QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 27 2006, 01:06 PM)
Add to that the FACT that NIST has been caught in the red-handed LIE that "NO Steel was recovered from WTC 7"... and we have a case of a report not worth the paper it is written on.
Believe their nonsensical report, if you like... so far you still have 'freedom of choice' in your 'beliefs'... but it doesn't quite convince those of us who have studied these questions in depth.
Foxx, we've been over this and over this:
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
YOU NEVER PROVIDED A RESPONSE.
YOU INSIST ON GOING BACK TO DRAFT REPORTS.
DRAFT REPORTS HAVE MISTAKES IN THEM.
THAT'S WHY THEY ARE CALLED DRAFTS.
Either provide PROOF that this is in the FINAL NIST report or the only LIAR will be you.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 27 2006, 04:35 PM)
You postulate that it is thermite (and yes I know it isn't YOUR theory, you just spout off about it every other day or so)
I say it will take tons and tons.
How about a little proof that your silly claims are right?
Arthur
how do you go from not needing ANY explosives, as per the gravity driven collapse theory, to needing 240 tons?
i think you should recalibrate your internal logic generator, as it seems to be fighting with itself.
mark loizeaux(sp?) of controlled demolitions inc. said he would only target key points and let gravity do the rest.
and speaking of which. funny that that same company (C.D.I.) was hired to do the wtc clean-up.
keep talking. you've painted yourself into a corner.
I say it will take tons and tons.
How about a little proof that your silly claims are right?
Arthur
how do you go from not needing ANY explosives, as per the gravity driven collapse theory, to needing 240 tons?
i think you should recalibrate your internal logic generator, as it seems to be fighting with itself.
mark loizeaux(sp?) of controlled demolitions inc. said he would only target key points and let gravity do the rest.
and speaking of which. funny that that same company (C.D.I.) was hired to do the wtc clean-up.
keep talking. you've painted yourself into a corner.
Another Arthurian Legend -
"Hoffman didn't outlast this thread and Jones can't get any respect at his own institution"
Only where his Legends often exist - in his own mind.
UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT to Jones call for inquiry - respect.
"I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence and scientific arguments for the controlled demolition theory. In attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics – and perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people present. A local university and college were represented (BYU and Utah Valley State College)."
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
"Hoffman didn't outlast this thread and Jones can't get any respect at his own institution"
Only where his Legends often exist - in his own mind.
UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT to Jones call for inquiry - respect.
"I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence and scientific arguments for the controlled demolition theory. In attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics – and perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people present. A local university and college were represented (BYU and Utah Valley State College)."
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
This constent barage of lies about what adoucette says is only naking you look like the very person you hate. Just as Bush and Co lied about Scott Ritter, Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson so are the CTers lying about adoucette and I.
Case in point:
You know very well it's the CTers contention that expolsives were used and that adoucette was only pointing out the amount of explosive needed if they were right. That puts you in the ranks of George Bush when he told people Gore said he invented the internet. A pure distortion of truth because if you did tell the truth it would prove you wrong.
You know very well it's the CTers contention that expolsives were used and that adoucette was only pointing out the amount of explosive needed if they were right. That puts you in the ranks of George Bush when he told people Gore said he invented the internet. A pure distortion of truth because if you did tell the truth it would prove you wrong.
mark loizeaux(sp?) of controlled demolitions inc. said he would only target key points and let gravity do the rest.
You KNOW he was talking about the weeks the steel stayed red hot and not the amount needed to take the building down.
Heh! How ironic.
Can't you people make ONE post without lying?
Case in point:
QUOTE
how do you go from not needing ANY explosives, as per the gravity driven collapse theory, to needing 240 tons?
You know very well it's the CTers contention that expolsives were used and that adoucette was only pointing out the amount of explosive needed if they were right. That puts you in the ranks of George Bush when he told people Gore said he invented the internet. A pure distortion of truth because if you did tell the truth it would prove you wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| how do you go from not needing ANY explosives, as per the gravity driven collapse theory, to needing 240 tons? |
You know very well it's the CTers contention that expolsives were used and that adoucette was only pointing out the amount of explosive needed if they were right. That puts you in the ranks of George Bush when he told people Gore said he invented the internet. A pure distortion of truth because if you did tell the truth it would prove you wrong.
mark loizeaux(sp?) of controlled demolitions inc. said he would only target key points and let gravity do the rest.
You KNOW he was talking about the weeks the steel stayed red hot and not the amount needed to take the building down.
QUOTE
keep talking. you've painted yourself into a corner.
Heh! How ironic.
Can't you people make ONE post without lying?
QUOTE (brian+Jan 27 2006, 06:55 PM)
UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT to Jones call for inquiry - respect.
"I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence and scientific arguments for the controlled demolition theory. In attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics – and perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people present. A local university and college were represented (BYU and Utah Valley State College)."
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Let me know how many from that seminar worked on the paper which passed peer review on the subject. Oh, he doesn't have a paper which passed peer review? Well why not? I mean he had a seminar and everything...
Heh!
"I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence and scientific arguments for the controlled demolition theory. In attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics – and perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people present. A local university and college were represented (BYU and Utah Valley State College)."
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Let me know how many from that seminar worked on the paper which passed peer review on the subject. Oh, he doesn't have a paper which passed peer review? Well why not? I mean he had a seminar and everything...
Heh!
QUOTE (newton+Jan 27 2006, 02:28 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 27 2006, 04:35 PM)
You postulate that it is thermite (and yes I know it isn't YOUR theory, you just spout off about it every other day or so)
I say it will take tons and tons.
How about a little proof that your silly claims are right?
Arthur
how do you go from not needing ANY explosives, as per the gravity driven collapse theory, to needing 240 tons?
i think you should recalibrate your internal logic generator, as it seems to be fighting with itself.
mark loizeaux(sp?) of controlled demolitions inc. said he would only target key points and let gravity do the rest.
and speaking of which. funny that that same company (C.D.I.) was hired to do the wtc clean-up.
keep talking. you've painted yourself into a corner.
The 240 tons has nothing to do with the collapse.
Foxx has postulated that the "rivers of molten steel", white smoke, need for pyrocool etc etc are EVIDENCE that thermite was burning in the rubble pile for 2+ weeks.
The 240 tons is the amount of thermite needed to burn for 2 weeks.
This is calculated based upon the amount of thermite needed to cut a column (see previous link) divided by the minimum time available (72 minutes) that shows that thermite has to burn at a rate of at least 24lbs per min.
24 lbs/min * 60 min/hr * 24 hrs/day * 7 days/wk * 2 wks = 483,000 lbs = 240 tons.
The reason that Foxx's postulation is REALLY stupid is that it only requires about 80 tons of thermite to cut all the columns, or just 1/4 what it takes to keep the thermite burning for another 2 weeks. So what is the point of the additional thermite except to increase the chance of detection?
Arthur
I say it will take tons and tons.
How about a little proof that your silly claims are right?
Arthur
how do you go from not needing ANY explosives, as per the gravity driven collapse theory, to needing 240 tons?
i think you should recalibrate your internal logic generator, as it seems to be fighting with itself.
mark loizeaux(sp?) of controlled demolitions inc. said he would only target key points and let gravity do the rest.
and speaking of which. funny that that same company (C.D.I.) was hired to do the wtc clean-up.
keep talking. you've painted yourself into a corner.
The 240 tons has nothing to do with the collapse.
Foxx has postulated that the "rivers of molten steel", white smoke, need for pyrocool etc etc are EVIDENCE that thermite was burning in the rubble pile for 2+ weeks.
The 240 tons is the amount of thermite needed to burn for 2 weeks.
This is calculated based upon the amount of thermite needed to cut a column (see previous link) divided by the minimum time available (72 minutes) that shows that thermite has to burn at a rate of at least 24lbs per min.
24 lbs/min * 60 min/hr * 24 hrs/day * 7 days/wk * 2 wks = 483,000 lbs = 240 tons.
The reason that Foxx's postulation is REALLY stupid is that it only requires about 80 tons of thermite to cut all the columns, or just 1/4 what it takes to keep the thermite burning for another 2 weeks. So what is the point of the additional thermite except to increase the chance of detection?
Arthur
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 27 2006, 07:01 PM)
This constent barage of lies about what adoucette says is only naking you look like the very person you hate. Just as Bush and Co lied about Scott Ritter, Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson so are the CTers lying about adoucette and I.
Case in point:
You know very well it's the CTers contention that expolsives were used and that adoucette was only pointing out the amount of explosive needed if they were right. That puts you in the ranks of George Bush when he told people Gore said he invented the internet. A pure distortion of truth because if you did tell the truth it would prove you wrong.
You know very well it's the CTers contention that expolsives were used and that adoucette was only pointing out the amount of explosive needed if they were right. That puts you in the ranks of George Bush when he told people Gore said he invented the internet. A pure distortion of truth because if you did tell the truth it would prove you wrong.
mark loizeaux(sp?) of controlled demolitions inc. said he would only target key points and let gravity do the rest.
You KNOW he was talking about the weeks the steel stayed red hot and not the amount needed to take the building down.
Heh! How ironic.
Can't you people make ONE post without lying?
very non-eloquent, once again, sensable.
arthur has spent pages 'proving' with irrelevent calculations and by ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit with the fairy tale that the towers can fall by themselves.
and then, in a breath, he states that he thinks it would take 240 tons of explosives to do the job.
which is it? you NEED 240 tons of explosives, or you need nothing. it is not i have contradicted myself.
for a spin-master, you're counter-rotating.
Case in point:
QUOTE
how do you go from not needing ANY explosives, as per the gravity driven collapse theory, to needing 240 tons?
You know very well it's the CTers contention that expolsives were used and that adoucette was only pointing out the amount of explosive needed if they were right. That puts you in the ranks of George Bush when he told people Gore said he invented the internet. A pure distortion of truth because if you did tell the truth it would prove you wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| how do you go from not needing ANY explosives, as per the gravity driven collapse theory, to needing 240 tons? |
You know very well it's the CTers contention that expolsives were used and that adoucette was only pointing out the amount of explosive needed if they were right. That puts you in the ranks of George Bush when he told people Gore said he invented the internet. A pure distortion of truth because if you did tell the truth it would prove you wrong.
mark loizeaux(sp?) of controlled demolitions inc. said he would only target key points and let gravity do the rest.
You KNOW he was talking about the weeks the steel stayed red hot and not the amount needed to take the building down.
QUOTE
keep talking. you've painted yourself into a corner.
Heh! How ironic.
Can't you people make ONE post without lying?
very non-eloquent, once again, sensable.
arthur has spent pages 'proving' with irrelevent calculations and by ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit with the fairy tale that the towers can fall by themselves.
and then, in a breath, he states that he thinks it would take 240 tons of explosives to do the job.
which is it? you NEED 240 tons of explosives, or you need nothing. it is not i have contradicted myself.
for a spin-master, you're counter-rotating.
well, that's not a bad argument, arthur.
nor is it a good one AGAINST controlled demolition.
if greening is right about anything, then the aluminum cladding would potentially add to the fuel available for thermite reactions. i'm no chemist, so i can't really agree or disagree.
certainly, it takes ENORMOUS energy to keep that metal molten(or a really good thermos). if it would take that much thermite, what is there in ABSENCE of thermite to keep the fires stoked?
here we go 'round the mulberry bush...
nor is it a good one AGAINST controlled demolition.
if greening is right about anything, then the aluminum cladding would potentially add to the fuel available for thermite reactions. i'm no chemist, so i can't really agree or disagree.
certainly, it takes ENORMOUS energy to keep that metal molten(or a really good thermos). if it would take that much thermite, what is there in ABSENCE of thermite to keep the fires stoked?
here we go 'round the mulberry bush...
Newton,
I can't believe you are this dense.
FOXX has suggested that THERMITE was responsible for the cutting of the core columns.
FOXX has suggested that it was THERMITE burning in the rubble pile for WEEKS that was responsible for the 'streams of molten steel' etc.
I argued with Foxx that this would require Tons and Tons of thermite.
He said PROVE IT.
So I did.
I have just done the CALCULATIONS to show how much thermite would be required for the two weeks that FOXX claims it was burning.
That does not mean I ENDORSE the idea that thermite was used.
I don't for one second beleive that thermite had anything to do with the WTC collapse.
Finally, Thermite is NOT an explosive.
It is an incendiary.
Arthur
I can't believe you are this dense.
FOXX has suggested that THERMITE was responsible for the cutting of the core columns.
FOXX has suggested that it was THERMITE burning in the rubble pile for WEEKS that was responsible for the 'streams of molten steel' etc.
I argued with Foxx that this would require Tons and Tons of thermite.
He said PROVE IT.
So I did.
I have just done the CALCULATIONS to show how much thermite would be required for the two weeks that FOXX claims it was burning.
That does not mean I ENDORSE the idea that thermite was used.
I don't for one second beleive that thermite had anything to do with the WTC collapse.
Finally, Thermite is NOT an explosive.
It is an incendiary.
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Jan 27 2006, 07:43 PM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 27 2006, 07:01 PM)
This constent barage of lies about what adoucette says is only naking you look like the very person you hate. Just as Bush and Co lied about Scott Ritter, Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson so are the CTers lying about adoucette and I.
Case in point:
You know very well it's the CTers contention that expolsives were used and that adoucette was only pointing out the amount of explosive needed if they were right. That puts you in the ranks of George Bush when he told people Gore said he invented the internet. A pure distortion of truth because if you did tell the truth it would prove you wrong.
You know very well it's the CTers contention that expolsives were used and that adoucette was only pointing out the amount of explosive needed if they were right. That puts you in the ranks of George Bush when he told people Gore said he invented the internet. A pure distortion of truth because if you did tell the truth it would prove you wrong.
mark loizeaux(sp?) of controlled demolitions inc. said he would only target key points and let gravity do the rest.
You KNOW he was talking about the weeks the steel stayed red hot and not the amount needed to take the building down.
Heh! How ironic.
Can't you people make ONE post without lying?
very non-eloquent, once again, sensable.
arthur has spent pages 'proving' with irrelevent calculations and by ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit with the fairy tale that the towers can fall by themselves.
and then, in a breath, he states that he thinks it would take 240 tons of explosives to do the job.
which is it? you NEED 240 tons of explosives, or you need nothing. it is not i have contradicted myself.
for a spin-master, you're counter-rotating.
And in fact you have spent time saying more than one peer reviewed paper showing just how the tower could have fallen is a fairy tail while not providing a peer reviewed paper of your own backing it up. The fairy is obviously you.
Will your seemingly endless waterfall of irony ever stop?
Case in point:
QUOTE
how do you go from not needing ANY explosives, as per the gravity driven collapse theory, to needing 240 tons?
