1999 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

Boo

That is probably the most reasonable post of yours that I have read.

I did read your link, and I had read it before.  I understand that there are people who say they have made cell phone calls from airplanes.  Maybe they have.  There are also people who say they have tried but are unable.  So I guess that brings us to a stalemate.

Everyman will rely upon his own experiences more than others, and that's what I must do.  Because I held a HAM license and studied the design of the system, and because I can remember when the cell system came into existence, and because I have conducted numerous 'experiments' myself, I am confident that the system was not designed for and does not function outside of certain parameters.  Thus I am quite skeptical of claims such as made by your link.

I have listened to and/or read the transcripts of most all of the calls employed in the official story.  They all have a sense of fakeness to them, a sense of a staged conversation, from Cee Cee Lyles to the guy calling his mom, to the flight attendant named Ong.  

In the proverbial Big Picture, the cell phone calls are in character with their false feeling.  Along with every other facet of the OCT, they come across as staged, ESPECIALLY 10 years later.  Those folks into researching persons named as either crew or pax on those flights are discovering all sorts of irregularities and conflicting stories, 10 years later.

Nothing new here, but in the end, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 14 May 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

That example is all necessary to the point I've been making from the start - that a flexible mass is not so effective as a rigid mass in an impact. I don't find it funny at all that you can't accept such a very basic fact. Or that you don't seem to understand why this is damning to Bazant's theory.

For things with such small surface areas as bowling balls and heads, I agree that there is a potentially significant difference between a flexible mass and a rigid block.  For buildings the size of the Two Towers, the difference is negligible because the vast majority of the mass has very little freedom to be deflected outside of the 43,000 square foot building footprint.

Q24, on 14 May 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

As always, very good at stating your opinion, not so hot on explaining why.

Perhaps try this: -

Your comparison between Bazant and Lysenko is beyond ridiculous because... ?

We might get a discussion going then.

And remember it was a structural engineer who drew this comparison to begin, I just happen to think it's a rather good one.

Here are a few reasons.

• People who voice dissent with Bazant aren't imprisoned and/or killed.
  
• Bazant isn't a state sponsored scientist.
  
• Bazant's papers are in an area which is extremely well understood and leaves very little room for subjective interpretations.

It is interesting to me though how you try to put a nefarious spin on Bazant by likening him to Lysenko.  Everything is so sinister and diabolical for you isn't it?

Q24, on 14 May 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

If you could ever accept the very basic fact above regarding a flexible and rigid mass (though it's ok - I've realised this is beyond hope), then you would understand how it shows Bazant's limiting case, based on a rigid upper block, to be not only unrealistic but detrimental to the lower block survival.  It is not ridiculous to show Bazant's theory for what it is.  You don't seem to understand that the theory must fall within the bounds of reality whether limiting or not.

I am likewise tired of discussing Bazant's limiting case with you Q24.  I can see why Swanny needs extended breaks.  You are impervious to the simple reality that there was no way those towers could have possibly survived after collapse had initiated.

Q24, on 14 May 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

The relevance is that if the upper block tilted outside of the tower footprint then all of that force cannot be applied to crushing the lower structure. The further relevance is that if the upper block tilted outside of the tower footprint then the lower structure provided sufficient resistance to do that and the tower must have come down through other means than being crushed.

I think a large part of the problem here is that you don't appreciate the key assumptions Bazant is relying on to make his theory work. If the upper block breaks... it doesn't work. If the upper block tilts significantly outside of the lower structure... it doesn't work. Bazant makes the assumptions that the upper block remains intact and approximately centred on the lower structure... neither of which occurred and both of which are detrimental to the tower survival.

The antena is relevant because it suggests how the upper block moved/continued to rotate.

I'm still waiting for you to provide a plausible alternative for the antena movement.

'It just did' or 'it bounced' are not answers.  A huge number of "things" could have happened is not an answer.

In your own time...

