QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 20 2006, 12:09 PM)
Look at the top of that page...
Does it say 'Executive Summary'
Why, yes it does.
It comes from the Final Report Draft. The same words are in the Final Document...in numerous places.
There is no way around it adoucette. This is an outright lie on the part of NIST. They are caught dead-to-rights, in light of numerous other federal documents and studies commissioned by the government to study this steel from WTC 7.
Just another 'coincidence'.
We can hardly wait for the final report on WTC 7... although metamars may be right, and it may just disappear into the sunset (like the WTC 7 steel has done).
A search of the FINAL NCSTAR 1-3C document does not find the phrase "No Steel" anywhere,
So if you don't mind please provide a SPECIFIC reference to one of the MANY locations in the FINAL document where this prase (or one that means the same thing but uses different words) occurs.
Arthur
Does it say 'Executive Summary'
Why, yes it does.
It comes from the Final Report Draft. The same words are in the Final Document...in numerous places.
There is no way around it adoucette. This is an outright lie on the part of NIST. They are caught dead-to-rights, in light of numerous other federal documents and studies commissioned by the government to study this steel from WTC 7.
Just another 'coincidence'.
We can hardly wait for the final report on WTC 7... although metamars may be right, and it may just disappear into the sunset (like the WTC 7 steel has done).
A search of the FINAL NCSTAR 1-3C document does not find the phrase "No Steel" anywhere,
So if you don't mind please provide a SPECIFIC reference to one of the MANY locations in the FINAL document where this prase (or one that means the same thing but uses different words) occurs.
Arthur
Yeah, they should have held onto the steel until every single piece was studied by every single nut in the world. Now well never know if space aliens blasted building 7 with thier newtron ray. 
QUOTE (Guest_Sensable+Jan 20 2006, 12:54 PM)
Yeah, they should have held onto the steel until every single piece was studied by every single nut in the world. Now well never know if space aliens blasted building 7 with thier newtron ray.
Don't you know that it was a crime scene and they were "tampering with evidence"
Can't you see the guys from CSI NY dusting 400,000 tons of steel for fingerprints?
Its like the lie Foxx has been telling that NIST examined 80% of the steel from the WTC towers.
He made that BS up but he's been selling it like its manna from heaven.
Only in his delusions.
Arthur
Don't you know that it was a crime scene and they were "tampering with evidence"
Can't you see the guys from CSI NY dusting 400,000 tons of steel for fingerprints?
Its like the lie Foxx has been telling that NIST examined 80% of the steel from the WTC towers.
He made that BS up but he's been selling it like its manna from heaven.
Only in his delusions.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 20 2006, 06:07 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_Sensable+Jan 20 2006, 12:54 PM)
Yeah, they should have held onto the steel until every single piece was studied by every single nut in the world. Now well never know if space aliens blasted building 7 with thier newtron ray.
Don't you know that it was a crime scene and they were "tampering with evidence"
Can't you see the guys from CSI NY dusting 400,000 tons of steel for fingerprints?
Its like the lie Foxx has been telling that NIST examined 80% of the steel from the WTC towers.
He made that BS up but he's been selling it like its manna from heaven.
Only in his delusions.
Arthur
80%? Was this before of after they sold the steel to china.
Don't you know that it was a crime scene and they were "tampering with evidence"
Can't you see the guys from CSI NY dusting 400,000 tons of steel for fingerprints?
Its like the lie Foxx has been telling that NIST examined 80% of the steel from the WTC towers.
He made that BS up but he's been selling it like its manna from heaven.
Only in his delusions.
Arthur
80%? Was this before of after they sold the steel to china.
did you know a truck driver was fired? a truck driver who was hauling some of the 'scrap' metal(actually 'evidence' to the largest mass murder on american soil since the genocide of north american indians) from the towers? each truck had a GPS locator on it and a strict schedule. apparently this truck driver stopped for a coffee or lunch or something, and was fired on the spot .
strange way to treat 'scrap'.
of course, it's completely normal to fire guys for having a coffe, and completely normal to treat 'scrap' metal like it's nuclear waste.
strange way to treat 'scrap'.
of course, it's completely normal to fire guys for having a coffe, and completely normal to treat 'scrap' metal like it's nuclear waste.
Yeah, the following is quite instructive:
QUOTE (Foxx+)
The towers had 400,000 tons of steel. And, "more than 350,000 tons of steel have been extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it is cut up for recycling." (from NIST report Appendix D, page 1 of pdf file - 1st link above)
EXCEPT the ACTUAL line from the report was:
Of the estimated 1.5 million tons of WTC concrete, steel, and other debris, more than 350,000 tons of steel have been extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it is cut up for recycling.
Notice how we went from 1.5 million tons of WTC SITE material to claiming that the 350,000 lbs of steel was JUST for the TOWERS.
Using this linquistic slight of hand Foxx makes this INVALID extrapolation:
When IN FACT he KNEW that the NIST report stated that the search of the steel was in fact mainly a VOLUNTEER effort performed BEFORE NIST got involved.
It turns out it was a relatively MODEST effort:
As of March 15, 2002, a total of 131 engineer visits had been made to these yards on 57 separate days. An engineer visit typically ranged from a few hours to an entire day at a salvage yard.
So now Foxx wants you to believe that in less than 131 man days 350,000 tons of steel were looked at.
ALL PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KNOW THE MAGNITUDE OF A LIAR FOXX IS NEED TO LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING PDF (APPEND. D.) THE PHOTOS WILL IMMEDIATELY SHOW THIS. YOU CAN'T POST PICTURES FROM A PDF SO I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO TAKE A SHORT FIELD TRIP TO FOXX'S FIELD OF DREAMS.
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf
(Appendix D (pages 2, 3 of the pdf file)...
After this little excursion then see how Foxx manages to totally mangle what happened at these yards:
So again, NIST summarizes....
QUOTE
"From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure"
When IN FACT he KNEW that the NIST report stated that the search of the steel was in fact mainly a VOLUNTEER effort performed BEFORE NIST got involved.
It turns out it was a relatively MODEST effort:
As of March 15, 2002, a total of 131 engineer visits had been made to these yards on 57 separate days. An engineer visit typically ranged from a few hours to an entire day at a salvage yard.
So now Foxx wants you to believe that in less than 131 man days 350,000 tons of steel were looked at.
ALL PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KNOW THE MAGNITUDE OF A LIAR FOXX IS NEED TO LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING PDF (APPEND. D.) THE PHOTOS WILL IMMEDIATELY SHOW THIS. YOU CAN'T POST PICTURES FROM A PDF SO I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO TAKE A SHORT FIELD TRIP TO FOXX'S FIELD OF DREAMS.
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf
(Appendix D (pages 2, 3 of the pdf file)...
After this little excursion then see how Foxx manages to totally mangle what happened at these yards:
So again, NIST summarizes....
QUOTE
"From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure"
In light of the fact over 80% of the steel was available for inspection, and was nearly all rejected for analysis, they could have stated... "Over 80% of the total steel was sifted through, and of the 1/4 to 1/2% deemed worthy of recovering, no conclusive evidence was found that pre-collapse fires were severe enough...."
I think that inspecting over 80% of the steel makes it more like "no evidence was found" than "no conclusive evidence was found"
EXCEPT the ACTUAL line from the report was:
Of the estimated 1.5 million tons of WTC concrete, steel, and other debris, more than 350,000 tons of steel have been extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it is cut up for recycling.
Notice how we went from 1.5 million tons of WTC SITE material to claiming that the 350,000 lbs of steel was JUST for the TOWERS.
Using this linquistic slight of hand Foxx makes this INVALID extrapolation:
QUOTE
So they were able to sift through over 80% of the steel at the yards, found four core columns worthy of analysis, three of them from the impact / fire areas, and none of them exposed to fires of over 250C.
When IN FACT he KNEW that the NIST report stated that the search of the steel was in fact mainly a VOLUNTEER effort performed BEFORE NIST got involved.
It turns out it was a relatively MODEST effort:
As of March 15, 2002, a total of 131 engineer visits had been made to these yards on 57 separate days. An engineer visit typically ranged from a few hours to an entire day at a salvage yard.
So now Foxx wants you to believe that in less than 131 man days 350,000 tons of steel were looked at.
ALL PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KNOW THE MAGNITUDE OF A LIAR FOXX IS NEED TO LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING PDF (APPEND. D.) THE PHOTOS WILL IMMEDIATELY SHOW THIS. YOU CAN'T POST PICTURES FROM A PDF SO I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO TAKE A SHORT FIELD TRIP TO FOXX'S FIELD OF DREAMS.
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf
(Appendix D (pages 2, 3 of the pdf file)...
After this little excursion then see how Foxx manages to totally mangle what happened at these yards:
So again, NIST summarizes....
QUOTE
"From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So they were able to sift through over 80% of the steel at the yards, found four core columns worthy of analysis, three of them from the impact / fire areas, and none of them exposed to fires of over 250C. |
When IN FACT he KNEW that the NIST report stated that the search of the steel was in fact mainly a VOLUNTEER effort performed BEFORE NIST got involved.
It turns out it was a relatively MODEST effort:
As of March 15, 2002, a total of 131 engineer visits had been made to these yards on 57 separate days. An engineer visit typically ranged from a few hours to an entire day at a salvage yard.
So now Foxx wants you to believe that in less than 131 man days 350,000 tons of steel were looked at.
ALL PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KNOW THE MAGNITUDE OF A LIAR FOXX IS NEED TO LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING PDF (APPEND. D.) THE PHOTOS WILL IMMEDIATELY SHOW THIS. YOU CAN'T POST PICTURES FROM A PDF SO I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO TAKE A SHORT FIELD TRIP TO FOXX'S FIELD OF DREAMS.
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf
(Appendix D (pages 2, 3 of the pdf file)...
After this little excursion then see how Foxx manages to totally mangle what happened at these yards:
So again, NIST summarizes....
QUOTE
"From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure"
In light of the fact over 80% of the steel was available for inspection, and was nearly all rejected for analysis, they could have stated... "Over 80% of the total steel was sifted through, and of the 1/4 to 1/2% deemed worthy of recovering, no conclusive evidence was found that pre-collapse fires were severe enough...."
I think that inspecting over 80% of the steel makes it more like "no evidence was found" than "no conclusive evidence was found"
QUOTE (newton+Jan 20 2006, 04:00 PM)
did you know a truck driver was fired? a truck driver who was hauling some of the 'scrap' metal(actually 'evidence' to the largest mass murder on american soil since the genocide of north american indians) from the towers? each truck had a GPS locator on it and a strict schedule. apparently this truck driver stopped for a coffee or lunch or something, and was fired on the spot .
strange way to treat 'scrap'.
of course, it's completely normal to fire guys for having a coffe, and completely normal to treat 'scrap' metal like it's nuclear waste.
Sounds like he was fired by the Scrap company for goofing off on the job.
And it wasn't evidence of any crime.
Arthur
strange way to treat 'scrap'.
of course, it's completely normal to fire guys for having a coffe, and completely normal to treat 'scrap' metal like it's nuclear waste.
Sounds like he was fired by the Scrap company for goofing off on the job.
And it wasn't evidence of any crime.
Arthur
you know, people have a simple car accident where someone gets killed, and they measure everything like skid marks and whatnot.
and here, the biggest crime in us history, and there is some kind of half assed effort to find out what happened to these buildings. they steal away all the steel under strict security and secrecy, like everything else to do with 911, ....strict security and secrecy and withholding and destruction of evidence.
tesitimony is stricken from the 911 ommission if it doesn't jive with the lie.
it's cool. no worries.
and here, the biggest crime in us history, and there is some kind of half assed effort to find out what happened to these buildings. they steal away all the steel under strict security and secrecy, like everything else to do with 911, ....strict security and secrecy and withholding and destruction of evidence.
tesitimony is stricken from the 911 ommission if it doesn't jive with the lie.
it's cool. no worries.
The problem is you are under the delusion that the steel held any clue as to the perpetrators of the crime.
It didn't.
But as these pictures show, EVERY LITTLE PART OF THAT LANDFILL was SORTED BY HAND FOR CLUES.
THE SEARCH
Less than 18 hours after the attacks, the first truckload of debris unloaded at the Fresh Kills landfill. Over the next 10 months, as many as 9,000 tons a day were carefully sifted for clues and human remains.
How more detailed could you get?
Arthur
It didn't.
But as these pictures show, EVERY LITTLE PART OF THAT LANDFILL was SORTED BY HAND FOR CLUES.
THE SEARCH
Less than 18 hours after the attacks, the first truckload of debris unloaded at the Fresh Kills landfill. Over the next 10 months, as many as 9,000 tons a day were carefully sifted for clues and human remains.
How more detailed could you get?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 20 2006, 08:23 PM)
The problem is you are under the delusion that the steel held any clue as to the perpetrators of the crime.
It didn't.
But as these pictures show, EVERY LITTLE PART OF THAT LANDFILL was SORTED BY HAND FOR CLUES.
THE SEARCH
Less than 18 hours after the attacks, the first truckload of debris unloaded at the Fresh Kills landfill. Over the next 10 months, as many as 9,000 tons a day were carefully sifted for clues and human remains.
How more detailed could you get?
Arthur
How much more obfuscatory can YOU get?
"Landfill" - they were examining landfill, not steel, which was criminally being removed under strict security therefore making scientific investigation problematical.
A mass murder scene treated with the same contempt the perpatrators showed for the victims before AND AFTER the crime.
PLEASE FORWARD INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CONFERENCDE AS WIDELY AS POSSIBLE
Thanks,
9/11 Environmental Action
=====
I am writing all of you to ask you forward this e-mail and get the word out.
It is sad that individuals keep on suffering and dying do to their exposure at "GROUND ZERO", FRESH KILL, ETC. on September 11th, 2001. --
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.ph...order=0&thold=0
It didn't.
But as these pictures show, EVERY LITTLE PART OF THAT LANDFILL was SORTED BY HAND FOR CLUES.
THE SEARCH
Less than 18 hours after the attacks, the first truckload of debris unloaded at the Fresh Kills landfill. Over the next 10 months, as many as 9,000 tons a day were carefully sifted for clues and human remains.
How more detailed could you get?
Arthur
How much more obfuscatory can YOU get?
"Landfill" - they were examining landfill, not steel, which was criminally being removed under strict security therefore making scientific investigation problematical.
A mass murder scene treated with the same contempt the perpatrators showed for the victims before AND AFTER the crime.
PLEASE FORWARD INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CONFERENCDE AS WIDELY AS POSSIBLE
Thanks,
9/11 Environmental Action
=====
I am writing all of you to ask you forward this e-mail and get the word out.
It is sad that individuals keep on suffering and dying do to their exposure at "GROUND ZERO", FRESH KILL, ETC. on September 11th, 2001. --
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.ph...order=0&thold=0
QUOTE (brian+Jan 20 2006, 05:06 PM)
How much more obfuscatory can YOU get?
"Landfill" - they were examining landfill, not steel, which was criminally being removed under strict security therefore making scientific investigation problematical.
A mass murder scene treated with the same contempt the perpatrators showed for the victims before AND AFTER the crime.
They were doing the examination AT the landfill.
The Steel was first separated out.
IN WHAT BIZARRE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW DO YOU FIND WHAT WAS GOING ON CRIMINAL?
Maybe this picture will help:
This whole process was under the control and supervision of he NYPD.
Do you think this should have all been done at the WTC site, because if so it would have taken forever.
Arthur
"Landfill" - they were examining landfill, not steel, which was criminally being removed under strict security therefore making scientific investigation problematical.
A mass murder scene treated with the same contempt the perpatrators showed for the victims before AND AFTER the crime.
They were doing the examination AT the landfill.
The Steel was first separated out.
IN WHAT BIZARRE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW DO YOU FIND WHAT WAS GOING ON CRIMINAL?
Maybe this picture will help:
This whole process was under the control and supervision of he NYPD.
Do you think this should have all been done at the WTC site, because if so it would have taken forever.
Arthur
Toward New Criminal Investigations into the Events of September 11
PART II.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FACTUAL MATTERS
GIVING RISE TO SUSPICIONS OF CRIMINAL ACTS
BY PERPETRATORS OTHER
THAN 19 MIDDLE EASTERN HIJACKERS
http://www.justicefor911.org/Part_II_Evidence_111904.php
PART II.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FACTUAL MATTERS
GIVING RISE TO SUSPICIONS OF CRIMINAL ACTS
BY PERPETRATORS OTHER
THAN 19 MIDDLE EASTERN HIJACKERS
http://www.justicefor911.org/Part_II_Evidence_111904.php
QUOTE (brian+Jan 20 2006, 09:44 PM)
Toward New Criminal Investigations into the Events of September 11
PART II.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FACTUAL MATTERS
GIVING RISE TO SUSPICIONS OF CRIMINAL ACTS
BY PERPETRATORS OTHER
THAN 19 MIDDLE EASTERN HIJACKERS
http://www.justicefor911.org/Part_II_Evidence_111904.php
I guess you must think UFO's exist since they have petitions for those as well...
PART II.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FACTUAL MATTERS
GIVING RISE TO SUSPICIONS OF CRIMINAL ACTS
BY PERPETRATORS OTHER
THAN 19 MIDDLE EASTERN HIJACKERS
http://www.justicefor911.org/Part_II_Evidence_111904.php
I guess you must think UFO's exist since they have petitions for those as well...
Besides asking for money they post this:
PLEASE JOIN THE 9062 CITIZENS WHO HAVE SIGNED THE PETITION OF SOLIDARITY
The petition has been out for more than a year and they have managed to get less then 1/500 th of one percent of the US voting age population to sign it.
Not exactly a groundswell of support for this LUNACY now is it?
Arthur
PLEASE JOIN THE 9062 CITIZENS WHO HAVE SIGNED THE PETITION OF SOLIDARITY
The petition has been out for more than a year and they have managed to get less then 1/500 th of one percent of the US voting age population to sign it.
Not exactly a groundswell of support for this LUNACY now is it?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 20 2006, 10:28 PM)
Besides asking for money they post this:
PLEASE JOIN THE 9062 CITIZENS WHO HAVE SIGNED THE PETITION OF SOLIDARITY
The petition has been out for more than a year and they have managed to get less then 1/500 th of one percent of the US voting age population to sign it.
Not exactly a groundswell of support for this LUNACY now is it?
Arthur
Arthur,
I am confident that you actually understand truth is not a popularity contest so this observation should not carry as much weight as you seem to suggest.
Lon
PLEASE JOIN THE 9062 CITIZENS WHO HAVE SIGNED THE PETITION OF SOLIDARITY
The petition has been out for more than a year and they have managed to get less then 1/500 th of one percent of the US voting age population to sign it.
Not exactly a groundswell of support for this LUNACY now is it?
Arthur
Arthur,
I am confident that you actually understand truth is not a popularity contest so this observation should not carry as much weight as you seem to suggest.
Lon
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Jan 20 2006, 11:34 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 20 2006, 10:28 PM)
Besides asking for money they post this:
PLEASE JOIN THE 9062 CITIZENS WHO HAVE SIGNED THE PETITION OF SOLIDARITY
The petition has been out for more than a year and they have managed to get less then 1/500 th of one percent of the US voting age population to sign it.
Not exactly a groundswell of support for this LUNACY now is it?
Arthur
Arthur,
I am confident that you actually understand truth is not a popularity contest so this observation should not carry as much weight as you seem to suggest.
Lon
Let me see if I understand this... brian posts a petition which can only mean he thinks there is truth behind it because people are signing it... Arthur points out that not many are signing it yet HES the one whos preaching there is truth in numbers...
OHHH the irony never ends...
PLEASE JOIN THE 9062 CITIZENS WHO HAVE SIGNED THE PETITION OF SOLIDARITY
The petition has been out for more than a year and they have managed to get less then 1/500 th of one percent of the US voting age population to sign it.
Not exactly a groundswell of support for this LUNACY now is it?
Arthur
Arthur,
I am confident that you actually understand truth is not a popularity contest so this observation should not carry as much weight as you seem to suggest.
Lon
Let me see if I understand this... brian posts a petition which can only mean he thinks there is truth behind it because people are signing it... Arthur points out that not many are signing it yet HES the one whos preaching there is truth in numbers...
OHHH the irony never ends...
Ok, at one point in this thread the supporters of CD claim that a Zogby Poll indicated that over 60% of NYrs believed the US Govt LIHOP.
Now that's a LOT of people.
It was argued by the Non CDrs that the poll was worded such that people would agree with it even if they didn't believe the govt LIHOP
Now here you have a petition that spells out a LIHOP scenario and offers what it considers to be evidence of same and after one year can't break 10,000 sigs.
Think it makes our point.
Arthur
Now that's a LOT of people.
It was argued by the Non CDrs that the poll was worded such that people would agree with it even if they didn't believe the govt LIHOP
Now here you have a petition that spells out a LIHOP scenario and offers what it considers to be evidence of same and after one year can't break 10,000 sigs.
Think it makes our point.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 20 2006, 03:39 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 20 2006, 12:58 PM)
QUOTE (bolt+Jan 20 2006, 03:28 AM)
The official story advocates should try to explain this.......
On Sept.6, 2001, a two week heightened security alert at the WTC is lifted and bomb-sniffing dogs there were abruptly removed and officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against "aerial attacks" by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center.
Source: Newsday (09/12/01)
http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhat...0,6794009.story
The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.
Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.
"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."
Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center.
Simple, it means that CD would be impossible because the towers were filled with bomb smelling dogs and extra security patrols almost up to the day the towers were hit leaving not nearly enough time to set all the charges a CD of both towers would take.
Arthur
I doubt that the buildings could have been 'wired' in a day or even a week. This presetting operation could have taken months (or even years).
However, just add the curious removal of bomb-smelling dogs to the list of unexplained circumstances. I've never heard an explaination from the authorities regarding this removal of a security precaution. Sounds a little suspicious to me, as I can't see a valid reason for it, and then .... so coincidentally the buildings explode in demolition fashion.
Just more things which make you go ... hmmmm ?
Of course, a blind (or sleeping) person probably wouldn't see anything suspicious in this at all.
It has been shown repeatedly in this thread, that blind and sleeping persons do not see anything suspicious in ANY of the thousands of anomalies that day which don't fit their gravity-driven collapse theory... merely thousands of coincidences.
"Nothing to see here folks, move along now, Go home and turn on Jerry Springer or the next episode of Survivor."
Oh, come on Foxx!!!
You readily admit that any operation to wire in the amount of explosives that you say must have been there would have taken months at least and then state that it is curious that the bomb sniffing dogs were taken away a few days before the attacks.
IF there were bombs planted in the towers then the bomb sniffing dogs had plenty of time to find them.
IF the dogs were removed prior to explosives being installed then it would have to have been done in a few days.
IF the dogs were a false operation then there was no reason to remove them at all, in fact having a few on site when the planes hit would be perfect cover.
A program of having bomb sniffing dogs in the WTC would have been costly and the publicity would have been bad. They were destined to be removed. The very fact that they were there at all puts the kibosh on the theory that bombs were installed in the buildings.(or at the very least makes it oh so much more difficult)
On Sept.6, 2001, a two week heightened security alert at the WTC is lifted and bomb-sniffing dogs there were abruptly removed and officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against "aerial attacks" by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center.
Source: Newsday (09/12/01)
http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhat...0,6794009.story
The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.
Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.
"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."
Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center.
Simple, it means that CD would be impossible because the towers were filled with bomb smelling dogs and extra security patrols almost up to the day the towers were hit leaving not nearly enough time to set all the charges a CD of both towers would take.
Arthur
I doubt that the buildings could have been 'wired' in a day or even a week. This presetting operation could have taken months (or even years).
However, just add the curious removal of bomb-smelling dogs to the list of unexplained circumstances. I've never heard an explaination from the authorities regarding this removal of a security precaution. Sounds a little suspicious to me, as I can't see a valid reason for it, and then .... so coincidentally the buildings explode in demolition fashion.
Just more things which make you go ... hmmmm ?
Of course, a blind (or sleeping) person probably wouldn't see anything suspicious in this at all.
It has been shown repeatedly in this thread, that blind and sleeping persons do not see anything suspicious in ANY of the thousands of anomalies that day which don't fit their gravity-driven collapse theory... merely thousands of coincidences.
"Nothing to see here folks, move along now, Go home and turn on Jerry Springer or the next episode of Survivor."
Oh, come on Foxx!!!
You readily admit that any operation to wire in the amount of explosives that you say must have been there would have taken months at least and then state that it is curious that the bomb sniffing dogs were taken away a few days before the attacks.
IF there were bombs planted in the towers then the bomb sniffing dogs had plenty of time to find them.
IF the dogs were removed prior to explosives being installed then it would have to have been done in a few days.
IF the dogs were a false operation then there was no reason to remove them at all, in fact having a few on site when the planes hit would be perfect cover.
A program of having bomb sniffing dogs in the WTC would have been costly and the publicity would have been bad. They were destined to be removed. The very fact that they were there at all puts the kibosh on the theory that bombs were installed in the buildings.(or at the very least makes it oh so much more difficult)
Also tricky to bring in those tons and tons of thermite and you know the WTC guards might be a little more suspicious after the previous bombing of large trucks parked in the garage for weeks.
Arthur
Arthur
Well I thought this was a simple observation on which we could all easily concur. The truth about any given proposition could be held by a minority . That has especially seemed to be the case in history with those things that run counter to our everyday intuition. The list of such in science is quite long. In that light, anyone citing an opinion poll to bolster their position is in actual fact probably not doing themselves that much good. That is not an argument for or against either side of this discussion.
Lon
Lon
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 20 2006, 07:05 AM)
I suspect 'popes' would be opposed to such open discussions in the scientific community (for one reason or another).
To be quite honest, I'm getting a little tired of sophistry from 'cable guys' and obfuscations from 'computer programmers', and would like to see this discussion moved to the next level.
Please keep me advised of this new 'proposed' forum.
Thanks
I will definitely post info when I get it.
The pros will have to take over my modest efforts. New job, 4 hours of commuting, new stuff to learn on weekends....
Anyway, I'm getting tired of beating up the popes. There's something almost, well, SACRILEGIOUS about it!
To be quite honest, I'm getting a little tired of sophistry from 'cable guys' and obfuscations from 'computer programmers', and would like to see this discussion moved to the next level.
Please keep me advised of this new 'proposed' forum.
Thanks
I will definitely post info when I get it.
The pros will have to take over my modest efforts. New job, 4 hours of commuting, new stuff to learn on weekends....
Anyway, I'm getting tired of beating up the popes. There's something almost, well, SACRILEGIOUS about it!
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Jan 20 2006, 11:57 PM)
Well I thought this was a simple observation on which we could all easily concur. The truth about any given proposition could be held by a minority . That has especially seemed to be the case in history with those things that run counter to our everyday intuition. The list of such in science is quite long. In that light, anyone citing an opinion poll to bolster their position is in actual fact probably not doing themselves that much good. That is not an argument for or against either side of this discussion.
Lon
A fact which the non-CT side have been saying all along. We aren't the ones bringing up petitions and polls. In fact I pointed out a large number of americans thought Saddam had WMD yet he didn't.
A petition only suggest that enough people think [something] should be done about [some issue]. In that respect it's democracy. Like the 500,000 signatures to investigate the use of the WMD intelligence. They have 500,000 sigs and 52 congressmen and still can't get an investigation. This is the work we should be doing.
Lon
A fact which the non-CT side have been saying all along. We aren't the ones bringing up petitions and polls. In fact I pointed out a large number of americans thought Saddam had WMD yet he didn't.
A petition only suggest that enough people think [something] should be done about [some issue]. In that respect it's democracy. Like the 500,000 signatures to investigate the use of the WMD intelligence. They have 500,000 sigs and 52 congressmen and still can't get an investigation. This is the work we should be doing.
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 20 2006, 04:05 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 20 2006, 05:30 AM)
Not a single one has done so.
Wrong again...
A former US intelligence official who served under the Bush administration in the build-up to the Iraq war accused the White House yesterday of lying about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
The claims came as the Bush administration was fighting to shore up its credibility among a series of anonymous government leaks over its distortion of US intelligence to manufacture a case against Saddam.
This was the first time an administration official has put his name to specific claims. The whistleblower, Gregory Thielmann, served as a director in the state department's bureau of intelligence until his retirement in September, and had access to the classified reports which formed the basis for the US case against Saddam, spelled out by President Bush and his aides.
Mr Thielmannn said yesterday: "I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq."
He conceded that part of the problem lay with US intelligence, but added: "Most of it lies with the way senior officials misused the information they were provided."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,995188,00.html
Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and her husband exposed the niger lie.
But few could help notice last week that the 'Bird' omitted an opinion piece distributed by the Knight-Ridder news agency by a senior Pentagon Middle East specialist, Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked in the office of Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith until her retirement in April.
"What I saw was aberrant, pervasive and contrary to good order and discipline," Kwiatkowski wrote. "If one is seeking the answers to why peculiar bits of 'intelligence' found sanctity in a presidential speech, or why the post-Saddam (Hussein) occupation (in Iraq) has been distinguished by confusion and false steps, one need look no further than the process inside the Office of the Secretary of Defence" (OSD).
Kwiatkowski went on to charge that the operations she witnessed during her tenure in Feith's office, and particularly those of an ad hoc group known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), constituted "a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large segment of the Congress".
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080803B.shtml
A Timeline of Secrecy
SEPT. 11, 2001: Terrorists attack the U.S., killing 3,000 in New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania.
FALL 2001: Sibel Edmonds is hired by the FBI as a contract translator.
FALL 2001 - MARCH 2002: Edmonds discovers and reports several problems inside the FBI, including shoddy translation work, a large backlog of untranslated documents and employees with questionable alliances.
MARCH 2002: Edmonds is fired from the FBI.
JUNE 2002: The FBI acknowledges the truth of some of Edmonds' allegations.
JUNE 2002: Senators Grassley and Leahy write the Justice Department Inspector General a letter asking specific questions about Edmonds' allegations and write that the FBI has confirmed many of her allegations in unclassified briefings. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004.
JULY 2002: Edmonds files a lawsuit to challenge the FBI's retaliatory actions.
AUGUST 2002: Senator Leahy writes Attorney General John Ashcroft a letter asking for a speedy and thorough investigation of Edmonds' case. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004. The investigation is not completed for another two years, and then is classified.
FEBRUARY 2004: Edmonds testifies to the 9-11 Commission about problems at the FBI.
MAY 2004: The Justice Department retroactively classifies Edmonds' briefings to Senators Grassley and Leahy in 2002, as well as FBI briefings regarding her allegations.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res20050126.html
During the 9/11 commission hearings you heard more than one come out hammering the administration. Like Ashcroft telling two peole in the CIA (I think it was) that he didn't want to hear about terrorist anymore. The point is you're wrong again. The FBI and CIA (Some retired, some still working) have had moral people who have blown the whistle on this administrations. Anyone who has seen F9/11 knows that.
Edmonds is not a CIA employee, and never was.
What date did Theilmann come out with his revelations? No doubt after McGovern wrote his article, which, if memory serves, was within the last year.
Wrong again...
A former US intelligence official who served under the Bush administration in the build-up to the Iraq war accused the White House yesterday of lying about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
The claims came as the Bush administration was fighting to shore up its credibility among a series of anonymous government leaks over its distortion of US intelligence to manufacture a case against Saddam.
This was the first time an administration official has put his name to specific claims. The whistleblower, Gregory Thielmann, served as a director in the state department's bureau of intelligence until his retirement in September, and had access to the classified reports which formed the basis for the US case against Saddam, spelled out by President Bush and his aides.
Mr Thielmannn said yesterday: "I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq."
He conceded that part of the problem lay with US intelligence, but added: "Most of it lies with the way senior officials misused the information they were provided."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,995188,00.html
Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and her husband exposed the niger lie.
But few could help notice last week that the 'Bird' omitted an opinion piece distributed by the Knight-Ridder news agency by a senior Pentagon Middle East specialist, Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked in the office of Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith until her retirement in April.
"What I saw was aberrant, pervasive and contrary to good order and discipline," Kwiatkowski wrote. "If one is seeking the answers to why peculiar bits of 'intelligence' found sanctity in a presidential speech, or why the post-Saddam (Hussein) occupation (in Iraq) has been distinguished by confusion and false steps, one need look no further than the process inside the Office of the Secretary of Defence" (OSD).
Kwiatkowski went on to charge that the operations she witnessed during her tenure in Feith's office, and particularly those of an ad hoc group known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), constituted "a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large segment of the Congress".
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080803B.shtml
A Timeline of Secrecy
SEPT. 11, 2001: Terrorists attack the U.S., killing 3,000 in New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania.
FALL 2001: Sibel Edmonds is hired by the FBI as a contract translator.
FALL 2001 - MARCH 2002: Edmonds discovers and reports several problems inside the FBI, including shoddy translation work, a large backlog of untranslated documents and employees with questionable alliances.
MARCH 2002: Edmonds is fired from the FBI.
JUNE 2002: The FBI acknowledges the truth of some of Edmonds' allegations.
JUNE 2002: Senators Grassley and Leahy write the Justice Department Inspector General a letter asking specific questions about Edmonds' allegations and write that the FBI has confirmed many of her allegations in unclassified briefings. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004.
JULY 2002: Edmonds files a lawsuit to challenge the FBI's retaliatory actions.
AUGUST 2002: Senator Leahy writes Attorney General John Ashcroft a letter asking for a speedy and thorough investigation of Edmonds' case. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004. The investigation is not completed for another two years, and then is classified.
FEBRUARY 2004: Edmonds testifies to the 9-11 Commission about problems at the FBI.
MAY 2004: The Justice Department retroactively classifies Edmonds' briefings to Senators Grassley and Leahy in 2002, as well as FBI briefings regarding her allegations.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res20050126.html
During the 9/11 commission hearings you heard more than one come out hammering the administration. Like Ashcroft telling two peole in the CIA (I think it was) that he didn't want to hear about terrorist anymore. The point is you're wrong again. The FBI and CIA (Some retired, some still working) have had moral people who have blown the whistle on this administrations. Anyone who has seen F9/11 knows that.
Edmonds is not a CIA employee, and never was.
What date did Theilmann come out with his revelations? No doubt after McGovern wrote his article, which, if memory serves, was within the last year.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 21 2006, 12:09 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 20 2006, 07:05 AM)
I suspect 'popes' would be opposed to such open discussions in the scientific community (for one reason or another).
To be quite honest, I'm getting a little tired of sophistry from 'cable guys' and obfuscations from 'computer programmers', and would like to see this discussion moved to the next level.
Please keep me advised of this new 'proposed' forum.
Thanks
I will definitely post info when I get it.
The pros will have to take over my modest efforts. New job, 4 hours of commuting, new stuff to learn on weekends....
Anyway, I'm getting tired of beating up the popes. There's something almost, well, SACRILEGIOUS about it!
Beating up the popes? Is that what you call your verbal masterbation these days? Because all you seem to do is stroke your ego.
You remind me of Bush saying what a hell of a job Brownies doing. Heh!
To be quite honest, I'm getting a little tired of sophistry from 'cable guys' and obfuscations from 'computer programmers', and would like to see this discussion moved to the next level.
Please keep me advised of this new 'proposed' forum.
Thanks
I will definitely post info when I get it.
The pros will have to take over my modest efforts. New job, 4 hours of commuting, new stuff to learn on weekends....
Anyway, I'm getting tired of beating up the popes. There's something almost, well, SACRILEGIOUS about it!
Beating up the popes? Is that what you call your verbal masterbation these days? Because all you seem to do is stroke your ego.
You remind me of Bush saying what a hell of a job Brownies doing. Heh!
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 21 2006, 12:14 AM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Jan 20 2006, 11:57 PM)
Well I thought this was a simple observation on which we could all easily concur. The truth about any given proposition could be held by a minority . That has especially seemed to be the case in history with those things that run counter to our everyday intuition. The list of such in science is quite long. In that light, anyone citing an opinion poll to bolster their position is in actual fact probably not doing themselves that much good. That is not an argument for or against either side of this discussion.
Lon
A fact which the non-CT side have been saying all along. We aren't the ones bringing up petitions and polls. In fact I pointed out a large number of americans thought Saddam had WMD yet he didn't.
A petition only suggest that enough people think [something] should be done about [some issue]. In that respect it's democracy. Like the 500,000 signatures to investigate the use of the WMD intelligence. They have 500,000 sigs and 52 congressmen and still can't get an investigation. This is the work we should be doing.
The reason I brought up the Zogby poll recently wasn't becauuse I thought it was a good indication of the truth or falsity of LIHOP, but rather to show that the claims made about the NYC FD and PD not supporting a reinvestigation were likely ludicrous, once one sees clearly through the (probably deliberate, IMO) conflating of the NYC FD and PD with the NYC FD and PD rank-and-file
Thus, those claims are not only straw men arguments, they are pathetic straw men arguments. Were an honest poll done of NYC FD and PD rank-and-file, I believe that they would be more likely to support a reinvestigation, as compared to other NY'ers.
Lon
A fact which the non-CT side have been saying all along. We aren't the ones bringing up petitions and polls. In fact I pointed out a large number of americans thought Saddam had WMD yet he didn't.
A petition only suggest that enough people think [something] should be done about [some issue]. In that respect it's democracy. Like the 500,000 signatures to investigate the use of the WMD intelligence. They have 500,000 sigs and 52 congressmen and still can't get an investigation. This is the work we should be doing.
The reason I brought up the Zogby poll recently wasn't becauuse I thought it was a good indication of the truth or falsity of LIHOP, but rather to show that the claims made about the NYC FD and PD not supporting a reinvestigation were likely ludicrous, once one sees clearly through the (probably deliberate, IMO) conflating of the NYC FD and PD with the NYC FD and PD rank-and-file
Thus, those claims are not only straw men arguments, they are pathetic straw men arguments. Were an honest poll done of NYC FD and PD rank-and-file, I believe that they would be more likely to support a reinvestigation, as compared to other NY'ers.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 21 2006, 12:15 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 20 2006, 04:05 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 20 2006, 05:30 AM)
Not a single one has done so.
Wrong again...
A former US intelligence official who served under the Bush administration in the build-up to the Iraq war accused the White House yesterday of lying about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
The claims came as the Bush administration was fighting to shore up its credibility among a series of anonymous government leaks over its distortion of US intelligence to manufacture a case against Saddam.