You know very well it's the CTers contention that expolsives were used and that adoucette was only pointing out the amount of explosive needed if they were right. That puts you in the ranks of George Bush when he told people Gore said he invented the internet. A pure distortion of truth because if you did tell the truth it would prove you wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| how do you go from not needing ANY explosives, as per the gravity driven collapse theory, to needing 240 tons? |
You know very well it's the CTers contention that expolsives were used and that adoucette was only pointing out the amount of explosive needed if they were right. That puts you in the ranks of George Bush when he told people Gore said he invented the internet. A pure distortion of truth because if you did tell the truth it would prove you wrong.
mark loizeaux(sp?) of controlled demolitions inc. said he would only target key points and let gravity do the rest.
You KNOW he was talking about the weeks the steel stayed red hot and not the amount needed to take the building down.
QUOTE
keep talking. you've painted yourself into a corner.
Heh! How ironic.
Can't you people make ONE post without lying?
very non-eloquent, once again, sensable.
arthur has spent pages 'proving' with irrelevent calculations and by ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit with the fairy tale that the towers can fall by themselves.
and then, in a breath, he states that he thinks it would take 240 tons of explosives to do the job.
which is it? you NEED 240 tons of explosives, or you need nothing. it is not i have contradicted myself.
for a spin-master, you're counter-rotating.
And in fact you have spent time saying more than one peer reviewed paper showing just how the tower could have fallen is a fairy tail while not providing a peer reviewed paper of your own backing it up. The fairy is obviously you.
Will your seemingly endless waterfall of irony ever stop?
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 27 2006, 07:51 PM)
Newton,
I can't believe you are this dense.
I can.
adoucette, the tactic here is to change the subject to anything but the ridiculousness of the thermite argument. It's just what Bush does by changing the subject away from his poor record to gay marriage or some other silly topic.
I can't believe you are this dense.
I can.
adoucette, the tactic here is to change the subject to anything but the ridiculousness of the thermite argument. It's just what Bush does by changing the subject away from his poor record to gay marriage or some other silly topic.
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 27 2006, 08:16 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 27 2006, 07:51 PM)
Newton,
I can't believe you are this dense.
I can.
adoucette, the tactic here is to change the subject to anything but the ridiculousness of the thermite argument. It's just what Bush does by changing the subject away from his poor record to gay marriage or some other silly topic.
i can't believe you guys are calling me dense for asking for a valid energy source for the molten metal.
if it takes 240 tons of thermite to 'keep the fires burning', and that is 'ridiculous' for some IMAGINED reason, then WHAT is responsible for the energy equivalent of 240 tons of thermite, as per your calculation, arthur?
you have explained that you think there is the need for some enormous source of energy, OTHER than thermite, and yet are perfectly willing to ignore the alternative source for this tremendous energy that YOU CALCULATED!?
you see, the 'tactic' here, spin-student 'sensable', is to a. use your brain, and b. stop equating/confusing logistical discussions with political ones.
I can't believe you are this dense.
I can.
adoucette, the tactic here is to change the subject to anything but the ridiculousness of the thermite argument. It's just what Bush does by changing the subject away from his poor record to gay marriage or some other silly topic.
i can't believe you guys are calling me dense for asking for a valid energy source for the molten metal.
if it takes 240 tons of thermite to 'keep the fires burning', and that is 'ridiculous' for some IMAGINED reason, then WHAT is responsible for the energy equivalent of 240 tons of thermite, as per your calculation, arthur?
you have explained that you think there is the need for some enormous source of energy, OTHER than thermite, and yet are perfectly willing to ignore the alternative source for this tremendous energy that YOU CALCULATED!?
you see, the 'tactic' here, spin-student 'sensable', is to a. use your brain, and b. stop equating/confusing logistical discussions with political ones.
Are you saying there is method to this madness?
I thought he was just being stupid, not devious.
Devious takes smarts and none have been evident so far.
Arthur
I thought he was just being stupid, not devious.
Devious takes smarts and none have been evident so far.
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Jan 27 2006, 04:30 PM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 27 2006, 08:16 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 27 2006, 07:51 PM)
Newton,
I can't believe you are this dense.
I can.
adoucette, the tactic here is to change the subject to anything but the ridiculousness of the thermite argument. It's just what Bush does by changing the subject away from his poor record to gay marriage or some other silly topic.
i can't believe you guys are calling me dense for asking for a valid energy source for the molten metal.
if it takes 240 tons of thermite to 'keep the fires burning', and that is 'ridiculous' for some IMAGINED reason, then WHAT is responsible for the energy equivalent of 240 tons of thermite, as per your calculation, arthur?
you have explained that you think there is the need for some enormous source of energy, OTHER than thermite, and yet are perfectly willing to ignore the alternative source for this tremendous energy that YOU CALCULATED!?
you see, the 'tactic' here, spin-student 'sensable', is to a. use your brain, and b. stop equating/confusing logistical discussions with political ones.
You are dense because the 240 tons of thermite had nothing to do with the fall of the towers.
Duh.
Molten metal?
You mean metal which has been pulled from a burning rubble pile?
Yeah, I expect it to be hot. The color of the metal indicates its hot.
But not hotter than one would expect.
Why,
Well 200 stories X 40,000 sq ft X avg 4 lbs per sq ft of CUMBUSTIBLE material equal roughly 30 MILLION lbs of cumbustibe material in a 100 ft deep pile which we kwow had a subterranian air supply courtesy of the NY Subway and PATH train station, which pictures show was remarkably INTACT. Not to mention an approx 2,000 car parking garage (ever see a car burn?).
I think there is MUCH more energy in the thousands of cars and 16,000 or so tons of material that WE KNOW were in the WTC towers than the 240 tons of thermite that WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL was in the WTC towers.
Make up all the BS you want, but an itty bitty amount of evidence just might help convince us you are not totally loony tunes.
Arthur
I can't believe you are this dense.
I can.
adoucette, the tactic here is to change the subject to anything but the ridiculousness of the thermite argument. It's just what Bush does by changing the subject away from his poor record to gay marriage or some other silly topic.
i can't believe you guys are calling me dense for asking for a valid energy source for the molten metal.
if it takes 240 tons of thermite to 'keep the fires burning', and that is 'ridiculous' for some IMAGINED reason, then WHAT is responsible for the energy equivalent of 240 tons of thermite, as per your calculation, arthur?
you have explained that you think there is the need for some enormous source of energy, OTHER than thermite, and yet are perfectly willing to ignore the alternative source for this tremendous energy that YOU CALCULATED!?
you see, the 'tactic' here, spin-student 'sensable', is to a. use your brain, and b. stop equating/confusing logistical discussions with political ones.
You are dense because the 240 tons of thermite had nothing to do with the fall of the towers.
Duh.
Molten metal?
You mean metal which has been pulled from a burning rubble pile?
Yeah, I expect it to be hot. The color of the metal indicates its hot.
But not hotter than one would expect.
Why,
Well 200 stories X 40,000 sq ft X avg 4 lbs per sq ft of CUMBUSTIBLE material equal roughly 30 MILLION lbs of cumbustibe material in a 100 ft deep pile which we kwow had a subterranian air supply courtesy of the NY Subway and PATH train station, which pictures show was remarkably INTACT. Not to mention an approx 2,000 car parking garage (ever see a car burn?).
I think there is MUCH more energy in the thousands of cars and 16,000 or so tons of material that WE KNOW were in the WTC towers than the 240 tons of thermite that WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL was in the WTC towers.
Make up all the BS you want, but an itty bitty amount of evidence just might help convince us you are not totally loony tunes.
Arthur
i believe that the rubble pile would be very tighly packed, which leaves 'little room' for air. the subway tunnels would most likely be choked with rubble with no mechanism for replenishing spent oxygen.
the fires were on the top of the tower, and everything untouched by fire pre-collapse was covered in a fine powder which was mostly gypsum and concrete. this would supress fires.
keep talking.
the fires were on the top of the tower, and everything untouched by fire pre-collapse was covered in a fine powder which was mostly gypsum and concrete. this would supress fires.
keep talking.
QUOTE (newton+Jan 27 2006, 08:30 PM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 27 2006, 08:16 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 27 2006, 07:51 PM)
Newton,
I can't believe you are this dense.
I can.
adoucette, the tactic here is to change the subject to anything but the ridiculousness of the thermite argument. It's just what Bush does by changing the subject away from his poor record to gay marriage or some other silly topic.
i can't believe you guys are calling me dense for asking for a valid energy source for the molten metal.
if it takes 240 tons of thermite to 'keep the fires burning', and that is 'ridiculous' for some IMAGINED reason, then WHAT is responsible for the energy equivalent of 240 tons of thermite, as per your calculation, arthur?
you have explained that you think there is the need for some enormous source of energy, OTHER than thermite, and yet are perfectly willing to ignore the alternative source for this tremendous energy that YOU CALCULATED!?
you see, the 'tactic' here, spin-student 'sensable', is to a. use your brain, and b. stop equating/confusing logistical discussions with political ones.
It really doesn't matter why the rubble pile was hot for weeks. It means nothing. You're trying to say it must be a bomb because nothing like that was ever seen before but the reallity is nothing like that was seen after a bomb either. So it doesn't prove anything. Not even after a nuclear bomb have we seen steel glow hot red for weeks. It's just another stupid straw man. We don't have to prove something which doesn't matter one way or the other.
But the best explaination I heard so far is Schneibster's.
I’ve left out the mass of the burning material until now; but you should be aware that my best estimate at 13 psf by 35,000 sf/floor by 110 floors by about 30% combustables, 60% metal and other non-combustable items, by the energy content of common garbage, gives a lot more energy than the energy of the collapse. The insulation provided in that debris pile was apparently pretty good, and that’s not surprising. Rock and concrete really are bad heat conductors, air isn’t much better, and steel while capable isn’t all that good, as you can tell from the fact that the jaws of the shovel aren’t melting. Ever hear of “rock wool?” It’s insulation; look it up. You’ll get the idea pretty quick.
Doing the calculations of that potential energy of combustion is probably worthwhile, but I’m too lazy to do it tonite. There’s two more factors I’ll throw in: first, a certain amount of the office materials didn’t make it into the debris pile, perhaps as much as 10% of it just got scattered all over lower Manhattan island. Second, a few floors worth had already burned. So when the time comes, I’ll take three floors out, and then another 10%. You’ll be surprised, I think, at how much energy there is involved.
you need to know that conservation of energy says that energy NEVER disappears. It ALWAYS winds up SOMEWHERE, and if this is energy capable of knocking buildings over for many blocks in all directions, and it didn’t knock them over, then where did it go and what did it do? Answer: it went into the rubble pile, and it melted and burned stuff in there.
The formula for distance traveled is
d=D(o) + V(o)t = 0.5at^2
where D(o) is the distance from the origin at time=0
V(o) is the initial velocity at time=0
a=accelleration (in this case due to gravity)
t=elapsed time
Given D(o)=0 and for the first floor V(o)=0
this becomes d=0.5at^2
the integral of this wrt to t is the equation for velocity
V=at
The only way that this would be equal to 32*2 is at time t=2 seconds since I assume that 32 is the accelleration due to gravity in feet/sec^2
So please explain how you get to Vf = (Vo^2 + 768)^0.5
I can't believe you are this dense.
I can.
adoucette, the tactic here is to change the subject to anything but the ridiculousness of the thermite argument. It's just what Bush does by changing the subject away from his poor record to gay marriage or some other silly topic.
i can't believe you guys are calling me dense for asking for a valid energy source for the molten metal.
if it takes 240 tons of thermite to 'keep the fires burning', and that is 'ridiculous' for some IMAGINED reason, then WHAT is responsible for the energy equivalent of 240 tons of thermite, as per your calculation, arthur?
you have explained that you think there is the need for some enormous source of energy, OTHER than thermite, and yet are perfectly willing to ignore the alternative source for this tremendous energy that YOU CALCULATED!?
you see, the 'tactic' here, spin-student 'sensable', is to a. use your brain, and b. stop equating/confusing logistical discussions with political ones.
It really doesn't matter why the rubble pile was hot for weeks. It means nothing. You're trying to say it must be a bomb because nothing like that was ever seen before but the reallity is nothing like that was seen after a bomb either. So it doesn't prove anything. Not even after a nuclear bomb have we seen steel glow hot red for weeks. It's just another stupid straw man. We don't have to prove something which doesn't matter one way or the other.
But the best explaination I heard so far is Schneibster's.
I’ve left out the mass of the burning material until now; but you should be aware that my best estimate at 13 psf by 35,000 sf/floor by 110 floors by about 30% combustables, 60% metal and other non-combustable items, by the energy content of common garbage, gives a lot more energy than the energy of the collapse. The insulation provided in that debris pile was apparently pretty good, and that’s not surprising. Rock and concrete really are bad heat conductors, air isn’t much better, and steel while capable isn’t all that good, as you can tell from the fact that the jaws of the shovel aren’t melting. Ever hear of “rock wool?” It’s insulation; look it up. You’ll get the idea pretty quick.
Doing the calculations of that potential energy of combustion is probably worthwhile, but I’m too lazy to do it tonite. There’s two more factors I’ll throw in: first, a certain amount of the office materials didn’t make it into the debris pile, perhaps as much as 10% of it just got scattered all over lower Manhattan island. Second, a few floors worth had already burned. So when the time comes, I’ll take three floors out, and then another 10%. You’ll be surprised, I think, at how much energy there is involved.
you need to know that conservation of energy says that energy NEVER disappears. It ALWAYS winds up SOMEWHERE, and if this is energy capable of knocking buildings over for many blocks in all directions, and it didn’t knock them over, then where did it go and what did it do? Answer: it went into the rubble pile, and it melted and burned stuff in there.
Schnensable sez
LMAO
Schneib, if you're going to post as "Sensable" please try to remember to throw in lots of random spelling errors.
It's so much more convincing that way...
QUOTE
the best explaination I heard so far is Schneibster's.
LMAO
Schneib, if you're going to post as "Sensable" please try to remember to throw in lots of random spelling errors.
It's so much more convincing that way...
QUOTE (newton+Jan 27 2006, 05:24 PM)
i believe that the rubble pile would be very tighly packed, which leaves 'little room' for air. the subway tunnels would most likely be choked with rubble with no mechanism for replenishing spent oxygen.
the fires were on the top of the tower, and everything untouched by fire pre-collapse was covered in a fine powder which was mostly gypsum and concrete. this would supress fires.
keep talking.
The steel columns didn't get smashed flat, they got twisted and bent, not pulverized. There were sufficient columns within the pile to insure that the pile could "breathe". The subway tunnels did not appear to be choked, as evidenced by the pictures of the almost pristine trains that were uncovered.
The gypsum and concrete would make a nice insultation blanket but would do nothing to prevent air from reaching the center of that pile.
There was NOTHING surprising about the rubble pile burning for weeks and weeks.
Considering the fuel supply it was pretty much inevitable.
Arthur
the fires were on the top of the tower, and everything untouched by fire pre-collapse was covered in a fine powder which was mostly gypsum and concrete. this would supress fires.
keep talking.
The steel columns didn't get smashed flat, they got twisted and bent, not pulverized. There were sufficient columns within the pile to insure that the pile could "breathe". The subway tunnels did not appear to be choked, as evidenced by the pictures of the almost pristine trains that were uncovered.