I've given you descriptions of possible ways that the antenna chunk could have arrived where we see it in the video, but you refuse to accept them as even possible.  Here I've put together an extremely crappy animation to help illustrate just one of those possible ways.  I could spend a lot more time refining this but it is tedious and I've already spent the last week or so on getting it to this point.  The timing isn't perfect, and many things could have happened within that debris cloud.  The antenna could have begun tilting independent of the upper block sooner or later, it could have broken into multiple pieces prior to being fully expelled from the primary collapse zone, etc...

Also note that I'm not trying to say that this is fully to scale nor am I trying to say that the entire upper block remained completely intact throughout the collapse, but for the simplicity of animation I've left it intact.  This is intended as a conceptual image to convey one possibility out of many.




Keep in mind also that the lingering wall section in the animation could have just been a portion of the wall, not necessarily the entire south face of the building.  This is not much unlike the east wall of WTC 2 which remained relatively intact as the tilting upper block collapsed within the wall and pushed it outward.  The tilt of WTC 2 was significantly more pronounced than WTC 1, so the outward pushing would not be precisely duplicated in magnitude.

I may come back to the animation and improve upon it at a later point, but I've already spent a lot more time on this than I originally intended.  I hope that you can at least picture the concept from this admittedly poor animation.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 17 May 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

It's stilll random, and that's the problem. If explosives were used to weaken / remove the same supports as fire / damage, the result should be the same, also. But we know random explosives can't work, so we know random fires / damage can't work either.

The WTC buildings collapsed due to impact damage and fires. For explosives to be effective, they must be firmly attached to the columns, otherwise, the blast wave will simply flow around the columns like wind flowing around the wing of an aircraft and blow out walls and windows.

Here are some steel columns that buckled due to fire.





The following photo is of the Windsor building fire in Spain that 9/11 CT folks like to use as a reference in regards to fires that do not collapse steel-framed buildings.



And, the following photo is what was left of that building.



The 9/11 CT folks then say, "See, that building didn't collapse due to fire." What they didn't know is that all of the structural steel has already collapsed and what you see is the concrete core of that building. In other words, the fire completely destroyed the steel structure to failure. The core of the WTC Towers were made of steel, not concrete.

http://sites.google....teelcolumnstobu

Quote

The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.



http://en.wikipedia....r_Tower_(Madrid)

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 17 May 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

Boo

That is probably the most reasonable post of yours that I have read.

I did read your link, and I had read it before.  I understand that there are people who say they have made cell phone calls from airplanes.  Maybe they have.  There are also people who say they have tried but are unable.  So I guess that brings us to a stalemate.

Stalemate?  You just stated that you understand that calls can be made from the air with cellphones.  That's a start BR.  At least now you retracted the idea that it was impossible to begin with.

Babe Ruth, on 17 May 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

Everyman will rely upon his own experiences more than others, and that's what I must do.  Because I held a HAM license and studied the design of the system, and because I can remember when the cell system came into existence, and because I have conducted numerous 'experiments' myself, I am confident that the system was not designed for and does not function outside of certain parameters.  Thus I am quite skeptical of claims such as made by your link.

Personal experience is fine to base your theroies on.  The problem is you will state them as fact when that is not the case.

May we see the results of your experiments?  Do you have any documentation we can review?  If not, then you cannot sit there and blatantly state that you know what you are talking about when it comes to cellular signal.  Possible if we can see some credentials?

Babe Ruth, on 17 May 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

I have listened to and/or read the transcripts of most all of the calls employed in the official story.  They all have a sense of fakeness to them, a sense of a staged conversation, from Cee Cee Lyles to the guy calling his mom, to the flight attendant named Ong.  

Of course you would want to find them staged.  Being as you think the whole thing was a ruse from the beginning.

Babe Ruth, on 17 May 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

In the proverbial Big Picture, the cell phone calls are in character with their false feeling.  Along with every other facet of the OCT, they come across as staged, ESPECIALLY 10 years later.  Those folks into researching persons named as either crew or pax on those flights are discovering all sorts of irregularities and conflicting stories, 10 years later.