This was the first time an administration official has put his name to specific claims. The whistleblower, Gregory Thielmann, served as a director in the state department's bureau of intelligence until his retirement in September, and had access to the classified reports which formed the basis for the US case against Saddam, spelled out by President Bush and his aides.
Mr Thielmannn said yesterday: "I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq."
He conceded that part of the problem lay with US intelligence, but added: "Most of it lies with the way senior officials misused the information they were provided."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,995188,00.html
Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and her husband exposed the niger lie.
But few could help notice last week that the 'Bird' omitted an opinion piece distributed by the Knight-Ridder news agency by a senior Pentagon Middle East specialist, Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked in the office of Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith until her retirement in April.
"What I saw was aberrant, pervasive and contrary to good order and discipline," Kwiatkowski wrote. "If one is seeking the answers to why peculiar bits of 'intelligence' found sanctity in a presidential speech, or why the post-Saddam (Hussein) occupation (in Iraq) has been distinguished by confusion and false steps, one need look no further than the process inside the Office of the Secretary of Defence" (OSD).
Kwiatkowski went on to charge that the operations she witnessed during her tenure in Feith's office, and particularly those of an ad hoc group known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), constituted "a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large segment of the Congress".
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080803B.shtml
A Timeline of Secrecy
SEPT. 11, 2001: Terrorists attack the U.S., killing 3,000 in New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania.
FALL 2001: Sibel Edmonds is hired by the FBI as a contract translator.
FALL 2001 - MARCH 2002: Edmonds discovers and reports several problems inside the FBI, including shoddy translation work, a large backlog of untranslated documents and employees with questionable alliances.
MARCH 2002: Edmonds is fired from the FBI.
JUNE 2002: The FBI acknowledges the truth of some of Edmonds' allegations.
JUNE 2002: Senators Grassley and Leahy write the Justice Department Inspector General a letter asking specific questions about Edmonds' allegations and write that the FBI has confirmed many of her allegations in unclassified briefings. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004.
JULY 2002: Edmonds files a lawsuit to challenge the FBI's retaliatory actions.
AUGUST 2002: Senator Leahy writes Attorney General John Ashcroft a letter asking for a speedy and thorough investigation of Edmonds' case. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004. The investigation is not completed for another two years, and then is classified.
FEBRUARY 2004: Edmonds testifies to the 9-11 Commission about problems at the FBI.
MAY 2004: The Justice Department retroactively classifies Edmonds' briefings to Senators Grassley and Leahy in 2002, as well as FBI briefings regarding her allegations.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res20050126.html
During the 9/11 commission hearings you heard more than one come out hammering the administration. Like Ashcroft telling two peole in the CIA (I think it was) that he didn't want to hear about terrorist anymore. The point is you're wrong again. The FBI and CIA (Some retired, some still working) have had moral people who have blown the whistle on this administrations. Anyone who has seen F9/11 knows that.
Edmonds is not a CIA employee, and never was.
What date did Theilmann come out with his revelations? No doubt after McGovern wrote his article, which, if memory serves, was within the last year.
What does it matter? He came out. So did Clark early on and Paul O'Neill. Didn't you see F9/11? There was someone who wanted to interrogate the bin Laden's but couldn't because they wouldn't let him. I saw a CNN report with someone from the FBI or CIA (I can't remember) who told anyone who would listen that the evidence Saddam had WMD was poor. Scott Ritter was saying the evidence was poor before the war. He said it on just about every TV station in America until the white house attacked his character.
Don't play dumb, (I hope it's just playing) you KNOW there were plenty of people who came out saying the evidence for war was being manipulated. Hell, even people from Brittan are coming out. Remember the Downing Street Memo..
No such pattern exist today for your much more MASSIVE CT.
Wrong again...
A former US intelligence official who served under the Bush administration in the build-up to the Iraq war accused the White House yesterday of lying about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
The claims came as the Bush administration was fighting to shore up its credibility among a series of anonymous government leaks over its distortion of US intelligence to manufacture a case against Saddam.
This was the first time an administration official has put his name to specific claims. The whistleblower, Gregory Thielmann, served as a director in the state department's bureau of intelligence until his retirement in September, and had access to the classified reports which formed the basis for the US case against Saddam, spelled out by President Bush and his aides.
Mr Thielmannn said yesterday: "I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq."
He conceded that part of the problem lay with US intelligence, but added: "Most of it lies with the way senior officials misused the information they were provided."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,995188,00.html
Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and her husband exposed the niger lie.
But few could help notice last week that the 'Bird' omitted an opinion piece distributed by the Knight-Ridder news agency by a senior Pentagon Middle East specialist, Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked in the office of Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith until her retirement in April.
"What I saw was aberrant, pervasive and contrary to good order and discipline," Kwiatkowski wrote. "If one is seeking the answers to why peculiar bits of 'intelligence' found sanctity in a presidential speech, or why the post-Saddam (Hussein) occupation (in Iraq) has been distinguished by confusion and false steps, one need look no further than the process inside the Office of the Secretary of Defence" (OSD).
Kwiatkowski went on to charge that the operations she witnessed during her tenure in Feith's office, and particularly those of an ad hoc group known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), constituted "a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large segment of the Congress".
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080803B.shtml
A Timeline of Secrecy
SEPT. 11, 2001: Terrorists attack the U.S., killing 3,000 in New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania.
FALL 2001: Sibel Edmonds is hired by the FBI as a contract translator.
FALL 2001 - MARCH 2002: Edmonds discovers and reports several problems inside the FBI, including shoddy translation work, a large backlog of untranslated documents and employees with questionable alliances.
MARCH 2002: Edmonds is fired from the FBI.
JUNE 2002: The FBI acknowledges the truth of some of Edmonds' allegations.
JUNE 2002: Senators Grassley and Leahy write the Justice Department Inspector General a letter asking specific questions about Edmonds' allegations and write that the FBI has confirmed many of her allegations in unclassified briefings. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004.
JULY 2002: Edmonds files a lawsuit to challenge the FBI's retaliatory actions.
AUGUST 2002: Senator Leahy writes Attorney General John Ashcroft a letter asking for a speedy and thorough investigation of Edmonds' case. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004. The investigation is not completed for another two years, and then is classified.
FEBRUARY 2004: Edmonds testifies to the 9-11 Commission about problems at the FBI.
MAY 2004: The Justice Department retroactively classifies Edmonds' briefings to Senators Grassley and Leahy in 2002, as well as FBI briefings regarding her allegations.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res20050126.html
During the 9/11 commission hearings you heard more than one come out hammering the administration. Like Ashcroft telling two peole in the CIA (I think it was) that he didn't want to hear about terrorist anymore. The point is you're wrong again. The FBI and CIA (Some retired, some still working) have had moral people who have blown the whistle on this administrations. Anyone who has seen F9/11 knows that.
Edmonds is not a CIA employee, and never was.
What date did Theilmann come out with his revelations? No doubt after McGovern wrote his article, which, if memory serves, was within the last year.
What does it matter? He came out. So did Clark early on and Paul O'Neill. Didn't you see F9/11? There was someone who wanted to interrogate the bin Laden's but couldn't because they wouldn't let him. I saw a CNN report with someone from the FBI or CIA (I can't remember) who told anyone who would listen that the evidence Saddam had WMD was poor. Scott Ritter was saying the evidence was poor before the war. He said it on just about every TV station in America until the white house attacked his character.
Don't play dumb, (I hope it's just playing) you KNOW there were plenty of people who came out saying the evidence for war was being manipulated. Hell, even people from Brittan are coming out. Remember the Downing Street Memo..
No such pattern exist today for your much more MASSIVE CT.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 21 2006, 12:28 AM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 21 2006, 12:14 AM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Jan 20 2006, 11:57 PM)
Well I thought this was a simple observation on which we could all easily concur. The truth about any given proposition could be held by a minority . That has especially seemed to be the case in history with those things that run counter to our everyday intuition. The list of such in science is quite long. In that light, anyone citing an opinion poll to bolster their position is in actual fact probably not doing themselves that much good. That is not an argument for or against either side of this discussion.
Lon
A fact which the non-CT side have been saying all along. We aren't the ones bringing up petitions and polls. In fact I pointed out a large number of americans thought Saddam had WMD yet he didn't.
A petition only suggest that enough people think [something] should be done about [some issue]. In that respect it's democracy. Like the 500,000 signatures to investigate the use of the WMD intelligence. They have 500,000 sigs and 52 congressmen and still can't get an investigation. This is the work we should be doing.
The reason I brought up the Zogby poll recently wasn't becauuse I thought it was a good indication of the truth or falsity of LIHOP, but rather to show that the claims made about the NYC FD and PD not supporting a reinvestigation were likely ludicrous, once one sees clearly through the (probably deliberate, IMO) conflating of the NYC FD and PD with the NYC FD and PD rank-and-file
Thus, those claims are not only straw men arguments, they are pathetic straw men arguments. Were an honest poll done of NYC FD and PD rank-and-file, I believe that they would be more likely to support a reinvestigation, as compared to other NY'ers.
I'm going to pretend your right just to prove to you it means nothing anyway... Why waste keystrokes repeating that the poll doesn't mean what you say it means if I don't have to...
The straw men is that a poll somehow stops the fireman from screaming on there own about an investigation into the deaths of their own people.
Fireman: "I was going to force an investigation into the murder of my friends and brothers on 9/11 but I see no reason now because Zogby did a poll and most people want one anyway"
Stupid, Absurd and moronic...
This doesn't address why the fire department doesn't force an investigation on the murder of 300 of it's people and you KNOW IT. EVEN IF YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THE POLL AND YOU MOST CERTAINLY ARE NOT!
Lon
A fact which the non-CT side have been saying all along. We aren't the ones bringing up petitions and polls. In fact I pointed out a large number of americans thought Saddam had WMD yet he didn't.
A petition only suggest that enough people think [something] should be done about [some issue]. In that respect it's democracy. Like the 500,000 signatures to investigate the use of the WMD intelligence. They have 500,000 sigs and 52 congressmen and still can't get an investigation. This is the work we should be doing.
The reason I brought up the Zogby poll recently wasn't becauuse I thought it was a good indication of the truth or falsity of LIHOP, but rather to show that the claims made about the NYC FD and PD not supporting a reinvestigation were likely ludicrous, once one sees clearly through the (probably deliberate, IMO) conflating of the NYC FD and PD with the NYC FD and PD rank-and-file
Thus, those claims are not only straw men arguments, they are pathetic straw men arguments. Were an honest poll done of NYC FD and PD rank-and-file, I believe that they would be more likely to support a reinvestigation, as compared to other NY'ers.
I'm going to pretend your right just to prove to you it means nothing anyway... Why waste keystrokes repeating that the poll doesn't mean what you say it means if I don't have to...
The straw men is that a poll somehow stops the fireman from screaming on there own about an investigation into the deaths of their own people.
Fireman: "I was going to force an investigation into the murder of my friends and brothers on 9/11 but I see no reason now because Zogby did a poll and most people want one anyway"
Stupid, Absurd and moronic...
This doesn't address why the fire department doesn't force an investigation on the murder of 300 of it's people and you KNOW IT. EVEN IF YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THE POLL AND YOU MOST CERTAINLY ARE NOT!
Hey.....! From five pages a day to five posts; arthurian respondencies prevalent. Remember, he has the equivalent of diplomatic immunity. Do you? The empirical regime, wants our internet search records, among other things. Do you think those, capture and cross referencing systems, designed to red flag the very words of (de/con)struction that circulate through most of our posts, understand why? No!!!!, they only understand what. No contextualization. So, maybe the next time you fly, the plane will leave without you--while you collate with the foul breath of authority-- in that humid little room, with the one-way mirror. The administration is flexing its' muscle and in doing so, is frightening the internet community. Good business move, considering that the internet is the backbone of our, otherwise pathetic, war based economy. Take the war expenditure out of the GNP and we'd be in a deep depression. Americas' future: military incursions abroad, containment of indignancy, at home. The only people who will be left on 911 threads will be non- americans and official agents.
They are seeking absolute power
Absolute power, corrupts absolutely
Therefore they will be absolutely corrupt
They are seeking absolute power
Absolute power, corrupts absolutely
Therefore they will be absolutely corrupt
Joust at windmills much?
You think the govt cares what YOU search for?
What you post?
You realize it was all about PORN don't you?
The somewhat puritanical govt is still trying to keep the lid on it.
Even though Porn is still one of the internet's biggest businesses.
The most serious abuses of Govt power seem always to revolve around protecting children from the dangers of porn.
Arthur
You think the govt cares what YOU search for?
What you post?
You realize it was all about PORN don't you?
The somewhat puritanical govt is still trying to keep the lid on it.
Even though Porn is still one of the internet's biggest businesses.
The most serious abuses of Govt power seem always to revolve around protecting children from the dangers of porn.
Arthur
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 21 2006, 12:34 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 21 2006, 12:15 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 20 2006, 04:05 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 20 2006, 05:30 AM)
Not a single one has done so.
Wrong again...
A former US intelligence official who served under the Bush administration in the build-up to the Iraq war accused the White House yesterday of lying about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
The claims came as the Bush administration was fighting to shore up its credibility among a series of anonymous government leaks over its distortion of US intelligence to manufacture a case against Saddam.
This was the first time an administration official has put his name to specific claims. The whistleblower, Gregory Thielmann, served as a director in the state department's bureau of intelligence until his retirement in September, and had access to the classified reports which formed the basis for the US case against Saddam, spelled out by President Bush and his aides.
Mr Thielmannn said yesterday: "I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq."
He conceded that part of the problem lay with US intelligence, but added: "Most of it lies with the way senior officials misused the information they were provided."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,995188,00.html
Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and her husband exposed the niger lie.
But few could help notice last week that the 'Bird' omitted an opinion piece distributed by the Knight-Ridder news agency by a senior Pentagon Middle East specialist, Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked in the office of Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith until her retirement in April.
"What I saw was aberrant, pervasive and contrary to good order and discipline," Kwiatkowski wrote. "If one is seeking the answers to why peculiar bits of 'intelligence' found sanctity in a presidential speech, or why the post-Saddam (Hussein) occupation (in Iraq) has been distinguished by confusion and false steps, one need look no further than the process inside the Office of the Secretary of Defence" (OSD).
Kwiatkowski went on to charge that the operations she witnessed during her tenure in Feith's office, and particularly those of an ad hoc group known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), constituted "a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large segment of the Congress".
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080803B.shtml
A Timeline of Secrecy
SEPT. 11, 2001: Terrorists attack the U.S., killing 3,000 in New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania.
FALL 2001: Sibel Edmonds is hired by the FBI as a contract translator.
FALL 2001 - MARCH 2002: Edmonds discovers and reports several problems inside the FBI, including shoddy translation work, a large backlog of untranslated documents and employees with questionable alliances.
MARCH 2002: Edmonds is fired from the FBI.
JUNE 2002: The FBI acknowledges the truth of some of Edmonds' allegations.
JUNE 2002: Senators Grassley and Leahy write the Justice Department Inspector General a letter asking specific questions about Edmonds' allegations and write that the FBI has confirmed many of her allegations in unclassified briefings. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004.
JULY 2002: Edmonds files a lawsuit to challenge the FBI's retaliatory actions.
AUGUST 2002: Senator Leahy writes Attorney General John Ashcroft a letter asking for a speedy and thorough investigation of Edmonds' case. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004. The investigation is not completed for another two years, and then is classified.
FEBRUARY 2004: Edmonds testifies to the 9-11 Commission about problems at the FBI.
MAY 2004: The Justice Department retroactively classifies Edmonds' briefings to Senators Grassley and Leahy in 2002, as well as FBI briefings regarding her allegations.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res20050126.html
During the 9/11 commission hearings you heard more than one come out hammering the administration. Like Ashcroft telling two peole in the CIA (I think it was) that he didn't want to hear about terrorist anymore. The point is you're wrong again. The FBI and CIA (Some retired, some still working) have had moral people who have blown the whistle on this administrations. Anyone who has seen F9/11 knows that.
Edmonds is not a CIA employee, and never was.
What date did Theilmann come out with his revelations? No doubt after McGovern wrote his article, which, if memory serves, was within the last year.
What does it matter? He came out. So did Clark early on and Paul O'Neill. Didn't you see F9/11? There was someone who wanted to interrogate the bin Laden's but couldn't because they wouldn't let him. I saw a CNN report with someone from the FBI or CIA (I can't remember) who told anyone who would listen that the evidence Saddam had WMD was poor. Scott Ritter was saying the evidence was poor before the war. He said it on just about every TV station in America until the white house attacked his character.
Don't play dumb, (I hope it's just playing) you KNOW there were plenty of people who came out saying the evidence for war was being manipulated. Hell, even people from Brittan are coming out. Remember the Downing Street Memo..
No such pattern exist today for your much more MASSIVE CT.
It matters because I was quoting McGovern when I reported that nobody in the CIA took up his challenge. It seems that you've managed to produce a source from the CIA that now contradicts McGovern, though not at the time he wrote his article (apparently - you still haven't posted dates).
O'Neil was ex-FBI on 911, no ex-CIA. Clark was a "former White House counterterrorism coordinator", not ex-CIA.
So, you've produced exactly 1 counterexample, which doesn't even (AFAIK) contradict the truth of McGovern's statement at the time he made it. You've also discredited yourself by naming 3 individuals who were not even in the CIA, but presenting them in an argument about CIA employees' willingness to call for honesty in a real 911 investigation, or at least publicly expressing doubt.
Who will your next exampe of such a CIA employee be, Sadaam Hussein?
Wrong again...
A former US intelligence official who served under the Bush administration in the build-up to the Iraq war accused the White House yesterday of lying about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
The claims came as the Bush administration was fighting to shore up its credibility among a series of anonymous government leaks over its distortion of US intelligence to manufacture a case against Saddam.
This was the first time an administration official has put his name to specific claims. The whistleblower, Gregory Thielmann, served as a director in the state department's bureau of intelligence until his retirement in September, and had access to the classified reports which formed the basis for the US case against Saddam, spelled out by President Bush and his aides.
Mr Thielmannn said yesterday: "I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq."
He conceded that part of the problem lay with US intelligence, but added: "Most of it lies with the way senior officials misused the information they were provided."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,995188,00.html
Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and her husband exposed the niger lie.
But few could help notice last week that the 'Bird' omitted an opinion piece distributed by the Knight-Ridder news agency by a senior Pentagon Middle East specialist, Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked in the office of Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith until her retirement in April.
"What I saw was aberrant, pervasive and contrary to good order and discipline," Kwiatkowski wrote. "If one is seeking the answers to why peculiar bits of 'intelligence' found sanctity in a presidential speech, or why the post-Saddam (Hussein) occupation (in Iraq) has been distinguished by confusion and false steps, one need look no further than the process inside the Office of the Secretary of Defence" (OSD).
Kwiatkowski went on to charge that the operations she witnessed during her tenure in Feith's office, and particularly those of an ad hoc group known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), constituted "a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large segment of the Congress".
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080803B.shtml
A Timeline of Secrecy
SEPT. 11, 2001: Terrorists attack the U.S., killing 3,000 in New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania.
FALL 2001: Sibel Edmonds is hired by the FBI as a contract translator.
FALL 2001 - MARCH 2002: Edmonds discovers and reports several problems inside the FBI, including shoddy translation work, a large backlog of untranslated documents and employees with questionable alliances.
MARCH 2002: Edmonds is fired from the FBI.
JUNE 2002: The FBI acknowledges the truth of some of Edmonds' allegations.
JUNE 2002: Senators Grassley and Leahy write the Justice Department Inspector General a letter asking specific questions about Edmonds' allegations and write that the FBI has confirmed many of her allegations in unclassified briefings. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004.
JULY 2002: Edmonds files a lawsuit to challenge the FBI's retaliatory actions.
AUGUST 2002: Senator Leahy writes Attorney General John Ashcroft a letter asking for a speedy and thorough investigation of Edmonds' case. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004. The investigation is not completed for another two years, and then is classified.
FEBRUARY 2004: Edmonds testifies to the 9-11 Commission about problems at the FBI.
MAY 2004: The Justice Department retroactively classifies Edmonds' briefings to Senators Grassley and Leahy in 2002, as well as FBI briefings regarding her allegations.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res20050126.html
During the 9/11 commission hearings you heard more than one come out hammering the administration. Like Ashcroft telling two peole in the CIA (I think it was) that he didn't want to hear about terrorist anymore. The point is you're wrong again. The FBI and CIA (Some retired, some still working) have had moral people who have blown the whistle on this administrations. Anyone who has seen F9/11 knows that.
Edmonds is not a CIA employee, and never was.
What date did Theilmann come out with his revelations? No doubt after McGovern wrote his article, which, if memory serves, was within the last year.
What does it matter? He came out. So did Clark early on and Paul O'Neill. Didn't you see F9/11? There was someone who wanted to interrogate the bin Laden's but couldn't because they wouldn't let him. I saw a CNN report with someone from the FBI or CIA (I can't remember) who told anyone who would listen that the evidence Saddam had WMD was poor. Scott Ritter was saying the evidence was poor before the war. He said it on just about every TV station in America until the white house attacked his character.
Don't play dumb, (I hope it's just playing) you KNOW there were plenty of people who came out saying the evidence for war was being manipulated. Hell, even people from Brittan are coming out. Remember the Downing Street Memo..
No such pattern exist today for your much more MASSIVE CT.
It matters because I was quoting McGovern when I reported that nobody in the CIA took up his challenge. It seems that you've managed to produce a source from the CIA that now contradicts McGovern, though not at the time he wrote his article (apparently - you still haven't posted dates).
O'Neil was ex-FBI on 911, no ex-CIA. Clark was a "former White House counterterrorism coordinator", not ex-CIA.
So, you've produced exactly 1 counterexample, which doesn't even (AFAIK) contradict the truth of McGovern's statement at the time he made it. You've also discredited yourself by naming 3 individuals who were not even in the CIA, but presenting them in an argument about CIA employees' willingness to call for honesty in a real 911 investigation, or at least publicly expressing doubt.
Who will your next exampe of such a CIA employee be, Sadaam Hussein?
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 21 2006, 12:09 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 20 2006, 07:05 AM)
I suspect 'popes' would be opposed to such open discussions in the scientific community (for one reason or another).
To be quite honest, I'm getting a little tired of sophistry from 'cable guys' and obfuscations from 'computer programmers', and would like to see this discussion moved to the next level.
Please keep me advised of this new 'proposed' forum.
Thanks
I will definitely post info when I get it.
The pros will have to take over my modest efforts. New job, 4 hours of commuting, new stuff to learn on weekends....
Anyway, I'm getting tired of beating up the popes. There's something almost, well, SACRILEGIOUS about it!
I am most open to having actual engineers and scientists do some work on the collapses of the buildings. Why wouldn't I prefer that to the pronouncements of fiberglass boat builder?
So Foxx, why did you not continue to post on the one forum that I have seen you on where there are a few engineers and scientists? metamars was there too, and is no longer.
To borrow a phrase, "things that make ya go, hmmm".
To be quite honest, I'm getting a little tired of sophistry from 'cable guys' and obfuscations from 'computer programmers', and would like to see this discussion moved to the next level.
Please keep me advised of this new 'proposed' forum.
Thanks
I will definitely post info when I get it.
The pros will have to take over my modest efforts. New job, 4 hours of commuting, new stuff to learn on weekends....
Anyway, I'm getting tired of beating up the popes. There's something almost, well, SACRILEGIOUS about it!
I am most open to having actual engineers and scientists do some work on the collapses of the buildings. Why wouldn't I prefer that to the pronouncements of fiberglass boat builder?
So Foxx, why did you not continue to post on the one forum that I have seen you on where there are a few engineers and scientists? metamars was there too, and is no longer.
To borrow a phrase, "things that make ya go, hmmm".
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 21 2006, 02:19 AM)
Joust at windmills much?
You think the govt cares what YOU search for?
What you post?
You realize it was all about PORN don't you?
The somewhat puritanical govt is still trying to keep the lid on it.
Even though Porn is still one of the internet's biggest businesses.
The most serious abuses of Govt power seem always to revolve around protecting children from the dangers of porn.
Arthur
Odd...
Porn comes in # 1 regarding internet searches...
Second, (behind that) is searches on the anomalies of 9/11...
(a search for the actual TRUTH related to the events of that day).
However, the official 'gravity-driven collapse supporters' would like to pretend that NO intelligent person would be interested in investigating these questions.
Nothing to see here, folks... go on home now... forget what you saw with your own eyes...
forget the myriads of professional witness testimony... (they were mistaken about what they saw & heard)...
So WHAT if IT walked like a duck, sounded like a 'duck', and looked like a 'duck... ?
It wasn't REALLY a DUCK... it was a DOG...!!!...
(cleverly disguised to 'look', 'sound', and 'walk' like a duck)
Go home, people... don't you understand it was a 'DOG'.
You're missing a very important 'Jerry Springer' episode by wasting your time posting here.
Besides... IF you waste your time posting on this issue...
you MIGHT just 'disappear' like the 'Guardian'.
WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE!
When was the last time you had the brakes checked on your vehicle?
Sheesh...
Idiots !
You think the govt cares what YOU search for?
What you post?
You realize it was all about PORN don't you?
The somewhat puritanical govt is still trying to keep the lid on it.
Even though Porn is still one of the internet's biggest businesses.
The most serious abuses of Govt power seem always to revolve around protecting children from the dangers of porn.
Arthur
Odd...
Porn comes in # 1 regarding internet searches...
Second, (behind that) is searches on the anomalies of 9/11...
(a search for the actual TRUTH related to the events of that day).
However, the official 'gravity-driven collapse supporters' would like to pretend that NO intelligent person would be interested in investigating these questions.
Nothing to see here, folks... go on home now... forget what you saw with your own eyes...
forget the myriads of professional witness testimony... (they were mistaken about what they saw & heard)...
So WHAT if IT walked like a duck, sounded like a 'duck', and looked like a 'duck... ?
It wasn't REALLY a DUCK... it was a DOG...!!!...
(cleverly disguised to 'look', 'sound', and 'walk' like a duck)
Go home, people... don't you understand it was a 'DOG'.
You're missing a very important 'Jerry Springer' episode by wasting your time posting here.
Besides... IF you waste your time posting on this issue...
you MIGHT just 'disappear' like the 'Guardian'.
WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE!
When was the last time you had the brakes checked on your vehicle?
Sheesh...
Idiots !
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 21 2006, 04:54 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 21 2006, 12:09 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 20 2006, 07:05 AM)
I suspect 'popes' would be opposed to such open discussions in the scientific community (for one reason or another).
To be quite honest, I'm getting a little tired of sophistry from 'cable guys' and obfuscations from 'computer programmers', and would like to see this discussion moved to the next level.
Please keep me advised of this new 'proposed' forum.
Thanks
I will definitely post info when I get it.
The pros will have to take over my modest efforts. New job, 4 hours of commuting, new stuff to learn on weekends....
Anyway, I'm getting tired of beating up the popes. There's something almost, well, SACRILEGIOUS about it!
I am most open to having actual engineers and scientists do some work on the collapses of the buildings. Why wouldn't I prefer that to the pronouncements of fiberglass boat builder?
So Foxx, why did you not continue to post on the one forum that I have seen you on where there are a few engineers and scientists? metamars was there too, and is no longer.
To borrow a phrase, "things that make ya go, hmmm".
Because the 'head engineer' there was forced to agree that he could no longer propose facts to dispute the Truth, Ol' Jay was forced to admit that (in his dinner engagement with 'other un-named structural engineers'), that everything I said was dead-on...
He 'ended' by reporting the stress /strain on the truss-floors bolts (which in fact supported my position).
What's more to say ?
Likewise he refused to address (to conclusion) the posts of metamars... choosing rather to ignore them.
Perhaps JU has more expertise than YOU in this area?... and he chose to abandon further rational discussion in the areas we were discussing there. Interpret it as you like... JU abandoned the arguement... NOT US !
Both metamars and I are STILL WAITING for his replies.
Let us know if he chooses to attempt an 'answer'.
The rest of the 'alleged' engineers there were... (like you), nothing more than 'paper-tigers' bent on sophistry and oratory, but devoid of any REAL un-biased investigatory skills or relevant qualifications to speak on this issue.
This forum is NOT the place to post the 'qualifications' of those posting 'there', but those 'qualifications' were posted under LenBrazils 'poll' regarding qualifications of 'posters' thread.
WOW !!!
I (for one) was REALLY impressed with the 'qualifications' of 'engineers' there.
As I recall, you also posted your 'qualifications' on that 'poll'.
I was REALLY impressed with the qualifications of the 'engineers' on that forum !
Cheers.
Do you wish to post JU's numbers regarding 'bolt-failures' ?
To be quite honest, I'm getting a little tired of sophistry from 'cable guys' and obfuscations from 'computer programmers', and would like to see this discussion moved to the next level.
Please keep me advised of this new 'proposed' forum.
Thanks
I will definitely post info when I get it.
The pros will have to take over my modest efforts. New job, 4 hours of commuting, new stuff to learn on weekends....
Anyway, I'm getting tired of beating up the popes. There's something almost, well, SACRILEGIOUS about it!
I am most open to having actual engineers and scientists do some work on the collapses of the buildings. Why wouldn't I prefer that to the pronouncements of fiberglass boat builder?
So Foxx, why did you not continue to post on the one forum that I have seen you on where there are a few engineers and scientists? metamars was there too, and is no longer.
To borrow a phrase, "things that make ya go, hmmm".
Because the 'head engineer' there was forced to agree that he could no longer propose facts to dispute the Truth, Ol' Jay was forced to admit that (in his dinner engagement with 'other un-named structural engineers'), that everything I said was dead-on...
He 'ended' by reporting the stress /strain on the truss-floors bolts (which in fact supported my position).
What's more to say ?
Likewise he refused to address (to conclusion) the posts of metamars... choosing rather to ignore them.
Perhaps JU has more expertise than YOU in this area?... and he chose to abandon further rational discussion in the areas we were discussing there. Interpret it as you like... JU abandoned the arguement... NOT US !
Both metamars and I are STILL WAITING for his replies.
Let us know if he chooses to attempt an 'answer'.
The rest of the 'alleged' engineers there were... (like you), nothing more than 'paper-tigers' bent on sophistry and oratory, but devoid of any REAL un-biased investigatory skills or relevant qualifications to speak on this issue.
This forum is NOT the place to post the 'qualifications' of those posting 'there', but those 'qualifications' were posted under LenBrazils 'poll' regarding qualifications of 'posters' thread.
WOW !!!
I (for one) was REALLY impressed with the 'qualifications' of 'engineers' there.
As I recall, you also posted your 'qualifications' on that 'poll'.
I was REALLY impressed with the qualifications of the 'engineers' on that forum !
Cheers.
Do you wish to post JU's numbers regarding 'bolt-failures' ?
YID...
I think I prefer to listen to the wisdom of Jones & Fetzer who have Ph.d's, rather than the likes of biased obfuscators prevalent as posters on AH.
Should we post the 'qualifications' of those 'engineers' at AH?
Probably NOT... on this forum...
but DON't try to pretend that those 'posters' / 'engineers' on AH should be believed MORE than anyone else posting on the internet... (apart from the alter-ego 'Guest' posts on this forum).
These so-called 'engineers' (yourself included) posting at AH are impersonators of 'relevant knowledge'.
Have YOU any REAL knowledge pertinent to this issue?
Have YOU ever actually designed and built ANYTHING more relevant structurally than a 'birdhouse' ? Has JU ? Has LenBrazil? Has adoucette?
If so... you have provided NO evidence whatsoever that you have done so.
I HAVE.
Regardless of our actual empirical qualifications, What do you offer as 'supporting evidence' of your 'understanding' of these issues?
I readily recognize 'others' posting on this thread who actually KNOW what they are talking about.
When it comes to cable internet knowledge, I will certainly have to bow to you with regard to this area.
Sorry if I don't put much stock into your statements regarding structural engineering design.
Feel free to research my 'qualifications' in the structural engineering and design field on the web. Go ahead and post it (even though that is taboo).
Personally, I don't care if I am 'exposed' (AKA ... "outed")...
http://foxxaero.homestead.com/indsail_001.html
It will only ADD to my credibility.
I think I prefer to listen to the wisdom of Jones & Fetzer who have Ph.d's, rather than the likes of biased obfuscators prevalent as posters on AH.
Should we post the 'qualifications' of those 'engineers' at AH?
Probably NOT... on this forum...
but DON't try to pretend that those 'posters' / 'engineers' on AH should be believed MORE than anyone else posting on the internet... (apart from the alter-ego 'Guest' posts on this forum).
These so-called 'engineers' (yourself included) posting at AH are impersonators of 'relevant knowledge'.
Have YOU any REAL knowledge pertinent to this issue?
Have YOU ever actually designed and built ANYTHING more relevant structurally than a 'birdhouse' ? Has JU ? Has LenBrazil? Has adoucette?
If so... you have provided NO evidence whatsoever that you have done so.
I HAVE.
Regardless of our actual empirical qualifications, What do you offer as 'supporting evidence' of your 'understanding' of these issues?
I readily recognize 'others' posting on this thread who actually KNOW what they are talking about.
When it comes to cable internet knowledge, I will certainly have to bow to you with regard to this area.
Sorry if I don't put much stock into your statements regarding structural engineering design.
Feel free to research my 'qualifications' in the structural engineering and design field on the web. Go ahead and post it (even though that is taboo).
Personally, I don't care if I am 'exposed' (AKA ... "outed")...
http://foxxaero.homestead.com/indsail_001.html
It will only ADD to my credibility.
Since Foxx continues to post page after page of "Seinfeld" nothingness, probably hoping everyone will forget, I'll just keep posting this till its acknowledged.
the following is quite instructive:
the following is quite instructive:
QUOTE (Foxx+)
The towers had 400,000 tons of steel. And, "more than 350,000 tons of steel have been extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it is cut up for recycling." (from NIST report Appendix D, page 1 of pdf file - 1st link above)
EXCEPT the ACTUAL line from the report was:
Of the estimated 1.5 million tons of WTC concrete, steel, and other debris, more than 350,000 tons of steel have been extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it is cut up for recycling.
Notice how we went from 1.5 million tons of WTC SITE material to claiming that the 350,000 lbs of steel was JUST for the TOWERS.
Using this linquistic slight of hand Foxx makes this INVALID extrapolation:
When IN FACT he KNEW that the NIST report stated that the search of the steel was in fact mainly a VOLUNTEER effort performed BEFORE NIST got involved.
It turns out it was a relatively MODEST effort:
As of March 15, 2002, a total of 131 engineer visits had been made to these yards on 57 separate days. An engineer visit typically ranged from a few hours to an entire day at a salvage yard.
So now Foxx wants you to believe that in less than 131 man days 350,000 tons of steel were looked at.
ALL PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KNOW THE MAGNITUDE OF A LIAR FOXX IS NEED TO LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING PDF (APPEND. D.) THE PHOTOS WILL IMMEDIATELY SHOW THIS. YOU CAN'T POST PICTURES FROM A PDF SO I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO TAKE A SHORT FIELD TRIP TO FOXX'S FIELD OF DREAMS.
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf
(Appendix D (pages 2, 3 of the pdf file)...
After this little excursion then see how Foxx manages to totally mangle what happened at these yards:
So again, NIST summarizes....
QUOTE
"From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure"
When IN FACT he KNEW that the NIST report stated that the search of the steel was in fact mainly a VOLUNTEER effort performed BEFORE NIST got involved.
It turns out it was a relatively MODEST effort:
As of March 15, 2002, a total of 131 engineer visits had been made to these yards on 57 separate days. An engineer visit typically ranged from a few hours to an entire day at a salvage yard.
So now Foxx wants you to believe that in less than 131 man days 350,000 tons of steel were looked at.
ALL PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KNOW THE MAGNITUDE OF A LIAR FOXX IS NEED TO LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING PDF (APPEND. D.) THE PHOTOS WILL IMMEDIATELY SHOW THIS. YOU CAN'T POST PICTURES FROM A PDF SO I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO TAKE A SHORT FIELD TRIP TO FOXX'S FIELD OF DREAMS.
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf
(Appendix D (pages 2, 3 of the pdf file)...
After this little excursion then see how Foxx manages to totally mangle what happened at these yards:
So again, NIST summarizes....
QUOTE
"From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure"
In light of the fact over 80% of the steel was available for inspection, and was nearly all rejected for analysis, they could have stated... "Over 80% of the total steel was sifted through, and of the 1/4 to 1/2% deemed worthy of recovering, no conclusive evidence was found that pre-collapse fires were severe enough...."
I think that inspecting over 80% of the steel makes it more like "no evidence was found" than "no conclusive evidence was found"
I suggest that this deliberate twisting of the facts should be called a Foxie in honor of its originator.
Arthur
EXCEPT the ACTUAL line from the report was:
Of the estimated 1.5 million tons of WTC concrete, steel, and other debris, more than 350,000 tons of steel have been extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it is cut up for recycling.
Notice how we went from 1.5 million tons of WTC SITE material to claiming that the 350,000 lbs of steel was JUST for the TOWERS.
Using this linquistic slight of hand Foxx makes this INVALID extrapolation:
QUOTE
So they were able to sift through over 80% of the steel at the yards, found four core columns worthy of analysis, three of them from the impact / fire areas, and none of them exposed to fires of over 250C.
When IN FACT he KNEW that the NIST report stated that the search of the steel was in fact mainly a VOLUNTEER effort performed BEFORE NIST got involved.
It turns out it was a relatively MODEST effort:
As of March 15, 2002, a total of 131 engineer visits had been made to these yards on 57 separate days. An engineer visit typically ranged from a few hours to an entire day at a salvage yard.
So now Foxx wants you to believe that in less than 131 man days 350,000 tons of steel were looked at.
ALL PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KNOW THE MAGNITUDE OF A LIAR FOXX IS NEED TO LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING PDF (APPEND. D.) THE PHOTOS WILL IMMEDIATELY SHOW THIS. YOU CAN'T POST PICTURES FROM A PDF SO I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO TAKE A SHORT FIELD TRIP TO FOXX'S FIELD OF DREAMS.