The gypsum and concrete would make a nice insultation blanket but would do nothing to prevent air from reaching the center of that pile.
There was NOTHING surprising about the rubble pile burning for weeks and weeks.
Considering the fuel supply it was pretty much inevitable.
Arthur
QUOTE
lets use the formula Vf = (Vo^2 + 768)^0.5
and
seconds per floor = (Vf - Vo)/32.1
768 comes from 12*64, 12 is the distance in feet and 64 is 32 *2, the integral of the distance formulaor so i'm told
and
seconds per floor = (Vf - Vo)/32.1
768 comes from 12*64, 12 is the distance in feet and 64 is 32 *2, the integral of the distance formulaor so i'm told
The formula for distance traveled is
d=D(o) + V(o)t = 0.5at^2
where D(o) is the distance from the origin at time=0
V(o) is the initial velocity at time=0
a=accelleration (in this case due to gravity)
t=elapsed time
Given D(o)=0 and for the first floor V(o)=0
this becomes d=0.5at^2
the integral of this wrt to t is the equation for velocity
V=at
The only way that this would be equal to 32*2 is at time t=2 seconds since I assume that 32 is the accelleration due to gravity in feet/sec^2
So please explain how you get to Vf = (Vo^2 + 768)^0.5
QUOTE (JamesX+Jan 27 2006, 10:54 PM)
Schnensable sez
LMAO
Schneib, if you're going to post as "Sensable" please try to remember to throw in lots of random spelling errors.
It's so much more convincing that way...
Heh! Moron...
You must be Faux
QUOTE
the best explaination I heard so far is Schneibster's.
LMAO
Schneib, if you're going to post as "Sensable" please try to remember to throw in lots of random spelling errors.
It's so much more convincing that way...
Heh! Moron...
You must be Faux
Nope, not Foxx. Just someone who's read this whole thread and can see what you're doing here.
QUOTE (JamesX+Jan 28 2006, 12:41 AM)
Nope, not Foxx. Just someone who's read this whole thread and can see what you're doing here.
Honestly, I don't give a flying faux who you think I am. And I especially don't care if your synaptically challenged brain thinks I'm Schneibster. I take it as a complement since hes been right on everything so far. His calculations have been corroborated by photographic evidence. Faux, be he you or your idol hasn't been right about anything. So even if you are someone else you're obviously just as moronic as he. You seem to be a pseudo super sleuth who has the reasoning ability of Koko the the gorilla, though I think it's an insult to Koko.
Honestly, I don't give a flying faux who you think I am. And I especially don't care if your synaptically challenged brain thinks I'm Schneibster. I take it as a complement since hes been right on everything so far. His calculations have been corroborated by photographic evidence. Faux, be he you or your idol hasn't been right about anything. So even if you are someone else you're obviously just as moronic as he. You seem to be a pseudo super sleuth who has the reasoning ability of Koko the the gorilla, though I think it's an insult to Koko.
QUOTE (JamesX+Jan 27 2006, 08:41 PM)
Nope, not Foxx. Just someone who's read this whole thread and can see what you're doing here.
Right.
JamesX joins the forum on Jan 27th.
His first post is accusing someone of being Schneibster and his 2nd post, being the sum total of his posts, claims he's "READ THIS WHOLE (278 page) THREAD".
I'm sure, and I bet you've followed all the links, read all the related NIST reports, the Steven Jones paper and evaluated both BZ's theory and Huffman's conjecture.
All that since breakfast, and never broke a sweat.
Dweeb.
Arthur
Right.
JamesX joins the forum on Jan 27th.
His first post is accusing someone of being Schneibster and his 2nd post, being the sum total of his posts, claims he's "READ THIS WHOLE (278 page) THREAD".
I'm sure, and I bet you've followed all the links, read all the related NIST reports, the Steven Jones paper and evaluated both BZ's theory and Huffman's conjecture.
All that since breakfast, and never broke a sweat.
Dweeb.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 28 2006, 01:19 AM)
QUOTE (JamesX+Jan 27 2006, 08:41 PM)
Nope, not Foxx. Just someone who's read this whole thread and can see what you're doing here.
Right.
JamesX joins the forum on Jan 27th.
His first post is accusing someone of being Schneibster and his 2nd post, being the sum total of his posts, claims he's "READ THIS WHOLE (278 page) THREAD".
I'm sure, and I bet you've followed all the links, read all the related NIST reports, the Steven Jones paper and evaluated both BZ's theory and Huffman's conjecture.
All that since breakfast, and never broke a sweat.
Dweeb.
Arthur
Yeah, Hes a sock puppet...
Notice when I create another name it always tells who I am. Common Sense, Commen Sense, Sensable, Sensible, Guest_Sensable and so on. The CTers need to hide who they are and lie because they've been embarrassed by being wrong so many times. It's really sad and pathetic don't you think adoucette?
No, I've been reading the thread over the past month. I think you're a fraud.
No, I've been reading the thread over the past month. I think you're a fraud.
Affirmative
Well, it should be quite obvious through the shifting of goalposts by 'The Legend In His Own Mind'... that he would rather attack, accuse, and attack the 'messenger' rather than address the message.
What's the problem with answering the above question, 'adoucette'?
Like Plato said...
Well, it should be quite obvious through the shifting of goalposts by 'The Legend In His Own Mind'... that he would rather attack, accuse, and attack the 'messenger' rather than address the message.
What's the problem with answering the above question, 'adoucette'?
Like Plato said...
"some men speak because they have something to say...
and other men speak because they HAVE TO SAY something"
I'm sorry, but I have to classify you as one of the latter group.
Now... how about giving us your scientific evidence (to support your nonsense) that it would be 'scientifically IMPOSSIBLE' to import such quantities?
Not that I really believe such quantities WERE imported, and as I've often pointed out before... MAYBE it WASN'T thermite/diasite... but thermite/diasite is the only KNOWN agent (at least to my knowledge) that fits the facts and list of parameters of the underground fires.
I am quite open to receive alternative incendiaries theories which could have created the hellish inferno beneath compressed rubble. I mean, some REASONABLE Explanation (as opposed to unscientific 'Amazing Underground Bellows' and 'Supersonic and Everlasting Jet-Fuel' theories).
The subway tunnel could not have acted as a bellows air supply. There are pictures and firefighter testimony (I will try to find them again) of the tunnels being completely collapsed and impassable at the point of the 'bathtub' underground enclosure collapse zone. Without a bellows-type quantity of oxygen supply the gas & diesel contained in the collapsed underground car-park could not have fed the undergound 'fires'. You are 'dreaming' with this attempted 'angle'.
The alleged 'fuel' that you calculate (based upon live-loads of square footage area) is another obfuscating JOKE.
MOST... (virtually ALL)... of 'that' was turned to microscopic dust DURING the collapse. That is WHAT the 'dust cloud' consisted OF... or do you contend it was just colored air that was deposited inches thick throughout lower Manhatten?
Get serious... OR... (as I said previously), go back to the office, turn in your resignation, and go home to watch 'Springer', 'Survivor', or 'whatever' you watch on the 'boob-tube'.
I discovered a couple of years ago I had 200+ channels to choose from... and there was STILL NOTHING 'ON'... so I cancelled my 'TV' cable, and I don't miss 'it' one bit ... (although I did have a couple of 'withdrawal pangs' for the first couple of months).
Maybe you should try the same... to clear your mind?
Well, it should be quite obvious through the shifting of goalposts by 'The Legend In His Own Mind'... that he would rather attack, accuse, and attack the 'messenger' rather than address the message.
What's the problem with answering the above question, 'adoucette'?
Its very SIMPLE Foxx.
Do I have to prove your hypothesis COULDN'T happen.
or
Do YOU have to provide EVIDENCE that it did happen.
Obviously YOU want me to prove a negative, but normal debate practices require that YOU provide evidence of your assertion.
This is PARTICULARLY true when you make OUTLANDISH assertions.
Arthur
No, I've been reading the thread over the past month. I think you're a fraud.
Well that's even MORE pathetic.
You've been reading the thread for a month and your sole contribution after all of that is to call someone a sock puppet.
You got one of these "L" tattooed on your forehead?
Arthur
Again you use sophistry to obfuscate the issue.
Quote: Do I have to prove your hypothesis COULDN'T happen.
No, my 'hypothesis' is based upon KNOWN facts and parameters related to the 'underground infernos'.
I have shown how the 'thermite/diasite theory' provides a scientific, reasonable and plausible answer to resolve these 'anomalies' (given in the fore-going 'list').
WE KNOW that the list of parameters are unquestionably sound scientific FACTS which require a plausible 'answer' to account for such a list. The gravity-driven-collapse scenario can NOT account for ALL these parameters.
I say 'thermite' is a plausible explanation.
You say that it is NOT 'plausible' due to the quantities allegedly required.
In order to show that the thermite theory is 'unsound' it becomes incumbent upon you to show HOW (to support your disbelief).
We all KNOW that the underground 'fire' DID Happen. I don't have to provide 'further' evidence of THAT.
I do NOT have to 'prove' a plausible explanation for those events... I simply offer a reasonable speculative postulation as to what MIGHT have been the cause.
I am NOT 'demanding' (as a pope-ish proclamation) that it MUST HAVE BEEN thermite. I, like ALL true searchers of truth leave open the door to a more REASONABLE 'cause'.
You have chosen to 'attack' or 'discredit' this 'thermite theory', therefore (if you are to be taken seriously), the onus falls upon YOU to show the readers HOW such a postulation is IMPOSSIBLE according to science. You continually shirk this scientific duty and shake it off with hand-waving exercises and rhetorics which have no place in a scientific debate.
I have not asked you to prove a 'negative'. All I've asked is that IF you choose to 'attack' or 'discredit' a theory, then it behooves you to show the evidence upon which you believe the theory is false.
You have not done so.
Do you wish to DO SO now, or would you rather just pack-up your bags and go home?
'Outlandish Assertions' (as you refer to this theory) is simply a subjective bias on your part, which you refuse to support scientifically.
Who says "they are outlandish" (apart from you and your small band of parrots)?
If the theory is TRULY 'Outlandish', it should be quite a simple task for you to show scientifically WHY it is scientifically preposterous.
Of course, this is assuming the presumption that you HAVE scientific facts to debunk the theory? Quit waving your hands about wildly in this YID-ish dance of words. and provide your scientific evidence... or go home.
PS - regarding your nonsense related to NIST 'Drafts' and 'FINAL' reports... Thanks for reminding me to provide that info, related to "No Steel Recovered from WTC 7". I suppose I will have to slog through the entire voluminous boring bs again to find the related 'quote' in the 'Final' Draft.
Unless 'they' have abandoned this statement between the 'draft' and 'final' report ...
(I'm quite sure they are watching these developing discussions, and perhaps NOW have realized that they CAN NOT get away with such lies)...
I assure you I will check it out and get back to you on this 'question'.
At the moment, I don't have a few hours (or days) to go through the entire 'final report' to find it for you instantaneously within the next few minutes. Contrary to popular belief ( ), I don't have the entire report committed to photographic memory so as to be able to point to 'Section X...addendum B...page # xyz' instantly.
I have shown how the 'thermite/diasite theory' provides a scientific, reasonable and plausible answer to resolve these 'anomalies' (given in the fore-going 'list').
WE KNOW that the list of parameters are unquestionably sound scientific FACTS which require a plausible 'answer' to account for such a list. The gravity-driven-collapse scenario can NOT account for ALL these parameters.
I say 'thermite' is a plausible explanation.
You say that it is NOT 'plausible' due to the quantities allegedly required.
In order to show that the thermite theory is 'unsound' it becomes incumbent upon you to show HOW (to support your disbelief).
We all KNOW that the underground 'fire' DID Happen. I don't have to provide 'further' evidence of THAT.
I do NOT have to 'prove' a plausible explanation for those events... I simply offer a reasonable speculative postulation as to what MIGHT have been the cause.
I am NOT 'demanding' (as a pope-ish proclamation) that it MUST HAVE BEEN thermite. I, like ALL true searchers of truth leave open the door to a more REASONABLE 'cause'.
You have chosen to 'attack' or 'discredit' this 'thermite theory', therefore (if you are to be taken seriously), the onus falls upon YOU to show the readers HOW such a postulation is IMPOSSIBLE according to science. You continually shirk this scientific duty and shake it off with hand-waving exercises and rhetorics which have no place in a scientific debate.
I have not asked you to prove a 'negative'. All I've asked is that IF you choose to 'attack' or 'discredit' a theory, then it behooves you to show the evidence upon which you believe the theory is false.
You have not done so.
Do you wish to DO SO now, or would you rather just pack-up your bags and go home?
'Outlandish Assertions' (as you refer to this theory) is simply a subjective bias on your part, which you refuse to support scientifically.
Who says "they are outlandish" (apart from you and your small band of parrots)?
If the theory is TRULY 'Outlandish', it should be quite a simple task for you to show scientifically WHY it is scientifically preposterous.
Of course, this is assuming the presumption that you HAVE scientific facts to debunk the theory? Quit waving your hands about wildly in this YID-ish dance of words. and provide your scientific evidence... or go home.
What a load of BS.
You have not PROVEN that what was KNOWN to be in the towers COULDN'T account for it.
Arthur
Right.
JamesX joins the forum on Jan 27th.
His first post is accusing someone of being Schneibster and his 2nd post, being the sum total of his posts, claims he's "READ THIS WHOLE (278 page) THREAD".
I'm sure, and I bet you've followed all the links, read all the related NIST reports, the Steven Jones paper and evaluated both BZ's theory and Huffman's conjecture.
All that since breakfast, and never broke a sweat.
Dweeb.
Arthur
Yeah, Hes a sock puppet...
Notice when I create another name it always tells who I am. Common Sense, Commen Sense, Sensable, Sensible, Guest_Sensable and so on. The CTers need to hide who they are and lie because they've been embarrassed by being wrong so many times. It's really sad and pathetic don't you think adoucette?
Sad and pathetic is an understatement.
Vile has to be in there somewhere.
Arthur
Vile has to be in there somewhere.
Arthur
QUOTE
All that since breakfast, and never broke a sweat.
No, I've been reading the thread over the past month. I think you're a fraud.
QUOTE (JamesX+Jan 28 2006, 02:17 AM)
QUOTE
All that since breakfast, and never broke a sweat.
No, I've been reading the thread over the past month. I think you're a fraud.
Affirmative
QUOTE
Originally posted by Foxx
Now, please demonstrate why it would be scientifically impossible for devious 'spooks' (intent on bringing the towers down), to move that amount of incendiary material into the basement areas?
Now, please demonstrate why it would be scientifically impossible for devious 'spooks' (intent on bringing the towers down), to move that amount of incendiary material into the basement areas?
Well, it should be quite obvious through the shifting of goalposts by 'The Legend In His Own Mind'... that he would rather attack, accuse, and attack the 'messenger' rather than address the message.
What's the problem with answering the above question, 'adoucette'?
