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 14 2007, 10:56 PM)
ANYONE can see for them self it did not go as planned (falling to both sides).
Well then you're as BLIND as our lying pal Quick.
But KEEP telling people it didn't go as planned, it just makes you look even MORE foolish (as if that's possible)
Arthur
reasonwhy
15th June 2007 - 04:11 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 14 2007, 08:05 PM)
Well then you're as BLIND as our lying pal Quick.
But KEEP telling people it didn't go as planned, it just makes you look even MORE foolish (as if that's possible)
Arthur
SUUREEEE ARTHURS (REMEMBER I have PHOTOS ) !!!!!!!
THAT IS REALLY FALLING TO BOTH SIDES.
What a BS'er.
The TOP SECTIONS are falling to both sides according to Arthurs!
If you READ the website you would have seen the top sections were still connected by rebar (the initial fall must not have broken the rebar from the concrete).
Just like typical OCT'ers to claim BLACK is WHITE then say your BLIND if you don't believe it!
See if you can get some of your talking parrots to back you up on this?
wcelliott
15th June 2007 - 06:02 AM
QUOTE
Watch David ickes new movie,
Speaking of BS, here's an excerpt from the Wiki article on David Icke:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Watch David ickes new movie, |
Speaking of BS, here's an excerpt from the Wiki article on David Icke:
In 1999, he published The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati
are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie.
I saw a BBC interview with him, and he isn't using the term "reptilian" in any metaphorical sense, he's claiming that there are Reptilian Aliens who've interbred with humans, and are running the "world government".
I'm glad that Malmo isn't on *my* side.
reasonwhy
15th June 2007 - 06:50 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 14 2007, 07:14 PM)
And NO it did not fall like the WTC top.
Take a post-it
Stick it to your terminal so it makes a vertical line with the base of the building.
The top is, as the girls said, split into two halves and the larger right hand section of the top falls almost completely PAST the SIDE of the structure as does the largest piece of the bottom section on the left hand side.Just like the girls said.
Arthur
Time to expose Arthur's BS for what it is!
This is one photo on top of the other ( the lower is one of the last in the series):
I marked the lower structure and the outline of the upper section before implosion in red.
Even though the top section tilted it is obvious it crushed-up and almost all the mass landed on the lower structure!
For the BLIND:
Marked in red is the other half of the top section tilting the same direction (most likely still connected with rebar).
Pierre-Normand
15th June 2007 - 08:34 AM
Adoucette and Reasonwhy,
(in alphabetical order)
http://www.phillyblast.com/reading.htmLook at the first picture. There are no broken column segments sticking above the roofline. On the last two pictures there are some such segments sticking over the slanting block. So the top of this block isn't the roof. It must be some lower floor of the top block. The rest broke off and fell over.
The rightmost corner of this grain elevator aligns with (is just slightly to the right of) the left edge of the door of the foreground trailer. It is thus clear from the sixth picture that the bulk of the right section has been deflected outside of the footprint of the structure. Owing to its angular momentum, it could not have sled back into the bottom part. The chunk that has broken off and fallen over must be rather large.
The fate of the left part of top block isn't so clearly inferred from the pictures alone. We could imagine that the girders, or rebar, might hold the two parts together on the fourth picture, but clearly not on the fifth.
It seems likely to me that the bottom part of the left part of the top block fell over, and possibly the top part as well. The latter could also have dropped inside the right block.
It does not seem to me that much science hinges on the issue of this dispute anyway.
Malmoesoldier
15th June 2007 - 11:09 AM
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 15 2007, 06:02 AM)
Speaking of BS, here's an excerpt from the Wiki article on David Icke:
I saw a BBC interview with him, and he isn't using the term "reptilian" in any metaphorical sense, he's claiming that there are Reptilian Aliens who've interbred with humans, and are running the "world government".
I'm glad that Malmo isn't on *my* side.
lol. Whats wrong with his alien theory? i dont see anything wrong with it. David ickes illuminati research is 100% correct and respected by people like Alex jones, its just the alien part that some people like alex dont like. Why dont talk bad about somebody that believes in god then? take everybody from NIST that believes in god and say that their work is BS because they believe in god, same thing. So are you going to watch the movie and LEARN the facts about illuminati and the symbols?, He talks about history in his new movie, only facts. In some of his old movies he talks about his alien theory.