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf
(Appendix D (pages 2, 3 of the pdf file)...
After this little excursion then see how Foxx manages to totally mangle what happened at these yards:
So again, NIST summarizes....
QUOTE
"From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So they were able to sift through over 80% of the steel at the yards, found four core columns worthy of analysis, three of them from the impact / fire areas, and none of them exposed to fires of over 250C. |
When IN FACT he KNEW that the NIST report stated that the search of the steel was in fact mainly a VOLUNTEER effort performed BEFORE NIST got involved.
It turns out it was a relatively MODEST effort:
As of March 15, 2002, a total of 131 engineer visits had been made to these yards on 57 separate days. An engineer visit typically ranged from a few hours to an entire day at a salvage yard.
So now Foxx wants you to believe that in less than 131 man days 350,000 tons of steel were looked at.
ALL PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KNOW THE MAGNITUDE OF A LIAR FOXX IS NEED TO LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING PDF (APPEND. D.) THE PHOTOS WILL IMMEDIATELY SHOW THIS. YOU CAN'T POST PICTURES FROM A PDF SO I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO TAKE A SHORT FIELD TRIP TO FOXX'S FIELD OF DREAMS.
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf
(Appendix D (pages 2, 3 of the pdf file)...
After this little excursion then see how Foxx manages to totally mangle what happened at these yards:
So again, NIST summarizes....
QUOTE
"From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure"
In light of the fact over 80% of the steel was available for inspection, and was nearly all rejected for analysis, they could have stated... "Over 80% of the total steel was sifted through, and of the 1/4 to 1/2% deemed worthy of recovering, no conclusive evidence was found that pre-collapse fires were severe enough...."
I think that inspecting over 80% of the steel makes it more like "no evidence was found" than "no conclusive evidence was found"
I suggest that this deliberate twisting of the facts should be called a Foxie in honor of its originator.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 21 2006, 06:57 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 21 2006, 04:54 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 21 2006, 12:09 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 20 2006, 07:05 AM)
I suspect 'popes' would be opposed to such open discussions in the scientific community (for one reason or another).
To be quite honest, I'm getting a little tired of sophistry from 'cable guys' and obfuscations from 'computer programmers', and would like to see this discussion moved to the next level.
Please keep me advised of this new 'proposed' forum.
Thanks
I will definitely post info when I get it.
The pros will have to take over my modest efforts. New job, 4 hours of commuting, new stuff to learn on weekends....
Anyway, I'm getting tired of beating up the popes. There's something almost, well, SACRILEGIOUS about it!
I am most open to having actual engineers and scientists do some work on the collapses of the buildings. Why wouldn't I prefer that to the pronouncements of fiberglass boat builder?
So Foxx, why did you not continue to post on the one forum that I have seen you on where there are a few engineers and scientists? metamars was there too, and is no longer.
To borrow a phrase, "things that make ya go, hmmm".
Because the 'head engineer' there was forced to agree that he could no longer propose facts to dispute the Truth, Ol' Jay was forced to admit that (in his dinner engagement with 'other un-named structural engineers'), that everything I said was dead-on...
He 'ended' by reporting the stress /strain on the truss-floors bolts (which in fact supported my position).
What's more to say ?
Likewise he refused to address (to conclusion) the posts of metamars... choosing rather to ignore them.
Perhaps JU has more expertise than YOU in this area?... and he chose to abandon further rational discussion in the areas we were discussing there. Interpret it as you like... JU abandoned the arguement... NOT US !
Both metamars and I are STILL WAITING for his replies.
Let us know if he chooses to attempt an 'answer'.
The rest of the 'alleged' engineers there were... (like you), nothing more than 'paper-tigers' bent on sophistry and oratory, but devoid of any REAL un-biased investigatory skills or relevant qualifications to speak on this issue.
This forum is NOT the place to post the 'qualifications' of those posting 'there', but those 'qualifications' were posted under LenBrazils 'poll' regarding qualifications of 'posters' thread.
WOW !!!
I (for one) was REALLY impressed with the 'qualifications' of 'engineers' there.
As I recall, you also posted your 'qualifications' on that 'poll'.
I was REALLY impressed with the qualifications of the 'engineers' on that forum !
Cheers.
Do you wish to post JU's numbers regarding 'bolt-failures' ?
There was basically only 1 or 2 posters there whose posts I found worth reading and challenging, and the key one was JayUtah. Other posters would make ridiculous arguments such as about how hard it would have been for explosives have been trucked in without other people noticing, if explosives were required to fulfill Hoffman's calculated energy deficit, etc. If these posters were engineers, they weren't very clever ones. JayUtah was obviously intelligent, and wrote very well. He also seemed honest, so, e.g., I never noticed any straw man arguments from him. Also, when I pressed him on details about how the columns were joined together (since I've always found the notion of convenient "column failure" very upsetting, since it explained nothing), he admitted that he didn't know much about it. (I subsequently found out that the general principle is to make the join about as strong as the weaker of the 2 columns; if my cousin, an architect knew this, one would expect that some of the "engineers" at AH knew, yet failed to inform me of this basic fact)
I guess that the AH "engineers" think differently than I do, and don't bother their heads with such details as "column failure". Why be concerned about a triviality like "column falure" when you're discussing the global collapse of a steel framed building, and compelling intuitive arguments allow you to conclude that columns are likely 2 orders of magnitude stronger than lateral floor connections on lower floors?
JayUtah felt Hoffman's work was too crude to be of use, and that it would need to incorporate a hydrodynamic elaboration. I asked how much $$ this would cost, and I never got an answer, not even an approximate one. Nor did I get any direction as to who else I might ask for a figure. Apparently, too, in spite of my very relevant questions re "columns failure", neither JayUtah or anybody else at AH had any interest in looking up and/or informing me about this subject.
Also, neither JayUtah nor anybody else gave a satisfactory answer to my question regarding a (hopefully) affordable finite element model of the collapses which would give insight into the begininning of the alleged gravity driven global collapse:
Quote:
It is no wonder that Hoffman does not do these calculations and include it in his conclusions. Any scientific theory must be falsifiable.
metamars:
In light of the above, I find it less remarkable than you.
However, since you raised the issue of falsifiability, would you please tell us what efforts FEMA and NIST made to show us how they addressed falsifiability of their own results. At least they had a budget (NIST much more than FEMA) to allow them to play devil's advocate to their own theories.
There's a few rather obvious ways that, I believe, NIST could have attempted to falisify their theories.
The one that I would most like to see are the computer models that show how a local collapse could turn into a globlal collapse. Even if, as JayUtah has indicated, it would be prohibitively expensive to do a finite element model of the entire building, I find it highly suspicious that they couldn't model, say, another 7 floors as a framed structure (in other words, along the lines of the impact zone) and model the rest of the building as a perfectly rigid body. If your computer models could then show collapse of the next floor in time t0, and the collapse of the next floor in time t1, where t1 < t0, that would certainly give me (engineering layman that I am) some confidence that their conclusions are worth serious consideration and not mere handwaiving.
If you make the statement that while NIST engineers only showed a local collapse, and there is no problem with accepting their contention that a local collapse must inevitably result in a global collapse, with only their collective intuition to substantiate such a claim, then I , for one, completely reject this appeal to authority.
Please tell me: how do we falsify their intuition?
Another way to falsify the NIST study is to amplify it to show how dust clouds with roughly the properties observed (to whatever extent they can be determined - admittedly not an easy task) could be created and ejected. This happened from the beginning of the collapse, so to falsify their models, they again should not (AFAIK) have to model the entire building.
Intutively, I think the idea that a gravity driven collapse could generate dust clouds with those properties is absurd. This intuition derives from my experience as a boy of trying to pound a nail into a conrete floor. ( Lol ) However, as Eric Temple Bell has said, "Intuition is the root of superstition". I don't expect you or NIST to accept my intuition as any sort of proof. Similarly, I would hope that you don't expect me to accept NIST's hand waiving/intuition as any sort of proof that dust cloud formation must have developed, just as was observed.
[/b]
IIRC, JayUtay didn't speak to this rather obvious question (at least in my mind) at all.
When Gordon completes his summary, it's probably a good idea to post it there, as well as my solution of the spring equation which also shows that Bazant Zhou "analysis" makes absurd predictions.
I expect more silence from the "engineers" there. Either that, or more ridiculous arguments. However, if serious refutations are posted, they may be worthwhile.
BTW, I ran into a subsequent post by JayUtah on another thread or forum, which showed him taking a distorted pseudo-scientific attitude towards "Conspiracy Theorists". Perhaps he was just having a bad day, but it certainly seemed to me that he had descended to the level of rubbish arguments so often seen in defenders of the official Fairy Tales. Not that there aren't recurring patterns in thought processes, including defective ones, in some people who espouse what are called "Conspiracy Theories". But some caveats would have given a fairer picture.
Thus, while I can and do complain about popes on this board, I don't assume or claim that most people who believe in Bin Laden and the 19 Arab hickackers are incapable or forever unwilling to come to understand how absurd the government Fairy Tales of collapse are. Just the opposite. ( Otherwise, we are wasting our time here. Could this be an explanation of "pope-dom"? I.e., to convince us that arguing the case is futile, since not even errors in details are admitted to which would not necessarily invalidate larger arguments?? )
I do not assume that the popes represent the general populace, and such would be definitely counter to my experience. Apparently, JayUtah does not return us this favor, but seems to take his generalizations of "conspiracy theorists" seriously.
I do believe, though, that critical thinking skills are particularly hard to come by in Americans, and that all people are fundamentally irrational, to one degree or another. At AH, I spoke about a friend of the family, an engineer with an IQ of 160, who "logically" concluded that the religion of his upbringing was the correct one. However, if you polled all the people in the world with 160+ IQ's and asked them which, if any, religion was the logically correct one, I suspect he'd be the only one coming to that "logical" conclusion.
So, I suspect JayUtah and I might agree about the rationality of most people. However, "most people" contains, as subsets, both FEMA Fairy Tale believers as well as we "Conspiracy Theorists".
Why can't you stay with the point? The point of my post was not to show as many CIA people came out on the misuse of intel. The point is PEOPLE HAVE COME OUT. I know you want it to be about how many people came out from what what part of the government because then it looks like only one person came out from the CIA and only AFTER the quote. That's not the point. The point is YOU'RE WRONG THAT NO ONE HAS COME OUT AT ALL. Your twisting of this point only hurts YOUR credibility and not mine.
Why can't you stay with the point? The point of my post was not to show as many CIA people came out on the misuse of intel. The point is PEOPLE HAVE COME OUT. I know you want it to be about how many people came out from what what part of the government because then it looks like only one person came out from the CIA and only AFTER the quote. That's not the point. The point is YOU'RE WRONG THAT NO ONE HAS COME OUT AT ALL. Your twisting of this point only hurts YOUR credibility and not mine.
O'Neil was ex-FBI on 911, no ex-CIA. Clark was a "former White House counterterrorism coordinator", not ex-CIA.
Again, you have no choice but to change the debate to call it a win. Ironicly a tactic used by the man you call a mass murder.
"White House Calls For Paul O'Neill Investigation
The U.S. Treasury Department has announced it will investigate whether former Treasurer Secretary Paul O'Neill illegally disclosed internal documents from the Bush administration to reporters. O'Neill came public this week saying Bush decided to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein's government almost as soon as he took office. O'Neill, who also served as a member of the National Security Council, says the administration never had evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And O'Neill said during cabinet meetings Bush acted like "a blind man in a room full of deaf people." One of the internal documents O'Neill showed reporters revealed that the Bush administration was considering how to split up Iraqis oil supply months before the Sept. 11 attacks. O'Neill is the highest-ranking official to part ways publicly with Bush. Regarding the Treasury Department probe, the political website TalkingPointsMemo.com notes that it took the Bush administration 74 days to announce an investigation about who within the White House outted the CIA operative Valerie Plame to reporters. Meanwhile It took the administration less than one day to announce an investigation of Paul O'Neill for possibly revealing secret information."
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/13/1458202
YES, I KNOW he doesn't work for the CIA. Don't change the subject. Obviously O'Neill is one of the few republicans with morals but he came out almost immediately. Wilson was another one who came out when Bush used intel in speeches which was poor. The point of Clark and the other is not that I'm pretending they worked for the CIA. It doesn't matter to the argument I'm making which is NO ONE WHO IS CREDIBLE FROM ANYWHERE IS COMMING OUT ON THE BIGGEST MASS MURDER IN HISTORY and YOU KNOW IT.
Hence their is REALIBLE evidence Bush manipulated intel and always has been but NONE with this MASSIVE coverup you are trying to preach. That has always been and always will be my point until people start coming out saying Bush planted bombs in the towers or it can only have fallen due to bombs.
To be quite honest, I'm getting a little tired of sophistry from 'cable guys' and obfuscations from 'computer programmers', and would like to see this discussion moved to the next level.
Please keep me advised of this new 'proposed' forum.
Thanks
I will definitely post info when I get it.
The pros will have to take over my modest efforts. New job, 4 hours of commuting, new stuff to learn on weekends....
Anyway, I'm getting tired of beating up the popes. There's something almost, well, SACRILEGIOUS about it!
I am most open to having actual engineers and scientists do some work on the collapses of the buildings. Why wouldn't I prefer that to the pronouncements of fiberglass boat builder?
So Foxx, why did you not continue to post on the one forum that I have seen you on where there are a few engineers and scientists? metamars was there too, and is no longer.
To borrow a phrase, "things that make ya go, hmmm".
Because the 'head engineer' there was forced to agree that he could no longer propose facts to dispute the Truth, Ol' Jay was forced to admit that (in his dinner engagement with 'other un-named structural engineers'), that everything I said was dead-on...
He 'ended' by reporting the stress /strain on the truss-floors bolts (which in fact supported my position).
What's more to say ?
Likewise he refused to address (to conclusion) the posts of metamars... choosing rather to ignore them.
Perhaps JU has more expertise than YOU in this area?... and he chose to abandon further rational discussion in the areas we were discussing there. Interpret it as you like... JU abandoned the arguement... NOT US !
Both metamars and I are STILL WAITING for his replies.
Let us know if he chooses to attempt an 'answer'.
The rest of the 'alleged' engineers there were... (like you), nothing more than 'paper-tigers' bent on sophistry and oratory, but devoid of any REAL un-biased investigatory skills or relevant qualifications to speak on this issue.
This forum is NOT the place to post the 'qualifications' of those posting 'there', but those 'qualifications' were posted under LenBrazils 'poll' regarding qualifications of 'posters' thread.
WOW !!!
I (for one) was REALLY impressed with the 'qualifications' of 'engineers' there.
As I recall, you also posted your 'qualifications' on that 'poll'.
I was REALLY impressed with the qualifications of the 'engineers' on that forum !
Cheers.
Do you wish to post JU's numbers regarding 'bolt-failures' ?
There was basically only 1 or 2 posters there whose posts I found worth reading and challenging, and the key one was JayUtah. Other posters would make ridiculous arguments such as about how hard it would have been for explosives have been trucked in without other people noticing, if explosives were required to fulfill Hoffman's calculated energy deficit, etc. If these posters were engineers, they weren't very clever ones. JayUtah was obviously intelligent, and wrote very well. He also seemed honest, so, e.g., I never noticed any straw man arguments from him. Also, when I pressed him on details about how the columns were joined together (since I've always found the notion of convenient "column failure" very upsetting, since it explained nothing), he admitted that he didn't know much about it. (I subsequently found out that the general principle is to make the join about as strong as the weaker of the 2 columns; if my cousin, an architect knew this, one would expect that some of the "engineers" at AH knew, yet failed to inform me of this basic fact)
I guess that the AH "engineers" think differently than I do, and don't bother their heads with such details as "column failure". Why be concerned about a triviality like "column falure" when you're discussing the global collapse of a steel framed building, and compelling intuitive arguments allow you to conclude that columns are likely 2 orders of magnitude stronger than lateral floor connections on lower floors?
JayUtah felt Hoffman's work was too crude to be of use, and that it would need to incorporate a hydrodynamic elaboration. I asked how much $$ this would cost, and I never got an answer, not even an approximate one. Nor did I get any direction as to who else I might ask for a figure. Apparently, too, in spite of my very relevant questions re "columns failure", neither JayUtah or anybody else at AH had any interest in looking up and/or informing me about this subject.
Also, neither JayUtah nor anybody else gave a satisfactory answer to my question regarding a (hopefully) affordable finite element model of the collapses which would give insight into the begininning of the alleged gravity driven global collapse:
QUOTE
Quote:
It is no wonder that Hoffman does not do these calculations and include it in his conclusions. Any scientific theory must be falsifiable.
metamars:
In light of the above, I find it less remarkable than you.
However, since you raised the issue of falsifiability, would you please tell us what efforts FEMA and NIST made to show us how they addressed falsifiability of their own results. At least they had a budget (NIST much more than FEMA) to allow them to play devil's advocate to their own theories.
There's a few rather obvious ways that, I believe, NIST could have attempted to falisify their theories.
The one that I would most like to see are the computer models that show how a local collapse could turn into a globlal collapse. Even if, as JayUtah has indicated, it would be prohibitively expensive to do a finite element model of the entire building, I find it highly suspicious that they couldn't model, say, another 7 floors as a framed structure (in other words, along the lines of the impact zone) and model the rest of the building as a perfectly rigid body. If your computer models could then show collapse of the next floor in time t0, and the collapse of the next floor in time t1, where t1 < t0, that would certainly give me (engineering layman that I am) some confidence that their conclusions are worth serious consideration and not mere handwaiving.
If you make the statement that while NIST engineers only showed a local collapse, and there is no problem with accepting their contention that a local collapse must inevitably result in a global collapse, with only their collective intuition to substantiate such a claim, then I , for one, completely reject this appeal to authority.
Please tell me: how do we falsify their intuition?
Another way to falsify the NIST study is to amplify it to show how dust clouds with roughly the properties observed (to whatever extent they can be determined - admittedly not an easy task) could be created and ejected. This happened from the beginning of the collapse, so to falsify their models, they again should not (AFAIK) have to model the entire building.
Intutively, I think the idea that a gravity driven collapse could generate dust clouds with those properties is absurd. This intuition derives from my experience as a boy of trying to pound a nail into a conrete floor. ( Lol ) However, as Eric Temple Bell has said, "Intuition is the root of superstition". I don't expect you or NIST to accept my intuition as any sort of proof. Similarly, I would hope that you don't expect me to accept NIST's hand waiving/intuition as any sort of proof that dust cloud formation must have developed, just as was observed.
[/b]
IIRC, JayUtay didn't speak to this rather obvious question (at least in my mind) at all.
When Gordon completes his summary, it's probably a good idea to post it there, as well as my solution of the spring equation which also shows that Bazant Zhou "analysis" makes absurd predictions.
I expect more silence from the "engineers" there. Either that, or more ridiculous arguments. However, if serious refutations are posted, they may be worthwhile.
BTW, I ran into a subsequent post by JayUtah on another thread or forum, which showed him taking a distorted pseudo-scientific attitude towards "Conspiracy Theorists". Perhaps he was just having a bad day, but it certainly seemed to me that he had descended to the level of rubbish arguments so often seen in defenders of the official Fairy Tales. Not that there aren't recurring patterns in thought processes, including defective ones, in some people who espouse what are called "Conspiracy Theories". But some caveats would have given a fairer picture.
Thus, while I can and do complain about popes on this board, I don't assume or claim that most people who believe in Bin Laden and the 19 Arab hickackers are incapable or forever unwilling to come to understand how absurd the government Fairy Tales of collapse are. Just the opposite. ( Otherwise, we are wasting our time here. Could this be an explanation of "pope-dom"? I.e., to convince us that arguing the case is futile, since not even errors in details are admitted to which would not necessarily invalidate larger arguments?? )
I do not assume that the popes represent the general populace, and such would be definitely counter to my experience. Apparently, JayUtah does not return us this favor, but seems to take his generalizations of "conspiracy theorists" seriously.
I do believe, though, that critical thinking skills are particularly hard to come by in Americans, and that all people are fundamentally irrational, to one degree or another. At AH, I spoke about a friend of the family, an engineer with an IQ of 160, who "logically" concluded that the religion of his upbringing was the correct one. However, if you polled all the people in the world with 160+ IQ's and asked them which, if any, religion was the logically correct one, I suspect he'd be the only one coming to that "logical" conclusion.
So, I suspect JayUtah and I might agree about the rationality of most people. However, "most people" contains, as subsets, both FEMA Fairy Tale believers as well as we "Conspiracy Theorists".
Re: AH,
I forgot to add that I asked questions re BZ, but did not get satisfactory answers from anybody.
Although I didn't clearly state that I was trying to figure out the limitations of BZ ito domain and constraints, a reasonably intelligent engineer would have realized that that was what I was fumbling towards. Yet nobody at AH chose to address the limitations of BZ.
Now that I understand it better, I do wonder if people there knew full well that it's essentially worthless, and didn't reply to keep me from figuring that out.
Oh, but I'm thinking like one of those silly conspiracy theorists, now, aren't I?
I forgot to add that I asked questions re BZ, but did not get satisfactory answers from anybody.
QUOTE
5) Is "elastic dynamic analysis" a common tool used by structural engineers in their designs (and post mortems )? I didn't fully understand their paper, but I did get the sense that it's not a useful approximation for studying collapses. Perhaps its useful for studying vibrations or tiny perturbations, say due to small earthquakes?
)? I didn't fully understand their paper, but I did get the sense that it's not a useful approximation for studying collapses. Perhaps its useful for studying vibrations or tiny perturbations, say due to small earthquakes?Although I didn't clearly state that I was trying to figure out the limitations of BZ ito domain and constraints, a reasonably intelligent engineer would have realized that that was what I was fumbling towards. Yet nobody at AH chose to address the limitations of BZ.
Now that I understand it better, I do wonder if people there knew full well that it's essentially worthless, and didn't reply to keep me from figuring that out.
Oh, but I'm thinking like one of those silly conspiracy theorists, now, aren't I?
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 21 2006, 02:55 PM)
Now that I understand it better, I do wonder if people there knew full well that it's essentially worthless, and didn't reply to keep me from figuring that out.
Oh, but I'm thinking like one of those silly conspiracy theorists, now, aren't I?
you know when you've got them on the run. the terror alerts start bleeping, a war starts, a new draconian totalitarian law gets passed down the pipe....
porn? yeah, okay. we wouldn't want that film mentioned in the franklin cover-up, or any of the 'compromising' pics taken at whitehouse 'hire a child for a few hours' parties to suddenly appear as a bittorrent, now would we. nobody likes to bring evil overlords to justice. it's just too distasteful.
the proposed(like it's NOT going to happen, god help us all) 'law' has nothing to do with the dissemination of information which can bring the whole evil empire down in a global runaway collapse, i'm sure.
jeff gannon/guckert is not a theory.
the franklin coverup is not a theory.
the rate of collapse of tower seven is measurable.
the right to assembly does not include 'free speech zones'.
machines don't vote in a real democracy, people do.
how big does the conspiracy have to be? systemically large is the correct answer. dont ask questions and play ball or get out is the modus operandi of monopolistic power.
Oh, but I'm thinking like one of those silly conspiracy theorists, now, aren't I?
you know when you've got them on the run. the terror alerts start bleeping, a war starts, a new draconian totalitarian law gets passed down the pipe....
porn? yeah, okay. we wouldn't want that film mentioned in the franklin cover-up, or any of the 'compromising' pics taken at whitehouse 'hire a child for a few hours' parties to suddenly appear as a bittorrent, now would we. nobody likes to bring evil overlords to justice. it's just too distasteful.
the proposed(like it's NOT going to happen, god help us all) 'law' has nothing to do with the dissemination of information which can bring the whole evil empire down in a global runaway collapse, i'm sure.
jeff gannon/guckert is not a theory.
the franklin coverup is not a theory.
the rate of collapse of tower seven is measurable.
the right to assembly does not include 'free speech zones'.
machines don't vote in a real democracy, people do.
how big does the conspiracy have to be? systemically large is the correct answer. dont ask questions and play ball or get out is the modus operandi of monopolistic power.
QUOTE
It matters because I was quoting McGovern when I reported that nobody in the CIA took up his challenge. It seems that you've managed to produce a source from the CIA that now contradicts McGovern, though not at the time he wrote his article (apparently - you still haven't posted dates).
Why can't you stay with the point? The point of my post was not to show as many CIA people came out on the misuse of intel. The point is PEOPLE HAVE COME OUT. I know you want it to be about how many people came out from what what part of the government because then it looks like only one person came out from the CIA and only AFTER the quote. That's not the point. The point is YOU'RE WRONG THAT NO ONE HAS COME OUT AT ALL. Your twisting of this point only hurts YOUR credibility and not mine.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It matters because I was quoting McGovern when I reported that nobody in the CIA took up his challenge. It seems that you've managed to produce a source from the CIA that now contradicts McGovern, though not at the time he wrote his article (apparently - you still haven't posted dates). |
Why can't you stay with the point? The point of my post was not to show as many CIA people came out on the misuse of intel. The point is PEOPLE HAVE COME OUT. I know you want it to be about how many people came out from what what part of the government because then it looks like only one person came out from the CIA and only AFTER the quote. That's not the point. The point is YOU'RE WRONG THAT NO ONE HAS COME OUT AT ALL. Your twisting of this point only hurts YOUR credibility and not mine.
O'Neil was ex-FBI on 911, no ex-CIA. Clark was a "former White House counterterrorism coordinator", not ex-CIA.
Again, you have no choice but to change the debate to call it a win. Ironicly a tactic used by the man you call a mass murder.
"White House Calls For Paul O'Neill Investigation
The U.S. Treasury Department has announced it will investigate whether former Treasurer Secretary Paul O'Neill illegally disclosed internal documents from the Bush administration to reporters. O'Neill came public this week saying Bush decided to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein's government almost as soon as he took office. O'Neill, who also served as a member of the National Security Council, says the administration never had evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And O'Neill said during cabinet meetings Bush acted like "a blind man in a room full of deaf people." One of the internal documents O'Neill showed reporters revealed that the Bush administration was considering how to split up Iraqis oil supply months before the Sept. 11 attacks. O'Neill is the highest-ranking official to part ways publicly with Bush. Regarding the Treasury Department probe, the political website TalkingPointsMemo.com notes that it took the Bush administration 74 days to announce an investigation about who within the White House outted the CIA operative Valerie Plame to reporters. Meanwhile It took the administration less than one day to announce an investigation of Paul O'Neill for possibly revealing secret information."
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/13/1458202
YES, I KNOW he doesn't work for the CIA. Don't change the subject. Obviously O'Neill is one of the few republicans with morals but he came out almost immediately. Wilson was another one who came out when Bush used intel in speeches which was poor. The point of Clark and the other is not that I'm pretending they worked for the CIA. It doesn't matter to the argument I'm making which is NO ONE WHO IS CREDIBLE FROM ANYWHERE IS COMMING OUT ON THE BIGGEST MASS MURDER IN HISTORY and YOU KNOW IT.
Hence their is REALIBLE evidence Bush manipulated intel and always has been but NONE with this MASSIVE coverup you are trying to preach. That has always been and always will be my point until people start coming out saying Bush planted bombs in the towers or it can only have fallen due to bombs.
Has anyone looked over the calculation made by Frank Greening? They can be found on the 911myths site at:
911 Myths Contributions
He has a few papers here the main one being "Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse". The first part of the calculation is one I think we've all seen, what I'd call the idealized pancake collapse to approximate a collapse time. He goes on to estimate the impact energy to crush a floor and calculate its effect on the collapse time. Also there is an estimate of the energy to crush the concrete to 100 micron size and a table giving an estimated energy budget. There are a few other details as well. I'd be interested in the take on these calculations.
Lon
911 Myths Contributions
He has a few papers here the main one being "Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse". The first part of the calculation is one I think we've all seen, what I'd call the idealized pancake collapse to approximate a collapse time. He goes on to estimate the impact energy to crush a floor and calculate its effect on the collapse time. Also there is an estimate of the energy to crush the concrete to 100 micron size and a table giving an estimated energy budget. There are a few other details as well. I'd be interested in the take on these calculations.
Lon
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Jan 22 2006, 12:30 AM)
Has anyone looked over the calculation made by Frank Greening? They can be found on the 911myths site at:
911 Myths Contributions
He has a few papers here the main one being "Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse". The first part of the calculation is one I think we've all seen, what I'd call the idealized pancake collapse to approximate a collapse time. He goes on to estimate the impact energy to crush a floor and calculate its effect on the collapse time. Also there is an estimate of the energy to crush the concrete to 100 micron size and a table giving an estimated energy budget. There are a few other details as well. I'd be interested in the take on these calculations.
Lon
I was asked a while back to look at this, via a private communication. The following is my response, after more of a quick skim than a careful read, edited somewhat:
I just skimmed through the conservation of momentum calcs, which he presents as valid first order approximation, which are roughly in agreement with free fall speed,
As my program showed basically the same thing, no argument there!
He then tries to estimate the energy that would be dissipated as each floor collapsed, due to the inherent resistance of the steel structure. Of course, this is exactly what should have been attempted in a credible way back in 2001, and the lack of such an analysis is the main reason that I didn't pay attention to the free fall speed "argument"
So, how does he get a figure for energy dissipation due to steel on a given floor?
For one thing, he uses BZ! He admits that he doesn't know how they got one of their parameters, but since their results roughly agree with Wierzbicki's, he considers them valid.
Wierzbicki calculated their values for "plastic deformation" of a column by examining the deformation caused by the aircraft wings in the impact zone.
Greening then says "Ah ha! these values are about equal - the discredited BZ value and the Wierzbicki value. So, they must be correct!"
Well, ok, he didn't really use the word "discredited", I do. :-)
Can you see or guess the logical fallacy that he's committed, and then propagates throughout his paper? (I am on page 10, and now that I have seen where he has gone wrong, I will skim even faster through the rest of the paper.)
Tick tock tick tock.
Take a close look at the photos of the impact zone for a hint.
OK, times up.
The columns where the wings sliced through are remarkably (to my engineering-ignorant eyes) STRAIGHT. No doubt they curve a bit before their fractured ends, but not only is it near impossible to see any significant curvature, but some of the columns near the wing tips (I can actually only see the left extreme wing tip - am looking at p. 18 of
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf ) are INTACT, though bent a bit.
So, I immediately have questions as to how good Wierzbicki's numbers are for even a SINGLE failure along the length of a column, but let's assume that they're valid.
The photographic evidence from the wings tell us that, if you get a fracture at all, not far from that fracture is - what? - 3.7 meters of AIR?
HECK NO! More steel! Comparing to the height of the woman in the FEMA diagram, we can guesstimate an average roughly 2ft, so immediately we can conclude that Greening will have underestimated the resistance of the collapse of a column 3.7 meters long by about a factor of 6. So even if the column "failed" at the loading they claim, there is no hint that the rest of the column mysteriously disappears for another 3.7 meters, only to miraculously be intact and start resisting collapse, once again, 3.7 meters from the fractured end. (Of course, you have to judge by where a relatively thin wing has fractured the steel, not the wide fuselage or engines.)
Here, it gets a little funny, because (p. 10) I recall BZ claiming about a 20% (= 1/5) dissipation of KE crashing through the first sound floor. Well, shucks, since Wierzbicki's has undercounted by roughly a factor of 6, and since BZ gives a dissipation figure for a single floor of 6.29 x 10^8 J while BZ gives a dissipation figure of 5 x 10^8J, we have to ask a simple question:
How the heck can you collapse even a SINGLE floor with less than the amount of energy needed to do so?
Looks like you will have arrested collapse after maybe 9-10 feet (just eyeballing it, here)
I think you know the answer.
Here I need to interject a possible caveat, as well as a possible conspiracy theory. Wierzbicki should have been able to calculate yields from first principles - they are looking to derive a figure for AN ISOLATED COLUMN, not a complex structure. So, I'd like to know: did they, and then compare their values? And secondly, since they knew damn well that the the building presses vertically downward, how did they come up with a reasonable "frequency of failure"? I.e., how far apart should these failures have taken place, on average? If you claim 3.7 meters, you should be able to back that up.
I've not read Wierzbicki , so have no idea what's in there, but if they also imply what Greening does, then they may have injected this disinformation deliberately. That's rather stupid, so a more reasonable speculation is that Wierzbicki did a study that was valid on it's face, but so that disinformationlist Greening could come along and present us with more Fairy Tale analysis.
Just speculating, especially re Wierzbicki . Wierzbicki may be completely legit, and, probably is. Greening, however, may be "pope" material. :-)
=======================
Greening states that it is "theoretically possible for the WTC collapse events to have crushed more than 90% of the floor particles well within the observed particle size range"
Well, golly gee! Reading Hoffman's paper you see that the figures he gives shows that the energy of grinding was small compared to the energy required to HEAT this powder (and also other stuff), and that the Ideal Gas Law then allows you to calculate the energy sink associated with this expanding dust cloud, since you then know delta temperature.
The author conveniently ignores this, for obvious reasons. He has an unexplainable energy deficit, otherwise!
====================
Another humorous point is when he takes on Hufschmid, and contradicts Eric's interpretation of the ejection of the dust clouds (of course, he is silent on the squibs. Gee, I wonder why?) He calculates that initial ejection velocities would be 41 mph, but later ejection velocities of 484 mph. Wow, The speed of sound is 761 mph.
While the dust obscures most of what goes on, it seems to me that the ejection of dust is basically constant from floor to floor, consistent with CD. So, he opens a Pandora's box, here, but just ignores the implications. Furthermore, what IS the ejection velocity? That of squibs should be easy to calculate, as well as that of the first floor or two of collapse initiation. Just guessing, but I'd guesstimate 80 mph. If my guess is correct, this is yet another example of this guy creating more problems for his side, as he attempts to debunk our side.
============
I'm not an engineer, and thus not qualified to debunk his p. 20, but I note that he leaps from observations about eccentric loading of columns (without quantifying and specifying - which columns, made of what, and how they compare to the WTC columns ito strength) to saying that this SUGGESTS "aircraft damage alone was sufficient to initiate a total collapse of the buildings."
I doubt this "analysis" has any validity for another reason - the WTC buildings had extensive cross connections, which worked to keep them in plumb.
Frankly, I have serious doubts that this guy is an engineer. Is he? BZ got away with their nonsense because they had an otherwise stellar rep, and I don't think anybody in their field takes their calculation seriously. Note that when Jones was criticized by the construction engineering dept. at BYU, nobody mentioned BZ.
911 Myths Contributions
He has a few papers here the main one being "Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse". The first part of the calculation is one I think we've all seen, what I'd call the idealized pancake collapse to approximate a collapse time. He goes on to estimate the impact energy to crush a floor and calculate its effect on the collapse time. Also there is an estimate of the energy to crush the concrete to 100 micron size and a table giving an estimated energy budget. There are a few other details as well. I'd be interested in the take on these calculations.
Lon
I was asked a while back to look at this, via a private communication. The following is my response, after more of a quick skim than a careful read, edited somewhat:
QUOTE
I just skimmed through the conservation of momentum calcs, which he presents as valid first order approximation, which are roughly in agreement with free fall speed,
As my program showed basically the same thing, no argument there!
He then tries to estimate the energy that would be dissipated as each floor collapsed, due to the inherent resistance of the steel structure. Of course, this is exactly what should have been attempted in a credible way back in 2001, and the lack of such an analysis is the main reason that I didn't pay attention to the free fall speed "argument"
So, how does he get a figure for energy dissipation due to steel on a given floor?
For one thing, he uses BZ! He admits that he doesn't know how they got one of their parameters, but since their results roughly agree with Wierzbicki's, he considers them valid.
Wierzbicki calculated their values for "plastic deformation" of a column by examining the deformation caused by the aircraft wings in the impact zone.
Greening then says "Ah ha! these values are about equal - the discredited BZ value and the Wierzbicki value. So, they must be correct!"
Well, ok, he didn't really use the word "discredited", I do. :-)
Can you see or guess the logical fallacy that he's committed, and then propagates throughout his paper? (I am on page 10, and now that I have seen where he has gone wrong, I will skim even faster through the rest of the paper.)
Tick tock tick tock.
Take a close look at the photos of the impact zone for a hint.
OK, times up.
The columns where the wings sliced through are remarkably (to my engineering-ignorant eyes) STRAIGHT. No doubt they curve a bit before their fractured ends, but not only is it near impossible to see any significant curvature, but some of the columns near the wing tips (I can actually only see the left extreme wing tip - am looking at p. 18 of
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf ) are INTACT, though bent a bit.
So, I immediately have questions as to how good Wierzbicki's numbers are for even a SINGLE failure along the length of a column, but let's assume that they're valid.
The photographic evidence from the wings tell us that, if you get a fracture at all, not far from that fracture is - what? - 3.7 meters of AIR?
HECK NO! More steel! Comparing to the height of the woman in the FEMA diagram, we can guesstimate an average roughly 2ft, so immediately we can conclude that Greening will have underestimated the resistance of the collapse of a column 3.7 meters long by about a factor of 6. So even if the column "failed" at the loading they claim, there is no hint that the rest of the column mysteriously disappears for another 3.7 meters, only to miraculously be intact and start resisting collapse, once again, 3.7 meters from the fractured end. (Of course, you have to judge by where a relatively thin wing has fractured the steel, not the wide fuselage or engines.)
Here, it gets a little funny, because (p. 10) I recall BZ claiming about a 20% (= 1/5) dissipation of KE crashing through the first sound floor. Well, shucks, since Wierzbicki's has undercounted by roughly a factor of 6, and since BZ gives a dissipation figure for a single floor of 6.29 x 10^8 J while BZ gives a dissipation figure of 5 x 10^8J, we have to ask a simple question:
How the heck can you collapse even a SINGLE floor with less than the amount of energy needed to do so?
Looks like you will have arrested collapse after maybe 9-10 feet (just eyeballing it, here)
I think you know the answer.
Here I need to interject a possible caveat, as well as a possible conspiracy theory. Wierzbicki should have been able to calculate yields from first principles - they are looking to derive a figure for AN ISOLATED COLUMN, not a complex structure. So, I'd like to know: did they, and then compare their values? And secondly, since they knew damn well that the the building presses vertically downward, how did they come up with a reasonable "frequency of failure"? I.e., how far apart should these failures have taken place, on average? If you claim 3.7 meters, you should be able to back that up.