Nothing new here, but in the end, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Yet you still provide no evidence or links to prove your "big picture".

[Babe Ruth]

I'm pretty sure you don't WANT to see the Big Picture Raptor.  Whether you do or not, if you have not glimpsed it by now, 10 years later, then most likely you never will.  It ain't rocket science old buddy, it's common sense.

My experiments were simple, and no, I did not take notes, and cannot provide a link.  But I assure you that if you go to RadioReference.com and register in the forum, you can ask the questions of people who ARE experts in the field.  Find the right thread, and ask away.  You won't believe me, and you probably won't believe them because they will tell you the same thing--in 2001 cellphones don't work at altitude and airspeed.

My experiments were simple.  I was flying a helicopter at the time, so it was rather easy.  It goes like this: put cellphone where it can be seen.  Take off and climb.  Watch cellphone screen until message NO SERVICE appears and monitor signal strength icon.  Note altitude.

Because helicopters are slow, airspeed is not much of a factor.  Every time, NO SERVICE comes on about 1500 feet above the ground.  That was with both the AT&T system and the Nextel system.

Years ago, before 2001, I have duplicated the same basic phenomenon with airplanes going fast down low.  Above about 150 knots, even down low, the same NO SERVICE comes on.

But don't believe me Raptor.  You and your generation and desperation require that you have a LINK to some website before you believe anything.  I get it.  Really, I do.  You and Breitbart!

Edited by Babe Ruth, 17 May 2012 - 07:12 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

http://tinyurl.com/6oqvys2


Helpful information regarding cellphones.

[turbonium]

Q24, on 17 May 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

When aircraft crash at sea investigators still attempt to recover the debris and black boxes (fitted with an Underwater Locator Beacon for that purpose). I recall reading about only one instance in the history of U.S. aviation where it was not possible to locate the FDR and/or physical part serial number of an aircraft due to crashing into a large lake, I believe.

Where this occurs, then assumption must be used to determine the aircraft identity. On any normal day which has no lasting global consequence, and where there is no other option, the assumption is acceptable. On the day that launched a decade long propagandistic war, suiting long stated agendas, where assumption was not the only option, this is entirely unacceptable. It is this lack of investigation that any false flag attack throughout history has relied upon.

It was a reasonable question you asked, but the only ignorance in all of this is your own.

Anyway, we are off-topic...




Yes, well put.  Except, where fire weakens a structure leading to partial collapse as examples show, it is preceded by large visible deformations of the structure (as the Madrid building we have all seen).  The first visible sign of a fire weakened structure is not sudden global collapse (as WTC7) - that is the hallmark of demolition.

You are correct. Indeed, by "won't work", I meant  "won't work 'for a global collapse", like my previous posts on this issue. I didn't point it out this time, so I thank you for the clarification.

. .

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 17 May 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

When aircraft crash at sea investigators still attempt to recover the debris and black boxes (fitted with an Underwater Locator Beacon for that purpose). I recall reading about only one instance in the history of U.S. aviation where it was not possible to locate the FDR and/or physical part serial number of an aircraft due to crashing into a large lake, I believe.

Where this occurs, then assumption must be used to determine the aircraft identity. On any normal day which has no lasting global consequence, and where there is no other option, the assumption is acceptable. On the day that launched a decade long propagandistic war, suiting long stated agendas, where assumption was not the only option, this is entirely unacceptable. It is this lack of investigation that any false flag attack throughout history has relied upon.

It was a reasonable question you asked, but the only ignorance in all of this is your own.

There was a reason why I posted the "lost at sea" comment. My aircraft, C-5A, #213, was tasked to fly recovery gear to Japan from Cubi Point, Philippines after the Soviets shot down Korean Flt 007. We were at Clark airbase, PI, when we were ordered to fly from Clark to Cubi Point to upload the gear and then on to Japan. While enroute to Japan, the black boxes were not recovered at that time, yet it was determined that the airframe was that of Korean Flt 007.