Malmoesoldier
15th June 2007 - 11:35 AM
wcelliott.
QUOTE
The steel melts in a matter of minutes from the electrical heating. This could easily explain the stream of whatever that the CDiots assume was thermate.
Lies lies lies lies. NO i could NOT be melted steel, the temperature could NOT have been 1500C everybody in the world knows it, NIST knows it everybody. You really get on my nerves, stop your fuc*ing BS please!!!. Dont you think Internet is good?, its only on internet you can lie like that and spread dissinfo without any consequences. Satanist, your side is al-qaida and you dont even know it!. Now go and tell your friends how good the income tax is so your government can build concentrations camps and rape your children, like the pedophiles that they are.
Pierre-Normand
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The steel melts in a matter of minutes from the electrical heating. This could easily explain the stream of whatever that the CDiots assume was thermate. |
Lies lies lies lies. NO i could NOT be melted steel, the temperature could NOT have been 1500C everybody in the world knows it, NIST knows it everybody. You really get on my nerves, stop your fuc*ing BS please!!!. Dont you think Internet is good?, its only on internet you can lie like that and spread dissinfo without any consequences. Satanist, your side is al-qaida and you dont even know it!. Now go and tell your friends how good the income tax is so your government can build concentrations camps and rape your children, like the pedophiles that they are.
Pierre-Normand
The floors did not collapse in the NIST structural response model either. This has been pointed out to you earlier. The floors sagged; they were deflected downwards. They behaved just as they did in the actual fire tests. The girders in the Cardington tests also behaved that way.
This supports NIST's claim that the sagging of the floors initiated the inward bowing of the exterior walls. The floors then failed to prevent the increase of this bowing when the load on the walls increased.
No no no. NIST lied, you see NIST lies all the time!, it is their job to lie. The floor model test NIST did only sagged about 3 inches. And in their computer model they adjusted it to 42-54 inches
And in the Cardington tests the trusses didnt take any damage, like they didnt take any damage in the WTC 75 fire and in the NIST truss model tests where nist had the trusses under fire for 2 hours.
adoucette
15th June 2007 - 12:53 PM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+)
Even though the top section tilted it is obvious it crushed-up and almost all the mass landed on the lower structure!
For the BLIND:
Marked in red is the other half of the top section tilting the same direction (most likely still connected with rebar).
Well let's see.
Take this picture.
Let's just deal with the larger right hand section.
Note that the building's corners line up with the left side of those thick red lines, so THAT is the marker for what falls outside the footprint.
So when we examine this composite
A few things are clear:
The LEFT edge of those verticle lines is PAST the halfway point in the upper building (meaning the left edge of the building section is to the RIGHT of those line edges)
Secondly, in the composite picture we can STILL see the opening in the cut away floor that the top section is tilting around. It would appear that they didn't blow the columns on the left side of that section, so that that top half of the building section isn't falling so much as ROTATING away from the bottom section.
So its clear, EVEN this early in the demolition, that more than half the mass of that larger section will fall outside the footprint.
As to the other side, its also obvious that the two sections came apart because the rooflines change.
Its also obvious that the larger bottom section of the left side falls away from the building. The MUCH smaller top section would appear to hit the bottom section, but again, its only a small fraction of the mass.
So it quite clearly did what they intended for it to do.
Oh, and I agree with Pierre
QUOTE
It does not seem to me that much science hinges on the issue of this dispute anyway.
What DOES hinge on the issue is CREDIBILITY and once again Reasonwhy flushes his away.
Arthur
Grumpy
15th June 2007 - 01:15 PM
Malmoesoldier
QUOTE
Lies lies lies lies. NO i could NOT be melted steel, the temperature could NOT have been 1500C everybody in the world knows it, NIST knows it everybody. You really get on my nerves, stop your fuc*ing BS please!!!. Dont you think Internet is good?, its only on internet you can lie like that and spread dissinfo without any consequences. Satanist, your side is al-qaida and you dont even know it!. Now go and tell your friends how good the income tax is so your government can build concentrations camps and rape your children, like the pedophiles that they are.