I've not read Wierzbicki , so have no idea what's in there, but if they also imply what Greening does, then they may have injected this disinformation deliberately. That's rather stupid, so a more reasonable speculation is that Wierzbicki did a study that was valid on it's face, but so that disinformationlist Greening could come along and present us with more Fairy Tale analysis.
Just speculating, especially re Wierzbicki . Wierzbicki may be completely legit, and, probably is. Greening, however, may be "pope" material. :-)
=======================
Greening states that it is "theoretically possible for the WTC collapse events to have crushed more than 90% of the floor particles well within the observed particle size range"
Well, golly gee! Reading Hoffman's paper you see that the figures he gives shows that the energy of grinding was small compared to the energy required to HEAT this powder (and also other stuff), and that the Ideal Gas Law then allows you to calculate the energy sink associated with this expanding dust cloud, since you then know delta temperature.
The author conveniently ignores this, for obvious reasons. He has an unexplainable energy deficit, otherwise!
====================
Another humorous point is when he takes on Hufschmid, and contradicts Eric's interpretation of the ejection of the dust clouds (of course, he is silent on the squibs. Gee, I wonder why?) He calculates that initial ejection velocities would be 41 mph, but later ejection velocities of 484 mph. Wow, The speed of sound is 761 mph.
While the dust obscures most of what goes on, it seems to me that the ejection of dust is basically constant from floor to floor, consistent with CD. So, he opens a Pandora's box, here, but just ignores the implications. Furthermore, what IS the ejection velocity? That of squibs should be easy to calculate, as well as that of the first floor or two of collapse initiation. Just guessing, but I'd guesstimate 80 mph. If my guess is correct, this is yet another example of this guy creating more problems for his side, as he attempts to debunk our side.
============
I'm not an engineer, and thus not qualified to debunk his p. 20, but I note that he leaps from observations about eccentric loading of columns (without quantifying and specifying - which columns, made of what, and how they compare to the WTC columns ito strength) to saying that this SUGGESTS "aircraft damage alone was sufficient to initiate a total collapse of the buildings."
I doubt this "analysis" has any validity for another reason - the WTC buildings had extensive cross connections, which worked to keep them in plumb.
Frankly, I have serious doubts that this guy is an engineer. Is he? BZ got away with their nonsense because they had an otherwise stellar rep, and I don't think anybody in their field takes their calculation seriously. Note that when Jones was criticized by the construction engineering dept. at BYU, nobody mentioned BZ.
Thanks Lon,
Quite interesting.
I will look into them in more detail when I feel a bit better.
Arthur
Quite interesting.
I will look into them in more detail when I feel a bit better.
Arthur
Metamars, its obvious why you are unemployed and broke.
You don't work hard.
I've not read Wierzbicki
I asked questions re BZ, but did not get satisfactory answers from anybody
You want Cheese with that WHINE?
Grow up.
Arthur
You don't work hard.
QUOTE
The following is my response, after more of a quick skim than a careful read
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The following is my response, after more of a quick skim than a careful read |
I've not read Wierzbicki
QUOTE
I've not read the NIST report
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've not read the NIST report |
I asked questions re BZ, but did not get satisfactory answers from anybody
QUOTE
I asked how much $$ this would cost, and I never got an answer, not even an approximate one. Nor did I get any direction as to who else I might ask for a figure. Apparently, too, in spite of my very relevant questions re "columns failure", neither JayUtah or anybody else at AH had any interest in looking up and/or informing me about this subject.
Also, neither JayUtah nor anybody else gave a satisfactory answer to my question regarding a (hopefully) affordable finite element model of the collapses which would give insight into the begininning of the alleged gravity driven global collapse:
Also, neither JayUtah nor anybody else gave a satisfactory answer to my question regarding a (hopefully) affordable finite element model of the collapses which would give insight into the begininning of the alleged gravity driven global collapse:
You want Cheese with that WHINE?
Grow up.
Arthur
Guess I should have edited a little more.
should read:
should read:
and since Wierzbicki gives a dissipation figure for a single floor of 6.29 x 10^8 J while BZ gives a dissipation figure of 5 x 10^8J, we have to ask a simple question:
Also, just to make the logic more explicit:
Corrected energy dissipated ala Wierzbicki = 6 * Wierzbicki > 5 * BZ = 100% KE according to BZ
QUOTE
and since BZ gives a dissipation figure for a single floor of 6.29 x 10^8 J while BZ gives a dissipation figure of 5 x 10^8J, we have to ask a simple question:
should read:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and since BZ gives a dissipation figure for a single floor of 6.29 x 10^8 J while BZ gives a dissipation figure of 5 x 10^8J, we have to ask a simple question: |
should read:
and since Wierzbicki gives a dissipation figure for a single floor of 6.29 x 10^8 J while BZ gives a dissipation figure of 5 x 10^8J, we have to ask a simple question:
Also, just to make the logic more explicit:
Corrected energy dissipated ala Wierzbicki = 6 * Wierzbicki > 5 * BZ = 100% KE according to BZ
From the thread concerning this same topic, on AH
Seems pretty clear to me that the core could not stand on its own with any lateral forces(such as the buffeting from having 110 floors and perimeter columns being torn away and crashing downward).
Seems pretty clear, in fact it is stated specifically, that the engineers at the table agreed that the building was doomed once the initial collapse took place. Note that I bolded that sentence above for easy reading.
QUOTE
I was largely unable to post yesterday because of some unannounced (at least to me) visits of customers and field workers. This turned out to be a very fortuitous situation, because the visitors were from Lawrence Livermore laboratories and were suitably familiar with the LS-DYNA component of the software used to create the WTC structural models for the NIST report, and the field workers were licensed structural engineers who work (or worked, in some cases) for us. One was David Cassett, a long-time friend and my mentor in structural engineering. He is a fully-licensed structural engineer who worked out of Utah and now works out of Berkely, California. There were a number of licensed structural engineers (some of whom I hadn't met before), but most everyone at the table had a combination of formal training and practical experience at structural engineering for large structures.
I went to dinner with these people and brought along some notes and photographs of the WTC structures to get their opinions.
First, I claimed elsewhere that the WTC cores couldn't have been built "more than a few stories" above the rest of the structure because of instability. You asked for a source for this claim. I knew at the time that it was covered in one of my structures courses from many years ago. I ransacked my attic and found my notes: the basis of that restriction had more to do with how the cranes were attached to the rising core columns and the eccentric loads they placed on them.
But I asked these guys how high they could have built the core as a free-standing structure. They agreed it could have been built all the way to the top, but it would have lacked sufficient stiffness to resist any lateral loads.
This sparked a bit of a debate, because half the engineers believed the core employed diagonal supports. Consulting the photographs of the WTC construction, however, we concluded that no such diagonal bracing was supplied. Two photographs allegedly showed diagonal bracing, but it turned out to be a staircase in one instance and the truss web of the cranes themselves in another case. The general consensus on this point was that the core could not have stood to full height for very long by itself with only horizontal bracing.
We then looked at the core framing. I wasn't able to find any drawings of the core framing plan, but I was able to find some photographs of the core under construction that showed the arrangement, in part, of the core beams. All the engineers agreed that the core was not laid out in structural bays, and so conventional wisdom derived from more pedestrian construction probably wouldn't apply.
It was pointed out that the primary task of the beams between the core columns was to support the core floor structures. I suggested that the beams would also act to brace the core columns against buckling, and there was general agreement to that, however it was noted that the response would be anisotropic; the structures would probably be more inclined to buckle in one direction than in another. It was also agreed that the relatively ad hoc arrangement of floor beams would result in nonuniform redistribution of loads when certain columns failed.
I asked their opinions whether the core would be considered more or less robust than a post-and-beam building of typical design. This elicited some discussion. I reminded them that the columns were more closely spaced in the WTC core than would be the case in other buildings. They considered this to impart slightly more strength, but the overriding concern -- at least in David's opinion -- was the lack of a homogeneous web of beams through the columns (i.e., the structural bay approach), the lack of diagonal bracing, and the overall slenderness ratio of the core.
I asked what role they believed the trusses to have played in bracing the core. Since they had already concluded that the core -- as built -- would not stand on its own for very long, one engineer said that the core (as a whole) required all the trusses and the perimeter (as a whole) to brace it along its length. He preferred to think about it in a global fashion rather than on a floor-by-floor or column-by-column basis.
I didn't ask about the trusses distorting the core columns because I had already abandoned that conclusion, but I did ask about the trusses increasing the load on the core via the hat truss by distorting the perimeter columns, and they agreed with that analysis.
I asked them point blank if they thought the global collapse was odd. This was the only point on which they were unanimous: once it started falling it was going to fall all the way to the ground.
________________-----
So now we have the consensus opinion of Jay's structural engineers that the cores would be able to remain upright as stand alone structures. This agrees with what I wrote back in July....
No. After seeing evidence that no diagonal bracing was provided in the core, they specifically said it would thus not be able to stand to that height as a solitary structure. That it stood a few stories higher than the rest of the structure during construction has never been denied.
I assume that since you didn't say there was a consensus, that at least some argued that the core design would be a more robust design...
Remember this was an informal discussion carried out around a dinner table. Not every engineer is willing to make an assertive answer on every question asked informally. As with most experts in a field that thrives on detail, they believe the devil is in those details.
Did they say it was odd?
No. This was the only question on which there was a unanimous, asserted answer.
What do they base the opinion that it was an inevitable complete collapse on?
A combined 120 years or so of professional expertise in structural engineering and engineering failure analysis. The Livermore people are those who basically invented the science of finite-element methods for structural analysis, which has completely revolutionized it and enabled hitherto unattainable structures.
On what do you base your objection?
I went to dinner with these people and brought along some notes and photographs of the WTC structures to get their opinions.
First, I claimed elsewhere that the WTC cores couldn't have been built "more than a few stories" above the rest of the structure because of instability. You asked for a source for this claim. I knew at the time that it was covered in one of my structures courses from many years ago. I ransacked my attic and found my notes: the basis of that restriction had more to do with how the cranes were attached to the rising core columns and the eccentric loads they placed on them.
But I asked these guys how high they could have built the core as a free-standing structure. They agreed it could have been built all the way to the top, but it would have lacked sufficient stiffness to resist any lateral loads.
This sparked a bit of a debate, because half the engineers believed the core employed diagonal supports. Consulting the photographs of the WTC construction, however, we concluded that no such diagonal bracing was supplied. Two photographs allegedly showed diagonal bracing, but it turned out to be a staircase in one instance and the truss web of the cranes themselves in another case. The general consensus on this point was that the core could not have stood to full height for very long by itself with only horizontal bracing.
We then looked at the core framing. I wasn't able to find any drawings of the core framing plan, but I was able to find some photographs of the core under construction that showed the arrangement, in part, of the core beams. All the engineers agreed that the core was not laid out in structural bays, and so conventional wisdom derived from more pedestrian construction probably wouldn't apply.
It was pointed out that the primary task of the beams between the core columns was to support the core floor structures. I suggested that the beams would also act to brace the core columns against buckling, and there was general agreement to that, however it was noted that the response would be anisotropic; the structures would probably be more inclined to buckle in one direction than in another. It was also agreed that the relatively ad hoc arrangement of floor beams would result in nonuniform redistribution of loads when certain columns failed.
I asked their opinions whether the core would be considered more or less robust than a post-and-beam building of typical design. This elicited some discussion. I reminded them that the columns were more closely spaced in the WTC core than would be the case in other buildings. They considered this to impart slightly more strength, but the overriding concern -- at least in David's opinion -- was the lack of a homogeneous web of beams through the columns (i.e., the structural bay approach), the lack of diagonal bracing, and the overall slenderness ratio of the core.
I asked what role they believed the trusses to have played in bracing the core. Since they had already concluded that the core -- as built -- would not stand on its own for very long, one engineer said that the core (as a whole) required all the trusses and the perimeter (as a whole) to brace it along its length. He preferred to think about it in a global fashion rather than on a floor-by-floor or column-by-column basis.
I didn't ask about the trusses distorting the core columns because I had already abandoned that conclusion, but I did ask about the trusses increasing the load on the core via the hat truss by distorting the perimeter columns, and they agreed with that analysis.
I asked them point blank if they thought the global collapse was odd. This was the only point on which they were unanimous: once it started falling it was going to fall all the way to the ground.
________________-----
So now we have the consensus opinion of Jay's structural engineers that the cores would be able to remain upright as stand alone structures. This agrees with what I wrote back in July....
No. After seeing evidence that no diagonal bracing was provided in the core, they specifically said it would thus not be able to stand to that height as a solitary structure. That it stood a few stories higher than the rest of the structure during construction has never been denied.
I assume that since you didn't say there was a consensus, that at least some argued that the core design would be a more robust design...
Remember this was an informal discussion carried out around a dinner table. Not every engineer is willing to make an assertive answer on every question asked informally. As with most experts in a field that thrives on detail, they believe the devil is in those details.
Did they say it was odd?
No. This was the only question on which there was a unanimous, asserted answer.
What do they base the opinion that it was an inevitable complete collapse on?
A combined 120 years or so of professional expertise in structural engineering and engineering failure analysis. The Livermore people are those who basically invented the science of finite-element methods for structural analysis, which has completely revolutionized it and enabled hitherto unattainable structures.
On what do you base your objection?
Seems pretty clear to me that the core could not stand on its own with any lateral forces(such as the buffeting from having 110 floors and perimeter columns being torn away and crashing downward).
Seems pretty clear, in fact it is stated specifically, that the engineers at the table agreed that the building was doomed once the initial collapse took place. Note that I bolded that sentence above for easy reading.
Concerning elastic dynamic analysis
Metamars,
I did some checking in the ASCE database and discovered that elastic dynamic analysis is being increasingly used in new testing regimes to assess the potential for progressive collapse in structures. This is a definite post-9/11 phenomenon. So a more accurate answer to your question is that Bazant's invocation of it in 2001 was probably fairly innovative at the time, but that it is being more widely used as engineers find better ways to evaluate designs for progressive collapse potential. If the issue at hand is whether Bazant and Zhou misapplied it, then I don't think there's much room for that claim
______________
5) Is "elastic dynamic analysis" a common tool used by structural engineers in their designs (and post mortems )?
Yes. This time I'll be brief because I want to go to bed, but I also want to get to your answers quickly before they get separated too far from the questions.
You use this method when you are interested only in the elastic behavior of the structure (i.e., you assume it won't bend) and the load is likely to set up some "springy" response to a shock or displacement.
Boeing also uses it extensively to model the behavior of wing designs. As the wing flexes its aerodynamic character changes and lift varies along its length. That creates a periodic displacement of parts of the wing structure, just like an earthquake creates periodic displacements of a building's foundation. The load doesn't have to be periodic; a single shock is enough.
The question you usually want to answer is whether the elastic response damps out or gets worse or finds some equilibrium.
I didn't fully understand their paper, but I did get the sense that it's not a useful approximation for studying collapses.
Not all aspects of a collapse, but it can indeed apply where you're trying to decide whether there should have been a collapse. Boeing uses it to see whether a given wing design will tear itself apart during flight due to flutter. Bazant and Zhou have used it correctly and appropriately for the manner in which they have formulated their problem. They aren't studying everything that can be studied about the global collapse.
They have modeled the problem as the upper part falling on the lower part after a fall of one floor's height, and then seeing how the building response elastically to the collision as if it were one solid object falling on another solid object. Then they study the same thing from the inelastic point of view.
Let me add some detail about their use of "yield moment" in that section. What they're saying is that the remaining columns on that first key floor -- after collapse initiated -- would have bent essentially instantly without consuming very much of the overall energy available. The yield moment is used here as the force necessary to bend a column.
Perhaps its useful for studying vibrations or tiny
perturbations, say due to small earthquakes?
It's useful any time you need to find resonances or study the energy in vibration.
Have you ever used "elastic dynamic analysis" in your job?
Yes, but not on a building.
QUOTE
Metamars,
I did some checking in the ASCE database and discovered that elastic dynamic analysis is being increasingly used in new testing regimes to assess the potential for progressive collapse in structures. This is a definite post-9/11 phenomenon. So a more accurate answer to your question is that Bazant's invocation of it in 2001 was probably fairly innovative at the time, but that it is being more widely used as engineers find better ways to evaluate designs for progressive collapse potential. If the issue at hand is whether Bazant and Zhou misapplied it, then I don't think there's much room for that claim
______________
5) Is "elastic dynamic analysis" a common tool used by structural engineers in their designs (and post mortems )?
Yes. This time I'll be brief because I want to go to bed, but I also want to get to your answers quickly before they get separated too far from the questions.
You use this method when you are interested only in the elastic behavior of the structure (i.e., you assume it won't bend) and the load is likely to set up some "springy" response to a shock or displacement.
Boeing also uses it extensively to model the behavior of wing designs. As the wing flexes its aerodynamic character changes and lift varies along its length. That creates a periodic displacement of parts of the wing structure, just like an earthquake creates periodic displacements of a building's foundation. The load doesn't have to be periodic; a single shock is enough.
The question you usually want to answer is whether the elastic response damps out or gets worse or finds some equilibrium.
I didn't fully understand their paper, but I did get the sense that it's not a useful approximation for studying collapses.
Not all aspects of a collapse, but it can indeed apply where you're trying to decide whether there should have been a collapse. Boeing uses it to see whether a given wing design will tear itself apart during flight due to flutter. Bazant and Zhou have used it correctly and appropriately for the manner in which they have formulated their problem. They aren't studying everything that can be studied about the global collapse.
They have modeled the problem as the upper part falling on the lower part after a fall of one floor's height, and then seeing how the building response elastically to the collision as if it were one solid object falling on another solid object. Then they study the same thing from the inelastic point of view.
Let me add some detail about their use of "yield moment" in that section. What they're saying is that the remaining columns on that first key floor -- after collapse initiated -- would have bent essentially instantly without consuming very much of the overall energy available. The yield moment is used here as the force necessary to bend a column.
Perhaps its useful for studying vibrations or tiny
perturbations, say due to small earthquakes?
It's useful any time you need to find resonances or study the energy in vibration.
Have you ever used "elastic dynamic analysis" in your job?
Yes, but not on a building.
With the intro being the abbreviation "YID", do I have to say who wrote this?
But not the Ph.D. that Bazant has or the multitude of same at NIST or FEMA, or for that matter the ACSE. In other words you pick and choose according to your preconceived notion of what you want to see and hear.
QUOTE
YID...
I think I prefer to listen to the wisdom of Jones & Fetzer who have Ph.d's, rather than the likes of biased obfuscators prevalent as posters on AH.
I think I prefer to listen to the wisdom of Jones & Fetzer who have Ph.d's, rather than the likes of biased obfuscators prevalent as posters on AH.
But not the Ph.D. that Bazant has or the multitude of same at NIST or FEMA, or for that matter the ACSE. In other words you pick and choose according to your preconceived notion of what you want to see and hear.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 22 2006, 01:34 AM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Jan 22 2006, 12:30 AM)
Has anyone looked over the calculation made by Frank Greening? They can be found on the 911myths site at:
911 Myths Contributions
He has a few papers here the main one being "Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse". The first part of the calculation is one I think we've all seen, what I'd call the idealized pancake collapse to approximate a collapse time. He goes on to estimate the impact energy to crush a floor and calculate its effect on the collapse time. Also there is an estimate of the energy to crush the concrete to 100 micron size and a table giving an estimated energy budget. There are a few other details as well. I'd be interested in the take on these calculations.
Lon
I was asked a while back to look at this, via a private communication. The following is my response, after more of a quick skim than a careful read, edited somewhat:
I just skimmed through the conservation of momentum calcs, which he presents as valid first order approximation, which are roughly in agreement with free fall speed,
As my program showed basically the same thing, no argument there!
He then tries to estimate the energy that would be dissipated as each floor collapsed, due to the inherent resistance of the steel structure. Of course, this is exactly what should have been attempted in a credible way back in 2001, and the lack of such an analysis is the main reason that I didn't pay attention to the free fall speed "argument"
So, how does he get a figure for energy dissipation due to steel on a given floor?
For one thing, he uses BZ! He admits that he doesn't know how they got one of their parameters, but since their results roughly agree with Wierzbicki's, he considers them valid.
Wierzbicki calculated their values for "plastic deformation" of a column by examining the deformation caused by the aircraft wings in the impact zone.
Greening then says "Ah ha! these values are about equal - the discredited BZ value and the Wierzbicki value. So, they must be correct!"
Well, ok, he didn't really use the word "discredited", I do. :-)
Can you see or guess the logical fallacy that he's committed, and then propagates throughout his paper? (I am on page 10, and now that I have seen where he has gone wrong, I will skim even faster through the rest of the paper.)
Tick tock tick tock.
Take a close look at the photos of the impact zone for a hint.
OK, times up.
The columns where the wings sliced through are remarkably (to my engineering-ignorant eyes) STRAIGHT. No doubt they curve a bit before their fractured ends, but not only is it near impossible to see any significant curvature, but some of the columns near the wing tips (I can actually only see the left extreme wing tip - am looking at p. 18 of
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf ) are INTACT, though bent a bit.
So, I immediately have questions as to how good Wierzbicki's numbers are for even a SINGLE failure along the length of a column, but let's assume that they're valid.
The photographic evidence from the wings tell us that, if you get a fracture at all, not far from that fracture is - what? - 3.7 meters of AIR?
HECK NO! More steel! Comparing to the height of the woman in the FEMA diagram, we can guesstimate an average roughly 2ft, so immediately we can conclude that Greening will have underestimated the resistance of the collapse of a column 3.7 meters long by about a factor of 6. So even if the column "failed" at the loading they claim, there is no hint that the rest of the column mysteriously disappears for another 3.7 meters, only to miraculously be intact and start resisting collapse, once again, 3.7 meters from the fractured end. (Of course, you have to judge by where a relatively thin wing has fractured the steel, not the wide fuselage or engines.)
Here, it gets a little funny, because (p. 10) I recall BZ claiming about a 20% (= 1/5) dissipation of KE crashing through the first sound floor. Well, shucks, since Wierzbicki's has undercounted by roughly a factor of 6, and since BZ gives a dissipation figure for a single floor of 6.29 x 10^8 J while BZ gives a dissipation figure of 5 x 10^8J, we have to ask a simple question:
How the heck can you collapse even a SINGLE floor with less than the amount of energy needed to do so?
Looks like you will have arrested collapse after maybe 9-10 feet (just eyeballing it, here)
I think you know the answer.
Here I need to interject a possible caveat, as well as a possible conspiracy theory. Wierzbicki should have been able to calculate yields from first principles - they are looking to derive a figure for AN ISOLATED COLUMN, not a complex structure. So, I'd like to know: did they, and then compare their values? And secondly, since they knew damn well that the the building presses vertically downward, how did they come up with a reasonable "frequency of failure"? I.e., how far apart should these failures have taken place, on average? If you claim 3.7 meters, you should be able to back that up.
I've not read Wierzbicki , so have no idea what's in there, but if they also imply what Greening does, then they may have injected this disinformation deliberately. That's rather stupid, so a more reasonable speculation is that Wierzbicki did a study that was valid on it's face, but so that disinformationlist Greening could come along and present us with more Fairy Tale analysis.
Just speculating, especially re Wierzbicki . Wierzbicki may be completely legit, and, probably is. Greening, however, may be "pope" material. :-)
=======================
Greening states that it is "theoretically possible for the WTC collapse events to have crushed more than 90% of the floor particles well within the observed particle size range"
Well, golly gee! Reading Hoffman's paper you see that the figures he gives shows that the energy of grinding was small compared to the energy required to HEAT this powder (and also other stuff), and that the Ideal Gas Law then allows you to calculate the energy sink associated with this expanding dust cloud, since you then know delta temperature.
The author conveniently ignores this, for obvious reasons. He has an unexplainable energy deficit, otherwise!
====================
Another humorous point is when he takes on Hufschmid, and contradicts Eric's interpretation of the ejection of the dust clouds (of course, he is silent on the squibs. Gee, I wonder why?) He calculates that initial ejection velocities would be 41 mph, but later ejection velocities of 484 mph. Wow, The speed of sound is 761 mph.
While the dust obscures most of what goes on, it seems to me that the ejection of dust is basically constant from floor to floor, consistent with CD. So, he opens a Pandora's box, here, but just ignores the implications. Furthermore, what IS the ejection velocity? That of squibs should be easy to calculate, as well as that of the first floor or two of collapse initiation. Just guessing, but I'd guesstimate 80 mph. If my guess is correct, this is yet another example of this guy creating more problems for his side, as he attempts to debunk our side.
============
I'm not an engineer, and thus not qualified to debunk his p. 20, but I note that he leaps from observations about eccentric loading of columns (without quantifying and specifying - which columns, made of what, and how they compare to the WTC columns ito strength) to saying that this SUGGESTS "aircraft damage alone was sufficient to initiate a total collapse of the buildings."
I doubt this "analysis" has any validity for another reason - the WTC buildings had extensive cross connections, which worked to keep them in plumb.
Frankly, I have serious doubts that this guy is an engineer. Is he? BZ got away with their nonsense because they had an otherwise stellar rep, and I don't think anybody in their field takes their calculation seriously. Note that when Jones was criticized by the construction engineering dept. at BYU, nobody mentioned BZ.
GREAT post, metamars !
Judging from the responses received so far, I don't see anyone even attempting a rational rebuttal to your points at all.
As 'they' can't answer rationally... 'they' just drift off into obfuscations.
Their 'proposed responses' don't even attempt to address the points you made...
What's 'new' ???
Let's add 'Greening' to the 'Eagar' list of 'popes' spurting nonsense.
Maybe he should register at AH ???
911 Myths Contributions
He has a few papers here the main one being "Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse". The first part of the calculation is one I think we've all seen, what I'd call the idealized pancake collapse to approximate a collapse time. He goes on to estimate the impact energy to crush a floor and calculate its effect on the collapse time. Also there is an estimate of the energy to crush the concrete to 100 micron size and a table giving an estimated energy budget. There are a few other details as well. I'd be interested in the take on these calculations.
Lon
I was asked a while back to look at this, via a private communication. The following is my response, after more of a quick skim than a careful read, edited somewhat:
QUOTE
I just skimmed through the conservation of momentum calcs, which he presents as valid first order approximation, which are roughly in agreement with free fall speed,
As my program showed basically the same thing, no argument there!
He then tries to estimate the energy that would be dissipated as each floor collapsed, due to the inherent resistance of the steel structure. Of course, this is exactly what should have been attempted in a credible way back in 2001, and the lack of such an analysis is the main reason that I didn't pay attention to the free fall speed "argument"
So, how does he get a figure for energy dissipation due to steel on a given floor?
For one thing, he uses BZ! He admits that he doesn't know how they got one of their parameters, but since their results roughly agree with Wierzbicki's, he considers them valid.
Wierzbicki calculated their values for "plastic deformation" of a column by examining the deformation caused by the aircraft wings in the impact zone.
Greening then says "Ah ha! these values are about equal - the discredited BZ value and the Wierzbicki value. So, they must be correct!"
Well, ok, he didn't really use the word "discredited", I do. :-)
Can you see or guess the logical fallacy that he's committed, and then propagates throughout his paper? (I am on page 10, and now that I have seen where he has gone wrong, I will skim even faster through the rest of the paper.)
Tick tock tick tock.
Take a close look at the photos of the impact zone for a hint.
OK, times up.
The columns where the wings sliced through are remarkably (to my engineering-ignorant eyes) STRAIGHT. No doubt they curve a bit before their fractured ends, but not only is it near impossible to see any significant curvature, but some of the columns near the wing tips (I can actually only see the left extreme wing tip - am looking at p. 18 of
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf ) are INTACT, though bent a bit.
So, I immediately have questions as to how good Wierzbicki's numbers are for even a SINGLE failure along the length of a column, but let's assume that they're valid.
The photographic evidence from the wings tell us that, if you get a fracture at all, not far from that fracture is - what? - 3.7 meters of AIR?
HECK NO! More steel! Comparing to the height of the woman in the FEMA diagram, we can guesstimate an average roughly 2ft, so immediately we can conclude that Greening will have underestimated the resistance of the collapse of a column 3.7 meters long by about a factor of 6. So even if the column "failed" at the loading they claim, there is no hint that the rest of the column mysteriously disappears for another 3.7 meters, only to miraculously be intact and start resisting collapse, once again, 3.7 meters from the fractured end. (Of course, you have to judge by where a relatively thin wing has fractured the steel, not the wide fuselage or engines.)
Here, it gets a little funny, because (p. 10) I recall BZ claiming about a 20% (= 1/5) dissipation of KE crashing through the first sound floor. Well, shucks, since Wierzbicki's has undercounted by roughly a factor of 6, and since BZ gives a dissipation figure for a single floor of 6.29 x 10^8 J while BZ gives a dissipation figure of 5 x 10^8J, we have to ask a simple question:
How the heck can you collapse even a SINGLE floor with less than the amount of energy needed to do so?
Looks like you will have arrested collapse after maybe 9-10 feet (just eyeballing it, here)
I think you know the answer.
Here I need to interject a possible caveat, as well as a possible conspiracy theory. Wierzbicki should have been able to calculate yields from first principles - they are looking to derive a figure for AN ISOLATED COLUMN, not a complex structure. So, I'd like to know: did they, and then compare their values? And secondly, since they knew damn well that the the building presses vertically downward, how did they come up with a reasonable "frequency of failure"? I.e., how far apart should these failures have taken place, on average? If you claim 3.7 meters, you should be able to back that up.
I've not read Wierzbicki , so have no idea what's in there, but if they also imply what Greening does, then they may have injected this disinformation deliberately. That's rather stupid, so a more reasonable speculation is that Wierzbicki did a study that was valid on it's face, but so that disinformationlist Greening could come along and present us with more Fairy Tale analysis.
Just speculating, especially re Wierzbicki . Wierzbicki may be completely legit, and, probably is. Greening, however, may be "pope" material. :-)
=======================
Greening states that it is "theoretically possible for the WTC collapse events to have crushed more than 90% of the floor particles well within the observed particle size range"
Well, golly gee! Reading Hoffman's paper you see that the figures he gives shows that the energy of grinding was small compared to the energy required to HEAT this powder (and also other stuff), and that the Ideal Gas Law then allows you to calculate the energy sink associated with this expanding dust cloud, since you then know delta temperature.
The author conveniently ignores this, for obvious reasons. He has an unexplainable energy deficit, otherwise!
====================
Another humorous point is when he takes on Hufschmid, and contradicts Eric's interpretation of the ejection of the dust clouds (of course, he is silent on the squibs. Gee, I wonder why?) He calculates that initial ejection velocities would be 41 mph, but later ejection velocities of 484 mph. Wow, The speed of sound is 761 mph.
While the dust obscures most of what goes on, it seems to me that the ejection of dust is basically constant from floor to floor, consistent with CD. So, he opens a Pandora's box, here, but just ignores the implications. Furthermore, what IS the ejection velocity? That of squibs should be easy to calculate, as well as that of the first floor or two of collapse initiation. Just guessing, but I'd guesstimate 80 mph. If my guess is correct, this is yet another example of this guy creating more problems for his side, as he attempts to debunk our side.
============
I'm not an engineer, and thus not qualified to debunk his p. 20, but I note that he leaps from observations about eccentric loading of columns (without quantifying and specifying - which columns, made of what, and how they compare to the WTC columns ito strength) to saying that this SUGGESTS "aircraft damage alone was sufficient to initiate a total collapse of the buildings."
I doubt this "analysis" has any validity for another reason - the WTC buildings had extensive cross connections, which worked to keep them in plumb.
Frankly, I have serious doubts that this guy is an engineer. Is he? BZ got away with their nonsense because they had an otherwise stellar rep, and I don't think anybody in their field takes their calculation seriously. Note that when Jones was criticized by the construction engineering dept. at BYU, nobody mentioned BZ.
GREAT post, metamars !
Judging from the responses received so far, I don't see anyone even attempting a rational rebuttal to your points at all.
As 'they' can't answer rationally... 'they' just drift off into obfuscations.
Their 'proposed responses' don't even attempt to address the points you made...
What's 'new' ???
Let's add 'Greening' to the 'Eagar' list of 'popes' spurting nonsense.
Maybe he should register at AH ???
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 22 2006, 03:33 AM)
Concerning elastic dynamic analysis
Metamars,
I did some checking in the ASCE database and discovered that elastic dynamic analysis is being increasingly used in new testing regimes to assess the potential for progressive collapse in structures. This is a definite post-9/11 phenomenon. So a more accurate answer to your question is that Bazant's invocation of it in 2001 was probably fairly innovative at the time, but that it is being more widely used as engineers find better ways to evaluate designs for progressive collapse potential. If the issue at hand is whether Bazant and Zhou misapplied it, then I don't think there's much room for that claim
______________
5) Is "elastic dynamic analysis" a common tool used by structural engineers in their designs (and post mortems )?
Yes. This time I'll be brief because I want to go to bed, but I also want to get to your answers quickly before they get separated too far from the questions.
You use this method when you are interested only in the elastic behavior of the structure (i.e., you assume it won't bend) and the load is likely to set up some "springy" response to a shock or displacement.
Boeing also uses it extensively to model the behavior of wing designs. As the wing flexes its aerodynamic character changes and lift varies along its length. That creates a periodic displacement of parts of the wing structure, just like an earthquake creates periodic displacements of a building's foundation. The load doesn't have to be periodic; a single shock is enough.
The question you usually want to answer is whether the elastic response damps out or gets worse or finds some equilibrium.
I didn't fully understand their paper, but I did get the sense that it's not a useful approximation for studying collapses.
Not all aspects of a collapse, but it can indeed apply where you're trying to decide whether there should have been a collapse. Boeing uses it to see whether a given wing design will tear itself apart during flight due to flutter. Bazant and Zhou have used it correctly and appropriately for the manner in which they have formulated their problem. They aren't studying everything that can be studied about the global collapse.
They have modeled the problem as the upper part falling on the lower part after a fall of one floor's height, and then seeing how the building response elastically to the collision as if it were one solid object falling on another solid object. Then they study the same thing from the inelastic point of view.
Let me add some detail about their use of "yield moment" in that section. What they're saying is that the remaining columns on that first key floor -- after collapse initiated -- would have bent essentially instantly without consuming very much of the overall energy available. The yield moment is used here as the force necessary to bend a column.
Perhaps its useful for studying vibrations or tiny
perturbations, say due to small earthquakes?
It's useful any time you need to find resonances or study the energy in vibration.
Have you ever used "elastic dynamic analysis" in your job?
Yes, but not on a building.
It'd be fair to say that the question of domain of the elastic part of BZ was implicitly addressed by JayUtah. However, it was not explicitly addressed either by him or BZ. On re-reading BZ, it's quite possible that the only reason they mention elastic dynamic analysis is to motivate an inelastic analysis. You know, without explicitly saying so, they are showing a result (their Eqn. 1) that everybody knows will never be achieved, and so setting the stage for looking deeper, via their inelastic analysis.
This is not how some FEMA Fairy Tale believers were quoting the elastic analytic part of their paper; however that is not the fault of BZ.
So, when JayUtah says, "Bazant and Zhou have used it correctly and appropriately for the manner in which they have formulated their problem. They aren't studying everything that can be studied about the global collapse." , it certainly doesn't sound to me as if he is interpreting the elastic part of BZ as merely motivational. It sounds to me as if JayUtah is saying that the elastic part of BZ actually tells us something significant about the pressures in the frame due to vibration as collapse ensued.
However, taken as a serious analysis, modeling the bottom portion of a WTC tower as basically just a spring for anything more than a few millimeters is so off that it's basically wrong.
Hopefully, I will have more to say about both analyses in this paper later, but I simply have to focus on learning new IT stuff now.
For now, though, I offer the following. I consider a key logical fallacy of BZ's inelastic analysis to be contained in the sentence:
It'd be fair to say that the question of domain of the elastic part of BZ was implicitly addressed by JayUtah. However, it was not explicitly addressed either by him or BZ. On re-reading BZ, it's quite possible that the only reason they mention elastic dynamic analysis is to motivate an inelastic analysis. You know, without explicitly saying so, they are showing a result (their Eqn. 1) that everybody knows will never be achieved, and so setting the stage for looking deeper, via their inelastic analysis.
This is not how some FEMA Fairy Tale believers were quoting the elastic analytic part of their paper; however that is not the fault of BZ.
So, when JayUtah says, "Bazant and Zhou have used it correctly and appropriately for the manner in which they have formulated their problem. They aren't studying everything that can be studied about the global collapse." , it certainly doesn't sound to me as if he is interpreting the elastic part of BZ as merely motivational. It sounds to me as if JayUtah is saying that the elastic part of BZ actually tells us something significant about the pressures in the frame due to vibration as collapse ensued.
However, taken as a serious analysis, modeling the bottom portion of a WTC tower as basically just a spring for anything more than a few millimeters is so off that it's basically wrong.
Hopefully, I will have more to say about both analyses in this paper later, but I simply have to focus on learning new IT stuff now.
For now, though, I offer the following. I consider a key logical fallacy of BZ's inelastic analysis to be contained in the sentence:
To attain the combined rotation angle Σθi = 2π of the plastic hinges on each column line, the upper part of the building must move down by the additional distance of one buckle, which is at least one floor below the floor where the collapse started.
(bolding mine)
This phrase "at least" is something that seems intuitively correct to me, also, in the absence of lateral cross bracing.
However, in the real world WTC tower, of course there was significant cross bracing. At this point, I must resort to intuitive arguments, but perhaps Gordon can step in make my argument more solid.
If you step on an empty soda can, you will get buckling towards the center, similarly to compressing the long part of a coat hangar.
However, in car and plane crashes, wherein a object with a metallic frame undergoes buckling, the buckling is typically near the impact point. Frames, of course, have cross bracing through and through.
The exterior column spandrels represent "significant" cross bracing (again, I am being intuitive here.) The spandrel pictures look, to my non-engineering eyes, extremely sturdy. I am not as knowledgeable about the core, but know that there were some cross beams, to counteract earthquakes, at least in the core's lower part.
Furthermore, the photographic evidence from the collapse shows mostly straight metal pieces being ejected laterally, and in photos revealing the corners of the building 20 floors above the falling debris, not a trace of curvature is revealed, as high up as we can see.