Quote

Yes, well put. Except, where fire weakens a structure leading to partial collapse as examples show, it is preceded by large visible deformations of the structure (as the Madrid building we have all seen). The first visible sign of a fire weakened structure is not sudden global collapse (as WTC7) - that is the hallmark of demolition.

How long was the fire burning in WTC 7 before it collapse? Firefighters noticed that WTC 7 was seriously damaged during the fires and knew that the building was going to collapse, and they were right on the money.

Quote

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.../gz/hayden.html


...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.

http://graphics8.nyt...HIC/9110462.PDF

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse...e/gz/boyle.html

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.

http://www.cooperati...=1521846767-634

In other words, WTC 7 was buckling before it collapsed.

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 May 2012 - 06:53 AM.

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 17 May 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

The WTC buildings collapsed due to impact damage and fires.

No, that is not possible by merely random damage

skyeagle409, on 17 May 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

For explosives to be effective, they must be firmly attached to the columns, otherwise, the blast wave will simply flow around the columns like wind flowing around the wing of an aircraft and blow out walls and windows.

Sure, explosives "must be firmly attached to the columns". So what? They are still randomly placed charges, Which means, it still won't cause a global collapse. Just like random fires/impact damage won't cause global collapse.

We remove structural support points 'X, Y and Z,' in Column 156, Floor 85, it makes no difference how we remove it!! Whether we was used fires, or we smashed a plane into it, or we used 'firmly placed' explosives, the result is the same.

If we take out supports XYZ by fires and/or impact damage from an airplane,, or we use explosives to remove supports XYZ, the result is the same.

If all the supports are removed randomly, the result is still going to be the same - no global collapse.

You simply can't refute this argument. .

[booNyzarC]

turbonium, on 18 May 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

No, that is not possible by merely random damage

Why not?

turbonium, on 18 May 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

Sure, explosives "must be firmly attached to the columns". So what? They are still randomly placed charges, Which means, it still won't cause a global collapse. Just like random fires/impact damage won't cause global collapse.

So if randomly placed charges or random fires/impact damage happen to impact core structural elements you don't think global collapse would ensue?

turbonium, on 18 May 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

We remove structural support points 'X, Y and Z,' in Column 156, Floor 85, it makes no difference how we remove it!! Whether we was used fires, or we smashed a plane into it, or we used 'firmly placed' explosives, the result is the same.

If we take out supports XYZ by fires and/or impact damage from an airplane,, or we use explosives to remove supports XYZ, the result is the same.

This I agree with.  Surprising.  If you wait long enough turbs might say something that makes sense.  Wonders never cease.

turbonium, on 18 May 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

If all the supports are removed randomly, the result is still going to be the same - no global collapse.

You simply can't refute this argument. .

What if the randomly removed supports happen to include (using your example from above) structural points 'X, Y and Z' in Column 156, Floor 85?

Edited by booNyzarC, 18 May 2012 - 01:17 PM.

[Wandering]

RaptorBites, on 17 May 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

Personal experience is fine to base your theroies on.  The problem is you will state them as fact when that is not the case.

  Unlike anyone else

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 17 May 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

For things with such small surface areas as bowling balls and heads, I agree that there is a potentially significant difference between a flexible mass and a rigid block.  For buildings the size of the Two Towers, the difference is negligible because the vast majority of the mass has very little freedom to be deflected outside of the 43,000 square foot building footprint.

The Two Towers... have you been watching LotRs lately?  

The complete mass doesn't need to be deflected outside of the building footprint, only have a measure more freedom (flexibility?) to deflect a degree sideways or around each impacted component. This means less impact force transferred to the lower structure in any instant and reduction of the downward momentum... this makes the world of difference to Bazant's simplified assumptions.

booNyzarC, on 17 May 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

Here are a few reasons.

• People who voice dissent with Bazant aren't imprisoned and/or killed.
  
• Bazant isn't a state sponsored scientist.
  