Like Plato said...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Foxx Now, please demonstrate why it would be scientifically impossible for devious 'spooks' (intent on bringing the towers down), to move that amount of incendiary material into the basement areas? |
Well, it should be quite obvious through the shifting of goalposts by 'The Legend In His Own Mind'... that he would rather attack, accuse, and attack the 'messenger' rather than address the message.
What's the problem with answering the above question, 'adoucette'?
Like Plato said...
"some men speak because they have something to say...
and other men speak because they HAVE TO SAY something"
I'm sorry, but I have to classify you as one of the latter group.
Now... how about giving us your scientific evidence (to support your nonsense) that it would be 'scientifically IMPOSSIBLE' to import such quantities?
Not that I really believe such quantities WERE imported, and as I've often pointed out before... MAYBE it WASN'T thermite/diasite... but thermite/diasite is the only KNOWN agent (at least to my knowledge) that fits the facts and list of parameters of the underground fires.
I am quite open to receive alternative incendiaries theories which could have created the hellish inferno beneath compressed rubble. I mean, some REASONABLE Explanation (as opposed to unscientific 'Amazing Underground Bellows' and 'Supersonic and Everlasting Jet-Fuel' theories).
The subway tunnel could not have acted as a bellows air supply. There are pictures and firefighter testimony (I will try to find them again) of the tunnels being completely collapsed and impassable at the point of the 'bathtub' underground enclosure collapse zone. Without a bellows-type quantity of oxygen supply the gas & diesel contained in the collapsed underground car-park could not have fed the undergound 'fires'. You are 'dreaming' with this attempted 'angle'.
The alleged 'fuel' that you calculate (based upon live-loads of square footage area) is another obfuscating JOKE.
MOST... (virtually ALL)... of 'that' was turned to microscopic dust DURING the collapse. That is WHAT the 'dust cloud' consisted OF... or do you contend it was just colored air that was deposited inches thick throughout lower Manhatten?
Get serious... OR... (as I said previously), go back to the office, turn in your resignation, and go home to watch 'Springer', 'Survivor', or 'whatever' you watch on the 'boob-tube'.
I discovered a couple of years ago I had 200+ channels to choose from... and there was STILL NOTHING 'ON'... so I cancelled my 'TV' cable, and I don't miss 'it' one bit ... (although I did have a couple of 'withdrawal pangs' for the first couple of months).
Maybe you should try the same... to clear your mind?
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm
HOW COLUMNS WILL BE DESIGNED FOR 110-STORY BUILDINGS
For record-height towers of New York's World Trade Center, engineers proportion columns to avoid floor warpage when high-strength steels are used for exterior columns and A36 steel for interior columns.
A design procedure that will be used for structural framing of the 1,350-ft high twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City gives the exterior columns tremendous reserve strength. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
The procedure calls for proportioning of columns in each story for the same unit stress under gravity loads, regardless of the grade of steel in the columns. Thus, all columns will shorten the same amount, and differential shortening will be eliminated as a possible cause of floor warpage. The reserve strength of high strength steel members will then be available to resist wind stresses.
The structural engineers adopted this particular design because of the great length of the columns, use of different grades of steel and their plan to take wind stresses in the exterior columns only.
The concept was explained to the New York Architectural League by John Skilling, a partner in Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, of Seattle, consulting structural engineers on the World Trade Center (see p. 124).
Record-height towers. The. Port of New York Authority's World Trade Center will provide offices and exhibit areas for government agencies, trade services and private business concerned with exports and imports. The project will occupy a 16-acre site along the Hudson River in downtown Manhattan. Its twin towers, 110 stories high, will be 100 ft taller than the Empire State Building (excluding its TV antennas on --top), currently the world's tallest building (ENR Jan. 23, p. 33). Rising the full 1,3 50-ft height without a setback, each tower will be 208 ft square. It will be designed to resist a 45-psf wind, with both low sway and low acceleration.
Exterior columns will be spaced 39 inches c-c. Made of various high-strength steels, they will be 14-inch square hollow-box sections, for high torsional and bending resistance, and windows will be set between them. Spandrels welded to the columns at each floor will convert the exterior walls into giant Vierendeel trusses.
Interior columns are all in or around the elevator-stairway core. Thus, the office areas are free of columns. All the core columns will be made of A36 steel (36,000-psi yield point). As a result, corner columns at the base of the core may be solid steel as large as 2 x 8 ft in section.
HOW COLUMNS WILL BE DESIGNED FOR 110-STORY BUILDINGS
For record-height towers of New York's World Trade Center, engineers proportion columns to avoid floor warpage when high-strength steels are used for exterior columns and A36 steel for interior columns.
A design procedure that will be used for structural framing of the 1,350-ft high twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City gives the exterior columns tremendous reserve strength. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
The procedure calls for proportioning of columns in each story for the same unit stress under gravity loads, regardless of the grade of steel in the columns. Thus, all columns will shorten the same amount, and differential shortening will be eliminated as a possible cause of floor warpage. The reserve strength of high strength steel members will then be available to resist wind stresses.
The structural engineers adopted this particular design because of the great length of the columns, use of different grades of steel and their plan to take wind stresses in the exterior columns only.
The concept was explained to the New York Architectural League by John Skilling, a partner in Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, of Seattle, consulting structural engineers on the World Trade Center (see p. 124).
Record-height towers. The. Port of New York Authority's World Trade Center will provide offices and exhibit areas for government agencies, trade services and private business concerned with exports and imports. The project will occupy a 16-acre site along the Hudson River in downtown Manhattan. Its twin towers, 110 stories high, will be 100 ft taller than the Empire State Building (excluding its TV antennas on --top), currently the world's tallest building (ENR Jan. 23, p. 33). Rising the full 1,3 50-ft height without a setback, each tower will be 208 ft square. It will be designed to resist a 45-psf wind, with both low sway and low acceleration.
Exterior columns will be spaced 39 inches c-c. Made of various high-strength steels, they will be 14-inch square hollow-box sections, for high torsional and bending resistance, and windows will be set between them. Spandrels welded to the columns at each floor will convert the exterior walls into giant Vierendeel trusses.
Interior columns are all in or around the elevator-stairway core. Thus, the office areas are free of columns. All the core columns will be made of A36 steel (36,000-psi yield point). As a result, corner columns at the base of the core may be solid steel as large as 2 x 8 ft in section.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 27 2006, 11:40 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Foxx
Now, please demonstrate why it would be scientifically impossible for devious 'spooks' (intent on bringing the towers down), to move that amount of incendiary material into the basement areas?
Now, please demonstrate why it would be scientifically impossible for devious 'spooks' (intent on bringing the towers down), to move that amount of incendiary material into the basement areas?
Well, it should be quite obvious through the shifting of goalposts by 'The Legend In His Own Mind'... that he would rather attack, accuse, and attack the 'messenger' rather than address the message.
What's the problem with answering the above question, 'adoucette'?
Its very SIMPLE Foxx.
Do I have to prove your hypothesis COULDN'T happen.
or
Do YOU have to provide EVIDENCE that it did happen.
Obviously YOU want me to prove a negative, but normal debate practices require that YOU provide evidence of your assertion.
This is PARTICULARLY true when you make OUTLANDISH assertions.
Arthur
QUOTE (JamesX+Jan 27 2006, 10:17 PM)
QUOTE
All that since breakfast, and never broke a sweat.
No, I've been reading the thread over the past month. I think you're a fraud.
Well that's even MORE pathetic.
You've been reading the thread for a month and your sole contribution after all of that is to call someone a sock puppet.
You got one of these "L" tattooed on your forehead?
Arthur
FOXX
Remember this?
You claim NIST was lying, but .....
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.
THIS HAS NOW BEEN REQUESTED 3 TIMES. YOU SAY NIST LIED BUT YOU NEVER PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
YOU INSIST ON GOING BACK TO DRAFT REPORTS.
DRAFT REPORTS HAVE MISTAKES IN THEM.
THAT'S WHY THEY ARE CALLED DRAFTS.
Either provide PROOF that this is in the FINAL NIST report or the only LIAR will be you.
Arthur
Remember this?
You claim NIST was lying, but .....
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.
THIS HAS NOW BEEN REQUESTED 3 TIMES. YOU SAY NIST LIED BUT YOU NEVER PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
YOU INSIST ON GOING BACK TO DRAFT REPORTS.
DRAFT REPORTS HAVE MISTAKES IN THEM.
THAT'S WHY THEY ARE CALLED DRAFTS.
Either provide PROOF that this is in the FINAL NIST report or the only LIAR will be you.
Arthur
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 28 2006, 03:42 AM)
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm
HOW COLUMNS WILL BE DESIGNED FOR 110-STORY BUILDINGS
For record-height towers of New York's World Trade Center, engineers proportion columns to avoid floor warpage when high-strength steels are used for exterior columns and A36 steel for interior columns.
A design procedure that will be used for structural framing of the 1,350-ft high twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City gives the exterior columns tremendous reserve strength. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
The procedure calls for proportioning of columns in each story for the same unit stress under gravity loads, regardless of the grade of steel in the columns. Thus, all columns will shorten the same amount, and differential shortening will be eliminated as a possible cause of floor warpage. The reserve strength of high strength steel members will then be available to resist wind stresses.
The structural engineers adopted this particular design because of the great length of the columns, use of different grades of steel and their plan to take wind stresses in the exterior columns only.
The concept was explained to the New York Architectural League by John Skilling, a partner in Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, of Seattle, consulting structural engineers on the World Trade Center (see p. 124).
Record-height towers. The. Port of New York Authority's World Trade Center will provide offices and exhibit areas for government agencies, trade services and private business concerned with exports and imports. The project will occupy a 16-acre site along the Hudson River in downtown Manhattan. Its twin towers, 110 stories high, will be 100 ft taller than the Empire State Building (excluding its TV antennas on --top), currently the world's tallest building (ENR Jan. 23, p. 33). Rising the full 1,3 50-ft height without a setback, each tower will be 208 ft square. It will be designed to resist a 45-psf wind, with both low sway and low acceleration.
Exterior columns will be spaced 39 inches c-c. Made of various high-strength steels, they will be 14-inch square hollow-box sections, for high torsional and bending resistance, and windows will be set between them. Spandrels welded to the columns at each floor will convert the exterior walls into giant Vierendeel trusses.
Interior columns are all in or around the elevator-stairway core. Thus, the office areas are free of columns. All the core columns will be made of A36 steel (36,000-psi yield point). As a result, corner columns at the base of the core may be solid steel as large as 2 x 8 ft in section.
Dear 'Guest'...
I don't usually respond to 'anonymous guest' posts. Mostly I skim past the guest posts after the first sentence... but you posted a very valid and important document (first put together by the anonymous 'Guardian'... I truly wonder what befell that person).
This collection of Engineering News Reports (originally published by Mcgraw-Hill Engineering & Construction) is a very interesting unbiased collection of reports from the time of the actual construction of the towers, and provides details of the actual construction that FEMA (and NIST) either ignore or 'leave-out' when speaking of the construction details.
May God Bless the 'Guardian' for saving these articles before they were removed from the web AFTER the demolition of the towers.
As the 'Guardian was SO vocal in attacking the 'official fairy tale', I fear he has met with some unfortunate 'accident' or 'suicide' before his due time... or maybe he was just 'OLD' and died of 'natural causes'. Being 'anonymous' as he was we probably will never know what actually became of this 'deepthroat', but he was certainly too much of an activist and TOO Vocal on these issues to just 'go silent' of his own free-will (IMHO).
Excellent reading material those Engineering News Reports. I highly recommend to ALL.
Cheers
HOW COLUMNS WILL BE DESIGNED FOR 110-STORY BUILDINGS
For record-height towers of New York's World Trade Center, engineers proportion columns to avoid floor warpage when high-strength steels are used for exterior columns and A36 steel for interior columns.
A design procedure that will be used for structural framing of the 1,350-ft high twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City gives the exterior columns tremendous reserve strength. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
The procedure calls for proportioning of columns in each story for the same unit stress under gravity loads, regardless of the grade of steel in the columns. Thus, all columns will shorten the same amount, and differential shortening will be eliminated as a possible cause of floor warpage. The reserve strength of high strength steel members will then be available to resist wind stresses.
The structural engineers adopted this particular design because of the great length of the columns, use of different grades of steel and their plan to take wind stresses in the exterior columns only.
The concept was explained to the New York Architectural League by John Skilling, a partner in Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, of Seattle, consulting structural engineers on the World Trade Center (see p. 124).
Record-height towers. The. Port of New York Authority's World Trade Center will provide offices and exhibit areas for government agencies, trade services and private business concerned with exports and imports. The project will occupy a 16-acre site along the Hudson River in downtown Manhattan. Its twin towers, 110 stories high, will be 100 ft taller than the Empire State Building (excluding its TV antennas on --top), currently the world's tallest building (ENR Jan. 23, p. 33). Rising the full 1,3 50-ft height without a setback, each tower will be 208 ft square. It will be designed to resist a 45-psf wind, with both low sway and low acceleration.
Exterior columns will be spaced 39 inches c-c. Made of various high-strength steels, they will be 14-inch square hollow-box sections, for high torsional and bending resistance, and windows will be set between them. Spandrels welded to the columns at each floor will convert the exterior walls into giant Vierendeel trusses.
Interior columns are all in or around the elevator-stairway core. Thus, the office areas are free of columns. All the core columns will be made of A36 steel (36,000-psi yield point). As a result, corner columns at the base of the core may be solid steel as large as 2 x 8 ft in section.
Dear 'Guest'...
I don't usually respond to 'anonymous guest' posts. Mostly I skim past the guest posts after the first sentence... but you posted a very valid and important document (first put together by the anonymous 'Guardian'... I truly wonder what befell that person).
This collection of Engineering News Reports (originally published by Mcgraw-Hill Engineering & Construction) is a very interesting unbiased collection of reports from the time of the actual construction of the towers, and provides details of the actual construction that FEMA (and NIST) either ignore or 'leave-out' when speaking of the construction details.
May God Bless the 'Guardian' for saving these articles before they were removed from the web AFTER the demolition of the towers.
As the 'Guardian was SO vocal in attacking the 'official fairy tale', I fear he has met with some unfortunate 'accident' or 'suicide' before his due time... or maybe he was just 'OLD' and died of 'natural causes'. Being 'anonymous' as he was we probably will never know what actually became of this 'deepthroat', but he was certainly too much of an activist and TOO Vocal on these issues to just 'go silent' of his own free-will (IMHO).
Excellent reading material those Engineering News Reports. I highly recommend to ALL.
Cheers
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 27 2006, 04:27 PM)
This is SHILL 101 stuff.
No doubt. Did you take that class with a_ht?
No doubt. Did you take that class with a_ht?
QUOTE
Originally posted by 'adoucette'
Its very SIMPLE Foxx.
Do I have to prove your hypothesis COULDN'T happen.
or
Do YOU have to provide EVIDENCE that it did happen.
Obviously YOU want me to prove a negative, but normal debate practices require that YOU provide evidence of your assertion.