The pictures of the impact zones also reveal basically straight columns, which curve only slightly before their fractured ends. I.e., their radius of curvature is far less than 1 floor length, and, from the area related to wing impact, from a gap of 2 feet I deduce a radius less than 1 foot - not 3.7 meters (I eyeballed this, by comparing to the woman standing in the impact zone in FEMA's Chp. 2 picture).*
What happens to BZ's inelastic analysis when you deprive them of their (initial, and presumed subsequent) buckling distance(s) of at least 1 floor? As far as I can tell**, it falls apart. Note that their eqn 3 is W_g/W_p ~ 8.4, when n = 1, which is optimal for survival assuming n must be an integer. However, if W_p is 12x the value that BZ used, W_g/W_p < 1, and collapse will cease within 1 floor height.
Of course, besides this, their inelastic model suffers from many of the same defects that their elastic model suffers from, especially 1) the top part of the WTC towers are more fragile than the bottoms and 2) there's no way that the floor could have just dropped in a free fall by 1 floor, anyway
Finally, I note that in light of the photographic evidence, Gordon's implied "model" seems much more realistic, also. BZ's model forbids plastic deformation hinges at less than 1 floor height, and (apparently) models all colums as rigid rods of height = 3.7 meters joined by plastic hinges. That approach might be fine if the radius of curvature of deformation >> h. The photographic evidence implies otherwise, and Gordon's calcs do not rely on such an unphysical assumption.
* in a recent post, I implied a radius of 2 feet, but in fact, the columns have obviously broken in 2 places
** no, I'm not 100% sure
QUOTE
Metamars,
I did some checking in the ASCE database and discovered that elastic dynamic analysis is being increasingly used in new testing regimes to assess the potential for progressive collapse in structures. This is a definite post-9/11 phenomenon. So a more accurate answer to your question is that Bazant's invocation of it in 2001 was probably fairly innovative at the time, but that it is being more widely used as engineers find better ways to evaluate designs for progressive collapse potential. If the issue at hand is whether Bazant and Zhou misapplied it, then I don't think there's much room for that claim
______________
5) Is "elastic dynamic analysis" a common tool used by structural engineers in their designs (and post mortems )?
Yes. This time I'll be brief because I want to go to bed, but I also want to get to your answers quickly before they get separated too far from the questions.
You use this method when you are interested only in the elastic behavior of the structure (i.e., you assume it won't bend) and the load is likely to set up some "springy" response to a shock or displacement.
Boeing also uses it extensively to model the behavior of wing designs. As the wing flexes its aerodynamic character changes and lift varies along its length. That creates a periodic displacement of parts of the wing structure, just like an earthquake creates periodic displacements of a building's foundation. The load doesn't have to be periodic; a single shock is enough.
The question you usually want to answer is whether the elastic response damps out or gets worse or finds some equilibrium.
I didn't fully understand their paper, but I did get the sense that it's not a useful approximation for studying collapses.
Not all aspects of a collapse, but it can indeed apply where you're trying to decide whether there should have been a collapse. Boeing uses it to see whether a given wing design will tear itself apart during flight due to flutter. Bazant and Zhou have used it correctly and appropriately for the manner in which they have formulated their problem. They aren't studying everything that can be studied about the global collapse.
They have modeled the problem as the upper part falling on the lower part after a fall of one floor's height, and then seeing how the building response elastically to the collision as if it were one solid object falling on another solid object. Then they study the same thing from the inelastic point of view.
Let me add some detail about their use of "yield moment" in that section. What they're saying is that the remaining columns on that first key floor -- after collapse initiated -- would have bent essentially instantly without consuming very much of the overall energy available. The yield moment is used here as the force necessary to bend a column.
Perhaps its useful for studying vibrations or tiny
perturbations, say due to small earthquakes?
It's useful any time you need to find resonances or study the energy in vibration.
Have you ever used "elastic dynamic analysis" in your job?
Yes, but not on a building.
It'd be fair to say that the question of domain of the elastic part of BZ was implicitly addressed by JayUtah. However, it was not explicitly addressed either by him or BZ. On re-reading BZ, it's quite possible that the only reason they mention elastic dynamic analysis is to motivate an inelastic analysis. You know, without explicitly saying so, they are showing a result (their Eqn. 1) that everybody knows will never be achieved, and so setting the stage for looking deeper, via their inelastic analysis.
This is not how some FEMA Fairy Tale believers were quoting the elastic analytic part of their paper; however that is not the fault of BZ.
So, when JayUtah says, "Bazant and Zhou have used it correctly and appropriately for the manner in which they have formulated their problem. They aren't studying everything that can be studied about the global collapse." , it certainly doesn't sound to me as if he is interpreting the elastic part of BZ as merely motivational. It sounds to me as if JayUtah is saying that the elastic part of BZ actually tells us something significant about the pressures in the frame due to vibration as collapse ensued.
However, taken as a serious analysis, modeling the bottom portion of a WTC tower as basically just a spring for anything more than a few millimeters is so off that it's basically wrong.
Hopefully, I will have more to say about both analyses in this paper later, but I simply have to focus on learning new IT stuff now.
For now, though, I offer the following. I consider a key logical fallacy of BZ's inelastic analysis to be contained in the sentence:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Metamars, I did some checking in the ASCE database and discovered that elastic dynamic analysis is being increasingly used in new testing regimes to assess the potential for progressive collapse in structures. This is a definite post-9/11 phenomenon. So a more accurate answer to your question is that Bazant's invocation of it in 2001 was probably fairly innovative at the time, but that it is being more widely used as engineers find better ways to evaluate designs for progressive collapse potential. If the issue at hand is whether Bazant and Zhou misapplied it, then I don't think there's much room for that claim ______________ 5) Is "elastic dynamic analysis" a common tool used by structural engineers in their designs (and post mortems )? Yes. This time I'll be brief because I want to go to bed, but I also want to get to your answers quickly before they get separated too far from the questions. You use this method when you are interested only in the elastic behavior of the structure (i.e., you assume it won't bend) and the load is likely to set up some "springy" response to a shock or displacement. Boeing also uses it extensively to model the behavior of wing designs. As the wing flexes its aerodynamic character changes and lift varies along its length. That creates a periodic displacement of parts of the wing structure, just like an earthquake creates periodic displacements of a building's foundation. The load doesn't have to be periodic; a single shock is enough. The question you usually want to answer is whether the elastic response damps out or gets worse or finds some equilibrium. I didn't fully understand their paper, but I did get the sense that it's not a useful approximation for studying collapses. Not all aspects of a collapse, but it can indeed apply where you're trying to decide whether there should have been a collapse. Boeing uses it to see whether a given wing design will tear itself apart during flight due to flutter. Bazant and Zhou have used it correctly and appropriately for the manner in which they have formulated their problem. They aren't studying everything that can be studied about the global collapse. They have modeled the problem as the upper part falling on the lower part after a fall of one floor's height, and then seeing how the building response elastically to the collision as if it were one solid object falling on another solid object. Then they study the same thing from the inelastic point of view. Let me add some detail about their use of "yield moment" in that section. What they're saying is that the remaining columns on that first key floor -- after collapse initiated -- would have bent essentially instantly without consuming very much of the overall energy available. The yield moment is used here as the force necessary to bend a column. Perhaps its useful for studying vibrations or tiny perturbations, say due to small earthquakes? It's useful any time you need to find resonances or study the energy in vibration. Have you ever used "elastic dynamic analysis" in your job? Yes, but not on a building. |
It'd be fair to say that the question of domain of the elastic part of BZ was implicitly addressed by JayUtah. However, it was not explicitly addressed either by him or BZ. On re-reading BZ, it's quite possible that the only reason they mention elastic dynamic analysis is to motivate an inelastic analysis. You know, without explicitly saying so, they are showing a result (their Eqn. 1) that everybody knows will never be achieved, and so setting the stage for looking deeper, via their inelastic analysis.
This is not how some FEMA Fairy Tale believers were quoting the elastic analytic part of their paper; however that is not the fault of BZ.
So, when JayUtah says, "Bazant and Zhou have used it correctly and appropriately for the manner in which they have formulated their problem. They aren't studying everything that can be studied about the global collapse." , it certainly doesn't sound to me as if he is interpreting the elastic part of BZ as merely motivational. It sounds to me as if JayUtah is saying that the elastic part of BZ actually tells us something significant about the pressures in the frame due to vibration as collapse ensued.
However, taken as a serious analysis, modeling the bottom portion of a WTC tower as basically just a spring for anything more than a few millimeters is so off that it's basically wrong.
Hopefully, I will have more to say about both analyses in this paper later, but I simply have to focus on learning new IT stuff now.
For now, though, I offer the following. I consider a key logical fallacy of BZ's inelastic analysis to be contained in the sentence:
To attain the combined rotation angle Σθi = 2π of the plastic hinges on each column line, the upper part of the building must move down by the additional distance of one buckle, which is at least one floor below the floor where the collapse started.
(bolding mine)
This phrase "at least" is something that seems intuitively correct to me, also, in the absence of lateral cross bracing.
However, in the real world WTC tower, of course there was significant cross bracing. At this point, I must resort to intuitive arguments, but perhaps Gordon can step in make my argument more solid.
If you step on an empty soda can, you will get buckling towards the center, similarly to compressing the long part of a coat hangar.
However, in car and plane crashes, wherein a object with a metallic frame undergoes buckling, the buckling is typically near the impact point. Frames, of course, have cross bracing through and through.
The exterior column spandrels represent "significant" cross bracing (again, I am being intuitive here.) The spandrel pictures look, to my non-engineering eyes, extremely sturdy. I am not as knowledgeable about the core, but know that there were some cross beams, to counteract earthquakes, at least in the core's lower part.
Furthermore, the photographic evidence from the collapse shows mostly straight metal pieces being ejected laterally, and in photos revealing the corners of the building 20 floors above the falling debris, not a trace of curvature is revealed, as high up as we can see.
The pictures of the impact zones also reveal basically straight columns, which curve only slightly before their fractured ends. I.e., their radius of curvature is far less than 1 floor length, and, from the area related to wing impact, from a gap of 2 feet I deduce a radius less than 1 foot - not 3.7 meters (I eyeballed this, by comparing to the woman standing in the impact zone in FEMA's Chp. 2 picture).*
What happens to BZ's inelastic analysis when you deprive them of their (initial, and presumed subsequent) buckling distance(s) of at least 1 floor? As far as I can tell**, it falls apart. Note that their eqn 3 is W_g/W_p ~ 8.4, when n = 1, which is optimal for survival assuming n must be an integer. However, if W_p is 12x the value that BZ used, W_g/W_p < 1, and collapse will cease within 1 floor height.
Of course, besides this, their inelastic model suffers from many of the same defects that their elastic model suffers from, especially 1) the top part of the WTC towers are more fragile than the bottoms and 2) there's no way that the floor could have just dropped in a free fall by 1 floor, anyway
Finally, I note that in light of the photographic evidence, Gordon's implied "model" seems much more realistic, also. BZ's model forbids plastic deformation hinges at less than 1 floor height, and (apparently) models all colums as rigid rods of height = 3.7 meters joined by plastic hinges. That approach might be fine if the radius of curvature of deformation >> h. The photographic evidence implies otherwise, and Gordon's calcs do not rely on such an unphysical assumption.
* in a recent post, I implied a radius of 2 feet, but in fact, the columns have obviously broken in 2 places
** no, I'm not 100% sure
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 22 2006, 08:54 AM)
GREAT post, metamars !
Judging from the responses received so far, I don't see anyone even attempting a rational rebuttal to your points at all.
As 'they' can't answer rationally... 'they' just drift off into obfuscations.
Their 'proposed responses' don't even attempt to address the points you made...
What's 'new' ???
Let's add 'Greening' to the 'Eagar' list of 'popes' spurting nonsense.
Maybe he should register at AH ???
Well, thanks, but really the pros need to take over. Greening* is not a structural engineer, any more than I am, so I can't be too hard on him with that part of his paper, unless I find out that he deliberately twisted things around to make his argument.
What is hard to understand is how he could have missed Hoffman's point so much. For a chemist, that calculates the energies in different chemical reactions day in and day out, I find this inexcusable. (I think he mentioned that his activities are broader than just chemistry, but at a Ph.D. level, he could not have forgotten the basics)
* he is a chemisty Ph.D.
Judging from the responses received so far, I don't see anyone even attempting a rational rebuttal to your points at all.
As 'they' can't answer rationally... 'they' just drift off into obfuscations.
Their 'proposed responses' don't even attempt to address the points you made...
What's 'new' ???
Let's add 'Greening' to the 'Eagar' list of 'popes' spurting nonsense.
Maybe he should register at AH ???
Well, thanks, but really the pros need to take over. Greening* is not a structural engineer, any more than I am, so I can't be too hard on him with that part of his paper, unless I find out that he deliberately twisted things around to make his argument.
What is hard to understand is how he could have missed Hoffman's point so much. For a chemist, that calculates the energies in different chemical reactions day in and day out, I find this inexcusable. (I think he mentioned that his activities are broader than just chemistry, but at a Ph.D. level, he could not have forgotten the basics)
* he is a chemisty Ph.D.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 22 2006, 03:28 AM)
From the thread concerning this same topic, on AH
Seems pretty clear to me that the core could not stand on its own with any lateral forces(such as the buffeting from having 110 floors and perimeter columns being torn away and crashing downward).
Seems pretty clear, in fact it is stated specifically, that the engineers at the table agreed that the building was doomed once the initial collapse took place. Note that I bolded that sentence above for easy reading.
Perhaps one of these engineers would be willing to calculate a simplified scenario or two to convince us that their intuition was correct? Without calculations, they cannot know that they are correct, they can only hope to know that they are correct.
Additionally, how about showing Gordon where his calculations went wrong, or where he was relying on unphysical or otherwise unjustified assumptions that predisposed his results towards his stated conclusion? Will they spend a few minutes to do this?
My philosophy is simple: don't ask me to trust your intuition, and I won't ask you to trust mine.
In a recent post, I resorted, to some extent, to intuitive arguments because I had no choice. I am not going to study 2 years of civil engineering to see if I'm correct. I would have hoped the "engineers" at AH might have been more helpful, but beyond a limited point, they were not. In any event, I no longer have much time for even the level of posts that I am capable of.
What excuse can these engineers offer, except that they are simply not interested and/or too busy to do, what for them, amounts to a little work? (which, of course, is just fine, though it doesn't help us at physorg.com, does it?)
The moral of the story is: this needs to be taken to a higher level, just as Professor Jones has proposed. A definitive analysis would require a lot of work, even for a team of experts.
QUOTE
I was largely unable to post yesterday because of some unannounced (at least to me) visits of customers and field workers. This turned out to be a very fortuitous situation, because the visitors were from Lawrence Livermore laboratories and were suitably familiar with the LS-DYNA component of the software used to create the WTC structural models for the NIST report, and the field workers were licensed structural engineers who work (or worked, in some cases) for us. One was David Cassett, a long-time friend and my mentor in structural engineering. He is a fully-licensed structural engineer who worked out of Utah and now works out of Berkely, California. There were a number of licensed structural engineers (some of whom I hadn't met before), but most everyone at the table had a combination of formal training and practical experience at structural engineering for large structures.
I went to dinner with these people and brought along some notes and photographs of the WTC structures to get their opinions.
First, I claimed elsewhere that the WTC cores couldn't have been built "more than a few stories" above the rest of the structure because of instability. You asked for a source for this claim. I knew at the time that it was covered in one of my structures courses from many years ago. I ransacked my attic and found my notes: the basis of that restriction had more to do with how the cranes were attached to the rising core columns and the eccentric loads they placed on them.
But I asked these guys how high they could have built the core as a free-standing structure. They agreed it could have been built all the way to the top, but it would have lacked sufficient stiffness to resist any lateral loads.
This sparked a bit of a debate, because half the engineers believed the core employed diagonal supports. Consulting the photographs of the WTC construction, however, we concluded that no such diagonal bracing was supplied. Two photographs allegedly showed diagonal bracing, but it turned out to be a staircase in one instance and the truss web of the cranes themselves in another case. The general consensus on this point was that the core could not have stood to full height for very long by itself with only horizontal bracing.
We then looked at the core framing. I wasn't able to find any drawings of the core framing plan, but I was able to find some photographs of the core under construction that showed the arrangement, in part, of the core beams. All the engineers agreed that the core was not laid out in structural bays, and so conventional wisdom derived from more pedestrian construction probably wouldn't apply.
It was pointed out that the primary task of the beams between the core columns was to support the core floor structures. I suggested that the beams would also act to brace the core columns against buckling, and there was general agreement to that, however it was noted that the response would be anisotropic; the structures would probably be more inclined to buckle in one direction than in another. It was also agreed that the relatively ad hoc arrangement of floor beams would result in nonuniform redistribution of loads when certain columns failed.
I asked their opinions whether the core would be considered more or less robust than a post-and-beam building of typical design. This elicited some discussion. I reminded them that the columns were more closely spaced in the WTC core than would be the case in other buildings. They considered this to impart slightly more strength, but the overriding concern -- at least in David's opinion -- was the lack of a homogeneous web of beams through the columns (i.e., the structural bay approach), the lack of diagonal bracing, and the overall slenderness ratio of the core.
I asked what role they believed the trusses to have played in bracing the core. Since they had already concluded that the core -- as built -- would not stand on its own for very long, one engineer said that the core (as a whole) required all the trusses and the perimeter (as a whole) to brace it along its length. He preferred to think about it in a global fashion rather than on a floor-by-floor or column-by-column basis.
I didn't ask about the trusses distorting the core columns because I had already abandoned that conclusion, but I did ask about the trusses increasing the load on the core via the hat truss by distorting the perimeter columns, and they agreed with that analysis.
I asked them point blank if they thought the global collapse was odd. This was the only point on which they were unanimous: once it started falling it was going to fall all the way to the ground.
________________-----
So now we have the consensus opinion of Jay's structural engineers that the cores would be able to remain upright as stand alone structures. This agrees with what I wrote back in July....
No. After seeing evidence that no diagonal bracing was provided in the core, they specifically said it would thus not be able to stand to that height as a solitary structure. That it stood a few stories higher than the rest of the structure during construction has never been denied.
I assume that since you didn't say there was a consensus, that at least some argued that the core design would be a more robust design...
Remember this was an informal discussion carried out around a dinner table. Not every engineer is willing to make an assertive answer on every question asked informally. As with most experts in a field that thrives on detail, they believe the devil is in those details.
Did they say it was odd?
No. This was the only question on which there was a unanimous, asserted answer.
What do they base the opinion that it was an inevitable complete collapse on?
A combined 120 years or so of professional expertise in structural engineering and engineering failure analysis. The Livermore people are those who basically invented the science of finite-element methods for structural analysis, which has completely revolutionized it and enabled hitherto unattainable structures.
On what do you base your objection?
I went to dinner with these people and brought along some notes and photographs of the WTC structures to get their opinions.
First, I claimed elsewhere that the WTC cores couldn't have been built "more than a few stories" above the rest of the structure because of instability. You asked for a source for this claim. I knew at the time that it was covered in one of my structures courses from many years ago. I ransacked my attic and found my notes: the basis of that restriction had more to do with how the cranes were attached to the rising core columns and the eccentric loads they placed on them.
But I asked these guys how high they could have built the core as a free-standing structure. They agreed it could have been built all the way to the top, but it would have lacked sufficient stiffness to resist any lateral loads.
This sparked a bit of a debate, because half the engineers believed the core employed diagonal supports. Consulting the photographs of the WTC construction, however, we concluded that no such diagonal bracing was supplied. Two photographs allegedly showed diagonal bracing, but it turned out to be a staircase in one instance and the truss web of the cranes themselves in another case. The general consensus on this point was that the core could not have stood to full height for very long by itself with only horizontal bracing.
We then looked at the core framing. I wasn't able to find any drawings of the core framing plan, but I was able to find some photographs of the core under construction that showed the arrangement, in part, of the core beams. All the engineers agreed that the core was not laid out in structural bays, and so conventional wisdom derived from more pedestrian construction probably wouldn't apply.
It was pointed out that the primary task of the beams between the core columns was to support the core floor structures. I suggested that the beams would also act to brace the core columns against buckling, and there was general agreement to that, however it was noted that the response would be anisotropic; the structures would probably be more inclined to buckle in one direction than in another. It was also agreed that the relatively ad hoc arrangement of floor beams would result in nonuniform redistribution of loads when certain columns failed.
I asked their opinions whether the core would be considered more or less robust than a post-and-beam building of typical design. This elicited some discussion. I reminded them that the columns were more closely spaced in the WTC core than would be the case in other buildings. They considered this to impart slightly more strength, but the overriding concern -- at least in David's opinion -- was the lack of a homogeneous web of beams through the columns (i.e., the structural bay approach), the lack of diagonal bracing, and the overall slenderness ratio of the core.
I asked what role they believed the trusses to have played in bracing the core. Since they had already concluded that the core -- as built -- would not stand on its own for very long, one engineer said that the core (as a whole) required all the trusses and the perimeter (as a whole) to brace it along its length. He preferred to think about it in a global fashion rather than on a floor-by-floor or column-by-column basis.
I didn't ask about the trusses distorting the core columns because I had already abandoned that conclusion, but I did ask about the trusses increasing the load on the core via the hat truss by distorting the perimeter columns, and they agreed with that analysis.
I asked them point blank if they thought the global collapse was odd. This was the only point on which they were unanimous: once it started falling it was going to fall all the way to the ground.
________________-----
So now we have the consensus opinion of Jay's structural engineers that the cores would be able to remain upright as stand alone structures. This agrees with what I wrote back in July....
No. After seeing evidence that no diagonal bracing was provided in the core, they specifically said it would thus not be able to stand to that height as a solitary structure. That it stood a few stories higher than the rest of the structure during construction has never been denied.
I assume that since you didn't say there was a consensus, that at least some argued that the core design would be a more robust design...
Remember this was an informal discussion carried out around a dinner table. Not every engineer is willing to make an assertive answer on every question asked informally. As with most experts in a field that thrives on detail, they believe the devil is in those details.
Did they say it was odd?
No. This was the only question on which there was a unanimous, asserted answer.
What do they base the opinion that it was an inevitable complete collapse on?
A combined 120 years or so of professional expertise in structural engineering and engineering failure analysis. The Livermore people are those who basically invented the science of finite-element methods for structural analysis, which has completely revolutionized it and enabled hitherto unattainable structures.
On what do you base your objection?
Seems pretty clear to me that the core could not stand on its own with any lateral forces(such as the buffeting from having 110 floors and perimeter columns being torn away and crashing downward).
Seems pretty clear, in fact it is stated specifically, that the engineers at the table agreed that the building was doomed once the initial collapse took place. Note that I bolded that sentence above for easy reading.
Perhaps one of these engineers would be willing to calculate a simplified scenario or two to convince us that their intuition was correct? Without calculations, they cannot know that they are correct, they can only hope to know that they are correct.
Additionally, how about showing Gordon where his calculations went wrong, or where he was relying on unphysical or otherwise unjustified assumptions that predisposed his results towards his stated conclusion? Will they spend a few minutes to do this?
My philosophy is simple: don't ask me to trust your intuition, and I won't ask you to trust mine.
In a recent post, I resorted, to some extent, to intuitive arguments because I had no choice. I am not going to study 2 years of civil engineering to see if I'm correct. I would have hoped the "engineers" at AH might have been more helpful, but beyond a limited point, they were not. In any event, I no longer have much time for even the level of posts that I am capable of.
What excuse can these engineers offer, except that they are simply not interested and/or too busy to do, what for them, amounts to a little work? (which, of course, is just fine, though it doesn't help us at physorg.com, does it?)
The moral of the story is: this needs to be taken to a higher level, just as Professor Jones has proposed. A definitive analysis would require a lot of work, even for a team of experts.
QUOTE (metamars+)
Another way to falsify the NIST study is to amplify it to show how dust clouds with roughly the properties observed (to whatever extent they can be determined - admittedly not an easy task) could be created and ejected. This happened from the beginning of the collapse, so to falsify their models, they again should not (AFAIK) have to model the entire building.
Intutively, I think the idea that a gravity driven collapse could generate dust clouds with those properties is absurd. This intuition derives from my experience as a boy of trying to pound a nail into a conrete floor. ( Lol ) However, as Eric Temple Bell has said, "Intuition is the root of superstition". I don't expect you or NIST to accept my intuition as any sort of proof. Similarly, I would hope that you don't expect me to accept NIST's hand waiving/intuition as any sort of proof that dust cloud formation must have developed, just as was observed.
Just more proof that you are an idiot.
Apparently because you are too lazy to read documents which might just disagree with your preconceived notions.
Suggestion, maybe you should ACTUALLY READ the NIST report before commenting on what it does or does not contain?
Arthur
Intutively, I think the idea that a gravity driven collapse could generate dust clouds with those properties is absurd. This intuition derives from my experience as a boy of trying to pound a nail into a conrete floor. ( Lol ) However, as Eric Temple Bell has said, "Intuition is the root of superstition". I don't expect you or NIST to accept my intuition as any sort of proof. Similarly, I would hope that you don't expect me to accept NIST's hand waiving/intuition as any sort of proof that dust cloud formation must have developed, just as was observed.
Just more proof that you are an idiot.
Apparently because you are too lazy to read documents which might just disagree with your preconceived notions.
Suggestion, maybe you should ACTUALLY READ the NIST report before commenting on what it does or does not contain?
Arthur
The paper put forward by Mr. Greening makes some radical assumptions for the collapse which would not, in fact could not, happen in reality. In common with many such theories, he has avoided key events by limiting his study to only a portion of the collapse, perhaps for the sake of clarity.
However if we examine his figures we see that through a convoluted procedure he has attempted to quantify the strain energy involved in the collapse of one storey, and has obtained a figure of 0.6 x 10^9 J. This was derived from the aircraft impact energy, of all things, and this was put forward as 3.0 x 10^9 J. However a 130 tonne aircraft travelling at 530mph would have an impact energy of 3.65 x 10^9 J, meaning that the storey collapse would require 1.25 x 10^9 J.
By his own reasoning the impact between upper and lower sections would cause the collapse of one storey in each section and the total energy required to continue collapse would therefore be double this figure; 2.5 x 10^9 J.
If we now compare this with his figure for energy available 2.34 x 10^9 J it is evident that there was insufficient energy available.
I don't think we need be troubled over a paper in which such a minor correction could cause such damage to the conclusions.
I'm quite deeply into study of the various scenarios at the moment, hence my comparative silence. Schneibster, please excuse my not replying, but in putting an answer together I have become quite involved in the analysis. I'm trying to categorise the various collapse theories, and I must say that yours is among the most detailed and best reasoning I have found so far. Mr Greening falls well behind. I will get back to you but in the meantime you may wish to re-examine the masses you have used in your program. I'm not going to hold you to that by the way. It is entirely up to you what you use in your analysis,
Gordon.
However if we examine his figures we see that through a convoluted procedure he has attempted to quantify the strain energy involved in the collapse of one storey, and has obtained a figure of 0.6 x 10^9 J. This was derived from the aircraft impact energy, of all things, and this was put forward as 3.0 x 10^9 J. However a 130 tonne aircraft travelling at 530mph would have an impact energy of 3.65 x 10^9 J, meaning that the storey collapse would require 1.25 x 10^9 J.
By his own reasoning the impact between upper and lower sections would cause the collapse of one storey in each section and the total energy required to continue collapse would therefore be double this figure; 2.5 x 10^9 J.
If we now compare this with his figure for energy available 2.34 x 10^9 J it is evident that there was insufficient energy available.
I don't think we need be troubled over a paper in which such a minor correction could cause such damage to the conclusions.
I'm quite deeply into study of the various scenarios at the moment, hence my comparative silence. Schneibster, please excuse my not replying, but in putting an answer together I have become quite involved in the analysis. I'm trying to categorise the various collapse theories, and I must say that yours is among the most detailed and best reasoning I have found so far. Mr Greening falls well behind. I will get back to you but in the meantime you may wish to re-examine the masses you have used in your program. I'm not going to hold you to that by the way. It is entirely up to you what you use in your analysis,
Gordon.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 22 2006, 01:34 AM)
Here, it gets a little funny, because (p. 10) I recall BZ claiming about a 20% (= 1/5) dissipation of KE crashing through the first sound floor. Well, shucks, since Wierzbicki's has undercounted by roughly a factor of 6, and since BZ gives a dissipation figure for a single floor of 6.29 x 10^8 J while BZ gives a dissipation figure of 5 x 10^8J, we have to ask a simple question:
How the heck can you collapse even a SINGLE floor with less than the amount of energy needed to do so?
My apologies, but my statement that BZ claim 20% KE dissipation crashing through the first sound floor is incorrect:
As BZ's Eq. 3 gives W_g/W_p ~ 8.4, for the first buckle, they are claiming about 12% KE dissipation, not 20%.
(Apparently, I conflated my "force deficit" calculation on p.11 - also wrong physically - for which I used BZ's .12KE dissipation figure to arrive at a "contradiction" of only 20% of the force needed to perform a deformation = h, (and a "force deficit" 0f 80%))
Since BZ insists on taking the first plastic hinge to be at 3.7 meters, this KE dissipation figure is certainly incorrect, and in a way that favors the FEMA Fairy Tale. See my next to last post on p. 270 for details.
How the heck can you collapse even a SINGLE floor with less than the amount of energy needed to do so?
My apologies, but my statement that BZ claim 20% KE dissipation crashing through the first sound floor is incorrect:
As BZ's Eq. 3 gives W_g/W_p ~ 8.4, for the first buckle, they are claiming about 12% KE dissipation, not 20%.
(Apparently, I conflated my "force deficit" calculation on p.11 - also wrong physically - for which I used BZ's .12KE dissipation figure to arrive at a "contradiction" of only 20% of the force needed to perform a deformation = h, (and a "force deficit" 0f 80%))
Since BZ insists on taking the first plastic hinge to be at 3.7 meters, this KE dissipation figure is certainly incorrect, and in a way that favors the FEMA Fairy Tale. See my next to last post on p. 270 for details.
QUOTE
From the thread concerning this same topic, on AH
Firstly, the assumption that a combined 120 years or so of professional expertise in structural engineering is a basis in itselffor a inevitable global collapse is absurd and illogical.
The core, without a doubt was the dominant load bearing feature of the building.
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/3412-2/construction_1.jpg
What came first, the chicken or the...
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/9081-2/site1099_001.jpg
That's why the core had to be built before the outer wall reached the same level...
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/6064-4/mage6.jpg
lies or..........
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/3430-2/site1099.jpg
misrepresentations ?
Why put water on a apparent jet fuel fire ? Isn't that dangerous ?
2 no 500 000 tonne skyscrapers completely pulverized by apparent terrorist attacks in the very heart of the western financial district ? 1000 vaporized bodies and vaporized steel ? Anything unusual ? Wtc 7 ?
No, nothing unusual .
The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remain off-limits to the public three years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information. Incredibly, FEMA's team that investigated the collapses lacked access to the buildings' blueprints -- access which has been the subject of legal battles.
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/v/WTC/blueprints/
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/v/WTC/construction/
lies or..........
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/3430-2/site1099.jpg
misrepresentations ?
Why put water on a apparent jet fuel fire ? Isn't that dangerous ?
2 no 500 000 tonne skyscrapers completely pulverized by apparent terrorist attacks in the very heart of the western financial district ? 1000 vaporized bodies and vaporized steel ? Anything unusual ? Wtc 7 ?
No, nothing unusual .
The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remain off-limits to the public three years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information. Incredibly, FEMA's team that investigated the collapses lacked access to the buildings' blueprints -- access which has been the subject of legal battles.
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/v/WTC/blueprints/
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/v/WTC/construction/
Before September 11, 2001: Translator Alleges FBI Agent Is Deliberately Deceived Regarding Skyscraper Warning Complete 911 Timeline
FBI translator Sibel Edmonds later makes some allegations of serious FBI misconduct, but the specifics of these allegations have generally remained publicly unknown due to a gag order placed on her. However, in a public August 2004 letter, she alleges that some time before 9/11, an unnamed FBI field agent discovers foreign documentation revealing “certain information regarding blueprints, pictures, and building material for skyscrapers being sent overseas. It also reveal[s] certain illegal activities in obtaining visas from certain embassies in the Middle East, through network contacts and bribery.” The document is in a foreign language and apparently the agent isn't given an adequate translation of it before 9/11. Approximately one month after 9/11, the agent will suspect the original translation is insufficient and will ask the FBI Washington Field Office to re translate it. The significant information mentioned above is finally revealed, but FBI translation unit supervisor Mike Feghali decides not to send this information back to the field agent. Instead, Feghali sends a note stating that the translation was reviewed and the original translation was accurate. The field agent never receives the accurate translation. This is all according to Edmonds' letter. She claims Feghali “has participated in certain criminal activities and security breaches, and [engaged] in covering up failures and criminal conducts within the department...” While the mainstream media hasn't yet reported on this incident, in January 2005 an internal government report will determine that most of Edmonds' allegations have been verified and none of them could be refuted. [Edmonds Letter, 8/2/04 Sources: Sibel Edmonds]
People and organizations involved: FBI Washington Field Office, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mike Feghali, Sibel Edmonds
December 25, 2001: Experts: WTC Collapse Investigation Inadequate Complete 911 Timeline
The New York Times reports that “some of the nation's leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts” believe the investigation into the collapse of the WTC is “inadequate” and “are calling for a new, independent and better-financed inquiry that could produce the kinds of conclusions vital for skyscrapers and future buildings nationwide.” Experts critical of the investigation include “some of those people who are actually conducting it.” They point out that the current team of 20 or so investigators has no subpoena power, inadequate financial support, and little staff support. Additionally, it has been prevented from interviewing witnesses and frequently prevented from examining the disaster site, and has even been unable to obtain basic information like detailed blueprints of the buildings that collapsed. The decision to recycle the steel columns, beams, and trusses from the WTC rapidly in the days immediately after 9/11 means definitive answers may never be known. [New York Times, 12/25/01] Incredibly, some of the steel is reforged into commemorative medallions selling for $30 apiece. [Associated Press, 1/30/02]
People and organizations involved: World Trade Center
Who is clay shaw ? What is clay shaw's relationship with international house ? What is international house's relationship with the world trade center organization ?
rocking from decentral brothers
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| From the thread concerning this same topic, on AH I was largely unable to post yesterday because of some unannounced (at least to me) visits of customers and field workers. This turned out to be a very fortuitous situation, because the visitors were from Lawrence Livermore laboratories and were suitably familiar with the LS-DYNA component of the software used to create the WTC structural models for the NIST report, and the field workers were licensed structural engineers who work (or worked, in some cases) for us. One was David Cassett, a long-time friend and my mentor in structural engineering. He is a fully-licensed structural engineer who worked out of Utah and now works out of Berkely, California. There were a number of licensed structural engineers (some of whom I hadn't met before), but most everyone at the table had a combination of formal training and practical experience at structural engineering for large structures. I went to dinner with these people and brought along some notes and photographs of the WTC structures to get their opinions. First, I claimed elsewhere that the WTC cores couldn't have been built "more than a few stories" above the rest of the structure because of instability. You asked for a source for this claim. I knew at the time that it was covered in one of my structures courses from many years ago. I ransacked my attic and found my notes: the basis of that restriction had more to do with how the cranes were attached to the rising core columns and the eccentric loads they placed on them. But I asked these guys how high they could have built the core as a free-standing structure. They agreed it could have been built all the way to the top, but it would have lacked sufficient stiffness to resist any lateral loads. This sparked a bit of a debate, because half the engineers believed the core employed diagonal supports. Consulting the photographs of the WTC construction, however, we concluded that no such diagonal bracing was supplied. Two photographs allegedly showed diagonal bracing, but it turned out to be a staircase in one instance and the truss web of the cranes themselves in another case. The general consensus on this point was that the core could not have stood to full height for very long by itself with only horizontal bracing. We then looked at the core framing. I wasn't able to find any drawings of the core framing plan, but I was able to find some photographs of the core under construction that showed the arrangement, in part, of the core beams. All the engineers agreed that the core was not laid out in structural bays, and so conventional wisdom derived from more pedestrian construction probably wouldn't apply. It was pointed out that the primary task of the beams between the core columns was to support the core floor structures. I suggested that the beams would also act to brace the core columns against buckling, and there was general agreement to that, however it was noted that the response would be anisotropic; the structures would probably be more inclined to buckle in one direction than in another. It was also agreed that the relatively ad hoc arrangement of floor beams would result in nonuniform redistribution of loads when certain columns failed. I asked their opinions whether the core would be considered more or less robust than a post-and-beam building of typical design. This elicited some discussion. I reminded them that the columns were more closely spaced in the WTC core than would be the case in other buildings. They considered this to impart slightly more strength, but the overriding concern -- at least in David's opinion -- was the lack of a homogeneous web of beams through the columns (i.e., the structural bay approach), the lack of diagonal bracing, and the overall slenderness ratio of the core. I asked what role they believed the trusses to have played in bracing the core. Since they had already concluded that the core -- as built -- would not stand on its own for very long, one engineer said that the core (as a whole) required all the trusses and the perimeter (as a whole) to brace it along its length. He preferred to think about it in a global fashion rather than on a floor-by-floor or column-by-column basis. I didn't ask about the trusses distorting the core columns because I had already abandoned that conclusion, but I did ask about the trusses increasing the load on the core via the hat truss by distorting the perimeter columns, and they agreed with that analysis. I asked them point blank if they thought the global collapse was odd. This was the only point on which they were unanimous: once it started falling it was going to fall all the way to the ground. ________________----- So now we have the consensus opinion of Jay's structural engineers that the cores would be able to remain upright as stand alone structures. This agrees with what I wrote back in July.... No. After seeing evidence that no diagonal bracing was provided in the core, they specifically said it would thus not be able to stand to that height as a solitary structure. That it stood a few stories higher than the rest of the structure during construction has never been denied. I assume that since you didn't say there was a consensus, that at least some argued that the core design would be a more robust design... Remember this was an informal discussion carried out around a dinner table. Not every engineer is willing to make an assertive answer on every question asked informally. As with most experts in a field that thrives on detail, they believe the devil is in those details. Did they say it was odd? No. This was the only question on which there was a unanimous, asserted answer. What do they base the opinion that it was an inevitable complete collapse on? A combined 120 years or so of professional expertise in structural engineering and engineering failure analysis. The Livermore people are those who basically invented the science of finite-element methods for structural analysis, which has completely revolutionized it and enabled hitherto unattainable structures. On what do you base your objection? Seems pretty clear to me that the core could not stand on its own with any lateral forces(such as the buffeting from having 110 floors and perimeter columns being torn away and crashing downward). Seems pretty clear, in fact it is stated specifically, that the engineers at the table agreed that the building was doomed once the initial collapse took place. Note that I bolded that sentence above for easy reading. |
Firstly, the assumption that a combined 120 years or so of professional expertise in structural engineering is a basis in itselffor a inevitable global collapse is absurd and illogical.