• Bazant's papers are in an area which is extremely well understood and leaves very little room for subjective interpretations.

It is interesting to me though how you try to put a nefarious spin on Bazant by likening him to Lysenko.  Everything is so sinister and diabolical for you isn't it?

Oh I see, this is another 'booNy precision comparison'^TM. I'm not sure it's ridiculous that comparsions are not always carbon copies. Indeed, some of the best comparisons have areas that can be contrasted.

Of course I don't know anyone who has been imprisoned or killed for their 9/11 views so that result of Lysenkoism is not a good match to today. Though might we better compare the restrictions on dissent between then and now? Yes, I think so - we have seen professor Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan removed from their employment for voicing dissent against the official theories, along with the favourtism that Bazant has received in the peer review process.

I'm not at all convinced on your second bullet point. I have previously looked up Northwestern University where Bazant has lectured since the 70s - not only do they recieve state-sponsored grants but also have quite the CIA connection going on. The previous university director was actually a former U.S. State Department and CIA employee with an interest in civil-military relations, and U.S. foreign policy.

This connection is not unique to Northwestern - a CIA spokesperson said in 1988 that the agency had enough individual professors under contract "to staff a large university". It has also been reported: "As of the late 1970s, approximately 5,000 professors were doing CIA work in some capacity, either `spotting' U.S. or foreign recruitment candidates, participating in research and grant work or carrying out more active programs like foreign police training. It is estimated that about 60 percent of these academics were aware of the nature of their employment, while another 40 percent did the CIA's bidding in the dark--through front companies or foundations."

I wouldn't be so confident about who sponsors Bazant.

Next, all those who have determined the WTC buildings were demolished, including thousands of scientists, architects and engineers, are proof of the misjudgement in your third bullet point above.

And finally, I don't necessarily think any of this is nefarious, sinister or diabolical - that is actually how you see it; your own fear of the consequences if I were right. For me, from a political point of view, Lysenkoism and Bazantism are genius to have subjugated so many.

booNyzarC, on 17 May 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

I am likewise tired of discussing Bazant's limiting case with you Q24.  I can see why Swanny needs extended breaks.  You are impervious to the simple reality that there was no way those towers could have possibly survived after collapse had initiated.

As are you impervious to the simple reality that the towers could neither begin nor complete collapse unaided by demolition - the results of NIST's models and Bazant's fantasy assumptions necessary show this to be true. Again, any such scientific theory for collapse does not need replicate actual events, but it must fall within the parameters of reality.

booNyzarC, on 17 May 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

I've given you descriptions of possible ways that the antenna chunk could have arrived where we see it in the video, but you refuse to accept them as even possible.  Here I've put together an extremely crappy animation to help illustrate just one of those possible ways.  I could spend a lot more time refining this but it is tedious and I've already spent the last week or so on getting it to this point.  The timing isn't perfect, and many things could have happened within that debris cloud.  The antenna could have begun tilting independent of the upper block sooner or later, it could have broken into multiple pieces prior to being fully expelled from the primary collapse zone, etc...

Also note that I'm not trying to say that this is fully to scale nor am I trying to say that the entire upper block remained completely intact throughout the collapse, but for the simplicity of animation I've left it intact.  This is intended as a conceptual image to convey one possibility out of many.




Keep in mind also that the lingering wall section in the animation could have just been a portion of the wall, not necessarily the entire south face of the building.  This is not much unlike the east wall of WTC 2 which remained relatively intact as the tilting upper block collapsed within the wall and pushed it outward.  The tilt of WTC 2 was significantly more pronounced than WTC 1, so the outward pushing would not be precisely duplicated in magnitude.

I may come back to the animation and improve upon it at a later point, but I've already spent a lot more time on this than I originally intended.  I hope that you can at least picture the concept from this admittedly poor animation.

I think the animation is brilliant to demonstrate the concept and thank you for taking the time to put it together. What program did you use to make that? I'd really like to be able to do similar at times to get across certain points. Like in this case, I could animate the upper block rotation to compare with your concept.