When my now 5 yo neice lays down on the floor and drums her heels, saying "NO,NO,NO" we call it a hissy fit. Well deserved punishment is all she accomplishes with this childish behavior.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Lies lies lies lies. NO i could NOT be melted steel, the temperature could NOT have been 1500C everybody in the world knows it, NIST knows it everybody. You really get on my nerves, stop your fuc*ing BS please!!!. Dont you think Internet is good?, its only on internet you can lie like that and spread dissinfo without any consequences. Satanist, your side is al-qaida and you dont even know it!. Now go and tell your friends how good the income tax is so your government can build concentrations camps and rape your children, like the pedophiles that they are. |
When my now 5 yo neice lays down on the floor and drums her heels, saying "NO,NO,NO" we call it a hissy fit. Well deserved punishment is all she accomplishes with this childish behavior.
No no no. NIST lied, you see NIST lies all the time!, it is their job to lie.
No, it is you who are lying, mostly through total ignorance of the facts. And your childish behavior doesn't change that fact. Nor does your highly offensive name calling improve the logic content in your posts.
Grumpy
Daru
15th June 2007 - 01:42 PM
If one looks icecold on fire and steel tests, then he will understand that it is totally impossible to blame the collapse on fire.
In wtc case the big point however is, that the floor test done by UL does NOT support Nist theory. It is just a hard fact. And the test really showed that the floor would not collapse... or "sagged" 50 inch and magically "pull" the outer column.
Now, but then the Nistian say... but the SFRM was stripped from the steel from one-two floor plus all the inner column... but ofcource common sense tell everyone that it is physically impossible.
But...and this is importand... why then did Nist not test the floors with no SFRM to try to back up their absurdity ? Or did they maybe ? Most likely they did and for example Tony Szamboti, mechanical engineer think so:
"It is a virtual certainty that NIST did floor assembly fire
testing without fireproofing, as a failure in that case would have proven the fire weakening hypothesis.9
As there is no mention of failures during these tests, it is obvious that they apparently did not produce
results which would back up the fire induced collapse theory."
www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/SzambotiSustainabilityofControlledDemolitionHypothesisForDestructionofTwinTowers.pdfBut what Nist gave to people, was test with about 1/2 inch sfrm and a huge heat for a long time and nothing happened ... but from the test Nist speculate if this or that were diffrent then maybe this and that could happened ...likely and maybe possible.
All the Nist theory holds no water. Nist theory is just an absurd speculation.
Grumpy
15th June 2007 - 02:34 PM
Malmoesoldier
QUOTE
lol. Whats wrong with his alien theory? i dont see anything wrong with it.
And that is a very good indication of your complete lack of a "reality filter". Children don't have a real idea of how the world works, scientifically. That is why they have no problems believing in fairy tales and monsters in the closet. Adults know better(or should).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| lol. Whats wrong with his alien theory? i dont see anything wrong with it. |
And that is a very good indication of your complete lack of a "reality filter". Children don't have a real idea of how the world works, scientifically. That is why they have no problems believing in fairy tales and monsters in the closet. Adults know better(or should).
David ickes illuminati research is 100% correct and respected by people like Alex jones,
So there are Alien Reptiles in charge of the world???(100%, remember?). Alex Jones is one of the stupidest, most idiotic(I know, redundent)purveyors of garbage in the whole CTer movement(as is "Professor" Jones), he is not a good character witness for other's BS.
Grumpy
Grumpy
15th June 2007 - 02:52 PM
Daru
QUOTE
If one looks icecold on fire and steel tests, then he will understand that it is totally impossible to blame the collapse on fire.
Then why is fireproofing even required???(hint: Because fire DOES cause steel to collapse, it has happened many times before, it will happen many times in the future)
You know that Moe is in direct competition with you to see who can post the stupidest statements, don't you???
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If one looks icecold on fire and steel tests, then he will understand that it is totally impossible to blame the collapse on fire. |
Then why is fireproofing even required???(hint: Because fire DOES cause steel to collapse, it has happened many times before, it will happen many times in the future)
You know that Moe is in direct competition with you to see who can post the stupidest statements, don't you???