The core, without a doubt was the dominant load bearing feature of the building.
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/3412-2/construction_1.jpg
What came first, the chicken or the...
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/9081-2/site1099_001.jpg
That's why the core had to be built before the outer wall reached the same level...
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/6064-4/mage6.jpg
QUOTE
and the overall slenderness ratio of the core.
lies or..........
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/3430-2/site1099.jpg
misrepresentations ?
Why put water on a apparent jet fuel fire ? Isn't that dangerous ?
2 no 500 000 tonne skyscrapers completely pulverized by apparent terrorist attacks in the very heart of the western financial district ? 1000 vaporized bodies and vaporized steel ? Anything unusual ? Wtc 7 ?
No, nothing unusual .
The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remain off-limits to the public three years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information. Incredibly, FEMA's team that investigated the collapses lacked access to the buildings' blueprints -- access which has been the subject of legal battles.
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/v/WTC/blueprints/
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/v/WTC/construction/
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and the overall slenderness ratio of the core. |
lies or..........
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/3430-2/site1099.jpg
misrepresentations ?
Why put water on a apparent jet fuel fire ? Isn't that dangerous ?
2 no 500 000 tonne skyscrapers completely pulverized by apparent terrorist attacks in the very heart of the western financial district ? 1000 vaporized bodies and vaporized steel ? Anything unusual ? Wtc 7 ?
No, nothing unusual .
The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remain off-limits to the public three years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information. Incredibly, FEMA's team that investigated the collapses lacked access to the buildings' blueprints -- access which has been the subject of legal battles.
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/v/WTC/blueprints/
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/v/WTC/construction/
Before September 11, 2001: Translator Alleges FBI Agent Is Deliberately Deceived Regarding Skyscraper Warning Complete 911 Timeline
FBI translator Sibel Edmonds later makes some allegations of serious FBI misconduct, but the specifics of these allegations have generally remained publicly unknown due to a gag order placed on her. However, in a public August 2004 letter, she alleges that some time before 9/11, an unnamed FBI field agent discovers foreign documentation revealing “certain information regarding blueprints, pictures, and building material for skyscrapers being sent overseas. It also reveal[s] certain illegal activities in obtaining visas from certain embassies in the Middle East, through network contacts and bribery.” The document is in a foreign language and apparently the agent isn't given an adequate translation of it before 9/11. Approximately one month after 9/11, the agent will suspect the original translation is insufficient and will ask the FBI Washington Field Office to re translate it. The significant information mentioned above is finally revealed, but FBI translation unit supervisor Mike Feghali decides not to send this information back to the field agent. Instead, Feghali sends a note stating that the translation was reviewed and the original translation was accurate. The field agent never receives the accurate translation. This is all according to Edmonds' letter. She claims Feghali “has participated in certain criminal activities and security breaches, and [engaged] in covering up failures and criminal conducts within the department...” While the mainstream media hasn't yet reported on this incident, in January 2005 an internal government report will determine that most of Edmonds' allegations have been verified and none of them could be refuted. [Edmonds Letter, 8/2/04 Sources: Sibel Edmonds]
People and organizations involved: FBI Washington Field Office, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mike Feghali, Sibel Edmonds
December 25, 2001: Experts: WTC Collapse Investigation Inadequate Complete 911 Timeline
The New York Times reports that “some of the nation's leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts” believe the investigation into the collapse of the WTC is “inadequate” and “are calling for a new, independent and better-financed inquiry that could produce the kinds of conclusions vital for skyscrapers and future buildings nationwide.” Experts critical of the investigation include “some of those people who are actually conducting it.” They point out that the current team of 20 or so investigators has no subpoena power, inadequate financial support, and little staff support. Additionally, it has been prevented from interviewing witnesses and frequently prevented from examining the disaster site, and has even been unable to obtain basic information like detailed blueprints of the buildings that collapsed. The decision to recycle the steel columns, beams, and trusses from the WTC rapidly in the days immediately after 9/11 means definitive answers may never be known. [New York Times, 12/25/01] Incredibly, some of the steel is reforged into commemorative medallions selling for $30 apiece. [Associated Press, 1/30/02]
People and organizations involved: World Trade Center
Who is clay shaw ? What is clay shaw's relationship with international house ? What is international house's relationship with the world trade center organization ?
rocking from decentral brothers
okay, greening's on my shyte list, now.
he claims the molten aluminum is causing 'natural' thermite reactions, and cites aluminum plants as an example of 'see, it explodes!'.
but, molten aluminum 'exploding' is a violent result of RAPID STEAM EXPANSION, and NOT a thermite reaction, as he implies.
the danger to aluminum workers is not the explosion itself, but rather the molten material SPLASHING on them.
i also find his 10% figure as a guesstimate of how much concrete was crushed, welll, ummmm..........no.
so, here is another elaborate 'science' paper which does nothing but muddy the waters.
thank you, dr. greening, for proving that there is an army of obfuscating scientists out to hide the truth.
he claims the molten aluminum is causing 'natural' thermite reactions, and cites aluminum plants as an example of 'see, it explodes!'.
but, molten aluminum 'exploding' is a violent result of RAPID STEAM EXPANSION, and NOT a thermite reaction, as he implies.
the danger to aluminum workers is not the explosion itself, but rather the molten material SPLASHING on them.
i also find his 10% figure as a guesstimate of how much concrete was crushed, welll, ummmm..........no.
so, here is another elaborate 'science' paper which does nothing but muddy the waters.
thank you, dr. greening, for proving that there is an army of obfuscating scientists out to hide the truth.
QUOTE (F-P2+)
The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remain off-limits to the public three years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information.
Silverstein is PUBLIC?
More BS from decentral.
Arthur
Silverstein is PUBLIC?
More BS from decentral.
Arthur
Last night, I read Frank Greening's most recent dissertation http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html . He theorizes that inherent materials and intrinsic conditions, unleashed a molten aluminum migration, initiating a self perpetuating, critical Thermite mass reaction, inside the towers. I mentally cross referenced to the first "Alien" movie. After the creature symbiotically attaches itself to the crew member's face, an attempt is made to remove it. As they breach the creature's exo-structure with a laser, fluid erupts onto the deck's floor. The extremely corrosive substance, eats right through it, to the deck below. The process goes on unabated, until they eventually neutralize it. I can't deny that this is an intriguing theory, worthy of consideration. From a screenwriters perspective, it's an Alchemical blend of "The Perfect Storm" and "Runaway Train". An event is set into motion and as a function of concurrence and convergence, nothing on earth can interrupt it's trajectory through time and space. What's interesting about this theory, is that it brings a back door creditability to the speculators who questioned the viability of an Unassisted collapse. Conversely, it reflects poorly on official creditability. If it turns out, that these self-perpetuating, thermo-chemical-metallurgical (re)actions were integral to the collapse process; it suggests that the official account filled in the void, of the hitherto unconsidered mechanism, by manipulating the actions of the known mechanisms, to reach a desired conclusion. This paper is a duel edged sword and if considered, will cut both ways. The official story may turn out to be right but for the wrong reasons. Is being lucky really better than being good?
Sounds like Luketober has found a way out that allows him to save face.
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 22 2006, 10:02 PM)
Sounds like Luketober has found a way out that allows him to save face.
Arthur
An impossibility for yourself eh.
Greening sounds like Reality Check in zoktoberfest's analysis --
" He theorizes that inherent materials and intrinsic conditions, unleashed a molten aluminum migration, initiating a self perpetuating, critical Thermite mass reaction, inside the towers"
What is he really saying? - OK the world can see these buildings exploded, heres the best we can up with.
Reality Check's "Ju Jitsu" type move that arrested the top of the South Towers tilt and turn then pulverised it might even come into fashion.
Arthur
An impossibility for yourself eh.
Greening sounds like Reality Check in zoktoberfest's analysis --
" He theorizes that inherent materials and intrinsic conditions, unleashed a molten aluminum migration, initiating a self perpetuating, critical Thermite mass reaction, inside the towers"
What is he really saying? - OK the world can see these buildings exploded, heres the best we can up with.
Reality Check's "Ju Jitsu" type move that arrested the top of the South Towers tilt and turn then pulverised it might even come into fashion.
QUOTE (brian+Jan 23 2006, 12:48 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 22 2006, 10:02 PM)
Sounds like Luketober has found a way out that allows him to save face.
Arthur
An impossibility for yourself eh.
Greening sounds like Reality Check in zoktoberfest's analysis --
" He theorizes that inherent materials and intrinsic conditions, unleashed a molten aluminum migration, initiating a self perpetuating, critical Thermite mass reaction, inside the towers"
What is he really saying? - OK the world can see these buildings exploded, heres the best we can up with.
Reality Check's "Ju Jitsu" type move that arrested the top of the South Towers tilt and turn then pulverised it might even come into fashion.
And brian the brain is again mistaken and irrelevant.
I speculated on the mix of material IN THE RUBBLE PILE burning for weeks AFTER the collapse, mate. Mistaken brian.
And as for the 'jiu jitsu' taunt...I note you STILL have not brought any PHYSICS in rebuttal of the principles involved when a smaller force can re-direct ( as opposed to stop) a much greater force. Irrelevant brian.
RC.
.
Arthur
An impossibility for yourself eh.
Greening sounds like Reality Check in zoktoberfest's analysis --
" He theorizes that inherent materials and intrinsic conditions, unleashed a molten aluminum migration, initiating a self perpetuating, critical Thermite mass reaction, inside the towers"
What is he really saying? - OK the world can see these buildings exploded, heres the best we can up with.
Reality Check's "Ju Jitsu" type move that arrested the top of the South Towers tilt and turn then pulverised it might even come into fashion.
And brian the brain is again mistaken and irrelevant.
I speculated on the mix of material IN THE RUBBLE PILE burning for weeks AFTER the collapse, mate. Mistaken brian.
And as for the 'jiu jitsu' taunt...I note you STILL have not brought any PHYSICS in rebuttal of the principles involved when a smaller force can re-direct ( as opposed to stop) a much greater force. Irrelevant brian.
RC.
.
QUOTE (brian+Jan 23 2006, 12:48 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 22 2006, 10:02 PM)
Sounds like Luketober has found a way out that allows him to save face.
Arthur
An impossibility for yourself eh.
Greening sounds like Reality Check in zoktoberfest's analysis --
" He theorizes that inherent materials and intrinsic conditions, unleashed a molten aluminum migration, initiating a self perpetuating, critical Thermite mass reaction, inside the towers"
What is he really saying? - OK the world can see these buildings exploded, heres the best we can up with.
Reality Check's "Ju Jitsu" type move that arrested the top of the South Towers tilt and turn then pulverised it might even come into fashion.
I assure you the world does not exist in your mind. The WORLD didn't see explosions. Even YOU didn't see explosions at the time. You saw a web site and it convinced you of something which doesn't exist. Now you don't want to feel stupid by realizing you're wrong. I can't stand Bush either but I refuse to let that corrupt my keen critical thinking skills.
Arthur
An impossibility for yourself eh.
Greening sounds like Reality Check in zoktoberfest's analysis --
" He theorizes that inherent materials and intrinsic conditions, unleashed a molten aluminum migration, initiating a self perpetuating, critical Thermite mass reaction, inside the towers"
What is he really saying? - OK the world can see these buildings exploded, heres the best we can up with.
Reality Check's "Ju Jitsu" type move that arrested the top of the South Towers tilt and turn then pulverised it might even come into fashion.
I assure you the world does not exist in your mind. The WORLD didn't see explosions. Even YOU didn't see explosions at the time. You saw a web site and it convinced you of something which doesn't exist. Now you don't want to feel stupid by realizing you're wrong. I can't stand Bush either but I refuse to let that corrupt my keen critical thinking skills.
QUOTE (gordon+Jan 22 2006, 05:28 PM)
The paper put forward by Mr. Greening makes some radical assumptions for the collapse which would not, in fact could not, happen in reality. In common with many such theories, he has avoided key events by limiting his study to only a portion of the collapse, perhaps for the sake of clarity.
However if we examine his figures we see that through a convoluted procedure he has attempted to quantify the strain energy involved in the collapse of one storey, and has obtained a figure of 0.6 x 10^9 J. This was derived from the aircraft impact energy, of all things, and this was put forward as 3.0 x 10^9 J. However a 130 tonne aircraft travelling at 530mph would have an impact energy of 3.65 x 10^9 J, meaning that the storey collapse would require 1.25 x 10^9 J.
By his own reasoning the impact between upper and lower sections would cause the collapse of one storey in each section and the total energy required to continue collapse would therefore be double this figure; 2.5 x 10^9 J.
If we now compare this with his figure for energy available 2.34 x 10^9 J it is evident that there was insufficient energy available.
I don't think we need be troubled over a paper in which such a minor correction could cause such damage to the conclusions.
I'm quite deeply into study of the various scenarios at the moment, hence my comparative silence. Schneibster, please excuse my not replying, but in putting an answer together I have become quite involved in the analysis. I'm trying to categorise the various collapse theories, and I must say that yours is among the most detailed and best reasoning I have found so far. Mr Greening falls well behind. I will get back to you but in the meantime you may wish to re-examine the masses you have used in your program. I'm not going to hold you to that by the way. It is entirely up to you what you use in your analysis,
Gordon.
A rebuttal from Greening...
My calculation depends on two numbers: the mass of one Twin Tower M1 and a quantity I call E1, the energy to collapse one floor. I believe my calculation is correct mathematically .......... it's the values for M1 and E1 that make the difference. This guy wants to change E1 to 2.5 x 10^9 J, I say 2.0 x 10^9 is a maximum value.
Mr. Greening (You may call me Frank)
However if we examine his figures we see that through a convoluted procedure he has attempted to quantify the strain energy involved in the collapse of one storey, and has obtained a figure of 0.6 x 10^9 J. This was derived from the aircraft impact energy, of all things, and this was put forward as 3.0 x 10^9 J. However a 130 tonne aircraft travelling at 530mph would have an impact energy of 3.65 x 10^9 J, meaning that the storey collapse would require 1.25 x 10^9 J.
By his own reasoning the impact between upper and lower sections would cause the collapse of one storey in each section and the total energy required to continue collapse would therefore be double this figure; 2.5 x 10^9 J.
If we now compare this with his figure for energy available 2.34 x 10^9 J it is evident that there was insufficient energy available.
I don't think we need be troubled over a paper in which such a minor correction could cause such damage to the conclusions.
I'm quite deeply into study of the various scenarios at the moment, hence my comparative silence. Schneibster, please excuse my not replying, but in putting an answer together I have become quite involved in the analysis. I'm trying to categorise the various collapse theories, and I must say that yours is among the most detailed and best reasoning I have found so far. Mr Greening falls well behind. I will get back to you but in the meantime you may wish to re-examine the masses you have used in your program. I'm not going to hold you to that by the way. It is entirely up to you what you use in your analysis,
Gordon.
A rebuttal from Greening...
My calculation depends on two numbers: the mass of one Twin Tower M1 and a quantity I call E1, the energy to collapse one floor. I believe my calculation is correct mathematically .......... it's the values for M1 and E1 that make the difference. This guy wants to change E1 to 2.5 x 10^9 J, I say 2.0 x 10^9 is a maximum value.
Mr. Greening (You may call me Frank)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 22 2006, 06:51 PM)
QUOTE (gordon+Jan 22 2006, 05:28 PM)
The paper put forward by Mr. Greening makes some radical assumptions for the collapse which would not, in fact could not, happen in reality. In common with many such theories, he has avoided key events by limiting his study to only a portion of the collapse, perhaps for the sake of clarity.
However if we examine his figures we see that through a convoluted procedure he has attempted to quantify the strain energy involved in the collapse of one storey, and has obtained a figure of 0.6 x 10^9 J. This was derived from the aircraft impact energy, of all things, and this was put forward as 3.0 x 10^9 J. However a 130 tonne aircraft travelling at 530mph would have an impact energy of 3.65 x 10^9 J, meaning that the storey collapse would require 1.25 x 10^9 J.
By his own reasoning the impact between upper and lower sections would cause the collapse of one storey in each section and the total energy required to continue collapse would therefore be double this figure; 2.5 x 10^9 J.
If we now compare this with his figure for energy available 2.34 x 10^9 J it is evident that there was insufficient energy available.
I don't think we need be troubled over a paper in which such a minor correction could cause such damage to the conclusions.
I'm quite deeply into study of the various scenarios at the moment, hence my comparative silence. Schneibster, please excuse my not replying, but in putting an answer together I have become quite involved in the analysis. I'm trying to categorise the various collapse theories, and I must say that yours is among the most detailed and best reasoning I have found so far. Mr Greening falls well behind. I will get back to you but in the meantime you may wish to re-examine the masses you have used in your program. I'm not going to hold you to that by the way. It is entirely up to you what you use in your analysis,
Gordon.
A rebuttal from Greening...
My calculation depends on two numbers: the mass of one Twin Tower M1 and a quantity I call E1, the energy to collapse one floor. I believe my calculation is correct mathematically .......... it's the values for M1 and E1 that make the difference. This guy wants to change E1 to 2.5 x 10^9 J, I say 2.0 x 10^9 is a maximum value.
Mr. Greening (You may call me Frank)
Did he forget to explain why “ I say 2.0 x 10^9 is a maximum value” or are we just supposed to take his word for it?
Take that up with Foxx since he is so very proud of his "intuitive" approach to engineering composite building ornaments.
As for the engineers doing those particular calculations metamars, if something is obvious then it is obvious. If I say that I have 2 of something and you have two of the same thing and I claim that between the two of us we have four of them do I really need to show my calculations for you to accept it?
As for your request about 'elastic dynamic analysis' you were told that it is used more often now , that it is accepted by the engineering community. If you wish to learn more about it there are textbooks available, some written by Bazant himself. Asking an engineer on an internet forum to basically teach this to you is over the top.
Is this an oxy-moron or a paradox ?
Is this an oxy-moron or a paradox ?
I don't think its either,
From what I've been reading those large structural steel pieces tend to be relatively low strength steel, and considering the sizes involved it is anticipated that there will be some pieces that are below strength somewhere within their larger dimensions. Thus "within safety tolerances"
Bolts on the other hand tend to be fairly small and used for a specific connection, so any weakness would be a much greater issue. Thus quality control tends to be higher. I believe the quality of steel is also generally higher.
Arthur
Erm, yeah..that's why they are structural steel.
However if we examine his figures we see that through a convoluted procedure he has attempted to quantify the strain energy involved in the collapse of one storey, and has obtained a figure of 0.6 x 10^9 J. This was derived from the aircraft impact energy, of all things, and this was put forward as 3.0 x 10^9 J. However a 130 tonne aircraft travelling at 530mph would have an impact energy of 3.65 x 10^9 J, meaning that the storey collapse would require 1.25 x 10^9 J.
By his own reasoning the impact between upper and lower sections would cause the collapse of one storey in each section and the total energy required to continue collapse would therefore be double this figure; 2.5 x 10^9 J.
If we now compare this with his figure for energy available 2.34 x 10^9 J it is evident that there was insufficient energy available.
I don't think we need be troubled over a paper in which such a minor correction could cause such damage to the conclusions.
I'm quite deeply into study of the various scenarios at the moment, hence my comparative silence. Schneibster, please excuse my not replying, but in putting an answer together I have become quite involved in the analysis. I'm trying to categorise the various collapse theories, and I must say that yours is among the most detailed and best reasoning I have found so far. Mr Greening falls well behind. I will get back to you but in the meantime you may wish to re-examine the masses you have used in your program. I'm not going to hold you to that by the way. It is entirely up to you what you use in your analysis,
Gordon.
A rebuttal from Greening...
My calculation depends on two numbers: the mass of one Twin Tower M1 and a quantity I call E1, the energy to collapse one floor. I believe my calculation is correct mathematically .......... it's the values for M1 and E1 that make the difference. This guy wants to change E1 to 2.5 x 10^9 J, I say 2.0 x 10^9 is a maximum value.
Mr. Greening (You may call me Frank)
Did he forget to explain why “ I say 2.0 x 10^9 is a maximum value” or are we just supposed to take his word for it?
QUOTE
My philosophy is simple: don't ask me to trust your intuition, and I won't ask you to trust mine.
Take that up with Foxx since he is so very proud of his "intuitive" approach to engineering composite building ornaments.
As for the engineers doing those particular calculations metamars, if something is obvious then it is obvious. If I say that I have 2 of something and you have two of the same thing and I claim that between the two of us we have four of them do I really need to show my calculations for you to accept it?
As for your request about 'elastic dynamic analysis' you were told that it is used more often now , that it is accepted by the engineering community. If you wish to learn more about it there are textbooks available, some written by Bazant himself. Asking an engineer on an internet forum to basically teach this to you is over the top.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jan 22 2006, 08:45 PM)
Last night, I read Frank Greening's most recent dissertation http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html . He theorizes that inherent materials and intrinsic conditions, unleashed a molten aluminum migration, initiating a self perpetuating, critical Thermite mass reaction, inside the towers. I mentally cross referenced to the first "Alien" movie. After the creature symbiotically attaches itself to the crew member's face, an attempt is made to remove it. As they breach the creature's exo-structure with a laser, fluid erupts onto the deck's floor. The extremely corrosive substance, eats right through it, to the deck below. The process goes on unabated, until they eventually neutralize it. I can't deny that this is an intriguing theory, worthy of consideration. From a screenwriters perspective, it's an Alchemical blend of "The Perfect Storm" and "Runaway Train". An event is set into motion and as a function of concurrence and convergence, nothing on earth can interrupt it's trajectory through time and space. What's interesting about this theory, is that it brings a back door creditability to the speculators who questioned the viability of an Unassisted collapse. Conversely, it reflects poorly on official creditability. If it turns out, that these self-perpetuating, thermo-chemical-metallurgical (re)actions were integral to the collapse process; it suggests that the official account filled in the void, of the hitherto unconsidered mechanism, by manipulating the actions of the known mechanisms, to reach a desired conclusion. This paper is a duel edged sword and if considered, will cut both ways. The official story may turn out to be right but for the wrong reasons. Is being lucky really better than being good?
Thanks... "luke-tober"
The 'Greening' analysis ...
Based upon what i have seen here, from the 'official fairy-tale'/ 'gravity-driven collapse-supporters... is worth about 2 'brownie-points' towards 'Truth'.
Anyone (with a shred of 'common sense'), should be able to determine that the 'alleged' Greening Analyis does not hold a great amount of credibilty, and does NOT stand-up to analytical scrutiny.
But, hey... feel free to 'muddy-on'... obfuscators.
IS the 'Greening Report' to be 'believed' ABOVE ALL OTHER 'speculative postulations ???
"I don't think so, TIM" ...
YOU disagree ????,
Then please explain HOW... and put forth your EVIDENCE to support your theory.
Thanks
Thanks... "luke-tober"
The 'Greening' analysis ...
Based upon what i have seen here, from the 'official fairy-tale'/ 'gravity-driven collapse-supporters... is worth about 2 'brownie-points' towards 'Truth'.
Anyone (with a shred of 'common sense'), should be able to determine that the 'alleged' Greening Analyis does not hold a great amount of credibilty, and does NOT stand-up to analytical scrutiny.
But, hey... feel free to 'muddy-on'... obfuscators.
IS the 'Greening Report' to be 'believed' ABOVE ALL OTHER 'speculative postulations ???
"I don't think so, TIM"
...YOU disagree ????,
Then please explain HOW... and put forth your EVIDENCE to support your theory.
Thanks
QUOTE (Foxx+)
Then please explain HOW... and put forth your EVIDENCE to support your theory.
Why?
You haven't put forth ANY evidence to support your lame theory.
Arthur
Why?
You haven't put forth ANY evidence to support your lame theory.
Arthur
I owe RC and apology; at least he/she provided a civil response to my not-so-civil post... Sorry, RC.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 22 2006, 03:28 AM)
From the thread concerning this same topic, on AH
Seems pretty clear to me that the core could not stand on its own with any lateral forces(such as the buffeting from having 110 floors and perimeter columns being torn away and crashing downward).
Seems pretty clear, in fact it is stated specifically, that the engineers at the table agreed that the building was doomed once the initial collapse took place. Note that I bolded that sentence above for easy reading.
YID, by posting this one quote from the beginning of the conversation, it seems to me that you are...
1 - taking as gospel the words of an anonymous poster on the internet (simply because he seems to agree with your viewpoints in the said post) - In other words you consider him to BE a 'pope'... and...
2 - you either did not follow the subsequent posts in that thread or did not understand the implications of those. Although ignoring some points (such as mentioned by metamars);... by the end of that conversation, JU had basically agreed with ALL of the points I had raised regarding the structure of the towers.
The most interesting 'new' thing he brought up IMHO, was the quantitative (theoretical) energy strain upon the bolts holding the floor trusses (from the FEMA report I have have previously mentioned) and explained those forces (to me). That is basically where I left off that conversation as (IMO) he had refuted the earlier points he was trying to make by posting those figures.
Although he would not hazard a guess as to the quantitative figures regarding the strain/stress required to pull the central core columns 'out of plumb', it certainly doesn't take a 'rocket scientist' to figure out that those two bolts (holding the truss floor bar joists), would fail LONG before pulling the massively constructed and cross-braced core columns OUT of plumb. Look again closely at the connection between the transverse beam and the core column connection point... count the bolts in this connection...do you see any 'buckling' of that column (as if it were 'pulled' out-of-plumb by the two bolt connection which attached the light-weight truss bar-joist system?
Perhaps gordon can address this, once he has had time to read over the particular FEMA report, which addresses the steel 'connections'. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi.../WTC_apndxB.htm )...
As for me, I don't need to see those figures before understanding that those two bolts were NOT strong enough to 'pull' the massive transverse beams (within the core) to the failure point.
It cannot happen...that is precisely WHY FEMA & NIST tries so desperately to avoid or ignore the actual core construction (to any great detail) focusing more on the perimeter columns to support their pancaking floor fairy tale.
QUOTE
I was largely unable to post yesterday because of some unannounced (at least to me) visits of customers and field workers. This turned out to be a very fortuitous situation, because the visitors were from Lawrence Livermore laboratories and were suitably familiar with the LS-DYNA component of the software used to create the WTC structural models for the NIST report, and the field workers were licensed structural engineers who work (or worked, in some cases) for us. One was David Cassett, a long-time friend and my mentor in structural engineering. He is a fully-licensed structural engineer who worked out of Utah and now works out of Berkely, California. There were a number of licensed structural engineers (some of whom I hadn't met before), but most everyone at the table had a combination of formal training and practical experience at structural engineering for large structures.
I went to dinner with these people and brought along some notes and photographs of the WTC structures to get their opinions.
First, I claimed elsewhere that the WTC cores couldn't have been built "more than a few stories" above the rest of the structure because of instability. You asked for a source for this claim. I knew at the time that it was covered in one of my structures courses from many years ago. I ransacked my attic and found my notes: the basis of that restriction had more to do with how the cranes were attached to the rising core columns and the eccentric loads they placed on them.
But I asked these guys how high they could have built the core as a free-standing structure. They agreed it could have been built all the way to the top, but it would have lacked sufficient stiffness to resist any lateral loads.
This sparked a bit of a debate, because half the engineers believed the core employed diagonal supports. Consulting the photographs of the WTC construction, however, we concluded that no such diagonal bracing was supplied. Two photographs allegedly showed diagonal bracing, but it turned out to be a staircase in one instance and the truss web of the cranes themselves in another case. The general consensus on this point was that the core could not have stood to full height for very long by itself with only horizontal bracing.
We then looked at the core framing. I wasn't able to find any drawings of the core framing plan, but I was able to find some photographs of the core under construction that showed the arrangement, in part, of the core beams. All the engineers agreed that the core was not laid out in structural bays, and so conventional wisdom derived from more pedestrian construction probably wouldn't apply.
It was pointed out that the primary task of the beams between the core columns was to support the core floor structures. I suggested that the beams would also act to brace the core columns against buckling, and there was general agreement to that, however it was noted that the response would be anisotropic; the structures would probably be more inclined to buckle in one direction than in another. It was also agreed that the relatively ad hoc arrangement of floor beams would result in nonuniform redistribution of loads when certain columns failed.
I asked their opinions whether the core would be considered more or less robust than a post-and-beam building of typical design. This elicited some discussion. I reminded them that the columns were more closely spaced in the WTC core than would be the case in other buildings. They considered this to impart slightly more strength, but the overriding concern -- at least in David's opinion -- was the lack of a homogeneous web of beams through the columns (i.e., the structural bay approach), the lack of diagonal bracing, and the overall slenderness ratio of the core.
I asked what role they believed the trusses to have played in bracing the core. Since they had already concluded that the core -- as built -- would not stand on its own for very long, one engineer said that the core (as a whole) required all the trusses and the perimeter (as a whole) to brace it along its length. He preferred to think about it in a global fashion rather than on a floor-by-floor or column-by-column basis.
I didn't ask about the trusses distorting the core columns because I had already abandoned that conclusion, but I did ask about the trusses increasing the load on the core via the hat truss by distorting the perimeter columns, and they agreed with that analysis.
I asked them point blank if they thought the global collapse was odd. This was the only point on which they were unanimous: once it started falling it was going to fall all the way to the ground.
________________-----
So now we have the consensus opinion of Jay's structural engineers that the cores would be able to remain upright as stand alone structures. This agrees with what I wrote back in July....
No. After seeing evidence that no diagonal bracing was provided in the core, they specifically said it would thus not be able to stand to that height as a solitary structure. That it stood a few stories higher than the rest of the structure during construction has never been denied.
I assume that since you didn't say there was a consensus, that at least some argued that the core design would be a more robust design...
Remember this was an informal discussion carried out around a dinner table. Not every engineer is willing to make an assertive answer on every question asked informally. As with most experts in a field that thrives on detail, they believe the devil is in those details.
Did they say it was odd?
No. This was the only question on which there was a unanimous, asserted answer.
What do they base the opinion that it was an inevitable complete collapse on?
A combined 120 years or so of professional expertise in structural engineering and engineering failure analysis. The Livermore people are those who basically invented the science of finite-element methods for structural analysis, which has completely revolutionized it and enabled hitherto unattainable structures.
On what do you base your objection?
I went to dinner with these people and brought along some notes and photographs of the WTC structures to get their opinions.
First, I claimed elsewhere that the WTC cores couldn't have been built "more than a few stories" above the rest of the structure because of instability. You asked for a source for this claim. I knew at the time that it was covered in one of my structures courses from many years ago. I ransacked my attic and found my notes: the basis of that restriction had more to do with how the cranes were attached to the rising core columns and the eccentric loads they placed on them.
But I asked these guys how high they could have built the core as a free-standing structure. They agreed it could have been built all the way to the top, but it would have lacked sufficient stiffness to resist any lateral loads.
This sparked a bit of a debate, because half the engineers believed the core employed diagonal supports. Consulting the photographs of the WTC construction, however, we concluded that no such diagonal bracing was supplied. Two photographs allegedly showed diagonal bracing, but it turned out to be a staircase in one instance and the truss web of the cranes themselves in another case. The general consensus on this point was that the core could not have stood to full height for very long by itself with only horizontal bracing.
We then looked at the core framing. I wasn't able to find any drawings of the core framing plan, but I was able to find some photographs of the core under construction that showed the arrangement, in part, of the core beams. All the engineers agreed that the core was not laid out in structural bays, and so conventional wisdom derived from more pedestrian construction probably wouldn't apply.
It was pointed out that the primary task of the beams between the core columns was to support the core floor structures. I suggested that the beams would also act to brace the core columns against buckling, and there was general agreement to that, however it was noted that the response would be anisotropic; the structures would probably be more inclined to buckle in one direction than in another. It was also agreed that the relatively ad hoc arrangement of floor beams would result in nonuniform redistribution of loads when certain columns failed.
I asked their opinions whether the core would be considered more or less robust than a post-and-beam building of typical design. This elicited some discussion. I reminded them that the columns were more closely spaced in the WTC core than would be the case in other buildings. They considered this to impart slightly more strength, but the overriding concern -- at least in David's opinion -- was the lack of a homogeneous web of beams through the columns (i.e., the structural bay approach), the lack of diagonal bracing, and the overall slenderness ratio of the core.
I asked what role they believed the trusses to have played in bracing the core. Since they had already concluded that the core -- as built -- would not stand on its own for very long, one engineer said that the core (as a whole) required all the trusses and the perimeter (as a whole) to brace it along its length. He preferred to think about it in a global fashion rather than on a floor-by-floor or column-by-column basis.
I didn't ask about the trusses distorting the core columns because I had already abandoned that conclusion, but I did ask about the trusses increasing the load on the core via the hat truss by distorting the perimeter columns, and they agreed with that analysis.
I asked them point blank if they thought the global collapse was odd. This was the only point on which they were unanimous: once it started falling it was going to fall all the way to the ground.
________________-----
So now we have the consensus opinion of Jay's structural engineers that the cores would be able to remain upright as stand alone structures. This agrees with what I wrote back in July....
No. After seeing evidence that no diagonal bracing was provided in the core, they specifically said it would thus not be able to stand to that height as a solitary structure. That it stood a few stories higher than the rest of the structure during construction has never been denied.
I assume that since you didn't say there was a consensus, that at least some argued that the core design would be a more robust design...
Remember this was an informal discussion carried out around a dinner table. Not every engineer is willing to make an assertive answer on every question asked informally. As with most experts in a field that thrives on detail, they believe the devil is in those details.
Did they say it was odd?
No. This was the only question on which there was a unanimous, asserted answer.
What do they base the opinion that it was an inevitable complete collapse on?
A combined 120 years or so of professional expertise in structural engineering and engineering failure analysis. The Livermore people are those who basically invented the science of finite-element methods for structural analysis, which has completely revolutionized it and enabled hitherto unattainable structures.
On what do you base your objection?
Seems pretty clear to me that the core could not stand on its own with any lateral forces(such as the buffeting from having 110 floors and perimeter columns being torn away and crashing downward).
Seems pretty clear, in fact it is stated specifically, that the engineers at the table agreed that the building was doomed once the initial collapse took place. Note that I bolded that sentence above for easy reading.
YID, by posting this one quote from the beginning of the conversation, it seems to me that you are...
1 - taking as gospel the words of an anonymous poster on the internet (simply because he seems to agree with your viewpoints in the said post) - In other words you consider him to BE a 'pope'... and...
2 - you either did not follow the subsequent posts in that thread or did not understand the implications of those. Although ignoring some points (such as mentioned by metamars);... by the end of that conversation, JU had basically agreed with ALL of the points I had raised regarding the structure of the towers.
The most interesting 'new' thing he brought up IMHO, was the quantitative (theoretical) energy strain upon the bolts holding the floor trusses (from the FEMA report I have have previously mentioned) and explained those forces (to me). That is basically where I left off that conversation as (IMO) he had refuted the earlier points he was trying to make by posting those figures.
Although he would not hazard a guess as to the quantitative figures regarding the strain/stress required to pull the central core columns 'out of plumb', it certainly doesn't take a 'rocket scientist' to figure out that those two bolts (holding the truss floor bar joists), would fail LONG before pulling the massively constructed and cross-braced core columns OUT of plumb. Look again closely at the connection between the transverse beam and the core column connection point... count the bolts in this connection...do you see any 'buckling' of that column (as if it were 'pulled' out-of-plumb by the two bolt connection which attached the light-weight truss bar-joist system?
Perhaps gordon can address this, once he has had time to read over the particular FEMA report, which addresses the steel 'connections'. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi.../WTC_apndxB.htm )...
As for me, I don't need to see those figures before understanding that those two bolts were NOT strong enough to 'pull' the massive transverse beams (within the core) to the failure point.
It cannot happen...that is precisely WHY FEMA & NIST tries so desperately to avoid or ignore the actual core construction (to any great detail) focusing more on the perimeter columns to support their pancaking floor fairy tale.
QUOTE (Foxx+)
The most interesting 'new' thing he brought up IMHO, was the quantitative (theoretical) energy strain upon the bolts holding the floor trusses (from the FEMA report I have have previously mentioned) and explained those forces (to me). That is basically where I left off that conversation as (IMO) he had refuted the earlier points he was trying to make by posting those figures.
Although he would not hazard a guess as to the quantitative figures regarding the strain/stress required to pull the central core columns 'out of plumb', it certainly doesn't take a 'rocket scientist' to figure out that those two bolts (holding the truss floor bar joists), would fail LONG before pulling the massively constructed and cross-braced core columns OUT of plumb.
Still stuck in FEMAland?
Foxx, Go towards the LIGHT.
Please stick to the FINAL NIST REPORT.
Avoid drafts.
The NIST report does NOT indicate that the Central Core Columns would be pulled out of plumb, in fact it states that "the horizontal displacement to the Core columns was INSIGNIFICANT".
It does however point out that the sagging trusses would put a 14 kip force on the PERIMETER Columns causing the bending that is OBSERVED in the photographic evidence.
See NIST final report Section 6.6.4 pg 97 to 104
Arthur
Although he would not hazard a guess as to the quantitative figures regarding the strain/stress required to pull the central core columns 'out of plumb', it certainly doesn't take a 'rocket scientist' to figure out that those two bolts (holding the truss floor bar joists), would fail LONG before pulling the massively constructed and cross-braced core columns OUT of plumb.
Still stuck in FEMAland?
Foxx, Go towards the LIGHT.
Please stick to the FINAL NIST REPORT.
Avoid drafts.
The NIST report does NOT indicate that the Central Core Columns would be pulled out of plumb, in fact it states that "the horizontal displacement to the Core columns was INSIGNIFICANT".