This is PARTICULARLY true when you make OUTLANDISH assertions.
Arthur
Its very SIMPLE Foxx.
Do I have to prove your hypothesis COULDN'T happen.
or
Do YOU have to provide EVIDENCE that it did happen.
Obviously YOU want me to prove a negative, but normal debate practices require that YOU provide evidence of your assertion.
This is PARTICULARLY true when you make OUTLANDISH assertions.
Arthur
Again you use sophistry to obfuscate the issue.
Quote: Do I have to prove your hypothesis COULDN'T happen.
No, my 'hypothesis' is based upon KNOWN facts and parameters related to the 'underground infernos'.
I have shown how the 'thermite/diasite theory' provides a scientific, reasonable and plausible answer to resolve these 'anomalies' (given in the fore-going 'list').
WE KNOW that the list of parameters are unquestionably sound scientific FACTS which require a plausible 'answer' to account for such a list. The gravity-driven-collapse scenario can NOT account for ALL these parameters.
I say 'thermite' is a plausible explanation.
You say that it is NOT 'plausible' due to the quantities allegedly required.
In order to show that the thermite theory is 'unsound' it becomes incumbent upon you to show HOW (to support your disbelief).
We all KNOW that the underground 'fire' DID Happen. I don't have to provide 'further' evidence of THAT.
I do NOT have to 'prove' a plausible explanation for those events... I simply offer a reasonable speculative postulation as to what MIGHT have been the cause.
I am NOT 'demanding' (as a pope-ish proclamation) that it MUST HAVE BEEN thermite. I, like ALL true searchers of truth leave open the door to a more REASONABLE 'cause'.
You have chosen to 'attack' or 'discredit' this 'thermite theory', therefore (if you are to be taken seriously), the onus falls upon YOU to show the readers HOW such a postulation is IMPOSSIBLE according to science. You continually shirk this scientific duty and shake it off with hand-waving exercises and rhetorics which have no place in a scientific debate.
I have not asked you to prove a 'negative'. All I've asked is that IF you choose to 'attack' or 'discredit' a theory, then it behooves you to show the evidence upon which you believe the theory is false.
You have not done so.
Do you wish to DO SO now, or would you rather just pack-up your bags and go home?
'Outlandish Assertions' (as you refer to this theory) is simply a subjective bias on your part, which you refuse to support scientifically.
Who says "they are outlandish" (apart from you and your small band of parrots)?
If the theory is TRULY 'Outlandish', it should be quite a simple task for you to show scientifically WHY it is scientifically preposterous.
Of course, this is assuming the presumption that you HAVE scientific facts to debunk the theory? Quit waving your hands about wildly in this YID-ish dance of words. and provide your scientific evidence... or go home.
PS - regarding your nonsense related to NIST 'Drafts' and 'FINAL' reports... Thanks for reminding me to provide that info, related to "No Steel Recovered from WTC 7". I suppose I will have to slog through the entire voluminous boring bs again to find the related 'quote' in the 'Final' Draft.
Unless 'they' have abandoned this statement between the 'draft' and 'final' report ...
(I'm quite sure they are watching these developing discussions, and perhaps NOW have realized that they CAN NOT get away with such lies)...
I assure you I will check it out and get back to you on this 'question'.
At the moment, I don't have a few hours (or days) to go through the entire 'final report' to find it for you instantaneously within the next few minutes. Contrary to popular belief (
), I don't have the entire report committed to photographic memory so as to be able to point to 'Section X...addendum B...page # xyz' instantly.
Why even bother to respond to what it says? Just ignore it. It's a troll- it's Faux.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 28 2006, 05:24 AM)
Why even bother to respond to what it says? Just ignore it. It's a troll- it's Faux.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 28 2006, 01:18 AM)
I have shown how the 'thermite/diasite theory' provides a scientific, reasonable and plausible answer to resolve these 'anomalies' (given in the fore-going 'list').
WE KNOW that the list of parameters are unquestionably sound scientific FACTS which require a plausible 'answer' to account for such a list. The gravity-driven-collapse scenario can NOT account for ALL these parameters.
I say 'thermite' is a plausible explanation.
You say that it is NOT 'plausible' due to the quantities allegedly required.
In order to show that the thermite theory is 'unsound' it becomes incumbent upon you to show HOW (to support your disbelief).
We all KNOW that the underground 'fire' DID Happen. I don't have to provide 'further' evidence of THAT.
I do NOT have to 'prove' a plausible explanation for those events... I simply offer a reasonable speculative postulation as to what MIGHT have been the cause.
I am NOT 'demanding' (as a pope-ish proclamation) that it MUST HAVE BEEN thermite. I, like ALL true searchers of truth leave open the door to a more REASONABLE 'cause'.
You have chosen to 'attack' or 'discredit' this 'thermite theory', therefore (if you are to be taken seriously), the onus falls upon YOU to show the readers HOW such a postulation is IMPOSSIBLE according to science. You continually shirk this scientific duty and shake it off with hand-waving exercises and rhetorics which have no place in a scientific debate.
I have not asked you to prove a 'negative'. All I've asked is that IF you choose to 'attack' or 'discredit' a theory, then it behooves you to show the evidence upon which you believe the theory is false.
You have not done so.
Do you wish to DO SO now, or would you rather just pack-up your bags and go home?
'Outlandish Assertions' (as you refer to this theory) is simply a subjective bias on your part, which you refuse to support scientifically.
Who says "they are outlandish" (apart from you and your small band of parrots)?
If the theory is TRULY 'Outlandish', it should be quite a simple task for you to show scientifically WHY it is scientifically preposterous.
Of course, this is assuming the presumption that you HAVE scientific facts to debunk the theory? Quit waving your hands about wildly in this YID-ish dance of words. and provide your scientific evidence... or go home.
What a load of BS.
You have not PROVEN that what was KNOWN to be in the towers COULDN'T account for it.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 28 2006, 01:18 AM)
regarding your nonsense related to NIST 'Drafts' and 'FINAL' reports... Thanks for reminding me to provide that info, related to "No Steel Recovered from WTC 7". I suppose I will have to slog through the entire voluminous boring bs again to find the related 'quote' in the 'Final' Draft.
Unless 'they' have abandoned this statement between the 'draft' and 'final' report ...
(I'm quite sure they are watching these developing discussions, and perhaps NOW have realized that they CAN NOT get away with such lies)...
I assure you I will check it out and get back to you on this 'question'.
At the moment, I don't have a few hours (or days) to go through the entire 'final report' to find it for you instantaneously within the next few minutes. Contrary to popular belief ( ), I don't have the entire report committed to photographic memory so as to be able to point to 'Section X...addendum B...page # xyz' instantly.
Gosh Foxx, you POSTED the section it was in before, seems like it would be pretty easy to find.
Then of course you could just use the FIND or SEARCH features of Adobe.
But NO, Foxx says it might take DAYS to "slog through" ....
What a load of BS.
Oh, and he has ALREADY started constructing his ESCAPE CLAUSE:
And better yet, he is taking CREDIT for the change (if its there)
And better yet, he is taking CREDIT for the change (if its there)
(I'm quite sure they are watching these developing discussions, and perhaps NOW have realized that they CAN NOT get away with such lies)...
Foxx, if they gave awards for BS you'd get an OSCAR.
Arthur
Note that Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson have not disputed NIST's findings.
Arthur
I'm making an honest observation and I think it's relevant. Having read all of this thread, it's plainly obvious that Schneibster is fu<king around with multiple IDs. He's made several blatant slip ups with his log-ins and can't seem to keep his personas separate stylistically, either. This multiple personality game along with his namecalling and attempts to dehumanize his opponents by referring to them as "it" suggests that we may be dealing with a seriously disturbed individual here.
I'm making an honest observation and I think it's relevant. Having read all of this thread, it's plainly obvious that Schneibster is fu<king around with multiple IDs. He's made several blatant slip ups with his log-ins and can't seem to keep his personas separate stylistically, either. This multiple personality game along with his namecalling and attempts to dehumanize his opponents by referring to them as "it" suggests that we may be dealing with a seriously disturbed individual here.
I repeat my earlier assessment.
This is the friggin internet.
You can't tell the difference between Schneibster "fu@king around with multiple IDs" and someone pretending to be Schneibster "fu@king around with multiple IDs"
A number of days ago someone signed their post "Arthur"
Someone quickly claimed I'd screwed up and forgot who I was logged in as.
I pointed out that ANYONE could sign their post as "Arthur", only when you saw "adoucette" as the User ID could you be sure it was me.
That goes for every other post. The ONLY thing that is constant is the User ID, everything else can be a hoax.
Arthur
Unless 'they' have abandoned this statement between the 'draft' and 'final' report ...
(I'm quite sure they are watching these developing discussions, and perhaps NOW have realized that they CAN NOT get away with such lies)...
I assure you I will check it out and get back to you on this 'question'.
At the moment, I don't have a few hours (or days) to go through the entire 'final report' to find it for you instantaneously within the next few minutes. Contrary to popular belief (
), I don't have the entire report committed to photographic memory so as to be able to point to 'Section X...addendum B...page # xyz' instantly. Gosh Foxx, you POSTED the section it was in before, seems like it would be pretty easy to find.
Then of course you could just use the FIND or SEARCH features of Adobe.
But NO, Foxx says it might take DAYS to "slog through" ....
What a load of BS.
Oh, and he has ALREADY started constructing his ESCAPE CLAUSE:
QUOTE
Unless 'they' have abandoned this statement between the 'draft' and 'final' report ...
And better yet, he is taking CREDIT for the change (if its there)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Unless 'they' have abandoned this statement between the 'draft' and 'final' report ... |
And better yet, he is taking CREDIT for the change (if its there)
(I'm quite sure they are watching these developing discussions, and perhaps NOW have realized that they CAN NOT get away with such lies)...
Foxx, if they gave awards for BS you'd get an OSCAR.
Arthur
QUOTE
The structural engineers adopted this particular design because of the great length of the columns, use of different grades of steel and their plan to take wind stresses in the exterior columns only.
The concept was explained to the New York Architectural League by John Skilling, a partner in Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, of Seattle, consulting structural engineers on the World Trade Center (see p. 124).
The concept was explained to the New York Architectural League by John Skilling, a partner in Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, of Seattle, consulting structural engineers on the World Trade Center (see p. 124).
Note that Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson have not disputed NIST's findings.
Arthur
QUOTE
You've been reading the thread for a month and your sole contribution after all of that is to call someone a sock puppet.
I'm making an honest observation and I think it's relevant. Having read all of this thread, it's plainly obvious that Schneibster is fu<king around with multiple IDs. He's made several blatant slip ups with his log-ins and can't seem to keep his personas separate stylistically, either. This multiple personality game along with his namecalling and attempts to dehumanize his opponents by referring to them as "it" suggests that we may be dealing with a seriously disturbed individual here.
Hey, this is fun- if I can guess any of these peoples' RL IDs, I can sue them for slander. That's amusing.
I know a great internet attorney if you need one.
QUOTE (JamesX+Jan 28 2006, 03:48 AM)
QUOTE
You've been reading the thread for a month and your sole contribution after all of that is to call someone a sock puppet.
I'm making an honest observation and I think it's relevant. Having read all of this thread, it's plainly obvious that Schneibster is fu<king around with multiple IDs. He's made several blatant slip ups with his log-ins and can't seem to keep his personas separate stylistically, either. This multiple personality game along with his namecalling and attempts to dehumanize his opponents by referring to them as "it" suggests that we may be dealing with a seriously disturbed individual here.
I repeat my earlier assessment.
This is the friggin internet.
You can't tell the difference between Schneibster "fu@king around with multiple IDs" and someone pretending to be Schneibster "fu@king around with multiple IDs"
A number of days ago someone signed their post "Arthur"
Someone quickly claimed I'd screwed up and forgot who I was logged in as.
I pointed out that ANYONE could sign their post as "Arthur", only when you saw "adoucette" as the User ID could you be sure it was me.
That goes for every other post. The ONLY thing that is constant is the User ID, everything else can be a hoax.
Arthur
Scholars For 9/11 Truth
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
An influential group of prominent experts and scholars have joined together alleging that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. The members of this new non-partisan association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts contend that books and articles by members and associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the official story about the attack on the Pentagon. They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.
Currently, S9/11T has three categories of members: full members (FM), who have or had academic appointments or the equivalent; associate members (AM), who have backgrounds and interests relevant to 9/11 research; and student members (SM), who are concerned about these issues and want to pursue them; as follows:
Victoria Ashley (AM)
Degrees in architecture and physiological psychology, staff member of 911research.wtc7.net
Robert M. Bowman (FM)
Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, a former senior Air Force Colonel with 101 combat missions, who is also a Catholic Archbishop
Len Bracken (AM)
Credentialed Journalist
Graduate of GWU's Elliott School of International Affairs
Author of "Shadow Government: 9/11 and State Terror"
Clare Brandabur (FM)
Assistant professor of English Literature at Dogus University in Istanbul
Jordan Brewster (AM)
Fred Burks (AM)
Served for many years as a language interpreter for presidents and other dignitaries.
www.wanttoknow.info/911information
Frank Carmen (AM)
[b]Physics Ph.D., BYU
Erik Champenois (SA)
Student, BYU
Harriet Cianci (FM)
Tunxis Community College, CT
Muhammad Columbo (AM)
Graduate Engineer electronics wide industrial experience
Scott Daniel (FM)
Physics and Astronomy, BYU
Lloyd DeMause (FM)
Director of The Institute for Psychohistory, President of the International Psychohistorical Association and Editor of The Journal of Psychohistory
Eric Douglas (AM)
New York City architect Chair of the Independent Peer Review Committe for the NIST WTC Reports at nistreview.org
Jeffrey Farrer (FM)
Physics/ Materials Science, BYU
James H. Fetzer (FM)
Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, author or editor of more than 20 books and co-chair of S9/11T
Alex Floum (AM)
Attorney.
Marcus Ford (FM)
Humanities, NAU
David Gabbard (FM)
historical background
Daniele Ganser (FM)
Senior Researcher at the Center for Security Studies of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Kenyon Gibson (AM)
Former US Naval Intelligence, author of "Common Sense: A Study of the Bushes, the CIA and the Suspicions Regarding 9/11" (2003, in Arabic) and of "Hemp for Victory" (2006)
Gordon Ginn (AM)
Motives behind attack
Eric Hufschmid (AM)
Author of "Painful Questions" and "Painful Deceptions"
Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs (FM)
Former Dean of Education, Oglala Lakota College and currently professor of educational leadership at Fielding Graduate University and at Northern Arizona University
Steven Jones (FM)
Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum
Nathan Jones (SA)
Student, Snow College, UT
Peter Kirsh (AM)
Forensic pathologist
Greg Lopreato (AM)
Senior Research Scientist
Wayne Madsen (AM)
Investigative Journalist, Columnist, and Author
Author of "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II"
Washington, D.C.