But...and this is importand... why then did Nist not test the floors with no SFRM to try to back up their absurdity ? Or did they maybe ? Most likely they did and for example Tony Szamboti, mechanical engineer think so:
"It is a virtual certainty that NIST did floor assembly fire
testing without fireproofing, as a failure in that case would have proven the fire weakening hypothesis.9
As there is no mention of failures during these tests, it is obvious that they apparently did not produce
results which would back up the fire induced collapse theory."
www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/SzambotiSustainabilityofControlledDemolitionHypothesisForDestructionofTwinTowers.pdf
NIST did tests on the floors "as designed" to see if they lead to the collapse with fire retardent up to spec. They didn't do tests without fire retardent because they already knew they would have "failed" in minutes(Hint: that's why the fireproofing materials were there in the first place). The opinion of Szamboti is JUST his opinion, not a fact.
QUOTE
But what Nist gave to people, was test with about 1/2 inch sfrm and a huge heat for a long time and nothing happened ... but from the test Nist speculate if this or that were diffrent then maybe this and that could happened ...likely and maybe possible.
You obviously know nothing about those tests. The floor trusses DID sag, so NIST's Theory(a hypothesis supported by facts and testing) is supported by the results.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
But what Nist gave to people, was test with about 1/2 inch sfrm and a huge heat for a long time and nothing happened ... but from the test Nist speculate if this or that were diffrent then maybe this and that could happened ...likely and maybe possible.
|
You obviously know nothing about those tests. The floor trusses DID sag, so NIST's Theory(a hypothesis supported by facts and testing) is supported by the results.
All the Nist theory holds no water. Nist theory is just an absurd speculation.
NIST's studies still stand unchallenged by anyone, especially any of the tin-hatters at any "troother" site or on this forum. To say otherwise is simply to lie.
Grumpy
wcelliott
15th June 2007 - 03:03 PM
Ahh, nothing like waking up to the smell of fresh-brewed bs.
QUOTE
Lies lies lies lies. NO i could NOT be melted steel,
Electricity is how steel is made these days - Two big conductors get lowered into a vat of steel scrap and iron ore, and lots of electricity gets pumped through it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc_furnaceQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Lies lies lies lies. NO i could NOT be melted steel, |
Electricity is how steel is made these days - Two big conductors get lowered into a vat of steel scrap and iron ore, and lots of electricity gets pumped through it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc_furnaceWhats wrong with his alien theory?
i dont see anything wrong with it. David ickes illuminati research is 100% correct
Alien reptiles running the world...
QUOTE
Why dont talk bad about somebody that believes in god then? take everybody from NIST that believes in god and say that their work is BS because they believe in god, same thing.
No, it would actually be like if NIST said that God made the towers collapse. Then, even those of us who believe in God would think NIST had lost their marbles.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why dont talk bad about somebody that believes in god then? take everybody from NIST that believes in god and say that their work is BS because they believe in god, same thing. |
No, it would actually be like if NIST said that God made the towers collapse. Then, even those of us who believe in God would think NIST had lost their marbles.
If one looks icecold on fire and steel tests, then he will understand that it is totally impossible to blame the collapse on fire.
On the off-chance that Daru can still be reached...
Daru, it took all sorts of things going wrong with the towers happening all at the same time to make them collapse. Nobody said it was only the fire, that's a "straw-man" argument.
The main two elements in the collapse were;
1) Impact damage to the structure, which was severe in each case, and
2) Fire-induced weakening of the remaining structure.
Researchers have focused on the structural damage to the steel, exclusively, but when a quarter of a million pounds of anything hits a building at 450mph, it's going to damage the steel structure PLUS everything else that's there. That includes that wafer-thin concrete floor and the electrical system and the water mains and the spray-on fireproofing... All that damage contributed to the collapse, and may indeed have been sufficient to make the building collapse on its own, but then there was the fire that started with 40,000 pounds of fuel.