It does however point out that the sagging trusses would put a 14 kip force on the PERIMETER Columns causing the bending that is OBSERVED in the photographic evidence.
See NIST final report Section 6.6.4 pg 97 to 104
Arthur
gordon, take your time. I suspect that you may come up with information to feed into the program that will be more realistic in terms of the masses of the floors. I believe I'll wait and discuss it with you when you have completed your no-doubt exhaustive research; we can make whatever changes to the program we deem wise, and input the desirable values, and see what comes out the other end.
Foxx writes:
Jay Utah is far from anonymous having hosted a site that debunks the Apollo conspiracies and having hosted television productions concerning the same. His qualifications in the field of engineering are there in the public domain to be examined and to my knowledge NO ONE has shown any reason to dispute his claims in that area.
You , however, epitomize the term "anonymous poster" as much as I do. You claim engineering knowledge but show little to back that up. You have in the past even claimed the title of engineer though when pressed you admit that you have no formal training in such and are not accredited as one.
You wish to claim the title of 'pope' for yourself it seems.
I did follow that exchange and the only thing that JU backed off of was the pulling out of plumb of the central core columns by the sagging truss loads.
He did not agree that the core could exist on its own much less as the rest of the building was tearing down around it.
Once again you twist and misrepresent the words of others. (aka obfuscate by sophist statements)
QUOTE
1 - taking as gospel the words of an anonymous poster on the internet (simply because he seems to agree with your viewpoints in the said post) - In other words you consider him to BE a 'pope'... and...
2 - you either did not follow the subsequent posts in that thread or did not understand the implications of those. Although ignoring some points (such as mentioned by metamars);... by the end of that conversation, JU had basically agreed with ALL of the points I had raised regarding the structure of the towers
2 - you either did not follow the subsequent posts in that thread or did not understand the implications of those. Although ignoring some points (such as mentioned by metamars);... by the end of that conversation, JU had basically agreed with ALL of the points I had raised regarding the structure of the towers
Jay Utah is far from anonymous having hosted a site that debunks the Apollo conspiracies and having hosted television productions concerning the same. His qualifications in the field of engineering are there in the public domain to be examined and to my knowledge NO ONE has shown any reason to dispute his claims in that area.
You , however, epitomize the term "anonymous poster" as much as I do. You claim engineering knowledge but show little to back that up. You have in the past even claimed the title of engineer though when pressed you admit that you have no formal training in such and are not accredited as one.
You wish to claim the title of 'pope' for yourself it seems.
I did follow that exchange and the only thing that JU backed off of was the pulling out of plumb of the central core columns by the sagging truss loads.
He did not agree that the core could exist on its own much less as the rest of the building was tearing down around it.
Once again you twist and misrepresent the words of others. (aka obfuscate by sophist statements)
Foxx commented, "Perhaps gordon can address this, once he has had time to read over the particular FEMA report, which addresses the steel 'connections'. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi.../WTC_apndxB.htm )...
Coincidentally, I am looking at the end connections at the moment, so can give you some figures.
The bolt diameter has variously been reported as 5/8" and 1" dia and seem to be in single shear. We can use these figures to show the maximum and minimum force which the bolts could withstand in perfect shear.
Let us assume that the Ultimate Shear Stress (USS) for the material is 400 MPa, a typical figure.
The area under shear (csa) for two 5/8" dia bolts in single shear is 396 x10^-6 m^2
The area under shear (csa) for two 1" dia bolts in double shear is 2027 x10^-6 m^2
So the failure load, from F = USS x csa, would be 160 kN, in the first case and 800 KN in the second.
There are approximately 250 of these connections on each floor so the connections of one floor would be capable of carrying a shear load of 4000 tonnes, or 20 000 tonnes if in the second case.
When we consider that the weight of one storey was only about 4500 tonnes, we can see that the Ultimate Shear Load is far in excess of the total weight of the floor, which means that even if all the weight of the floor was directed, not downwards, but pulling in on the walls and outwards on the core columns and subjecting the bolts to pure shear, their weight would be insufficient to shear the bolts.
Even were we to reduce the USS by 50% to take account of thermal weakening or poorer quality steel the bolts would still not fail under any weight induced load from the floor and floor load.
There is no explained mechanism which would allow the full weight of the floors to act against these bolts in shear, and the proportion of the weight which does act on the connection would also exhibit as deflection of other fittings, thus lowering the effective shear force.
This means that theories which have a disconnection between the floors and columns as part of their reasoning, need to explain where the force or additional weight acting in on the walls comes from or postulate a mechanism which would explain the failure by some other means.
The calculation for a member under buckling and bending loads is much more complex, but if we know that the total load which could be transferred through each column is a proportion of the floor we can get an approximation of the maximum force which could have been applied in the worst possible case and work out the deflection from that reasoning. When I do some more work I will get back to you.
Incidentally on Frank Greening's analysis our disagreement rests on one point. I say that the impact energy as given by E = 1/2 * m * v^2 for a 130 tonne aircraft travelling at 530mph is 3.65 GJ. Frank says it is 3.0 GJ.
You be the judge.
Gordon
Coincidentally, I am looking at the end connections at the moment, so can give you some figures.
The bolt diameter has variously been reported as 5/8" and 1" dia and seem to be in single shear. We can use these figures to show the maximum and minimum force which the bolts could withstand in perfect shear.
Let us assume that the Ultimate Shear Stress (USS) for the material is 400 MPa, a typical figure.
The area under shear (csa) for two 5/8" dia bolts in single shear is 396 x10^-6 m^2
The area under shear (csa) for two 1" dia bolts in double shear is 2027 x10^-6 m^2
So the failure load, from F = USS x csa, would be 160 kN, in the first case and 800 KN in the second.
There are approximately 250 of these connections on each floor so the connections of one floor would be capable of carrying a shear load of 4000 tonnes, or 20 000 tonnes if in the second case.
When we consider that the weight of one storey was only about 4500 tonnes, we can see that the Ultimate Shear Load is far in excess of the total weight of the floor, which means that even if all the weight of the floor was directed, not downwards, but pulling in on the walls and outwards on the core columns and subjecting the bolts to pure shear, their weight would be insufficient to shear the bolts.
Even were we to reduce the USS by 50% to take account of thermal weakening or poorer quality steel the bolts would still not fail under any weight induced load from the floor and floor load.
There is no explained mechanism which would allow the full weight of the floors to act against these bolts in shear, and the proportion of the weight which does act on the connection would also exhibit as deflection of other fittings, thus lowering the effective shear force.
This means that theories which have a disconnection between the floors and columns as part of their reasoning, need to explain where the force or additional weight acting in on the walls comes from or postulate a mechanism which would explain the failure by some other means.
The calculation for a member under buckling and bending loads is much more complex, but if we know that the total load which could be transferred through each column is a proportion of the floor we can get an approximation of the maximum force which could have been applied in the worst possible case and work out the deflection from that reasoning. When I do some more work I will get back to you.
Incidentally on Frank Greening's analysis our disagreement rests on one point. I say that the impact energy as given by E = 1/2 * m * v^2 for a 130 tonne aircraft travelling at 530mph is 3.65 GJ. Frank says it is 3.0 GJ.
You be the judge.
Gordon
More from Greening...
My first estimate of E1 was 0.6 x 10^9 J which could be rounded to 1 x 10^9 J. However, take a look at my NIST paper, which is also on 911Myths, where I calculate E1 in a different way:
The data in Table 3 show that the effective acceleration, aeff, although not strictly constant, is tending to a steady value ~ 7 m/s2. If we substitute this value into our equations relating aeff to E1 and Dd, we arrive at:
E1(WTC 2) = 1.4 ´ 109 Joules and Dd(WTC 2) = 1.06 meters
Additionally, using distance = 416 meters = ½ aeff tc2, we estimate the WTC 2 collapse time, tc, to be 10.9 seconds - a value well in-line with our previous estimates for tc.
Similar data may be collected for the collapse of WTC 1. Typically aeff is observed to be ~ 5 m/s2 in which case tc for WTC 1 » 12.9 seconds. It follows that:
E1(WTC 1) = 1.2 ´ 109 Joules and Dd(WTC 1) = 1.81 meters
Thus we see that our estimated E1 values for WTC 1 and 2 are consistent and fall in the range 1.2 – 1.4 ´ 109 Joules.
Hence, I now simply say E1 is less than 2 x 10^9 J. If you notice the guy on your site estimates my E1 from this:
(Greening) has obtained a figure of 0.6 x 10^9 J. This was derived from the aircraft impact energy, of all things, and this was put forward as 3.0 x 10^9 J. However a 130 tonne aircraft travelling at 530mph would have an impact energy of 3.65 x 10^9 J, meaning that the storey collapse would require 1.25 x 10^9 J.
I do not see how this gentleman gets this 1.25 x 10^9 J and then doubles it...... This is NOT how I estimate E1 at all!!! And, by the way, this guy chooses 530 mph which is 237 m/s, which is faster than most estimates I have seen. I actually use 220 m/s, so I stand by my estimate of the impact energy as 3 x 10^9 J. But anyway this is not relevant to the calculation of E1....
Regards, Frank
My first estimate of E1 was 0.6 x 10^9 J which could be rounded to 1 x 10^9 J. However, take a look at my NIST paper, which is also on 911Myths, where I calculate E1 in a different way:
The data in Table 3 show that the effective acceleration, aeff, although not strictly constant, is tending to a steady value ~ 7 m/s2. If we substitute this value into our equations relating aeff to E1 and Dd, we arrive at:
E1(WTC 2) = 1.4 ´ 109 Joules and Dd(WTC 2) = 1.06 meters
Additionally, using distance = 416 meters = ½ aeff tc2, we estimate the WTC 2 collapse time, tc, to be 10.9 seconds - a value well in-line with our previous estimates for tc.
Similar data may be collected for the collapse of WTC 1. Typically aeff is observed to be ~ 5 m/s2 in which case tc for WTC 1 » 12.9 seconds. It follows that:
E1(WTC 1) = 1.2 ´ 109 Joules and Dd(WTC 1) = 1.81 meters
Thus we see that our estimated E1 values for WTC 1 and 2 are consistent and fall in the range 1.2 – 1.4 ´ 109 Joules.
Hence, I now simply say E1 is less than 2 x 10^9 J. If you notice the guy on your site estimates my E1 from this:
(Greening) has obtained a figure of 0.6 x 10^9 J. This was derived from the aircraft impact energy, of all things, and this was put forward as 3.0 x 10^9 J. However a 130 tonne aircraft travelling at 530mph would have an impact energy of 3.65 x 10^9 J, meaning that the storey collapse would require 1.25 x 10^9 J.
I do not see how this gentleman gets this 1.25 x 10^9 J and then doubles it...... This is NOT how I estimate E1 at all!!! And, by the way, this guy chooses 530 mph which is 237 m/s, which is faster than most estimates I have seen. I actually use 220 m/s, so I stand by my estimate of the impact energy as 3 x 10^9 J. But anyway this is not relevant to the calculation of E1....
Regards, Frank
More from Greening...
My first estimate of E1 was 0.6 x 10^9 J
Correct and you derived it from using the impact energy of the collision and subtracting other energies consumed in the collision, thereby giving an estimate of the energy to collapse one floor. You used 3.0 MJ, I used 530mph based on the NIST report, giving a higher figure for impact energy of 3.65 MJ and using exactly your reasoning I showed that this altered your energy balance and your conclusions radically.
Note that I have changed nothing except the impact energy and used exactly the same reasoning and equations as in the report.
This is a very strange method of estimating the energy requirements to collapse one storey and perhaps betrays an ignorance of the normal methods of estimating strain energy. It does however avoid the need to explain the mechanism which would initiate and promulgate such a collapse.
There is little point in now telling me that this was an initial estimate and a totally different method of estimation is contained further in other reports. If you are unhappy with the methods of one report you should post an updated report. If you keep the report as it was, how are we supposed to know that you have now changed your mind? It is very unlikely that I would voluntarily seek out further reports when the first one I have seen was as it was, and the second postulates an aluminium fire if I am not mistaken
Gordon.
My first estimate of E1 was 0.6 x 10^9 J
Correct and you derived it from using the impact energy of the collision and subtracting other energies consumed in the collision, thereby giving an estimate of the energy to collapse one floor. You used 3.0 MJ, I used 530mph based on the NIST report, giving a higher figure for impact energy of 3.65 MJ and using exactly your reasoning I showed that this altered your energy balance and your conclusions radically.
Note that I have changed nothing except the impact energy and used exactly the same reasoning and equations as in the report.
This is a very strange method of estimating the energy requirements to collapse one storey and perhaps betrays an ignorance of the normal methods of estimating strain energy. It does however avoid the need to explain the mechanism which would initiate and promulgate such a collapse.
There is little point in now telling me that this was an initial estimate and a totally different method of estimation is contained further in other reports. If you are unhappy with the methods of one report you should post an updated report. If you keep the report as it was, how are we supposed to know that you have now changed your mind? It is very unlikely that I would voluntarily seek out further reports when the first one I have seen was as it was, and the second postulates an aluminium fire if I am not mistaken
Gordon.
Gordon, If you are dealing with anything other than the FINAL NIST report you are wasting your time.
By the way, NIST reported that ~14% of the structural steel was below spec, but within built in safety tolerances. The bolts were somewhat above spec.
Arthur
By the way, NIST reported that ~14% of the structural steel was below spec, but within built in safety tolerances. The bolts were somewhat above spec.
Arthur
QUOTE
Gordon, If you are dealing with anything other than the FINAL NIST report you are wasting your time.
By the way, NIST reported that ~14% of the structural steel was below spec, but within built in safety tolerances.
The bolts were somewhat above spec.
Arthur
By the way, NIST reported that ~14% of the structural steel was below spec, but within built in safety tolerances.
The bolts were somewhat above spec.
Arthur
Is this an oxy-moron or a paradox ?
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 23 2006, 06:49 PM)
QUOTE
Gordon, If you are dealing with anything other than the FINAL NIST report you are wasting your time.
By the way, NIST reported that ~14% of the structural steel was below spec, but within built in safety tolerances.
The bolts were somewhat above spec.
Arthur
By the way, NIST reported that ~14% of the structural steel was below spec, but within built in safety tolerances.
The bolts were somewhat above spec.
Arthur
Is this an oxy-moron or a paradox ?
I don't think its either,
From what I've been reading those large structural steel pieces tend to be relatively low strength steel, and considering the sizes involved it is anticipated that there will be some pieces that are below strength somewhere within their larger dimensions. Thus "within safety tolerances"
Bolts on the other hand tend to be fairly small and used for a specific connection, so any weakness would be a much greater issue. Thus quality control tends to be higher. I believe the quality of steel is also generally higher.
Arthur
QUOTE
From what I've been reading those large structural steel pieces tend to be relatively low strength steel
Erm, yeah..that's why they are structural steel.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 22 2006, 11:04 PM)
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jan 22 2006, 08:45 PM)
Last night, I read Frank Greening's most recent dissertation http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html . He theorizes that inherent materials and intrinsic conditions, unleashed a molten aluminum migration, initiating a self perpetuating, critical Thermite mass reaction, inside the towers. I mentally cross referenced to the first "Alien" movie. After the creature symbiotically attaches itself to the crew member's face, an attempt is made to remove it. As they breach the creature's exo-structure with a laser, fluid erupts onto the deck's floor. The extremely corrosive substance, eats right through it, to the deck below. The process goes on unabated, until they eventually neutralize it. I can't deny that this is an intriguing theory, worthy of consideration. From a screenwriters perspective, it's an Alchemical blend of "The Perfect Storm" and "Runaway Train". An event is set into motion and as a function of concurrence and convergence, nothing on earth can interrupt it's trajectory through time and space. What's interesting about this theory, is that it brings a back door creditability to the speculators who questioned the viability of an Unassisted collapse. Conversely, it reflects poorly on official creditability. If it turns out, that these self-perpetuating, thermo-chemical-metallurgical (re)actions were integral to the collapse process; it suggests that the official account filled in the void, of the hitherto unconsidered mechanism, by manipulating the actions of the known mechanisms, to reach a desired conclusion. This paper is a duel edged sword and if considered, will cut both ways. The official story may turn out to be right but for the wrong reasons. Is being lucky really better than being good?
Thanks... "luke-tober"
The 'Greening' analysis ...
Based upon what i have seen here, from the 'official fairy-tale'/ 'gravity-driven collapse-supporters... is worth about 2 'brownie-points' towards 'Truth'.
Anyone (with a shred of 'common sense'), should be able to determine that the 'alleged' Greening Analyis does not hold a great amount of credibilty, and does NOT stand-up to analytical scrutiny.
But, hey... feel free to 'muddy-on'... obfuscators.
IS the 'Greening Report' to be 'believed' ABOVE ALL OTHER 'speculative postulations ???
"I don't think so, TIM" ...
YOU disagree ????,
Then please explain HOW... and put forth your EVIDENCE to support your theory.
Thanks
I stand defenseless, before my peers. I prematurely commented on something that I clearly did not read through properly. Even though, "it's too little and too late"; I hereby retract my post concerning Greening's Thermite paper. I re-read it, but could not find anything in it, that I thought I saw the first time. It came across as thin, reaching, cut and pasted, research. It suggested that IF the aircraft melted, the molten Au would drip down and violently react with the oxidized steel structure and extract (H2)O from lime based materials, liberating hydrogen gas. I had previously done some research on Thermite and aluminum/ferrous oxide mixtures were a particularly powerful version of this reaction. In retrospect, I must have projected the predictible power of these compounds with Greenings hap-hazard, speculative, melting aircraft scenario. His explanation, however, does not extend the reactive effect below the impact sight. At the very best it could have been an additional heat source. With that said, I have already conceded the collapse of the upper section in a post to Gordon. And it has been my contention, all along, that plastic deformation would have reduced the acceleration to a magnitude, that would have suggested some degree of an arrested outcome. The only reason for Greening's paper was to address the lingering anomolies, in the post collapse rubble. I am currently involved in a big relocation. I'm drinking way to much coffee and my mind is elsewhere. That is no excuse, however, for shotty posting. I have embarrassed and discredited myself. It maybe some time before I have the nerve to post. I hope you accept my retraction and well as my apologies.
Truly Amazing Logic from the great obfuscator. Are you admitting the original FEMA report was a joke... and NOW the only valid report is the FINAL NIST report?
Please point us to the location (document & page #) where NIST addresses quantitative figures related to bolt shear strengths? \
If you can't find it write to NIST... and ask them.
I'm sure they will be happy to tell you that those quantitative figures were already contained in the FEMA report (so no need for NIST to regurgitate that commonly known information).
Fool, do you think that NIST engineers are in disagreement with FEMA engineers on the strength of simple bolts?
As NIST (and NOW you) state, the bolts were of higher quality than actually required in the blueprints.
The bolts 'passed muster'.
Even Jay Utah (the worlds greatest pope), agreed... that the bolts were 'fine' and utilized (as 'evidence') the FEMA appendix calculations & engineering under discussion.
Arthur, please show us exactly WHERE FEMA & NIST are in disagreement in anything.
Haven't you figured out yet that they walk hand-in-hand ?
It is PURE obfuscation to imply NOW that all PREVIOUS government reports were 'mistaken' and only the Final report from NIST is 'pope material'...
ESPECIALLY in the well understood and quantitative figures related to the shear strengths of a couple of bolts. Good grief, man... can't you come up with anything better than that !!! ?
DO NOT throw out ANY previous gov't reports. It is in searching ALL of these and cross-referencing in context, that it becomes quite clear how the 'official story' has changed and evolved through the critical analysis of skeptics.
Furthermore, the INITIAL statements of 'the defendant' are most often MORE REVEALING than subsequent statements. The INITIAL statements were given with less attention on how to 'spin' the story.
WHY do YOU think there were so many NIST 'Drafts for Public Discussion' ?
I'll suggest WHY...
So they could get a grasp on what skeptics were posting on them danged "Internets".
Once you get a handle on what the 'opponents' are saying (or bringing-up')... you can change your original 'spin' slightly to attempt to 'cover' the 'critics' assessment.
Get REAL, arthur...
Are you now agreeing with metamars (and the rest of the rational world) that the FEMA (gov't) report was a JOKE ! ???.
You seem to 'forget' (or... 'wash-under-the-bridge') how adamant the 'administration' WAS that the FEMA report was 'good-enough'... NO NEED to go any further...they tried everything under the sun to KILL ANY further investigation... have you 'forgotten' so soon?
They (and I include you in 'they') are now trying to do the same thing to HALT further investigation... (jumping up & down on a soap-box) demanding that everyone just BELIEVE the NIST obfuscations.
Truly Amazing Logic from the great obfuscator. Are you admitting the original FEMA report was a joke... and NOW the only valid report is the FINAL NIST report?
Please point us to the location (document & page #) where NIST addresses quantitative figures related to bolt shear strengths? \
If you can't find it write to NIST... and ask them.
I'm sure they will be happy to tell you that those quantitative figures were already contained in the FEMA report (so no need for NIST to regurgitate that commonly known information).
Fool, do you think that NIST engineers are in disagreement with FEMA engineers on the strength of simple bolts?
As NIST (and NOW you) state, the bolts were of higher quality than actually required in the blueprints.
The bolts 'passed muster'.
Even Jay Utah (the worlds greatest pope), agreed... that the bolts were 'fine' and utilized (as 'evidence') the FEMA appendix calculations & engineering under discussion.
Arthur, please show us exactly WHERE FEMA & NIST are in disagreement in anything.
Haven't you figured out yet that they walk hand-in-hand ?
It is PURE obfuscation to imply NOW that all PREVIOUS government reports were 'mistaken' and only the Final report from NIST is 'pope material'...
ESPECIALLY in the well understood and quantitative figures related to the shear strengths of a couple of bolts. Good grief, man... can't you come up with anything better than that !!! ?
DO NOT throw out ANY previous gov't reports. It is in searching ALL of these and cross-referencing in context, that it becomes quite clear how the 'official story' has changed and evolved through the critical analysis of skeptics.
Furthermore, the INITIAL statements of 'the defendant' are most often MORE REVEALING than subsequent statements. The INITIAL statements were given with less attention on how to 'spin' the story.
WHY do YOU think there were so many NIST 'Drafts for Public Discussion' ?
I'll suggest WHY...
So they could get a grasp on what skeptics were posting on them danged "Internets".
Once you get a handle on what the 'opponents' are saying (or bringing-up')... you can change your original 'spin' slightly to attempt to 'cover' the 'critics' assessment.
Get REAL, arthur...
Are you now agreeing with metamars (and the rest of the rational world) that the FEMA (gov't) report was a JOKE ! ???.
You seem to 'forget' (or... 'wash-under-the-bridge') how adamant the 'administration' WAS that the FEMA report was 'good-enough'... NO NEED to go any further...they tried everything under the sun to KILL ANY further investigation... have you 'forgotten' so soon?
They (and I include you in 'they') are now trying to do the same thing to HALT further investigation... (jumping up & down on a soap-box) demanding that everyone just BELIEVE the NIST obfuscations.
the obfuscators
The 'FINAL' report is out... suck it down & choke on it people... WE REFUSE to go further.
Sure, it was worth 50 million (or so) to investigate a presidential blow-job... but mass-murder is worth far LESS to investigate.
Here's 16 million... That's ALL we can afford to spend on some nonsensical issues.
Truly Amazing Logic from the great obfuscator. Are you admitting the original FEMA report was a joke... and NOW the only valid report is the FINAL NIST report?
Please point us to the location (document & page #) where NIST addresses quantitative figures related to bolt shear strengths? \
If you can't find it write to NIST... and ask them.
I'm sure they will be happy to tell you that those quantitative figures were already contained in the FEMA report (so no need for NIST to regurgitate that commonly known information).
Fool, do you think that NIST engineers are in disagreement with FEMA engineers on the strength of simple bolts?
As NIST (and NOW you) state, the bolts were of higher quality than actually required in the blueprints.
The bolts 'passed muster'.
Even Jay Utah (the worlds greatest pope), agreed... that the bolts were 'fine' and utilized (as 'evidence') the FEMA appendix calculations & engineering under discussion.
Arthur, please show us exactly WHERE FEMA & NIST are in disagreement in anything.
Haven't you figured out yet that they walk hand-in-hand ?
It is PURE obfuscation to imply NOW that all PREVIOUS government reports were 'mistaken' and only the Final report from NIST is 'pope material'...
ESPECIALLY in the well understood and quantitative figures related to the shear strengths of a couple of bolts. Good grief, man... can't you come up with anything better than that !!! ?
DO NOT throw out ANY previous gov't reports. It is in searching ALL of these and cross-referencing in context, that it becomes quite clear how the 'official story' has changed and evolved through the critical analysis of skeptics.
Furthermore, the INITIAL statements of 'the defendant' are most often MORE REVEALING than subsequent statements. The INITIAL statements were given with less attention on how to 'spin' the story.
WHY do YOU think there were so many NIST 'Drafts for Public Discussion' ?
I'll suggest WHY...
So they could get a grasp on what skeptics were posting on them danged "Internets".
Once you get a handle on what the 'opponents' are saying (or bringing-up')... you can change your original 'spin' slightly to attempt to 'cover' the 'critics' assessment.
Get REAL, arthur...
Are you now agreeing with metamars (and the rest of the rational world) that the FEMA (gov't) report was a JOKE ! ???.
You seem to 'forget' (or... 'wash-under-the-bridge') how adamant the 'administration' WAS that the FEMA report was 'good-enough'... NO NEED to go any further...they tried everything under the sun to KILL ANY further investigation... have you 'forgotten' so soon?
They (and I include you in 'they') are now trying to do the same thing to HALT further investigation... (jumping up & down on a soap-box) demanding that everyone just BELIEVE the NIST obfuscations.
Truly Amazing Logic from the great obfuscator. Are you admitting the original FEMA report was a joke... and NOW the only valid report is the FINAL NIST report?
Please point us to the location (document & page #) where NIST addresses quantitative figures related to bolt shear strengths? \
If you can't find it write to NIST... and ask them.
I'm sure they will be happy to tell you that those quantitative figures were already contained in the FEMA report (so no need for NIST to regurgitate that commonly known information).
Fool, do you think that NIST engineers are in disagreement with FEMA engineers on the strength of simple bolts?
As NIST (and NOW you) state, the bolts were of higher quality than actually required in the blueprints.
The bolts 'passed muster'.
Even Jay Utah (the worlds greatest pope), agreed... that the bolts were 'fine' and utilized (as 'evidence') the FEMA appendix calculations & engineering under discussion.
Arthur, please show us exactly WHERE FEMA & NIST are in disagreement in anything.
Haven't you figured out yet that they walk hand-in-hand ?
It is PURE obfuscation to imply NOW that all PREVIOUS government reports were 'mistaken' and only the Final report from NIST is 'pope material'...
ESPECIALLY in the well understood and quantitative figures related to the shear strengths of a couple of bolts. Good grief, man... can't you come up with anything better than that !!! ?
DO NOT throw out ANY previous gov't reports. It is in searching ALL of these and cross-referencing in context, that it becomes quite clear how the 'official story' has changed and evolved through the critical analysis of skeptics.
Furthermore, the INITIAL statements of 'the defendant' are most often MORE REVEALING than subsequent statements. The INITIAL statements were given with less attention on how to 'spin' the story.
WHY do YOU think there were so many NIST 'Drafts for Public Discussion' ?
I'll suggest WHY...
So they could get a grasp on what skeptics were posting on them danged "Internets".
Once you get a handle on what the 'opponents' are saying (or bringing-up')... you can change your original 'spin' slightly to attempt to 'cover' the 'critics' assessment.
Get REAL, arthur...
Are you now agreeing with metamars (and the rest of the rational world) that the FEMA (gov't) report was a JOKE ! ???.
You seem to 'forget' (or... 'wash-under-the-bridge') how adamant the 'administration' WAS that the FEMA report was 'good-enough'... NO NEED to go any further...they tried everything under the sun to KILL ANY further investigation... have you 'forgotten' so soon?
They (and I include you in 'they') are now trying to do the same thing to HALT further investigation... (jumping up & down on a soap-box) demanding that everyone just BELIEVE the NIST obfuscations.
the obfuscators
The 'FINAL' report is out... suck it down & choke on it people... WE REFUSE to go further.
Sure, it was worth 50 million (or so) to investigate a presidential blow-job... but mass-murder is worth far LESS to investigate.
Here's 16 million... That's ALL we can afford to spend on some nonsensical issues.
Foxx,
The NIST report is the OFFICIAL report. They did the research, they modeled the building, they tested the mockups for the trusses, floors, ceilings, offices etc.
I've never read the FEMA report.
Don't intend to.
What's the point?
I've never defended the Administration's view re FEMA.
I've never defended the FEMA report (pretty hard to do if you've never read it)
It might be a joke (seeing how well they handled Katrina what's the odds of that?)
Who the hell cares?
like I said before, come into the light.
DEAL WITH THE FINAL NIST REPORT.
STAY AWAY FROM DRAFTS.
You might think that the reason there are drafts is sinister, but it might just be to get the facts correct.
And if you can find a SINGLE post where I have said anything AGAINST even more reseach into the WTC collapses I will publiclly retract it.
The amount of money is peanuts.
Like I care if my taxes go up a buck to fund another 50 million in research.
Unlike you and Metamars, I pay taxes, but still in the grand scheme of things the amount for this is a rounding error in the budget.
So get OVER yourself.
I've been defending the RESULTS of the NIST report. Looks DAMN good to me.
I've not been jumping up and down saying anything to RESTRICT further study, in fact the GOOD part of further study is it will help to SHUT YOU UP.
Arthur
Take that up with Foxx since he is so very proud of his "intuitive" approach to engineering composite building ornaments.
As for the engineers doing those particular calculations metamars, if something is obvious then it is obvious. If I say that I have 2 of something and you have two of the same thing and I claim that between the two of us we have four of them do I really need to show my calculations for you to accept it?
As for your request about 'elastic dynamic analysis' you were told that it is used more often now , that it is accepted by the engineering community. If you wish to learn more about it there are textbooks available, some written by Bazant himself. Asking an engineer on an internet forum to basically teach this to you is over the top.
I asked for references to theory - preferably free on the web - that I could study, and asked question trying to understand, on a forum where I initially presumed there were people who were
1) able to point me in the right direction and
2) willing to do so and
3) interested in trying to determine the truth, no matter where it lay
I was quite disappointed.*
And you characterize my efforts as worthy of condemnation because I was "asking somebody to teach me this (elastic dynamic analysis)"??
You are mischaracterizing my efforts, and I suggest you retract your claim. You have more credibility than some popes here, but if you want to sink to a lower level, I certainly can't stop you.
If the "engineers" at AH know so much about "elastic dynamic analysis", why didn't they themselves point out the gross inapplicability of it to understanding the collapse? And if they didn't know, why didn't they say so? Because "2+2 = 4", and they couldn't be bothered???
I don't have the time to research what YOU have written wrt to BZ, but I suspect that if I did, I might well find that you have interpreted their eq. 1 as pointing to something near a real condition that existed in the towers during the real, physical collapse. If so, is this somehow related to YOUR unwillingness to "teach me elastic dynamic analysis?"
It may well be that there are no real engineers who post at AH, or that there are none who are concerned about the WTC collapses, for one reason or another. I have no problem with that.
As for my attitude to those who know less than me: In the Randi Rhodes forum, I was asked to explain conservation of energy, by somebody who genuinely didn't know. I explained, and would not characterize my efforts as "teaching somebody physics". Answering questions to the best of one's ability, or at least pointing newbies and laymen in the right direction, is not a bad thing if one can spare the time. Thus, my request was not unreasonable, and I myself have fulfilled such requests by others. Other times I have not, and once in this forum, I stated that I did not have time to teach somebody physics. However, I did not use that as an excuse for allowing them to believe something that I thought was false, abeit based on what I had written.
* Mind you, I am appreciative of most of what JayUtah wrote, as far as it went, but in the case of BZ, it was clearly insufficient, in that it gives exactly the wrong impression. JayUtah might well dispute that, but as he stopped replying to my posts, I see no reason to concern myself with what he really thought I was understanding of his posts.
Thanks... "luke-tober"
The 'Greening' analysis ...
Based upon what i have seen here, from the 'official fairy-tale'/ 'gravity-driven collapse-supporters... is worth about 2 'brownie-points' towards 'Truth'.
Anyone (with a shred of 'common sense'), should be able to determine that the 'alleged' Greening Analyis does not hold a great amount of credibilty, and does NOT stand-up to analytical scrutiny.
But, hey... feel free to 'muddy-on'... obfuscators.
IS the 'Greening Report' to be 'believed' ABOVE ALL OTHER 'speculative postulations ???
"I don't think so, TIM"
...YOU disagree ????,
Then please explain HOW... and put forth your EVIDENCE to support your theory.
Thanks
I stand defenseless, before my peers. I prematurely commented on something that I clearly did not read through properly. Even though, "it's too little and too late"; I hereby retract my post concerning Greening's Thermite paper. I re-read it, but could not find anything in it, that I thought I saw the first time. It came across as thin, reaching, cut and pasted, research. It suggested that IF the aircraft melted, the molten Au would drip down and violently react with the oxidized steel structure and extract (H2)O from lime based materials, liberating hydrogen gas. I had previously done some research on Thermite and aluminum/ferrous oxide mixtures were a particularly powerful version of this reaction. In retrospect, I must have projected the predictible power of these compounds with Greenings hap-hazard, speculative, melting aircraft scenario. His explanation, however, does not extend the reactive effect below the impact sight. At the very best it could have been an additional heat source. With that said, I have already conceded the collapse of the upper section in a post to Gordon. And it has been my contention, all along, that plastic deformation would have reduced the acceleration to a magnitude, that would have suggested some degree of an arrested outcome. The only reason for Greening's paper was to address the lingering anomolies, in the post collapse rubble. I am currently involved in a big relocation. I'm drinking way to much coffee and my mind is elsewhere. That is no excuse, however, for shotty posting. I have embarrassed and discredited myself. It maybe some time before I have the nerve to post. I hope you accept my retraction and well as my apologies.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Adoucette
Gordon, If you are dealing with anything other than the FINAL NIST report you are wasting your time.
By the way, NIST reported that ~14% of the structural steel was below spec, but within built in safety tolerances. The bolts were somewhat above spec.
Gordon, If you are dealing with anything other than the FINAL NIST report you are wasting your time.
By the way, NIST reported that ~14% of the structural steel was below spec, but within built in safety tolerances. The bolts were somewhat above spec.
Truly Amazing Logic from the great obfuscator. Are you admitting the original FEMA report was a joke... and NOW the only valid report is the FINAL NIST report?
Please point us to the location (document & page #) where NIST addresses quantitative figures related to bolt shear strengths? \
If you can't find it write to NIST... and ask them.
I'm sure they will be happy to tell you that those quantitative figures were already contained in the FEMA report (so no need for NIST to regurgitate that commonly known information).
Fool, do you think that NIST engineers are in disagreement with FEMA engineers on the strength of simple bolts?
As NIST (and NOW you) state, the bolts were of higher quality than actually required in the blueprints.
The bolts 'passed muster'.
Even Jay Utah (the worlds greatest pope), agreed... that the bolts were 'fine' and utilized (as 'evidence') the FEMA appendix calculations & engineering under discussion.
Arthur, please show us exactly WHERE FEMA & NIST are in disagreement in anything.
Haven't you figured out yet that they walk hand-in-hand ?
It is PURE obfuscation to imply NOW that all PREVIOUS government reports were 'mistaken' and only the Final report from NIST is 'pope material'...
ESPECIALLY in the well understood and quantitative figures related to the shear strengths of a couple of bolts. Good grief, man... can't you come up with anything better than that !!! ?
DO NOT throw out ANY previous gov't reports. It is in searching ALL of these and cross-referencing in context, that it becomes quite clear how the 'official story' has changed and evolved through the critical analysis of skeptics.
Furthermore, the INITIAL statements of 'the defendant' are most often MORE REVEALING than subsequent statements. The INITIAL statements were given with less attention on how to 'spin' the story.
WHY do YOU think there were so many NIST 'Drafts for Public Discussion' ?
I'll suggest WHY...
So they could get a grasp on what skeptics were posting on them danged "Internets".
Once you get a handle on what the 'opponents' are saying (or bringing-up')... you can change your original 'spin' slightly to attempt to 'cover' the 'critics' assessment.
Get REAL, arthur...
Are you now agreeing with metamars (and the rest of the rational world) that the FEMA (gov't) report was a JOKE ! ???.
You seem to 'forget' (or... 'wash-under-the-bridge') how adamant the 'administration' WAS that the FEMA report was 'good-enough'... NO NEED to go any further...they tried everything under the sun to KILL ANY further investigation... have you 'forgotten' so soon?
They (and I include you in 'they') are now trying to do the same thing to HALT further investigation... (jumping up & down on a soap-box) demanding that everyone just BELIEVE the NIST obfuscations.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Adoucette Gordon, If you are dealing with anything other than the FINAL NIST report you are wasting your time. By the way, NIST reported that ~14% of the structural steel was below spec, but within built in safety tolerances. The bolts were somewhat above spec. |
Truly Amazing Logic from the great obfuscator. Are you admitting the original FEMA report was a joke... and NOW the only valid report is the FINAL NIST report?
Please point us to the location (document & page #) where NIST addresses quantitative figures related to bolt shear strengths? \
If you can't find it write to NIST... and ask them.
I'm sure they will be happy to tell you that those quantitative figures were already contained in the FEMA report (so no need for NIST to regurgitate that commonly known information).
Fool, do you think that NIST engineers are in disagreement with FEMA engineers on the strength of simple bolts?
As NIST (and NOW you) state, the bolts were of higher quality than actually required in the blueprints.
The bolts 'passed muster'.
Even Jay Utah (the worlds greatest pope), agreed... that the bolts were 'fine' and utilized (as 'evidence') the FEMA appendix calculations & engineering under discussion.
Arthur, please show us exactly WHERE FEMA & NIST are in disagreement in anything.
Haven't you figured out yet that they walk hand-in-hand ?
It is PURE obfuscation to imply NOW that all PREVIOUS government reports were 'mistaken' and only the Final report from NIST is 'pope material'...