David Masdon (AM)
Electical Engineering
Richard McGinn (FM)
Associate Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Southeast Asian Studies, Ohio University. Former chair of Linguistics (10 years) and Director of Southeast Asian Studies (4 years) at Ohio University
John McMurtry, Ph.D. (FM)
Professor of Philosophy, University Professor Emeritus elect University of Guelph, and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada
Peter Meyer (AM)
Computational physics, computer programmer, software developer, creator of the Serendipity web site (www.serendipity.li) and of the Hermetic Systems web site (www.hermetic.ch)
Ralph Omholt (AM)
Technical writer
Matthew Orr (FM)
Population Biology, Evolution and Ecology, University of Oregon "Is the War on Terror Fraudulent?"
Don Paul (AM)
Author of "9/11:Facing Our Fascist State" (2002) and co-author with Jim Hoffman of "9/11: Great Crimes, a Greater Cover-up" (2003) and "Waking Up from Our Nightmare: The 9/11/01 Crimes in New York City" (2004)
Benjamin Pritchard (AM)
Software Engineer
911TruthEmergence.com
Diana Ralph (FM)
Associate Professor Carleton University School of Social Work. Author of Work and Madness: The Rise of Community Psychiatry
Kevin Ryan (FM)
Former Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories Underwriters Laboratory
Morgan Reynolds (FM)
Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush, and former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis
Karen Rice (FM)
Associate Professor, Western Washington University Libraries
Kevin Ryan (AM)
Former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories
Nila Sagedevan (AM)
Leonard Spencer (AM)
Twin Towers Attack, The Pentagon Attack, www.serendipity.li
Morgan Stack (FM)
Accounting, Finance & Information Systems, University College Cork (UCC), Ireland. Co-founder of the Irish 9/11 Truth Movement
Harry Stottle (AM)
Philosopher, Author, Computer Consultant, Inventor. IT Director of the Codel Project. Specialist in authentication and related issues.
Webster Griffin Tarpley (FM)
President, Washington Grove Institute Government-sponsored terror
Andreas Von Buelow (FM)
Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years
Lon Waters (FM)
High performance computing Software engineering Sandia National Laboratory
Carl Weis (FM)
Associate Professor of Creative Arts, Siena College, retired
Ian Woods (FM)
Publisher and Editor of Global Outlook (the Magazine of 9/11 Truth); president of S.I.F.T. - Skeptics Inquiry For Truth (aka 911inquiry.org)
[/B]
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
QUOTE
An influential group of prominent experts and scholars have joined together alleging that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. The members of this new non-partisan association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts contend that books and articles by members and associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the official story about the attack on the Pentagon. They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
An influential group of prominent experts and scholars have joined together alleging that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. The members of this new non-partisan association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C. These experts contend that books and articles by members and associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the official story about the attack on the Pentagon. They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda. |
Currently, S9/11T has three categories of members: full members (FM), who have or had academic appointments or the equivalent; associate members (AM), who have backgrounds and interests relevant to 9/11 research; and student members (SM), who are concerned about these issues and want to pursue them; as follows:
Victoria Ashley (AM)
Degrees in architecture and physiological psychology, staff member of 911research.wtc7.net
Robert M. Bowman (FM)
Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, a former senior Air Force Colonel with 101 combat missions, who is also a Catholic Archbishop
Len Bracken (AM)
Credentialed Journalist
Graduate of GWU's Elliott School of International Affairs
Author of "Shadow Government: 9/11 and State Terror"
Clare Brandabur (FM)
Assistant professor of English Literature at Dogus University in Istanbul
Jordan Brewster (AM)
Fred Burks (AM)
Served for many years as a language interpreter for presidents and other dignitaries.
www.wanttoknow.info/911information
Frank Carmen (AM)
[b]Physics Ph.D., BYU
Erik Champenois (SA)
Student, BYU
Harriet Cianci (FM)
Tunxis Community College, CT
Muhammad Columbo (AM)
Graduate Engineer electronics wide industrial experience
Scott Daniel (FM)
Physics and Astronomy, BYU
Lloyd DeMause (FM)
Director of The Institute for Psychohistory, President of the International Psychohistorical Association and Editor of The Journal of Psychohistory
Eric Douglas (AM)
New York City architect Chair of the Independent Peer Review Committe for the NIST WTC Reports at nistreview.org
Jeffrey Farrer (FM)
Physics/ Materials Science, BYU
James H. Fetzer (FM)
Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, author or editor of more than 20 books and co-chair of S9/11T
Alex Floum (AM)
Attorney.
Marcus Ford (FM)
Humanities, NAU
David Gabbard (FM)
historical background
Daniele Ganser (FM)
Senior Researcher at the Center for Security Studies of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Kenyon Gibson (AM)
Former US Naval Intelligence, author of "Common Sense: A Study of the Bushes, the CIA and the Suspicions Regarding 9/11" (2003, in Arabic) and of "Hemp for Victory" (2006)
Gordon Ginn (AM)
Motives behind attack
Eric Hufschmid (AM)
Author of "Painful Questions" and "Painful Deceptions"
Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs (FM)
Former Dean of Education, Oglala Lakota College and currently professor of educational leadership at Fielding Graduate University and at Northern Arizona University
Steven Jones (FM)
Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum
Nathan Jones (SA)
Student, Snow College, UT
Peter Kirsh (AM)
Forensic pathologist
Greg Lopreato (AM)
Senior Research Scientist
Wayne Madsen (AM)
Investigative Journalist, Columnist, and Author
Author of "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II"
Washington, D.C.
David Masdon (AM)
Electical Engineering
Richard McGinn (FM)
Associate Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Southeast Asian Studies, Ohio University. Former chair of Linguistics (10 years) and Director of Southeast Asian Studies (4 years) at Ohio University
John McMurtry, Ph.D. (FM)
Professor of Philosophy, University Professor Emeritus elect University of Guelph, and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada
Peter Meyer (AM)
Computational physics, computer programmer, software developer, creator of the Serendipity web site (www.serendipity.li) and of the Hermetic Systems web site (www.hermetic.ch)
Ralph Omholt (AM)
Technical writer
Matthew Orr (FM)
Population Biology, Evolution and Ecology, University of Oregon "Is the War on Terror Fraudulent?"
Don Paul (AM)
Author of "9/11:Facing Our Fascist State" (2002) and co-author with Jim Hoffman of "9/11: Great Crimes, a Greater Cover-up" (2003) and "Waking Up from Our Nightmare: The 9/11/01 Crimes in New York City" (2004)
Benjamin Pritchard (AM)
Software Engineer
911TruthEmergence.com
Diana Ralph (FM)
Associate Professor Carleton University School of Social Work. Author of Work and Madness: The Rise of Community Psychiatry
Kevin Ryan (FM)
Former Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories Underwriters Laboratory
Morgan Reynolds (FM)
Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush, and former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis
Karen Rice (FM)
Associate Professor, Western Washington University Libraries
Kevin Ryan (AM)
Former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories
Nila Sagedevan (AM)
Leonard Spencer (AM)
Twin Towers Attack, The Pentagon Attack, www.serendipity.li
Morgan Stack (FM)
Accounting, Finance & Information Systems, University College Cork (UCC), Ireland. Co-founder of the Irish 9/11 Truth Movement
Harry Stottle (AM)
Philosopher, Author, Computer Consultant, Inventor. IT Director of the Codel Project. Specialist in authentication and related issues.
Webster Griffin Tarpley (FM)
President, Washington Grove Institute Government-sponsored terror
Andreas Von Buelow (FM)
Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years
Lon Waters (FM)
High performance computing Software engineering Sandia National Laboratory
Carl Weis (FM)
Associate Professor of Creative Arts, Siena College, retired
Ian Woods (FM)
Publisher and Editor of Global Outlook (the Magazine of 9/11 Truth); president of S.I.F.T. - Skeptics Inquiry For Truth (aka 911inquiry.org)
[/B]
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 28 2006, 02:18 PM)
Scholars For 9/11 Truth
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
An influential group of prominent experts and scholars have joined together alleging that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. The members of this new non-partisan association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts contend that books and articles by members and associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the official story about the attack on the Pentagon. They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.
Currently, S9/11T has three categories of members: full members (FM), who have or had academic appointments or the equivalent; associate members (AM), who have backgrounds and interests relevant to 9/11 research; and student members (SM), who are concerned about these issues and want to pursue them; as follows:
Victoria Ashley (AM)
Degrees in architecture and physiological psychology, staff member of 911research.wtc7.net
Robert M. Bowman (FM)
Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, a former senior Air Force Colonel with 101 combat missions, who is also a Catholic Archbishop
Len Bracken (AM)
Credentialed Journalist
Graduate of GWU's Elliott School of International Affairs
Author of "Shadow Government: 9/11 and State Terror"
Clare Brandabur (FM)
Assistant professor of English Literature at Dogus University in Istanbul
Jordan Brewster (AM)
Fred Burks (AM)
Served for many years as a language interpreter for presidents and other dignitaries.
www.wanttoknow.info/911information
Frank Carmen (AM)
[b]Physics Ph.D., BYU
Erik Champenois (SA)
Student, BYU
Harriet Cianci (FM)
Tunxis Community College, CT
Muhammad Columbo (AM)
Graduate Engineer electronics wide industrial experience
Scott Daniel (FM)
Physics and Astronomy, BYU
Lloyd DeMause (FM)
Director of The Institute for Psychohistory, President of the International Psychohistorical Association and Editor of The Journal of Psychohistory
Eric Douglas (AM)
New York City architect Chair of the Independent Peer Review Committe for the NIST WTC Reports at nistreview.org
Jeffrey Farrer (FM)
Physics/ Materials Science, BYU
James H. Fetzer (FM)
Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, author or editor of more than 20 books and co-chair of S9/11T
Alex Floum (AM)
Attorney.
Marcus Ford (FM)
Humanities, NAU
David Gabbard (FM)
historical background
Daniele Ganser (FM)
Senior Researcher at the Center for Security Studies of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Kenyon Gibson (AM)
Former US Naval Intelligence, author of "Common Sense: A Study of the Bushes, the CIA and the Suspicions Regarding 9/11" (2003, in Arabic) and of "Hemp for Victory" (2006)
Gordon Ginn (AM)
Motives behind attack
Eric Hufschmid (AM)
Author of "Painful Questions" and "Painful Deceptions"
Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs (FM)
Former Dean of Education, Oglala Lakota College and currently professor of educational leadership at Fielding Graduate University and at Northern Arizona University
Steven Jones (FM)
Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum
Nathan Jones (SA)
Student, Snow College, UT
Peter Kirsh (AM)
Forensic pathologist
Greg Lopreato (AM)
Senior Research Scientist
Wayne Madsen (AM)
Investigative Journalist, Columnist, and Author
Author of "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II"
Washington, D.C.
David Masdon (AM)
Electical Engineering
Richard McGinn (FM)
Associate Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Southeast Asian Studies, Ohio University. Former chair of Linguistics (10 years) and Director of Southeast Asian Studies (4 years) at Ohio University
John McMurtry, Ph.D. (FM)
Professor of Philosophy, University Professor Emeritus elect University of Guelph, and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada
Peter Meyer (AM)
Computational physics, computer programmer, software developer, creator of the Serendipity web site (www.serendipity.li) and of the Hermetic Systems web site (www.hermetic.ch)
Ralph Omholt (AM)
Technical writer
Matthew Orr (FM)
Population Biology, Evolution and Ecology, University of Oregon "Is the War on Terror Fraudulent?"
Don Paul (AM)
Author of "9/11:Facing Our Fascist State" (2002) and co-author with Jim Hoffman of "9/11: Great Crimes, a Greater Cover-up" (2003) and "Waking Up from Our Nightmare: The 9/11/01 Crimes in New York City" (2004)
Benjamin Pritchard (AM)
Software Engineer
911TruthEmergence.com
Diana Ralph (FM)
Associate Professor Carleton University School of Social Work. Author of Work and Madness: The Rise of Community Psychiatry
Kevin Ryan (FM)
Former Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories Underwriters Laboratory
Morgan Reynolds (FM)
Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush, and former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis
Karen Rice (FM)
Associate Professor, Western Washington University Libraries
Kevin Ryan (AM)
Former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories
Nila Sagedevan (AM)
Leonard Spencer (AM)
Twin Towers Attack, The Pentagon Attack, www.serendipity.li
Morgan Stack (FM)
Accounting, Finance & Information Systems, University College Cork (UCC), Ireland. Co-founder of the Irish 9/11 Truth Movement
Harry Stottle (AM)
Philosopher, Author, Computer Consultant, Inventor. IT Director of the Codel Project. Specialist in authentication and related issues.
Webster Griffin Tarpley (FM)
President, Washington Grove Institute Government-sponsored terror
Andreas Von Buelow (FM)
Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years
Lon Waters (FM)
High performance computing Software engineering Sandia National Laboratory
Carl Weis (FM)
Associate Professor of Creative Arts, Siena College, retired
Ian Woods (FM)
Publisher and Editor of Global Outlook (the Magazine of 9/11 Truth); president of S.I.F.T. - Skeptics Inquiry For Truth (aka 911inquiry.org)
[/B]
Let me know when the english teacher and other non STRUCTUAL ENGINEERS pass a peer reviewed paper saying the buildings couldn't have fallen due to fire.
Until then I'll take the word of more qualifed people...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
Henri Gavin, Duke University
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
I'm making an honest observation and I think it's relevant. Having read all of this thread, it's plainly obvious that Schneibster is fu<king around with multiple IDs. He's made several blatant slip ups with his log-ins and can't seem to keep his personas separate stylistically, either. This multiple personality game along with his namecalling and attempts to dehumanize his opponents by referring to them as "it" suggests that we may be dealing with a seriously disturbed individual here.
Faux said this very thing almost word for word. No irony here...
Other than attack peoples character in the absence of evidence to support the demolition theory, what good has this morons post been to the thread?
If hes not Faux he sure acts like him...
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
QUOTE
An influential group of prominent experts and scholars have joined together alleging that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. The members of this new non-partisan association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts contend that books and articles by members and associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the official story about the attack on the Pentagon. They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
An influential group of prominent experts and scholars have joined together alleging that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. The members of this new non-partisan association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C. These experts contend that books and articles by members and associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the official story about the attack on the Pentagon. They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda. |
Currently, S9/11T has three categories of members: full members (FM), who have or had academic appointments or the equivalent; associate members (AM), who have backgrounds and interests relevant to 9/11 research; and student members (SM), who are concerned about these issues and want to pursue them; as follows:
Victoria Ashley (AM)
Degrees in architecture and physiological psychology, staff member of 911research.wtc7.net
Robert M. Bowman (FM)
Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, a former senior Air Force Colonel with 101 combat missions, who is also a Catholic Archbishop
Len Bracken (AM)
Credentialed Journalist
Graduate of GWU's Elliott School of International Affairs
Author of "Shadow Government: 9/11 and State Terror"
Clare Brandabur (FM)
Assistant professor of English Literature at Dogus University in Istanbul
Jordan Brewster (AM)
Fred Burks (AM)
Served for many years as a language interpreter for presidents and other dignitaries.
www.wanttoknow.info/911information
Frank Carmen (AM)
[b]Physics Ph.D., BYU
Erik Champenois (SA)
Student, BYU
Harriet Cianci (FM)
Tunxis Community College, CT
Muhammad Columbo (AM)
Graduate Engineer electronics wide industrial experience
Scott Daniel (FM)
Physics and Astronomy, BYU
Lloyd DeMause (FM)
Director of The Institute for Psychohistory, President of the International Psychohistorical Association and Editor of The Journal of Psychohistory
Eric Douglas (AM)
New York City architect Chair of the Independent Peer Review Committe for the NIST WTC Reports at nistreview.org
Jeffrey Farrer (FM)
Physics/ Materials Science, BYU
James H. Fetzer (FM)
Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, author or editor of more than 20 books and co-chair of S9/11T
Alex Floum (AM)
Attorney.