The NIST model, IMO, underestimated the fire, in places, by a bit. I feel this is a nitpick, I'm not saying they're idiots who don't know what they're doing, I'm just saying that fire is chaotic and sometimes it gets hotter than one would expect. In this instance, the fact that there was air coming up from below through the core feeding the fire which was fuel-rich everywhere else means that a chimney-draft could've been established right there within the core itself, making that the hottest part of the fire.
But there is one aspect of this that you haven't considered - the mechanism that actually caused the collapse was a combination of everything that went wrong acting in-concert. It was a slow event. This means that the structural capacity was slowly eroding, losing its strength a few pounds at a time until the load it *could* carry just crossed beneath the line of the load it *had* to carry. A few seconds before the collapse, it was holding up the upper section, and a few seconds later, it was just marginally incapable of supporting the load, and it started to move, by microns at first, then by thousandths of an inch, then by an inch (and right around there the geometry of the remaining structure started to become unfavorable and it got weaker, faster), and THAT'S when everybody starts their stopwatches - Once the collapse-rate was visible. It was happening earlier, just at too slow a rate to pick up from video footage, and so long as it was moving, it was inevitable that it would fall sooner or later.
Daru
15th June 2007 - 03:11 PM
Um... ok.
But in all the wtc issue...it is best to keep it as plain and simple as possible.
So, for example... if the Nist theory is that all or most of sfrm was removed... then why not do a test on the floors with no sfrm ? That way they could have backed up their theory... that is, see what happened with no sfrm.
adoucette
15th June 2007 - 03:16 PM
QUOTE (Daru+Jun 15 2007, 10:11 AM)
Um... ok.
But in all the wtc issue...it is best to keep it as plain and simple as possible.
So, for example... if the Nist theory is that all or most of sfrm was removed... then why not do a test on the floors with no sfrm ? That way they could have backed up their theory... that is, see what happened with no sfrm.
No, the objective of the NIST report was NOT to keep it as "plain and simple as possible".
The report is to be the basis of a SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS of a very complex event and used as the basis for changing building codes, as such it is not expected to be "simple".
Why didn't they test without SFRM?
Because sagging without SFRM is a fairly obvious conclusion to engineers and the amount of sag (and explosive spalling) from unprotected steel would have risked damaging the ovens.
As it was they had to stop the tests on the SFRM protected trusses when either the sag got to great to measure or damage to the ovens was imminent.
Arthur
adoucette
15th June 2007 - 03:24 PM
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 15 2007, 06:09 AM)
Whats wrong with his alien theory? i dont see anything wrong with it. David ickes illuminati research is 100% correct and respected by people like Alex jones,
So newton, since you are a big supporter of the illuminati concept, do you agree with your fellow CT'er?
Do you ALSO believe that the illuminati are Reptilian Aliens?
Arthur
Daru
15th June 2007 - 03:27 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 15 2007, 03:16 PM)
...
As it was they had to stop the tests on the SFRM protected trusses when either the sag got to great to measure or damage to the ovens was imminent.
Arthur
Ah! Ofcource. Stupit me!
Damage the ovens.
adoucette
15th June 2007 - 03:46 PM
QUOTE (Daru+Jun 15 2007, 10:27 AM)
Ah! Ofcource. Stupit me!
Damage the ovens.
NIST was using the LARGEST such furnace available (its not like everybody has one of these MASSIVE furnaces)
As it was they could only test a HALF SIZE version of the 60 foot long trusses.
But they DID have to stop the tests when the sagging got excessive so as to not risk damaging these UNIQUE and EXPENSIVE test facilities.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6B
Page xxxiii
QUOTE
Tests are stopped ... because the deflection becomes excessive and assembly failure could damage the furnace.
Arthur
Daru
15th June 2007 - 04:29 PM
Yes...but that was after long time and a huge heat... and above statement from Nist really say nothing. And the tests was not all exactly the same.
But the key point is, that they could test the floor mostly with out sfrm and document the results and stop the test if everything was going to collapse.
And
maybe they did
reasonwhy
15th June 2007 - 04:41 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 15 2007, 07:16 AM)
No, the objective of the NIST report was NOT to keep it as "plain and simple as possible".
The report is to be the basis of a SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS of a very complex event and used as the basis for changing building codes, as such it is not expected to be "simple".