ESPECIALLY in the well understood and quantitative figures related to the shear strengths of a couple of bolts. Good grief, man... can't you come up with anything better than that !!! ?
DO NOT throw out ANY previous gov't reports. It is in searching ALL of these and cross-referencing in context, that it becomes quite clear how the 'official story' has changed and evolved through the critical analysis of skeptics.
Furthermore, the INITIAL statements of 'the defendant' are most often MORE REVEALING than subsequent statements. The INITIAL statements were given with less attention on how to 'spin' the story.
WHY do YOU think there were so many NIST 'Drafts for Public Discussion' ?
I'll suggest WHY...
So they could get a grasp on what skeptics were posting on them danged "Internets".
Once you get a handle on what the 'opponents' are saying (or bringing-up')... you can change your original 'spin' slightly to attempt to 'cover' the 'critics' assessment.
Get REAL, arthur...
Are you now agreeing with metamars (and the rest of the rational world) that the FEMA (gov't) report was a JOKE ! ???.
You seem to 'forget' (or... 'wash-under-the-bridge') how adamant the 'administration' WAS that the FEMA report was 'good-enough'... NO NEED to go any further...they tried everything under the sun to KILL ANY further investigation... have you 'forgotten' so soon?
They (and I include you in 'they') are now trying to do the same thing to HALT further investigation... (jumping up & down on a soap-box) demanding that everyone just BELIEVE the NIST obfuscations.
the obfuscators
The 'FINAL' report is out... suck it down & choke on it people... WE REFUSE to go further.
Sure, it was worth 50 million (or so) to investigate a presidential blow-job... but mass-murder is worth far LESS to investigate.
Here's 16 million... That's ALL we can afford to spend on some nonsensical issues.
From the documentary on this issue "Bush can do the impossible"
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 24 2006, 04:37 AM)
From the documentary on this issue "Bush can do the impossible"
Schneibster, how many computers do you have in your office?...
'Sensable'
'Common Sensable'
'Commen Sense'
'Common Sense' ?...
You seem limitless.
How many people here do you ACTUALLY think you are 'fooling' with your puppets ?
Schneibster, how many computers do you have in your office?...
'Sensable'
'Common Sensable'
'Commen Sense'
'Common Sense' ?...
You seem limitless.
How many people here do you ACTUALLY think you are 'fooling' with your puppets ?
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 24 2006, 12:35 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Adoucette
Gordon, If you are dealing with anything other than the FINAL NIST report you are wasting your time.
By the way, NIST reported that ~14% of the structural steel was below spec, but within built in safety tolerances. The bolts were somewhat above spec.
Gordon, If you are dealing with anything other than the FINAL NIST report you are wasting your time.
By the way, NIST reported that ~14% of the structural steel was below spec, but within built in safety tolerances. The bolts were somewhat above spec.
Truly Amazing Logic from the great obfuscator. Are you admitting the original FEMA report was a joke... and NOW the only valid report is the FINAL NIST report?
Please point us to the location (document & page #) where NIST addresses quantitative figures related to bolt shear strengths? \
If you can't find it write to NIST... and ask them.
I'm sure they will be happy to tell you that those quantitative figures were already contained in the FEMA report (so no need for NIST to regurgitate that commonly known information).
Fool, do you think that NIST engineers are in disagreement with FEMA engineers on the strength of simple bolts?
As NIST (and NOW you) state, the bolts were of higher quality than actually required in the blueprints.
The bolts 'passed muster'.
Even Jay Utah (the worlds greatest pope), agreed... that the bolts were 'fine' and utilized (as 'evidence') the FEMA appendix calculations & engineering under discussion.
Arthur, please show us exactly WHERE FEMA & NIST are in disagreement in anything.
Haven't you figured out yet that they walk hand-in-hand ?
It is PURE obfuscation to imply NOW that all PREVIOUS government reports were 'mistaken' and only the Final report from NIST is 'pope material'...
ESPECIALLY in the well understood and quantitative figures related to the shear strengths of a couple of bolts. Good grief, man... can't you come up with anything better than that !!! ?
DO NOT throw out ANY previous gov't reports. It is in searching ALL of these and cross-referencing in context, that it becomes quite clear how the 'official story' has changed and evolved through the critical analysis of skeptics.
Furthermore, the INITIAL statements of 'the defendant' are most often MORE REVEALING than subsequent statements. The INITIAL statements were given with less attention on how to 'spin' the story.
WHY do YOU think there were so many NIST 'Drafts for Public Discussion' ?
I'll suggest WHY...
So they could get a grasp on what skeptics were posting on them danged "Internets".
Once you get a handle on what the 'opponents' are saying (or bringing-up')... you can change your original 'spin' slightly to attempt to 'cover' the 'critics' assessment.
Get REAL, arthur...
Are you now agreeing with metamars (and the rest of the rational world) that the FEMA (gov't) report was a JOKE ! ???.
You seem to 'forget' (or... 'wash-under-the-bridge') how adamant the 'administration' WAS that the FEMA report was 'good-enough'... NO NEED to go any further...they tried everything under the sun to KILL ANY further investigation... have you 'forgotten' so soon?
They (and I include you in 'they') are now trying to do the same thing to HALT further investigation... (jumping up & down on a soap-box) demanding that everyone just BELIEVE the NIST obfuscations.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Adoucette Gordon, If you are dealing with anything other than the FINAL NIST report you are wasting your time. By the way, NIST reported that ~14% of the structural steel was below spec, but within built in safety tolerances. The bolts were somewhat above spec. |
Truly Amazing Logic from the great obfuscator. Are you admitting the original FEMA report was a joke... and NOW the only valid report is the FINAL NIST report?
Please point us to the location (document & page #) where NIST addresses quantitative figures related to bolt shear strengths? \
If you can't find it write to NIST... and ask them.
I'm sure they will be happy to tell you that those quantitative figures were already contained in the FEMA report (so no need for NIST to regurgitate that commonly known information).
Fool, do you think that NIST engineers are in disagreement with FEMA engineers on the strength of simple bolts?
As NIST (and NOW you) state, the bolts were of higher quality than actually required in the blueprints.
The bolts 'passed muster'.
Even Jay Utah (the worlds greatest pope), agreed... that the bolts were 'fine' and utilized (as 'evidence') the FEMA appendix calculations & engineering under discussion.
Arthur, please show us exactly WHERE FEMA & NIST are in disagreement in anything.
Haven't you figured out yet that they walk hand-in-hand ?
It is PURE obfuscation to imply NOW that all PREVIOUS government reports were 'mistaken' and only the Final report from NIST is 'pope material'...
ESPECIALLY in the well understood and quantitative figures related to the shear strengths of a couple of bolts. Good grief, man... can't you come up with anything better than that !!! ?
DO NOT throw out ANY previous gov't reports. It is in searching ALL of these and cross-referencing in context, that it becomes quite clear how the 'official story' has changed and evolved through the critical analysis of skeptics.
Furthermore, the INITIAL statements of 'the defendant' are most often MORE REVEALING than subsequent statements. The INITIAL statements were given with less attention on how to 'spin' the story.
WHY do YOU think there were so many NIST 'Drafts for Public Discussion' ?
I'll suggest WHY...
So they could get a grasp on what skeptics were posting on them danged "Internets".
Once you get a handle on what the 'opponents' are saying (or bringing-up')... you can change your original 'spin' slightly to attempt to 'cover' the 'critics' assessment.
Get REAL, arthur...
Are you now agreeing with metamars (and the rest of the rational world) that the FEMA (gov't) report was a JOKE ! ???.
You seem to 'forget' (or... 'wash-under-the-bridge') how adamant the 'administration' WAS that the FEMA report was 'good-enough'... NO NEED to go any further...they tried everything under the sun to KILL ANY further investigation... have you 'forgotten' so soon?
They (and I include you in 'they') are now trying to do the same thing to HALT further investigation... (jumping up & down on a soap-box) demanding that everyone just BELIEVE the NIST obfuscations.
the obfuscators
The 'FINAL' report is out... suck it down & choke on it people... WE REFUSE to go further.
Sure, it was worth 50 million (or so) to investigate a presidential blow-job... but mass-murder is worth far LESS to investigate.
Here's 16 million... That's ALL we can afford to spend on some nonsensical issues.
Foxx,
The NIST report is the OFFICIAL report. They did the research, they modeled the building, they tested the mockups for the trusses, floors, ceilings, offices etc.
I've never read the FEMA report.
Don't intend to.
What's the point?
I've never defended the Administration's view re FEMA.
I've never defended the FEMA report (pretty hard to do if you've never read it)
It might be a joke (seeing how well they handled Katrina what's the odds of that?)
Who the hell cares?
like I said before, come into the light.
DEAL WITH THE FINAL NIST REPORT.
STAY AWAY FROM DRAFTS.
You might think that the reason there are drafts is sinister, but it might just be to get the facts correct.
And if you can find a SINGLE post where I have said anything AGAINST even more reseach into the WTC collapses I will publiclly retract it.
The amount of money is peanuts.
Like I care if my taxes go up a buck to fund another 50 million in research.
Unlike you and Metamars, I pay taxes, but still in the grand scheme of things the amount for this is a rounding error in the budget.
So get OVER yourself.
I've been defending the RESULTS of the NIST report. Looks DAMN good to me.
I've not been jumping up and down saying anything to RESTRICT further study, in fact the GOOD part of further study is it will help to SHUT YOU UP.
Arthur
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 23 2006, 05:24 AM)
QUOTE
My philosophy is simple: don't ask me to trust your intuition, and I won't ask you to trust mine.
Take that up with Foxx since he is so very proud of his "intuitive" approach to engineering composite building ornaments.
As for the engineers doing those particular calculations metamars, if something is obvious then it is obvious. If I say that I have 2 of something and you have two of the same thing and I claim that between the two of us we have four of them do I really need to show my calculations for you to accept it?
As for your request about 'elastic dynamic analysis' you were told that it is used more often now , that it is accepted by the engineering community. If you wish to learn more about it there are textbooks available, some written by Bazant himself. Asking an engineer on an internet forum to basically teach this to you is over the top.
I asked for references to theory - preferably free on the web - that I could study, and asked question trying to understand, on a forum where I initially presumed there were people who were
1) able to point me in the right direction and
2) willing to do so and
3) interested in trying to determine the truth, no matter where it lay
I was quite disappointed.*
And you characterize my efforts as worthy of condemnation because I was "asking somebody to teach me this (elastic dynamic analysis)"??
You are mischaracterizing my efforts, and I suggest you retract your claim. You have more credibility than some popes here, but if you want to sink to a lower level, I certainly can't stop you.
If the "engineers" at AH know so much about "elastic dynamic analysis", why didn't they themselves point out the gross inapplicability of it to understanding the collapse? And if they didn't know, why didn't they say so? Because "2+2 = 4", and they couldn't be bothered???
I don't have the time to research what YOU have written wrt to BZ, but I suspect that if I did, I might well find that you have interpreted their eq. 1 as pointing to something near a real condition that existed in the towers during the real, physical collapse. If so, is this somehow related to YOUR unwillingness to "teach me elastic dynamic analysis?"
It may well be that there are no real engineers who post at AH, or that there are none who are concerned about the WTC collapses, for one reason or another. I have no problem with that.
As for my attitude to those who know less than me: In the Randi Rhodes forum, I was asked to explain conservation of energy, by somebody who genuinely didn't know. I explained, and would not characterize my efforts as "teaching somebody physics". Answering questions to the best of one's ability, or at least pointing newbies and laymen in the right direction, is not a bad thing if one can spare the time. Thus, my request was not unreasonable, and I myself have fulfilled such requests by others. Other times I have not, and once in this forum, I stated that I did not have time to teach somebody physics. However, I did not use that as an excuse for allowing them to believe something that I thought was false, abeit based on what I had written.
* Mind you, I am appreciative of most of what JayUtah wrote, as far as it went, but in the case of BZ, it was clearly insufficient, in that it gives exactly the wrong impression. JayUtah might well dispute that, but as he stopped replying to my posts, I see no reason to concern myself with what he really thought I was understanding of his posts.
Adoucette says...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=56577
Again, I wasn't part of the operation and was not / am not... privvy to 'inside details', so I cannot answer that question for you.
Again, I wasn't part of the operation and was not / am not... privvy to 'inside details', so I cannot answer that question for you.
Originally posted by adoucette
What's suspicious that a level of heightened security came to an end? One would expect it to eventually. Oh, it was within a week of the towers being hit by a hijacked plane. The only think coincidental is your assertion that CD was involved, but even though you ADMIT that it couldn't be rigged in the short time available you don't find it ODD that these dogs don't detect the explosives.
Face it, you have NO evidence of any explosives at all.
None, Nada, Zip and Zilch
On the contrary. There is AMPLE 'evidence' to convict a murderer. What percentage of murder trials are prosecuted with a 'confession' or 'video-tapes' ?
VERY FEW !
MOST murder trials depend upon 'circumstantial evidence' to convict.
What's this ? ...
What's this ? ...
Originally posted by adoucette
Not one picture of solidified slag from tons of thermite.
What's this?
And you have pictures of central core columns buckling, bending, compromised by heat ???
And you have pictures of central core columns buckling, bending, compromised by heat ???
Originally posted by adoucette
Nothing to indicate a "pyroclastic" flow.
The pictures do not lie. They are there for any (who have eyes), to SEE.
NOTHING 'Fits' the 'official story / fairy tale' !!!
NOTHING 'Fits' the 'official story / fairy tale' !!!
Originally posted by adoucette
Over 200 pages in this one thread and still NOTHING.
NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support the 'official fairy tale'... you mean.
Every page on this thread is loaded with 'evidence'.
But then... as the Chinese say... you CAN NOT wake up a man who is PRETENDING to be asleep.
Foxx
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=56577
QUOTE
Originally posted by adoucette
So how were the explosives missed by these dogs for the weeks they were there?
So how were the explosives missed by these dogs for the weeks they were there?
Again, I wasn't part of the operation and was not / am not... privvy to 'inside details', so I cannot answer that question for you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by adoucette So how were the explosives missed by these dogs for the weeks they were there? |
Again, I wasn't part of the operation and was not / am not... privvy to 'inside details', so I cannot answer that question for you.
Originally posted by adoucette
What's suspicious that a level of heightened security came to an end? One would expect it to eventually. Oh, it was within a week of the towers being hit by a hijacked plane. The only think coincidental is your assertion that CD was involved, but even though you ADMIT that it couldn't be rigged in the short time available you don't find it ODD that these dogs don't detect the explosives.
Face it, you have NO evidence of any explosives at all.
None, Nada, Zip and Zilch
On the contrary. There is AMPLE 'evidence' to convict a murderer. What percentage of murder trials are prosecuted with a 'confession' or 'video-tapes' ?
VERY FEW !
MOST murder trials depend upon 'circumstantial evidence' to convict.
QUOTE
Originally posted by adoucette
Not only that you have:
Not one picture of molten streams of metal or their cooled remenants...
Not only that you have:
Not one picture of molten streams of metal or their cooled remenants...
What's this ? ...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by adoucette Not only that you have: Not one picture of molten streams of metal or their cooled remenants... |
What's this ? ...
Originally posted by adoucette
Not one picture of solidified slag from tons of thermite.
What's this?
QUOTE
Originally posted by adoucette
Not one picture of columns ripped by explosives or cut by thermite.
Not one picture of columns ripped by explosives or cut by thermite.
And you have pictures of central core columns buckling, bending, compromised by heat ???
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by adoucette Not one picture of columns ripped by explosives or cut by thermite. |
And you have pictures of central core columns buckling, bending, compromised by heat ???
Originally posted by adoucette
Nothing to indicate a "pyroclastic" flow.
The pictures do not lie. They are there for any (who have eyes), to SEE.
QUOTE
Originally posted by adoucette
Nothing that doesn't fit the official story.
Nothing that doesn't fit the official story.
NOTHING 'Fits' the 'official story / fairy tale' !!!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by adoucette Nothing that doesn't fit the official story. |
NOTHING 'Fits' the 'official story / fairy tale' !!!
Originally posted by adoucette
Over 200 pages in this one thread and still NOTHING.
NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support the 'official fairy tale'... you mean.
Every page on this thread is loaded with 'evidence'.
But then... as the Chinese say... you CAN NOT wake up a man who is PRETENDING to be asleep.
Foxx
Foxx, that is a hot piece of metal, depending on the EXPOSURE of the film would depend on its temperature, best guess 500 or 600 C. So what. It is NOT MELTED and it is NOT RUNNING in a stream.
That other pic appears to be a hunk of concrete with REBAR in it. Rusted from the heat. OBVIOUSLY not SLAG (wrong color)
There is not enough evidence to CHARGE ANYONE, let alone convict.
If you think so:
Who are you charging, with what crime and what are your KEY pieces of evidence to link them to the crime?
Face it FOXX, you got nothing.
NADA.
ZIP
ZILCH
And after 4 years of work.
Pathetic.
No wonder you are so angry, if I'd wasted that much time and had that little to show for it I'd be pissed as well.
Arthur
That other pic appears to be a hunk of concrete with REBAR in it. Rusted from the heat. OBVIOUSLY not SLAG (wrong color)
There is not enough evidence to CHARGE ANYONE, let alone convict.
If you think so:
Who are you charging, with what crime and what are your KEY pieces of evidence to link them to the crime?
Face it FOXX, you got nothing.
NADA.
ZIP
ZILCH
And after 4 years of work.
Pathetic.
No wonder you are so angry, if I'd wasted that much time and had that little to show for it I'd be pissed as well.
Arthur
Arthur...
Thanks...
(or will you once again seek to dance around 'issues' ? )
QUOTE
Originally posted by Foxx
Please point us to the location (document & page #) where NIST addresses quantitative figures related to bolt shear strengths?
Please point us to the location (document & page #) where NIST addresses quantitative figures related to bolt shear strengths?
Thanks...
(or will you once again seek to dance around 'issues' ? )
Foxx, you're losing it. Where did I say the NIST report contained said data. I said the NIST report said the bolts were stronger than specified.
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 24 2006, 05:08 AM)
I don't have the time to research what YOU have written wrt to BZ, but I suspect that if I did, I might well find that you have interpreted their eq. 1 as pointing to something near a real condition that existed in the towers during the real, physical collapse.
This is poorly written. If the word "near" is interpreted in the sense that a tiny spatial compression will lead to fracturing of the building, and thus even if you don't believe compressive force reached anywhere near 31 x [design load capability], they still "obviously" exceeded design load capability, and thus you are still obviously wrong, since you are still left with the absurdity that an even smaller spatial compression resulted in failure.
Thus, interpreting my sentence this way is OK.
However, my intended meaning was "near" in the sense of "near the truth". If you assume a Hooke's law force leads to failure in the columns, the absurdity of what you are saying is obvious, since the columns could not have failed with such a small compression. Thus, your method of analysis has no merit wrt the phenomenon you are trying to explain, even if it's perfectly fine for studying other phenomena in the same system, such as vibrations, and even if it's a useful second or third order correction for solutions that are valid near fracture.
I'm pretty sure that I know what JayUtah's logical fallacy is in thinking elastic dynamic analysis could have any serious explanatory power in the case of the tower's collapses, but let's see if you can figure it out. I need to get to sleep.
This is poorly written. If the word "near" is interpreted in the sense that a tiny spatial compression will lead to fracturing of the building, and thus even if you don't believe compressive force reached anywhere near 31 x [design load capability], they still "obviously" exceeded design load capability, and thus you are still obviously wrong, since you are still left with the absurdity that an even smaller spatial compression resulted in failure.
Thus, interpreting my sentence this way is OK.
However, my intended meaning was "near" in the sense of "near the truth". If you assume a Hooke's law force leads to failure in the columns, the absurdity of what you are saying is obvious, since the columns could not have failed with such a small compression. Thus, your method of analysis has no merit wrt the phenomenon you are trying to explain, even if it's perfectly fine for studying other phenomena in the same system, such as vibrations, and even if it's a useful second or third order correction for solutions that are valid near fracture.
I'm pretty sure that I know what JayUtah's logical fallacy is in thinking elastic dynamic analysis could have any serious explanatory power in the case of the tower's collapses, but let's see if you can figure it out. I need to get to sleep.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 24 2006, 04:52 AM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 24 2006, 04:37 AM)
From the documentary on this issue "Bush can do the impossible"
Schneibster, how many computers do you have in your office?...
'Sensable'
'Common Sensable'
'Commen Sense'
'Common Sense' ?...
You seem limitless.
How many people here do you ACTUALLY think you are 'fooling' with your puppets ?
Just to point out how moronic you are, If I wanted to hide my identity I wouldn't use "Sense" as a theme would I...
And the fact that I seem 'limitless' to such a limited mind doesn't suprize me at all. 'Im sure you must feel like a chimp in the jungle whos seen the first human walking upright.
Schneibster, how many computers do you have in your office?...
'Sensable'
'Common Sensable'
'Commen Sense'
'Common Sense' ?...
You seem limitless.
How many people here do you ACTUALLY think you are 'fooling' with your puppets ?
Just to point out how moronic you are, If I wanted to hide my identity I wouldn't use "Sense" as a theme would I...
And the fact that I seem 'limitless' to such a limited mind doesn't suprize me at all. 'Im sure you must feel like a chimp in the jungle whos seen the first human walking upright.
Quote by Adoucette
What is your explanation for the fact that there is NOT YET any (including DRAFT format) report for the WTC-7 collapse.
From http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_draftSOW.htm, 'NIST is interested in receiving technical comments about the scope of work and technical approach for The draft statement of work for structural analysis of WTC 7.
THIS IS OVER 4 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT!!!!! and it is behind even the timetable for the WTC-7 report publication published by NIST itself in September 2005 ( See
www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/sept2005_meeting/SunderNCSTAC(2)091205%20final.pdf (PDF document of the September 2005 slideshow at the NIST WTC Conference on September 12, 2005 by Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, NIST Lead Investigator).
The final slide within this PDF document has the following details:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planned Schedule for WTC 7 Reports
January 2006 Completion of technical work
March 2006 Draft reports for review
April 2006 Draft reports to NCST AC
May 2006 Reports for public comment
June 2006 Publication
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the web-page published on 4th January 2006, the date for publication of the WTC-7 report will now be no earlier than November 2006.
The PDF document published 4th Jan 2006 at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Draft_SOW_WTC7jan06.pdf provides details of the draft statement of work for the WTC7 analysis required.
Some interesting excerpts are reproduced below:
What is your explanation for the fact that there is NOT YET any (including DRAFT format) report for the WTC-7 collapse.
From http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_draftSOW.htm, 'NIST is interested in receiving technical comments about the scope of work and technical approach for The draft statement of work for structural analysis of WTC 7.
THIS IS OVER 4 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT!!!!! and it is behind even the timetable for the WTC-7 report publication published by NIST itself in September 2005 ( See
www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/sept2005_meeting/SunderNCSTAC(2)091205%20final.pdf (PDF document of the September 2005 slideshow at the NIST WTC Conference on September 12, 2005 by Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, NIST Lead Investigator).
The final slide within this PDF document has the following details:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planned Schedule for WTC 7 Reports
January 2006 Completion of technical work
March 2006 Draft reports for review
April 2006 Draft reports to NCST AC
May 2006 Reports for public comment
June 2006 Publication
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the web-page published on 4th January 2006, the date for publication of the WTC-7 report will now be no earlier than November 2006.
The PDF document published 4th Jan 2006 at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Draft_SOW_WTC7jan06.pdf provides details of the draft statement of work for the WTC7 analysis required.
Some interesting excerpts are reproduced below:
Previous Analyses
Previous analyses were conducted by NIST as part of the WTC Investigation. [So the best US Goverment Scientists cannot come up with a theory that fits!!] The work will be made available to the Contractor as background information. The work of the Contractor shall not be limited by these models, hypothesis, or analysis results. A working collapse hypothesis is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, pg 17), as follows:
• An initial local failure at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 ft2,
• Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
• Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed through the course of this study. [i.e. anything that fits, please!!!]
Previous models and analyses included:
• Identification of events and data from photographs, videos, and witness accounts.
• Studies of fire spread and growth on Floors 5, 7, and 8.
• Studies of heat transfer to Core Columns 79, 80, and 81 on Floors 5, 7, and 8.
• SAP2000 linear global model of WTC 7, which was based on structural drawings, that included beam elements for columns and floor beams, and representative shell elements for reinforced concrete floor slabs. The model was evaluated for design gravity and wind loads, service gravity loads, and stability for damage conditions caused by debris impact.
• Studies of Core Column 79 (see Appendix A) response to elevated temperature profiles for collapse initiation, using Mathcad calculations and an ANSYS shell element model.
• SAP2000 model of a single floor model representative of Floors 8 to 46. The floor model was more detailed than the floors in the global model; plastic hinges were added at specific locations to beams and columns. Core columns support was removed (i.e. Columns 76 to 81 were removed individually in separate analyses) to determine the mode of floor failure as part of the analysis of the vertical progression of failure.
• SAP2000 model for the horizontal progression analyses of failure across the lower core columns. The model was extracted from the global model and plastic hinges were added at specific locations to beams and columns. The horizontal progression was analyzed by removal of components or application of an action resulting from a failure of Floor 5 or Floor 7.
• SAP2000 kinematic model (frame elements with all beam-columns connections assumed to be pinned) was used to evaluate the effect of assumed column failures and determine the resulting deformed shape of the structure.
The models will be made available to the Contractor for use as appropriate. The input files have been updated to SAP2000 version 10.
Objective
The objective of this solicitation is (1) to conduct analyses that support the determination of the location and cause of the initiating event and the probable collapse sequence, in conjunction with parallel NIST analyses, and (2) to validate the results with observations from video and photographic records and other evidence.
Scope of Work
In this scope of work, the determination of the location and cause of the initiating event is given primary importance. The sequence of failures following the initiating event that led to global collapse, while also important, is dependent upon the proper identification of the initiating event.
While the sequence of failures following the initiating event may be adequately addressed with less detailed analyses, the analyses must be of sufficient rigor to support the identification of the probable sequence of failures.
For all tasks included in this solicitation, the models, assumptions, and analyses will be subject to review and approval by NIST. NIST will arrange for third parties to conduct independent reviews before final approval. NIST plans to retain a third party expert in structural system behavior, structural stability, and failure criteria for members and system failure. The third party expert will provide expert technical assistance to guide and assist the Contractor’s work, but it is the Contractor’s responsibility to conduct the work described in this SOW. Third party experts will also review Contractor reports for: (1) appropriateness of the models for their intended uses, including modeling assumptions, level of detail, model geometry and material properties, and verification and validation procedures; and (2) appropriateness of the analyses and accuracy of results.
So what can we conclude from this?
1. NIST has conducted previous analyses on the WTC-7 collapse.
2. Nist has a working collapse hypothesis (note that this precluded any investigation of 'Controlled Demolition' whatsover. The WTC-7 'research' has been BASED on arriving at an explanation to model their working collapse hypothesis only).
3. NIST have stated that their hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed through the course of this (further, contracted out)study.
4. NIST have to provide final approval of all the contracted out further study.
The continuing delay in the release of the final NIST report into the WTC-7 collapse is evidence that they are struggling to come up with a suitable explanation that ties in with the available evidence.
NIST now wish to sub-contract out a research 'solicitation' with the aim of validating the results with observations from video and photographic records and other evidence i.e. make the theory fit the facts!!
What a shambles & evidence of a MASSIVE Cover Up!!
Isn't that naughty.
QUOTE
like I said before, come into the light.
DEAL WITH THE FINAL NIST REPORT.
DEAL WITH THE FINAL NIST REPORT.
What is your explanation for the fact that there is NOT YET any (including DRAFT format) report for the WTC-7 collapse.
From http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_draftSOW.htm, 'NIST is interested in receiving technical comments about the scope of work and technical approach for The draft statement of work for structural analysis of WTC 7.
THIS IS OVER 4 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT!!!!! and it is behind even the timetable for the WTC-7 report publication published by NIST itself in September 2005 ( See
www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/sept2005_meeting/SunderNCSTAC(2)091205%20final.pdf (PDF document of the September 2005 slideshow at the NIST WTC Conference on September 12, 2005 by Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, NIST Lead Investigator).
The final slide within this PDF document has the following details:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planned Schedule for WTC 7 Reports
January 2006 Completion of technical work
March 2006 Draft reports for review
April 2006 Draft reports to NCST AC
May 2006 Reports for public comment
June 2006 Publication
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the web-page published on 4th January 2006, the date for publication of the WTC-7 report will now be no earlier than November 2006.
The PDF document published 4th Jan 2006 at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Draft_SOW_WTC7jan06.pdf provides details of the draft statement of work for the WTC7 analysis required.
Some interesting excerpts are reproduced below:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| like I said before, come into the light. DEAL WITH THE FINAL NIST REPORT. |
What is your explanation for the fact that there is NOT YET any (including DRAFT format) report for the WTC-7 collapse.
From http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_draftSOW.htm, 'NIST is interested in receiving technical comments about the scope of work and technical approach for The draft statement of work for structural analysis of WTC 7.
THIS IS OVER 4 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT!!!!! and it is behind even the timetable for the WTC-7 report publication published by NIST itself in September 2005 ( See
www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/sept2005_meeting/SunderNCSTAC(2)091205%20final.pdf (PDF document of the September 2005 slideshow at the NIST WTC Conference on September 12, 2005 by Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, NIST Lead Investigator).
The final slide within this PDF document has the following details:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planned Schedule for WTC 7 Reports
January 2006 Completion of technical work
March 2006 Draft reports for review
April 2006 Draft reports to NCST AC
May 2006 Reports for public comment
June 2006 Publication
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the web-page published on 4th January 2006, the date for publication of the WTC-7 report will now be no earlier than November 2006.
The PDF document published 4th Jan 2006 at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Draft_SOW_WTC7jan06.pdf provides details of the draft statement of work for the WTC7 analysis required.
Some interesting excerpts are reproduced below:
Previous Analyses
Previous analyses were conducted by NIST as part of the WTC Investigation. [So the best US Goverment Scientists cannot come up with a theory that fits!!] The work will be made available to the Contractor as background information. The work of the Contractor shall not be limited by these models, hypothesis, or analysis results. A working collapse hypothesis is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, pg 17), as follows:
• An initial local failure at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 ft2,
• Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
• Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed through the course of this study. [i.e. anything that fits, please!!!]
Previous models and analyses included:
• Identification of events and data from photographs, videos, and witness accounts.
• Studies of fire spread and growth on Floors 5, 7, and 8.
• Studies of heat transfer to Core Columns 79, 80, and 81 on Floors 5, 7, and 8.
• SAP2000 linear global model of WTC 7, which was based on structural drawings, that included beam elements for columns and floor beams, and representative shell elements for reinforced concrete floor slabs. The model was evaluated for design gravity and wind loads, service gravity loads, and stability for damage conditions caused by debris impact.
• Studies of Core Column 79 (see Appendix A) response to elevated temperature profiles for collapse initiation, using Mathcad calculations and an ANSYS shell element model.
• SAP2000 model of a single floor model representative of Floors 8 to 46. The floor model was more detailed than the floors in the global model; plastic hinges were added at specific locations to beams and columns. Core columns support was removed (i.e. Columns 76 to 81 were removed individually in separate analyses) to determine the mode of floor failure as part of the analysis of the vertical progression of failure.
• SAP2000 model for the horizontal progression analyses of failure across the lower core columns. The model was extracted from the global model and plastic hinges were added at specific locations to beams and columns. The horizontal progression was analyzed by removal of components or application of an action resulting from a failure of Floor 5 or Floor 7.
• SAP2000 kinematic model (frame elements with all beam-columns connections assumed to be pinned) was used to evaluate the effect of assumed column failures and determine the resulting deformed shape of the structure.
The models will be made available to the Contractor for use as appropriate. The input files have been updated to SAP2000 version 10.
Objective
The objective of this solicitation is (1) to conduct analyses that support the determination of the location and cause of the initiating event and the probable collapse sequence, in conjunction with parallel NIST analyses, and (2) to validate the results with observations from video and photographic records and other evidence.
Scope of Work
In this scope of work, the determination of the location and cause of the initiating event is given primary importance. The sequence of failures following the initiating event that led to global collapse, while also important, is dependent upon the proper identification of the initiating event.
While the sequence of failures following the initiating event may be adequately addressed with less detailed analyses, the analyses must be of sufficient rigor to support the identification of the probable sequence of failures.
For all tasks included in this solicitation, the models, assumptions, and analyses will be subject to review and approval by NIST. NIST will arrange for third parties to conduct independent reviews before final approval. NIST plans to retain a third party expert in structural system behavior, structural stability, and failure criteria for members and system failure. The third party expert will provide expert technical assistance to guide and assist the Contractor’s work, but it is the Contractor’s responsibility to conduct the work described in this SOW. Third party experts will also review Contractor reports for: (1) appropriateness of the models for their intended uses, including modeling assumptions, level of detail, model geometry and material properties, and verification and validation procedures; and (2) appropriateness of the analyses and accuracy of results.
So what can we conclude from this?
1. NIST has conducted previous analyses on the WTC-7 collapse.
2. Nist has a working collapse hypothesis (note that this precluded any investigation of 'Controlled Demolition' whatsover. The WTC-7 'research' has been BASED on arriving at an explanation to model their working collapse hypothesis only).
3. NIST have stated that their hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed through the course of this (further, contracted out)study.
4. NIST have to provide final approval of all the contracted out further study.
The continuing delay in the release of the final NIST report into the WTC-7 collapse is evidence that they are struggling to come up with a suitable explanation that ties in with the available evidence.
NIST now wish to sub-contract out a research 'solicitation' with the aim of validating the results with observations from video and photographic records and other evidence i.e. make the theory fit the facts!!
What a shambles & evidence of a MASSIVE Cover Up!!
QUOTE
i.e. make the theory fit the facts
Isn't that naughty.
Cover up?
The parenthetical comments are the MOST cynical view possible.
If you start from the preconceived notion that the folks at NIST are part of a cover-up than maybe this is reasonable, but you have shown nothing to indicate that this large group of scientists would in fact spend years of their life covering up a mass murder of their fellow Americans.
I suspect its taking longer because unlike the WTC towers there was no clean starting point for modelling the structures behavior, the initial insult was a fairly known quantity which could be modeled and the progress of the fire and the impact to the structure was supported by numerous videos.
Secondly, NIST has said that their models will address the global collapse of WTC 7.
Arthur
The parenthetical comments are the MOST cynical view possible.
If you start from the preconceived notion that the folks at NIST are part of a cover-up than maybe this is reasonable, but you have shown nothing to indicate that this large group of scientists would in fact spend years of their life covering up a mass murder of their fellow Americans.
I suspect its taking longer because unlike the WTC towers there was no clean starting point for modelling the structures behavior, the initial insult was a fairly known quantity which could be modeled and the progress of the fire and the impact to the structure was supported by numerous videos.
Secondly, NIST has said that their models will address the global collapse of WTC 7.
Arthur
QUOTE
Originally posted by adoucette
Not one picture of molten streams of metal or their cooled remenants...
Why is greening going to the trouble of explaining the pools of metals, if there was nothing to explain.
Originally posted by adoucette
So how were the explosives missed by these dogs for the weeks they were there?
Thermite is technically not an explosive.
There are many types of working dogs.
Different dogs are trained to sniff for different things.
Who knows what those dogs were sniffing for.
Ask me no questions, I'll tell you know lies!
Originally posted by adoucette
Not one picture of molten streams of metal or their cooled remenants...
Why is greening going to the trouble of explaining the pools of metals, if there was nothing to explain.
Originally posted by adoucette
So how were the explosives missed by these dogs for the weeks they were there?
Thermite is technically not an explosive.
There are many types of working dogs.
Different dogs are trained to sniff for different things.
Who knows what those dogs were sniffing for.
Ask me no questions, I'll tell you know lies!
QUOTE (Dr. Morbius+Jan 24 2006, 02:44 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by adoucette
Not one picture of molten streams of metal or their cooled remenants...
Why is greening going to the trouble of explaining the pools of metals, if there was nothing to explain.
Originally posted by adoucette
So how were the explosives missed by these dogs for the weeks they were there?
Thermite is technically not an explosive.
There are many types of working dogs.
Different dogs are trained to sniff for different things.
Who knows what those dogs were sniffing for.
Ask me no questions, I'll tell you know lies!
Greening was talking about pictures of melted aluminum coming from the fire floors.
As I've said repeatedly, melted ALUMINUM is one thing, Melted pools/streams of STEEL are something else entirely,
In either the liquid or solid state they look entirely different.
Arthur
Originally posted by adoucette
Not one picture of molten streams of metal or their cooled remenants...
Why is greening going to the trouble of explaining the pools of metals, if there was nothing to explain.
Originally posted by adoucette
So how were the explosives missed by these dogs for the weeks they were there?
Thermite is technically not an explosive.
There are many types of working dogs.
Different dogs are trained to sniff for different things.
Who knows what those dogs were sniffing for.
Ask me no questions, I'll tell you know lies!
Greening was talking about pictures of melted aluminum coming from the fire floors.
As I've said repeatedly, melted ALUMINUM is one thing, Melted pools/streams of STEEL are something else entirely,
In either the liquid or solid state they look entirely different.
Arthur
BBC DOCUMENTARY. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm
The Power of Nightmares Part II
Part II: The Phantom Victory
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1038.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1040.htm
QUOTE
The Power of Nightmares - Part I
Baby It’s Cold Outside”
In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares.
The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.
Baby It’s Cold Outside”
In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares.
The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Power of Nightmares - Part I Baby It’s Cold Outside” In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares. The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares. |
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm
The Power of Nightmares Part II
Part II: The Phantom Victory
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1038.htm
QUOTE
The Power of Nightmares - Part III
The Shadows In The Cave
The Power of Nightmares assesses whether the threat from a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion. In the concluding part of the series, the programme explains how the illusion was created and who benefits from it.
This is a must watch documentary - Broadcast 11/03/04 BBC 2 - Written and produced by Adam Curtis
The Shadows In The Cave
The Power of Nightmares assesses whether the threat from a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion. In the concluding part of the series, the programme explains how the illusion was created and who benefits from it.
This is a must watch documentary - Broadcast 11/03/04 BBC 2 - Written and produced by Adam Curtis
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1040.htm
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.