Marcus Ford (FM)
Humanities, NAU
David Gabbard (FM)
historical background
Daniele Ganser (FM)
Senior Researcher at the Center for Security Studies of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Kenyon Gibson (AM)
Former US Naval Intelligence, author of "Common Sense: A Study of the Bushes, the CIA and the Suspicions Regarding 9/11" (2003, in Arabic) and of "Hemp for Victory" (2006)
Gordon Ginn (AM)
Motives behind attack
Eric Hufschmid (AM)
Author of "Painful Questions" and "Painful Deceptions"
Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs (FM)
Former Dean of Education, Oglala Lakota College and currently professor of educational leadership at Fielding Graduate University and at Northern Arizona University
Steven Jones (FM)
Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum
Nathan Jones (SA)
Student, Snow College, UT
Peter Kirsh (AM)
Forensic pathologist
Greg Lopreato (AM)
Senior Research Scientist
Wayne Madsen (AM)
Investigative Journalist, Columnist, and Author
Author of "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II"
Washington, D.C.
David Masdon (AM)
Electical Engineering
Richard McGinn (FM)
Associate Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Southeast Asian Studies, Ohio University. Former chair of Linguistics (10 years) and Director of Southeast Asian Studies (4 years) at Ohio University
John McMurtry, Ph.D. (FM)
Professor of Philosophy, University Professor Emeritus elect University of Guelph, and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada
Peter Meyer (AM)
Computational physics, computer programmer, software developer, creator of the Serendipity web site (www.serendipity.li) and of the Hermetic Systems web site (www.hermetic.ch)
Ralph Omholt (AM)
Technical writer
Matthew Orr (FM)
Population Biology, Evolution and Ecology, University of Oregon "Is the War on Terror Fraudulent?"
Don Paul (AM)
Author of "9/11:Facing Our Fascist State" (2002) and co-author with Jim Hoffman of "9/11: Great Crimes, a Greater Cover-up" (2003) and "Waking Up from Our Nightmare: The 9/11/01 Crimes in New York City" (2004)
Benjamin Pritchard (AM)
Software Engineer
911TruthEmergence.com
Diana Ralph (FM)
Associate Professor Carleton University School of Social Work. Author of Work and Madness: The Rise of Community Psychiatry
Kevin Ryan (FM)
Former Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories Underwriters Laboratory
Morgan Reynolds (FM)
Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush, and former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis
Karen Rice (FM)
Associate Professor, Western Washington University Libraries
Kevin Ryan (AM)
Former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories
Nila Sagedevan (AM)
Leonard Spencer (AM)
Twin Towers Attack, The Pentagon Attack, www.serendipity.li
Morgan Stack (FM)
Accounting, Finance & Information Systems, University College Cork (UCC), Ireland. Co-founder of the Irish 9/11 Truth Movement
Harry Stottle (AM)
Philosopher, Author, Computer Consultant, Inventor. IT Director of the Codel Project. Specialist in authentication and related issues.
Webster Griffin Tarpley (FM)
President, Washington Grove Institute Government-sponsored terror
Andreas Von Buelow (FM)
Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years
Lon Waters (FM)
High performance computing Software engineering Sandia National Laboratory
Carl Weis (FM)
Associate Professor of Creative Arts, Siena College, retired
Ian Woods (FM)
Publisher and Editor of Global Outlook (the Magazine of 9/11 Truth); president of S.I.F.T. - Skeptics Inquiry For Truth (aka 911inquiry.org)
[/B]
Let me know when the english teacher and other non STRUCTUAL ENGINEERS pass a peer reviewed paper saying the buildings couldn't have fallen due to fire.
Until then I'll take the word of more qualifed people...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
Henri Gavin, Duke University
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
The fact that some of these people are PH.Ds means nothing. There is NO theory of Intelligent design which has passed peer review either.
IDnet Officers
John H. Calvert,
J.D., B.A.
(Geology)
John H. Calvert J.D., B.A.
Managing Director
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John H. Calvert, JD, is a lawyer and a Managing Director of Intelligent Design network, inc. He was engaged in corporate finance and business litigation with Lathrop Gage L.C., of Kansas City for 32 years. For the past four years his legal practice has focused on constitutional requirements for teaching origins science in public schools. He received his first degree in Geology and has practiced geology in a number of legal engagements involving mining and the oil and gas industry and has studied structural geology and paleontology as he has traveled throughout the world. He has been actively involved in the debate in Kansas, Ohio, Georgia, California, Missouri, Minnesota, North Carolina, West Virginia, Montana, New Mexico and other areas of the U.S. over the definition of science and the content of Science Education Standards, and has provided advice and counsel to school boards, school administrators and science teachers regarding the teaching of origins science. Mr. Calvert is co-author (with William S. Harris, PhD) of Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution (National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Autumn 2003), and co-author, with Daniel Schwabauer, of The Rule, a one act drama about the trial of a biology teacher. Mr. Calvert is a member of the American Bar Association and Missouri Bar Association and has been admitted to practice in Federal and state courts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William S.
Harris, Ph.D.
William S. Harris, Ph.D.
Managing Director
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William S. Harris, PhD is a native of Kansas City with an undergraduate degree from Hanover College in Chemistry and a PhD in Nutritional Biochemistry from the University of Minnesota. He has been conducting scientific research for the last 20 years and has been awarded about $3.5 million in research grants. He has published over 70 scientific papers.
Dr. Harris currently holds an endowed Chair in Metabolism and Vascular Biology and is a Professor of Medicine at the University of Missouri at Kansas City and is the Director of a Kansas City lipoprotein research laboratory. With regards to origins issues, he believes that the central dogma of Darwinism - that highly complex systems developed by random chance and environmental pressure from simple, ancestral life-forms - remains highly speculative and statistically problematic. His view is that a design (non-chance)-based theory of origins is more consistent with the evidence.
Mr. Harris is co-author (with John H. Calvert, JD) of Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution (National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Autumn 2003)
Joseph D.
Renick, M.S.
Joseph D. Renick, M.S.
Executive Director, IDnet of New Mexico
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Renick graduated in 1960 from Texas A&M with BS in Aeronautical Engineering and served nine years active duty with the USAF, accumulating 2300 hours flying time, including 1500 hours in the F-102A and F-104A. He served an additional 17 years in the Air Force Reserves and retired with the rank of Lt Col. He received his MS degree in Mechanical Engineering from Arizona State University in 1971 and was immediately employed by the Air Force Weapons Laboratory in Albuquerque, NM as a Mechanical Engineer working in the area of nuclear weapon blast and shock effects simulation.
In 1991 he was assigned to the Defense Nuclear Agency in Albuquerque where he was given responsibility for testing of advanced weapons and tactics to improve our capability to defeat hardened bunkers. He retired from the government as a GM-15 in 1993 and began work with Logicon Research and Development Associates (now Northrop Grumman) where he is currently employed. His position with Northrop Grumman is Senior Research Scientist where he continues work in the area of testing and evaluation of weapons, advanced weapon employment tactics, and development of advanced weapons effects models.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Clounch
David Clounch
Executive Director, IDnet of Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Clounch studied physics, engineering, and computer science at California State University's at Fullerton and Hayward, and received a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science in 1983. Employed as a software engineer for over twenty years, he has maintained an active interest in physics and cosmology and has followed the controversy in origins science since the 1970's. He has two children in high school and is interested in promoting objectivity and academic freedom in science education.
IDnet Officers
John H. Calvert,
J.D., B.A.
(Geology)
John H. Calvert J.D., B.A.
Managing Director
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John H. Calvert, JD, is a lawyer and a Managing Director of Intelligent Design network, inc. He was engaged in corporate finance and business litigation with Lathrop Gage L.C., of Kansas City for 32 years. For the past four years his legal practice has focused on constitutional requirements for teaching origins science in public schools. He received his first degree in Geology and has practiced geology in a number of legal engagements involving mining and the oil and gas industry and has studied structural geology and paleontology as he has traveled throughout the world. He has been actively involved in the debate in Kansas, Ohio, Georgia, California, Missouri, Minnesota, North Carolina, West Virginia, Montana, New Mexico and other areas of the U.S. over the definition of science and the content of Science Education Standards, and has provided advice and counsel to school boards, school administrators and science teachers regarding the teaching of origins science. Mr. Calvert is co-author (with William S. Harris, PhD) of Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution (National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Autumn 2003), and co-author, with Daniel Schwabauer, of The Rule, a one act drama about the trial of a biology teacher. Mr. Calvert is a member of the American Bar Association and Missouri Bar Association and has been admitted to practice in Federal and state courts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William S.
Harris, Ph.D.
William S. Harris, Ph.D.
Managing Director
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William S. Harris, PhD is a native of Kansas City with an undergraduate degree from Hanover College in Chemistry and a PhD in Nutritional Biochemistry from the University of Minnesota. He has been conducting scientific research for the last 20 years and has been awarded about $3.5 million in research grants. He has published over 70 scientific papers.
Dr. Harris currently holds an endowed Chair in Metabolism and Vascular Biology and is a Professor of Medicine at the University of Missouri at Kansas City and is the Director of a Kansas City lipoprotein research laboratory. With regards to origins issues, he believes that the central dogma of Darwinism - that highly complex systems developed by random chance and environmental pressure from simple, ancestral life-forms - remains highly speculative and statistically problematic. His view is that a design (non-chance)-based theory of origins is more consistent with the evidence.
Mr. Harris is co-author (with John H. Calvert, JD) of Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution (National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Autumn 2003)
Joseph D.
Renick, M.S.
Joseph D. Renick, M.S.
Executive Director, IDnet of New Mexico
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Renick graduated in 1960 from Texas A&M with BS in Aeronautical Engineering and served nine years active duty with the USAF, accumulating 2300 hours flying time, including 1500 hours in the F-102A and F-104A. He served an additional 17 years in the Air Force Reserves and retired with the rank of Lt Col. He received his MS degree in Mechanical Engineering from Arizona State University in 1971 and was immediately employed by the Air Force Weapons Laboratory in Albuquerque, NM as a Mechanical Engineer working in the area of nuclear weapon blast and shock effects simulation.
In 1991 he was assigned to the Defense Nuclear Agency in Albuquerque where he was given responsibility for testing of advanced weapons and tactics to improve our capability to defeat hardened bunkers. He retired from the government as a GM-15 in 1993 and began work with Logicon Research and Development Associates (now Northrop Grumman) where he is currently employed. His position with Northrop Grumman is Senior Research Scientist where he continues work in the area of testing and evaluation of weapons, advanced weapon employment tactics, and development of advanced weapons effects models.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Clounch
David Clounch
Executive Director, IDnet of Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Clounch studied physics, engineering, and computer science at California State University's at Fullerton and Hayward, and received a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science in 1983. Employed as a software engineer for over twenty years, he has maintained an active interest in physics and cosmology and has followed the controversy in origins science since the 1970's. He has two children in high school and is interested in promoting objectivity and academic freedom in science education.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 28 2006, 05:24 AM)
Why even bother to respond to what it says? Just ignore it. It's a troll- it's Faux.
I agree. His posts are so LAME anyway they put me to sleep.
But I think the other trolls who come here only to attack serve a purpose. It shows just how desperate their side is. They can't stand toe to toe with the facts so like Bush, they attack on personal levels. It just confirms for me the obvious Rove connection. I hope they continue.
I agree. His posts are so LAME anyway they put me to sleep.
But I think the other trolls who come here only to attack serve a purpose. It shows just how desperate their side is. They can't stand toe to toe with the facts so like Bush, they attack on personal levels. It just confirms for me the obvious Rove connection. I hope they continue.
QUOTE (JamesX+Jan 28 2006, 07:48 AM)
QUOTE
You've been reading the thread for a month and your sole contribution after all of that is to call someone a sock puppet.
I'm making an honest observation and I think it's relevant. Having read all of this thread, it's plainly obvious that Schneibster is fu<king around with multiple IDs. He's made several blatant slip ups with his log-ins and can't seem to keep his personas separate stylistically, either. This multiple personality game along with his namecalling and attempts to dehumanize his opponents by referring to them as "it" suggests that we may be dealing with a seriously disturbed individual here.
Faux said this very thing almost word for word. No irony here...
Other than attack peoples character in the absence of evidence to support the demolition theory, what good has this morons post been to the thread?
If hes not Faux he sure acts like him...
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 25 2006, 05:23 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 24 2006, 05:08 AM)
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.
OK, I retract my claim that you were asking to be taught a course on elastic dynamic analysis on the forum.
However, those there that did have some understanding of it(JU specifically) obviously saw its value in analyzing the collapse. JU states that he has used eda but not in buildings but, IIRC, in aircraft design. IMO, your continued questions regarding the exact nature of the applicability of eda to the collapse would have required JU to take a course on that application of eda and then get back to you. I don't blame him for exiting the discussion at that point. Can you tell me what your reaction would have been had he stated this? I think i know, you would have then claimed that he did not know that eda was applicable, Foxx would have claimed victory and that JU was admitting defeat.
If you go to the bottom of the page of Bazant and Zhou's paper you will find more than one reference (IIRC) to books on the subject. They won't be available on the internet(except perhaps to purchase), few textbooks are.
Personally I get lost in the math of this analysis quickly. Too long since I did anything close to this(30 years in fact). However the basic principles seem straight forward and with a little intensive study I might be able to get a good handle on it. Like you though , I do have other commitments and responsibilities, work, family, etc. I simply don't have the continuous blocks of time required to do this. Nor do I really have the inclination to. It sounds like you at least have the later and I assume that you are much younger and unmarried( in my mind's eye anyway, perhaps I'm incorrect) and thus may have a lot more spare time.
I can assure you I do recognize that BZ are simplifying the situation in the towers to make the calculations less complex.
So basically I am saying that IMHO you have gotten to the level on this topic where if you want more you are going to have to study it yourself. Basically you have all that others can tell you about riding a bike, now you have to actually get on one . To stretch this analogy (and here is where we lose Foxx if he is following this. He does not do well with analogies, especially stretched ones
) JU knows how to ride an ACME ten speed and you are asking him not only how to ride a bike but also how to ride an ACES ten speed.