Why didn't they test without SFRM?
Because sagging without SFRM is a fairly obvious conclusion to engineers and the amount of sag (and explosive spalling) from unprotected steel would have risked damaging the ovens.
As it was they had to stop the tests on the SFRM protected trusses when either the sag got to great to measure or damage to the ovens was imminent.
Arthur
More BS from Arthurs!
SO HOW WOULD IT DAMAGE THE OVENS IF THE TESTS ARE STOPPED WHEN THE SAG GETS TO GREAT OR DAMAGE TO THE OVEN WAS IMMINENT?
Answeer all they have to do is stop the test like they did with SFRM.
adoucette
15th June 2007 - 04:50 PM
QUOTE (Daru+Jun 15 2007, 11:29 AM)
Yes...but that was after long time and a huge heat... and above statement from Nist really say nothing. And the tests was not all exactly the same.
But the key point is, that they could test the floor mostly with out sfrm and document the results and stop the test if everything was going to collapse.
And
maybe they did They could have, but being ENGINEERS, they KNEW they didn't need to.
The test you showed was not on a scale truss or of a truss under load (note there is no deck or concrete), what it was for:
QUOTE
The burn experiments of this truss type and the one below were used to validate the ability of computer models to predict the temperature rise of uninsulated structural steel elements.
http://wtc.nist.gov/images/WTCFireTestImage7_hires.jpgArthur
adoucette
15th June 2007 - 04:55 PM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 15 2007, 11:41 AM)
More BS from Arthurs!
SO HOW WOULD IT DAMAGE THE OVENS IF THE TESTS ARE STOPPED WHEN THE SAG GETS TO GREAT OR DAMAGE TO THE OVEN WAS IMMINENT?
Answeer all they have to do is stop the test like they did with SFRM.
Possibly, but then possibly not, as the whole failure would have been more dramatic without insulation.
Your argument is SILLY.
They had to stop the tests on INSULATED trusses because they sagged, the whole process would have happened far faster without insulation.
Arthur
Daru
15th June 2007 - 05:08 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 15 2007, 04:50 PM)
...
The test you showed was not on a scale truss or of a truss under load (note there is no deck or concrete), what it was for:
Yes, I know that very well ... but if they did some test with no sfrm... and did not mention it in their report... well, that is suspicious.
newton
15th June 2007 - 05:50 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 15 2007, 03:24 PM)
So newton, since you are a big supporter of the illuminati concept, do you agree with your fellow CT'er?
Do you ALSO believe that the illuminati are Reptilian Aliens?
Arthur
i haven't seen any reptillians, so i don't 'support' that idea. i do, however, support that the illuminati are very serious about symbols and allegory, and i do know that the reptile theme is a big one.
but, so is the phoenix. and, the owl, molech. and, the halfman/half fish, hence, 'MERovingian'. and scorpions under egyptian obelisks. and winged disks. and ouroborous, ...oh, that one's a reptile.
i'm not going to ridicule anything, or anyone, except maybe those who believe that what the mainstream authority programs is the absolute truth, and maybe anyone who believes that it is not human nature to conspire.
Grumpy
15th June 2007 - 05:52 PM
Daru
QUOTE
Yes, I know that very well ... but if they did some test with no sfrm... and did not mention it in their report... well, that is suspicious.
They did no tests without SFRM, they didn't need to as ALL unprotected steel loses strength within just a few minutes when subjected to high temps. In fact, when the steel reaches over 600C it is considered to have failed. The reason Fireproofing is installed is to delay the time it takes steel to reach those temps.
Grumpy
NEU-FONZE
15th June 2007 - 07:18 PM
Newton:
"I haven't seen any reptillians"
Really?
How about the QUEEN?
After all, she is called LIZ!
adoucette
15th June 2007 - 07:40 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 15 2007, 12:52 PM)
QUOTE (Daru+)
Yes, I know that very well ... but if they did some test with no sfrm... and did not mention it in their report... well, that is suspicious.
They did no tests without SFRM, they didn't need to as ALL unprotected steel loses strength within just a few minutes when subjected to high temps. In fact, when the steel reaches over 600C it is considered to have failed. The reason Fireproofing is installed is to delay the time it takes steel to reach those temps.
