Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Ace Acme

(1,464 posts)
23. It's not my fault I don't understand what you say
Wed Oct 30, 2013, 02:03 PM
Oct 2013

Last edited Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:52 AM - Edit history (2)

You don't make any sense because you don't know what you're talking about.

We are not discussing NIST's model of collapse initiation and propagation. We are discussing the fact that NIST's model bears no resemblance to reality, because it shows the perimeter structure folding up like a wet paper bag and we can see in the videos that it doesn't do that.

If you would bother to look at the 30-second video of the sims, you would see that the east wall starts folding up like a wet paper bag 3 seconds before the building starts "going down".

The 1935 demo took 1500 pounds of thermite. So what? Jonathan Cole can cut a substantial steel girder with 2 pounds of scientifically-formulated sulfur-enhanced thermite.

Why couldn't thermite achieve sudden onset? You're claiming that fires can achieve sudden onset through a process of heating the steel. Why can't thermite achieve sudden onset through the same process?

There is a rational reason for sudden onset: to maintain control. If you want to bring a building down symmetrically, you have to weaken the columns symmetrically, and that means sudden onset. If you had gradual weakening you would run the risk of one part starting to collapse before another, and that could cause chaotic happenings.



Most structural drawings show H-beams for the columns, because that's what they were. Most of them eliminate the flange plates on Column 79, even though we know they were there (See NCSTAR 1-9 Fig. 2-23)

NIST says that on lower stories "many of the column sizes were increased through use of built-up shapes" and provides pictures of welded on flange plates and web plates that make the columns into hollow boxes.

Unfortunately, NIST does not tell us how many of the column sizes were increased.





Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

"Where are you now, we need you brother," says the YouTube poster William Seger Jul 2013 #1
How do you explain the Thermite? damnedifIknow Jul 2013 #2
No need to explain things that didn't happen William Seger Jul 2013 #3
I hate to chastise you, but... tomk52 Aug 2013 #4
Who has replicated Dr. Millette's findings? And what peer-reviewed journal has published them? Ace Acme Oct 2013 #8
I guess we don't need all the demolition experts then. ConcernedCanuk Aug 2013 #5
Not if the demolition experts want to remain employed: cpwm17 Aug 2013 #6
"the building will come straight down" William Seger Aug 2013 #7
WTC7 came straight down in terms of its E and W walls remaining plumb. Ace Acme Oct 2013 #9
Pointless point William Seger Oct 2013 #10
Point: it came straight down absolutely for most of its fall. Ace Acme Oct 2013 #11
Hmm, good point -- except for being wrong William Seger Oct 2013 #12
The NIST simulations bore no resemblance to reality Ace Acme Oct 2013 #13
The NIST simulation William Seger Oct 2013 #14
Oh brother Ace Acme Oct 2013 #15
Oh brother, read it again: The CURTAIN WALL panels are not in the model William Seger Oct 2013 #16
Are you claiming that the perimeter columns fell down with the rest of the structure Ace Acme Oct 2013 #17
Umm, no William Seger Oct 2013 #18
What you expect is not what NIST's models show Ace Acme Oct 2013 #19
You are pointlessly running around in circles William Seger Oct 2013 #20
You seem to be obfuscating Ace Acme Oct 2013 #21
Obfuscating? You seem to not understand much of what I say William Seger Oct 2013 #22
It's not my fault I don't understand what you say Ace Acme Oct 2013 #23
I can explain it to you; I can't understand it for you William Seger Oct 2013 #24
You're going in circles Ace Acme Oct 2013 #25
Here we go round the Mulberry bush William Seger Nov 2013 #27
You believe that the perimeter columns remain standing when the interior of the building fell down. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #30
Another pointless point William Seger Nov 2013 #31
The NIST simulations bore no resemblance to reality Ace Acme Nov 2013 #32
Your "wet paper bag" is completely pointless William Seger Nov 2013 #34
It's not my "wet paper bag"; it's NIST's "wet paper bag" Ace Acme Nov 2013 #35
"... it shows that NIST's computer models are completely off the beam." William Seger Nov 2013 #36
The models bear no resemblance to reality. Nor do your claims. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #37
I've watched that many times, and what I see... William Seger Nov 2013 #38
What you "see" in the video is your own fantasy about an explanation Ace Acme Nov 2013 #39
You claim "no resemblance" but then just ignore a list of resemblances William Seger Nov 2013 #40
The behavior of the building exterior in the sim bears no resemblance to reality. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #41
Why would Saddam go through the trouble and risk of planting explosives in buildings greyl Oct 2013 #26
Who said Saddam did anything at all? Ace Acme Nov 2013 #28
Members of Bush Gang Swore Under Oath Saddam Was Behind 9/11 greyl Nov 2013 #29
Did they swear up and down that Saddam planted explosives in the the towers? nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #33
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»This message was self-del...»Reply #23