"Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis[W:222, 344. 1463]

[KokomoJojo]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

The real point of interest

No asbestos on any of the steel in the scrap yard.

where did all the asbestos go and how can gravity alone [as the nutter debunk sites claim] clean it all off of all that steel as we seen in the scrap yard? Energy gremlins maybe?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

How about I start to correct some of the physics???

This is closer to what CATiwampus should have written:
That lot should do for starters.

Then, if we allow for the measured period of "over G", we will need to recognise that it was not simply zero net resistance but negative net resitance.

Easy enough physics but could be a bit complicated for some of our members.

not relevant.

so in the fantasies of debunkers that changes what exactly and how?

a giant tractrator vacuum cleaner SUCKING the building into the ground in a conspiracy with energy gremlins who clean off all the asbestos?

You really need to explain these feats of magic unless of course its a trade secret like nists data.

do you have a collapse model that at least looks like the real building?



even a little bit?

see the real building came straight down with extremely little deformation of the facade.



it did not look like that pretzel nist made to prove that natural collapse cannot occur in a steel hirise.

 

[Mark F]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

reeeeeely?

so you do not know what freefall acceleration is huh.

what strawman?

Oh but I do. Please re-read my post.

The building (7 WTC) did not collapse at free-fall acceleration so this is a strawman.

It was not the building being measured. We discussed all this to death last week. You should have been paying attention.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

Oh but I do. Please re-read my post.



It was not the building being measured. We discussed all this to death last week. You should have been paying attention.

oh so the building is a figment of everyones imagination then is that the new debunker position? LMAO

Standing on a soap box making crazy claims is not a discussion. I would think that debunkoids would have figured that out by now

 

[Mark F]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

oh so the building is a figment of everyones imagination then is that the new debunker position? LMAO

Standing on a soap box making crazy claims is not a discussion. I would think that debunkoids would have figured that out by now

Reading comprehension still fails you. Lets do this one step at a time since more than that will confuse you. Where specifically was the measurement taken from Koko?

 

[mike2810]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

No asbestos on any of the steel in the scrap yard.

where did all the asbestos go and how can gravity alone [as the nutter debunk sites claim] clean it all off of all that steel as we seen in the scrap yard? Energy gremlins maybe?

Do you believe asbestos fireproofing was used throught the buildings? Let me help you out. Nope. It was not.


Asbestos Fireproofing Might Have Prevented World Trade Center Collapse | JunkScience.com

.......As a result, asbestos fireproofing was only used up to the thirty-eighth floor of the first WTC tower and not at all in the second. Continuing asbestos hysteria eventually resulted in much of the asbestos eventually being ripped out of the first tower.
Asbestos Could Have Saved WTC Lives | Fox News

Seems asbestos was used only on the lower levels.

http://www.local2507.com/wtc/911report_by_MARF.pdf
"It is known that a large amount of asbestos was used to insulate the lower floors of the Twin Towers

Other links if you search will indicate that the while asbestos was found in the dust, the studies indicate the fireproofing was turned into dust during the collapse.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

Do you believe asbestos fireproofing was used throught the buildings? Let me help you out. Nope. It was not.


Asbestos Fireproofing Might Have Prevented World Trade Center Collapse | JunkScience.com

.......As a result, asbestos fireproofing was only used up to the thirty-eighth floor of the first WTC tower and not at all in the second. Continuing asbestos hysteria eventually resulted in much of the asbestos eventually being ripped out of the first tower.
Asbestos Could Have Saved WTC Lives | Fox News

Seems asbestos was used only on the lower levels.

http://www.local2507.com/wtc/911report_by_MARF.pdf
"It is known that a large amount of asbestos was used to insulate the lower floors of the Twin Towers

Other links if you search will indicate that the while asbestos was found in the dust, the studies indicate the fireproofing was turned into dust during the collapse.

got pics of the steel with asbestos coating?



what fire?

The sprinklers were working in wtc2

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

Reading comprehension still fails you. Lets do this one step at a time since more than that will confuse you. Where specifically was the measurement taken from Koko?

how does the where change whether it freefell?

So you think that taking a measurement in a different place will disprove that a freefall occurred on a steel building which is impossible without explosives.

 

[mike2810]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

got pics of the steel with asbestos coating?


what fire?

The sprinklers were working in wtc2

Are you claiming no fires?

The use of asbestos ceased in the 1970s
In 1971, New York City banned the use of asbestos in spray fireproofing

Asbestos Could Have Saved WTC Lives | Fox News

 

[Mark F]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

how does the where change whether it freefell?

So you think that taking a measurement in a different place will disprove that a freefall occurred on a steel building which is impossible without explosives.

Can you answer a simple question without evading? It makes all the difference in the world which you will find out if you could just ANSWER THE FREAKIN QUESTION.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

Are you claiming no fires?