I do have to also point out that whilst your idea is well demonstrated, the reality of it is horrible: -

1. Your animated antena appears to tilt at a time where in video footage it is still at a 90 degree angle to the roof, and I still see no reason why that tilt should occur from the base of the antena, especially if the upper block fails to rotate further than visible at the collapse initiation. The antena was holding up fine during the initial visible tilt - what changed?

2. There is no way on Earth the upper block, tilting South, can slide along 'inside' the South perimeter - it is physically impossible - unless the entire upper block took a step back toward the North. But I see in your animation, that upon a sudden steel-on-steel impact, a 30 or so storey section of the perimeter panels flex outward allowing this to occur... were the external columns really so pliable and durable to achieve this upon the sudden impact?

3. Then at the antena impact, what causes the piece to change from downward movement to quickly fly off at that unnatural angle? This is some distance above the collapse front where most ejective force is taking place. And the antena, to move from the impact point to the visible location in your animation, it briefly outruns the surrounding dust/debris, which is quite bizarre.

4. What of the antena tip which we know was actually missing from the visible section? This is a physical observation which your theory does not explain.

With these current problems I don't see your concept is viable.

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 18 May 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

In other words, WTC 7 was buckling before it collapsed.

There is no evidence that WTC7 was buckling until seconds prior the global collapse initiation. The location of damage described by firefighters very clearly indicates it due to the WTC1 debris impacts which NIST confirm had nothing to do with the collapse initiation. After the WTC1 collapse, the condition of WTC7 did not deteriorate in any noticeable way until seconds prior to its own collapse.

To understand exactly why the FDNY were confident WTC7 would collapse, please refer to the first post of this thread. The collapse prediction was not the judgement of firefighters but fed from an anonymous external advisor (who knew both of the coming global collapse and time it would occur) which then filtered through the FDNY chain of command.

To believe the firefighters predicted the collapse based on their own observations is to be ignorant of the other parties on scene and information that was passed.

[Czero 101]

booNyzarC, on 18 May 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

Surprising.  If you wait long enough turbs might say something that makes sense.  Wonders never cease.

As the saying goes, even a broken clock is correct twice a day....






Cz

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 18 May 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

No, that is not possible by merely random damage

You don't seem to understand that we have evidence of fires and impact damage to the WTC buildings, but no evidence of exposives, yet the buildings collapsed just the same.

Quote

Sure, explosives "must be firmly attached to the columns". So what?

Ever wondered why demolition crews attach explosives firmly to the columns? Review the videos that I have posted in regards to the demolition process.

Since the impacts were violent enough to knock off the fire protection around the columns, did you really think that explosives would have remained firmly attached to those columns? I don't think so! How long did it take for WTC 1 to collapse after it was struck? How long did it take WTC 2 to collapse it was struck?

Quote

We remove structural support points 'X, Y and Z,' in Column 156, Floor 85, it makes no difference how we remove it!! Whether we was used fires, or we smashed a plane into it, or we used 'firmly placed' explosives, the result is the same.

It does make a difference because other columns must take up the slack. As we have seen, the buildings withstood the aircraft impacts, but they resulted in fires at temperatures that was hot enough to weaken steel.

I have taught aircraft structural technicians how placing a patch repair can transfer stress to other locations. For an example, I was at odds with Lockheed structural engineers when they suggested installing a titanium doubler between the former and inner skin of a C-5A that developed skin cracks. I told people the doublers would create increased stress that would result in additional cracks. About a year later, cracks began to appear on the outside skin in the general location where the double was attached. Eventually, the use of internal titanium doublers on such cracks was removed from the tech manual and only an external aluminum patch was used.

Each structural column is there for a reason and removing columns in going to transfer additional loads to other columns and if there are fires licking those columns at over 1000 degrees, then it is a matter of time before those columns will fail. You must also understand that gravity is going to do its thing just as it did when a steel-framed building completely collapsed in Mexico City.

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 May 2012 - 06:36 PM.