Grumpy
They did no OVEN tests of the 30 ft Truss assemblies without SFRM.
The DID use Steel Truss mockups without SFRM in their fire experiments.
They DID INCLUDE these tests in their report (with pictures on their web page) so, NO, there is NOTHING "suspicious" going on.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5B Experiments and Modeling of Structural Steel Elements Exposed to Fire.
Arthur
wcelliott
15th June 2007 - 07:46 PM
QUOTE
"I haven't seen any reptillians"
Really?
How about the QUEEN?
I'm more interested in hearing what Boxcar Willie's role was in the New World Order. Was he in charge of conquering the Grand Ole Opry?
Pierre-Normand
15th June 2007 - 09:10 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jun 15 2007, 07:18 PM)
Really?
How about the QUEEN?
After all, she is called LIZ!
This is suggestive but inconclusive. We ought to remain unconvinced until brain scans are performed to demonstrate that she really has a reptilian brain.
einsteen
15th June 2007 - 09:31 PM
Speaking on Lizards, anyone remember these series, as a kid it really scared me off...
before
http://i12.tinypic.com/5yczw28.jpgafter
http://thecia.com.au/reviews/v/images/v-7.jpg
Daru
15th June 2007 - 09:59 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 15 2007, 07:40 PM)
[/QUOTE]
They did no OVEN tests of the 30 ft Truss assemblies without SFRM.
The DID use Steel Truss mockups without SFRM in their fire experiments.
They DID INCLUDE these tests in their report (with pictures on their web page) so, NO, there is NOTHING "suspicious" going on.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5B Experiments and Modeling of Structural Steel Elements Exposed to Fire.
Arthur
Look, That is exactly the point...they did not an oven test with no sfrm and why ??
If their theory was that most of the sfrm was removed... then why not test it that way ?
But what they did was have sfrm and speculate from there! Unbelivenble.
NCSTAR 1-5B does not say much... mostly a lot of talk about nothing! It is very well known that the sfrm delay the heating of the steel. But the key point is...once again... why did they not test if the floor would magically sagged about 50 inch and super magically pulled the outer column inward without sfrm.
Pierre-Normand
15th June 2007 - 10:00 PM
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 15 2007, 09:10 PM)
This is suggestive but inconclusive.
Some further evidence, still only suggestive.
adoucette
15th June 2007 - 10:07 PM
QUOTE (Daru+Jun 15 2007, 04:59 PM)
Look, That is exactly the point...they did not an oven test with no sfrm and why ??
If their theory was that most of the sfrm was removed... then why not test it that way ?
But what they did was have sfrm and speculate from there! Unbelivenble.
Its pretty simple really.
If you test WITH SFRM, you can measure the steel temps and the sag.
You can then measure how fast steel heats up without SFRM (as in their experiments) and use the TWO sets of data points to predict how a non-insulated trust will react.
Its called SCIENCE.
Too bad you don't get it.
Arthur
einsteen
15th June 2007 - 10:15 PM
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 15 2007, 10:00 PM)
Some further evidence, still only suggestive.
exactly our queen Beatrix!
Palpatane
15th June 2007 - 10:26 PM
Daru -
A little
google for you
Daru
15th June 2007 - 10:26 PM
Um... namely I understand it too well!! And I keep it plain and simple!!
What happened in the UL test with sfrm and huge heat for a long time ? Frankly speaking: NOTHING!!
But then OCT ers say: But the sfrm was removed and then maybe this or that could likely happend! I simply points out, that it holds no water.
They use the "sfrm removed" to run away from everything.
Daru
15th June 2007 - 10:34 PM
QUOTE (Palpatane+Jun 15 2007, 10:26 PM)
Daru -
A little
google for you
Look, I have been for a very long time involved in the 9/11 issue. I know it all from a-z. After 9/11 some people was asked to give out some paper to support the official theory... but all this small "press release" (as I call it) really say nothing.
Show me a real test (test in real world...not some speculation... test like UL did on floor with sfrm) which support 50 inch sagging and wich furthermore, so to speak, pulls a massive steelstructure down.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.