The use of asbestos ceased in the 1970s
In 1971, New York City banned the use of asbestos in spray fireproofing

Asbestos Could Have Saved WTC Lives | Fox News

so the alternative fireproofing was no good? rather than use it they used none is that what you are selling?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

Can you answer a simple question without evading? It makes all the difference in the world which you will find out if you could just ANSWER THE FREAKIN QUESTION.

sure as soon as I see a question that is NOT ILLframed.

 

[mike2810]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

so the alternative fireproofing was no good? rather than use it they used none is that what you are selling?

Did you read the articles?

Your question was basically where did the asbestos go. I provided information about asbestos at the wtc.

 

[Mark F]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

sure as soon as I see a question that is NOT ILLframed.

So you don't want to answer a simple question about where the measurement was taken but rather prefer move the goalposts again. Right. By that I presume you concede the argument and therefore agree free-fall of the building did not occur and is irrelevant in any case.

Next.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

So you don't want to answer a simple question about where the measurement was taken but rather prefer move the goalposts again. Right. By that I presume you concede the argument and therefore agree free-fall of the building did not occur and is irrelevant in any case.

Next.

I said I will respond when you make an adequate argument to respond to. Your question is ILLframed and its so poor no one can know what the hell your problem is. So restate it in a manner that is understandable.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

Did you read the articles?

Your question was basically where did the asbestos go. I provided information about asbestos at the wtc.

Well my response assumes any insulation material. So where did the insulation material go?

 

[Sunzi]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

I guess you don't need to be able to write English either.

What you are trying to write operates on the ASSUMPTION that what you believe is TRUE. Therefore you don't need correct data on that event either. Circular logic, like believing in the Bible.

psik

You believe in CD with no evidence, and the best you got is I can't write English either. You can figure out I write poorly, but 911 has you in a tailspin.

We have on truther above exposing his ignorance on models, he has no clue what models are and posts the NIST model, gets excited it does not look like WTC7 collapse. He can't do engineering, I can't write is all you can figure out. You are stuck not knowing how heavy the WTC was. You have no clue that point does not mean anything. The WTC collapsed due to fire, a gravity collapse. And you can't estimate the weight, yet you posted someone who did, and I did, you can't. I can't write, you can't do engineering. So?

 

[Sadling]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

You believe in CD with no evidence, and the best you got is I can't write English either.

I'm just curious, but how can evidence of explosives be offered when the material that should have been tested for explosive residue was removed before any such testing could be done?

 

[mike2810]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

Well my response assumes any insulation material. So where did the insulation material go?

Where do you think it went?

Two can play the 20 question game.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

Where do you think it went?

Two can play the 20 question game.

yep thats the debunkers credo!

Why would I guess when the investigation I am sure would have explained it right.

I mean since debunkers wish everyone to think they are so thorough in their understanding and have the market cornered on answers why dont you explain it to us.

 

[mike2810]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

yep thats the debunkers credo!

Why would I guess when the investigation I am sure would have explained it right.

I mean since debunkers wish everyone to think they are so thorough in their understanding and have the market cornered on answers why dont you explain it to us.

Lay out the alternative explanation.
Provide a list of some of the sources you use.

Help us out. explain how the towers fell.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

I'm just curious, but how can evidence of explosives be offered when the material that should have been tested for explosive residue was removed before any such testing could be done?

things including people were blown to hell both before and after the impact.

Oh wait thats right, only debunker witnesses count all others are suffering from chaos of the day syndrome. (according to debunkers). of course

 

[mike2810]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

things including people were blown to hell both before and after the impact.

Oh wait thats right, only debunker witnesses count all others are suffering from chaos of the day syndrome. (according to debunkers). of course

what evidence and links to a source you have for this. Focus on the before impact.

Is it your position that CD started before impact of the planes?

Seems it is by your statement "things including people were blown to hell both before ,,,,"

Please show you evidence of explosions prior to impact.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

You believe in CD with no evidence, and the best you got is I can't write English either. You can figure out I write poorly, but 911 has you in a tailspin.

We have on truther above exposing his ignorance on models, he has no clue what models are and posts the NIST model, gets excited it does not look like WTC7 collapse. He can't do engineering, I can't write is all you can figure out. You are stuck not knowing how heavy the WTC was. You have no clue that point does not mean anything. The WTC collapsed due to fire, a gravity collapse. And you can't estimate the weight, yet you posted someone who did, and I did, you can't. I can't write, you can't do engineering. So?

However his bulseye rebuttals sure plant the axe in the center of debunkers foreheads....

so if you kick the leg out of a chair, say the right front while you are sitting on it what happens? can you cipher an answer for that? I know its tough but take a guess if nothing else.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: "Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis

what evidence and links to a source you have for this. Focus on the before impact.

Is it your position that CD started before impact of the planes?

Seems it is by your statement "things including people were blown to hell both before ,,,,"

Please show you evidence of explosions prior to impact.

google is your friend

https://www.google.com/search?q=peo...ns+911&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=vid

yeh prep did, before or immediately after. Its a matter of record, google is your friend.






not that there is one debunker here who knows what an explosion looks like.