IMO, BZ is basically worthless. While most of my bitter criticism re BZ was inspired more by how their paper was being used than by what B&Z actually wrote (here I confess I did confuse the two, as well as basically forgetting about the inelastic part of their paper after I debunked the elastic part of their paper), I was still being charitable when I suggested that their "elastic dynamic analysis" part of their paper may have merely been motivation to show that a consideration of inelastic deformations is necessary.
It seems to me that B&Z presented the elastic part of their paper because they wanted to convey the impression that "something" bad 'must have happened' or 'may have happened'.
Let's assume that one of these is the case.
>> If you adopt the "may have happened" interpretation, that is basically OK, because none of your peers will take you too seriously, so they will grant you some leeway to be thinking outside of the box.
(Of course, what is not OK is for others to then take the statement in the other sense of "must have happened")
>> If you adopt the "must have happened" interpretation, you now have a huge problem, with B&Z drawing conclusions from a clearly flawed method of analysis. If you are a FEMA Fairy Tale proponent, you may draw a sense of reasurring confirmation from this, but only until somebody shows the flaws in this line of inquiry and draws the obvious conclusion that, were B&Z to truly to have intended this interpretation, they will have discredited themselves.
The most charitable, yet realistic approach to take is the "may have happened". I don't consider the "well, they were just providing motivation for their inelastic analysis" as realistic, even if it's even more charitable than this.
In either of the charitable interpretations, we still cannot ascribe any intrinsic validity to "elastic dynamic analysis" as a means of understanding the collapse. My reading of JayUtah is that he does not see things this way.
Since I choose to be charitable to JayUtah and BZ, I will simply say that I believe JayUtah misunderstood the significance of this part of BZ's paper. I would be interested in hearing, from him, after reading this thread, what he then believes of BZ's use of 'elastic dynamic analysis'. However, as previously noted, I concluded that he lost any desire to respond to my posts, so I don't expect this information to be forthcoming.
The inelastic part of BZ has much greater potential for telling us something significant about possible collapse scenarios. (The elastic part has none.)
However, as I have recently noted, BZ's inelastic model is constrained in ways* that seem to
a) contradict the visible evidence
b ) contradict my intuitive notions about what the effects of cross bracing would have been **
c) is not justified by B&Z in any way (that I could detect)
d) may well be quite valid if h << r, where r is a typical radius of curvature for buckles (instead, h >> r )
Furthermore, were the constraints more realistic, I believe BZ would completely fall apart. The energy is dissipated in the buckle, not the unbuckled parts of the columns. If the buckles are allowed to occur multiple times in a floor length h, and furthermore the physics/engineering is such that they actually do, and furthermore if buckling occurs in a progressive fashion from top to bottom, this would result in much more energy dissipation in buckling of the first floor. Also, the decrease in potential energy between buckles would then be far less than otherwise.
* constraints are: columns are rigid rods, with length = h and buckling must occur at lengths at least 1 floor (n>=1) below the collapse zone
In fairness to BZ, I relate the following: I was in Wal-Mart 2 days ago, and saw a toy snake that was made of about 30 pieces of plastic, that swiveled about joints that ran perpendicularly to the length of the snake. The connections from swiveled joint to swiveled joint were rigid.
Well, I couldn't resist! I stretched out the snake vertically, held the bottom, and let go of the head. It basically "buckled" in the middle section, though the buckling was rather rounded, since the "plastic hinges" each only had a limited range to rotate through.
I repeated the "experiment" twice, with the same result.
Thus, an isolated, unbraced toy snake appear to behave in a manner susceptible to BZ's description, though even this conclusion is somewhat flimsy in that the snake was constrained to only "buckle" in a single plane. Still, we can charitably score one for BZ, in the case of the Wal-Mart toy snake!! Woo-hoo!!
However, a lattice consisting of a bunch of toy snakes with cross bracing, with the snakes rotated so that their planar directional constraints varied, would represent a very different system, and one more analogous to the WTC frame.
** The current state of my intuition on this score is different than it was earlier. Formerly, I expected a symetric frame/lattice having roughly the properties of the WTC frames to bend/buckle towards the center, but somewhat closer to the top because the columns were weaker going upwards. In a theoretical model, perfect symmetry is possible. In a more realistic model, this is not the case, and some columns will buckle sooner. The first columns that buckle are thus have to contend with lateral resistance due to all the rest of the columns, as well, where the resistance forces are propagated through cross bracings, trusses, and the like.
But a few inches from the top of the first sound storey, there is 'no' cross bracing, which consequently predisposes the location of the buckle to be constrained to this region (call it roughly = h/4).
Note that these considerations imply that if the WTC buildings had been made without the spandrels, then BZ's inelastic model might have been applicable, and the buildings may have well collapsed globally once a local collapse got going.
Looks like the spandrels weren't there just for decorative purposes.....
An influential group of prominent experts and scholars have joined together alleging that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. The members of this new non-partisan association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts contend that books and articles by members and associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the official story about the attack on the Pentagon. They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.
Currently, S9/11T has three categories of members: full members (FM), who have or had academic appointments or the equivalent; associate members (AM), who have backgrounds and interests relevant to 9/11 research; and student members (SM), who are concerned about these issues and want to pursue them; as follows:
Scott Daniel (FM)
Physics and Astronomy, BYU
Jeffrey Farrer (FM)
Physics/ Materials Science, BYU
Steven Jones (FM)
Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum
I love their self proclamation of being "influential", so I cut the list down to just Full Members who had listed degrees that in any way qualified them to actually have anything to do with the position they claim.
This left this small group.
A little inbred, don't you think?
Talk about a circle of jerks.
Arthur
Let me know when the english teacher and other non STRUCTUAL ENGINEERS pass a peer reviewed paper saying the buildings couldn't have fallen due to fire.
An excellent point, thank-you. We need more structural engineers to join Scholars for 911 Truth, on both sides of the argument. Activists, please oblige this very relevant complaint of Sensable's and alert Ph.D. construction engineers (as well as advanced students in that department) at a university near you to Scholars for 911 Truth.
Personal appeals are much better than email. We all get way too much email.....
Until then I'll take the word of more qualifed people...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
Henri Gavin, Duke University
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
Science isn't about taking the word of people. It's about "knowing", according to a relevant scientific paradigm, and within the limits of that paradigm. Even this statement is a bit misleading, as science tends to be tentative, and ultimately most all non-trivial conclusions are assumed to have a probability of certainty < 1.
Your posting of all these names strikes me as misleading.
Do you, or don't you, believe that all these people peer reviewed Bazant - Zhou's paper?
If anybody has time to contact these folks to find out who exactly thought BZ to be hunky-dory, I'd appreciate it if you could get them to comment on my and Gordon't objections to BZ. I contend that their paper is basically useless, hence I expect that it's not taken seriously by the structural engineering community.
BTW, have there been any analyses and/or critical reviews of NIST's report in structural engineering journals?
An influential group of prominent experts and scholars have joined together alleging that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. The members of this new non-partisan association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts contend that books and articles by members and associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the official story about the attack on the Pentagon. They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.
Currently, S9/11T has three categories of members: full members (FM), who have or had academic appointments or the equivalent; associate members (AM), who have backgrounds and interests relevant to 9/11 research; and student members (SM), who are concerned about these issues and want to pursue them; as follows:
Scott Daniel (FM)
Physics and Astronomy, BYU
Jeffrey Farrer (FM)
Physics/ Materials Science, BYU
Steven Jones (FM)
Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum
I love their self proclamation of being "influential", so I cut the list down to just Full Members who had listed degrees that in any way qualified them to actually have anything to do with the position they claim.
This left this small group.
A little inbred, don't you think?
Talk about a circle of jerks.
Arthur
Frank Carmen (AM)
Physics Ph.D., BYU
may not have an academic appointment at this time, but anybody who gets a Ph.D. from an accredited university will certainly have a strong background with which to approach various aspects of the WTC collapses.
The fact that he is also from BYU means very little, one way or another. It's almost certainly just a consequence of the fact that ice-breaker Jones is from BYU, and presented a seminar on the WTC collapses, locally.
If activists do their job, there will soon be comparatively many more non-BYU members.
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.
OK, I retract my claim that you were asking to be taught a course on elastic dynamic analysis on the forum.
However, those there that did have some understanding of it(JU specifically) obviously saw its value in analyzing the collapse. JU states that he has used eda but not in buildings but, IIRC, in aircraft design. IMO, your continued questions regarding the exact nature of the applicability of eda to the collapse would have required JU to take a course on that application of eda and then get back to you. I don't blame him for exiting the discussion at that point. Can you tell me what your reaction would have been had he stated this? I think i know, you would have then claimed that he did not know that eda was applicable, Foxx would have claimed victory and that JU was admitting defeat.
If you go to the bottom of the page of Bazant and Zhou's paper you will find more than one reference (IIRC) to books on the subject. They won't be available on the internet(except perhaps to purchase), few textbooks are.
Personally I get lost in the math of this analysis quickly. Too long since I did anything close to this(30 years in fact). However the basic principles seem straight forward and with a little intensive study I might be able to get a good handle on it. Like you though , I do have other commitments and responsibilities, work, family, etc. I simply don't have the continuous blocks of time required to do this. Nor do I really have the inclination to. It sounds like you at least have the later and I assume that you are much younger and unmarried( in my mind's eye anyway, perhaps I'm incorrect) and thus may have a lot more spare time.
I can assure you I do recognize that BZ are simplifying the situation in the towers to make the calculations less complex.
So basically I am saying that IMHO you have gotten to the level on this topic where if you want more you are going to have to study it yourself. Basically you have all that others can tell you about riding a bike, now you have to actually get on one . To stretch this analogy (and here is where we lose Foxx if he is following this. He does not do well with analogies, especially stretched ones
) JU knows how to ride an ACME ten speed and you are asking him not only how to ride a bike but also how to ride an ACES ten speed. IMO, BZ is basically worthless. While most of my bitter criticism re BZ was inspired more by how their paper was being used than by what B&Z actually wrote (here I confess I did confuse the two, as well as basically forgetting about the inelastic part of their paper after I debunked the elastic part of their paper), I was still being charitable when I suggested that their "elastic dynamic analysis" part of their paper may have merely been motivation to show that a consideration of inelastic deformations is necessary.
It seems to me that B&Z presented the elastic part of their paper because they wanted to convey the impression that "something" bad 'must have happened' or 'may have happened'.
Let's assume that one of these is the case.
>> If you adopt the "may have happened" interpretation, that is basically OK, because none of your peers will take you too seriously, so they will grant you some leeway to be thinking outside of the box.
(Of course, what is not OK is for others to then take the statement in the other sense of "must have happened")
>> If you adopt the "must have happened" interpretation, you now have a huge problem, with B&Z drawing conclusions from a clearly flawed method of analysis. If you are a FEMA Fairy Tale proponent, you may draw a sense of reasurring confirmation from this, but only until somebody shows the flaws in this line of inquiry and draws the obvious conclusion that, were B&Z to truly to have intended this interpretation, they will have discredited themselves.
The most charitable, yet realistic approach to take is the "may have happened". I don't consider the "well, they were just providing motivation for their inelastic analysis" as realistic, even if it's even more charitable than this.
In either of the charitable interpretations, we still cannot ascribe any intrinsic validity to "elastic dynamic analysis" as a means of understanding the collapse. My reading of JayUtah is that he does not see things this way.
Since I choose to be charitable to JayUtah and BZ, I will simply say that I believe JayUtah misunderstood the significance of this part of BZ's paper. I would be interested in hearing, from him, after reading this thread, what he then believes of BZ's use of 'elastic dynamic analysis'. However, as previously noted, I concluded that he lost any desire to respond to my posts, so I don't expect this information to be forthcoming.
The inelastic part of BZ has much greater potential for telling us something significant about possible collapse scenarios. (The elastic part has none.)
However, as I have recently noted, BZ's inelastic model is constrained in ways* that seem to
a) contradict the visible evidence
b ) contradict my intuitive notions about what the effects of cross bracing would have been **
c) is not justified by B&Z in any way (that I could detect)
d) may well be quite valid if h << r, where r is a typical radius of curvature for buckles (instead, h >> r )
Furthermore, were the constraints more realistic, I believe BZ would completely fall apart. The energy is dissipated in the buckle, not the unbuckled parts of the columns. If the buckles are allowed to occur multiple times in a floor length h, and furthermore the physics/engineering is such that they actually do, and furthermore if buckling occurs in a progressive fashion from top to bottom, this would result in much more energy dissipation in buckling of the first floor. Also, the decrease in potential energy between buckles would then be far less than otherwise.
* constraints are: columns are rigid rods, with length = h and buckling must occur at lengths at least 1 floor (n>=1) below the collapse zone
In fairness to BZ, I relate the following: I was in Wal-Mart 2 days ago, and saw a toy snake that was made of about 30 pieces of plastic, that swiveled about joints that ran perpendicularly to the length of the snake. The connections from swiveled joint to swiveled joint were rigid.
Well, I couldn't resist! I stretched out the snake vertically, held the bottom, and let go of the head. It basically "buckled" in the middle section, though the buckling was rather rounded, since the "plastic hinges" each only had a limited range to rotate through.
I repeated the "experiment" twice, with the same result.
Thus, an isolated, unbraced toy snake appear to behave in a manner susceptible to BZ's description, though even this conclusion is somewhat flimsy in that the snake was constrained to only "buckle" in a single plane. Still, we can charitably score one for BZ, in the case of the Wal-Mart toy snake!! Woo-hoo!!
However, a lattice consisting of a bunch of toy snakes with cross bracing, with the snakes rotated so that their planar directional constraints varied, would represent a very different system, and one more analogous to the WTC frame.
** The current state of my intuition on this score is different than it was earlier. Formerly, I expected a symetric frame/lattice having roughly the properties of the WTC frames to bend/buckle towards the center, but somewhat closer to the top because the columns were weaker going upwards. In a theoretical model, perfect symmetry is possible. In a more realistic model, this is not the case, and some columns will buckle sooner. The first columns that buckle are thus have to contend with lateral resistance due to all the rest of the columns, as well, where the resistance forces are propagated through cross bracings, trusses, and the like.
But a few inches from the top of the first sound storey, there is 'no' cross bracing, which consequently predisposes the location of the buckle to be constrained to this region (call it roughly = h/4).
Note that these considerations imply that if the WTC buildings had been made without the spandrels, then BZ's inelastic model might have been applicable, and the buildings may have well collapsed globally once a local collapse got going.
Looks like the spandrels weren't there just for decorative purposes.....
QUOTE
An influential group of prominent experts and scholars have joined together alleging that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. The members of this new non-partisan association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts contend that books and articles by members and associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the official story about the attack on the Pentagon. They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
An influential group of prominent experts and scholars have joined together alleging that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. The members of this new non-partisan association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C. These experts contend that books and articles by members and associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the official story about the attack on the Pentagon. They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda. |
Currently, S9/11T has three categories of members: full members (FM), who have or had academic appointments or the equivalent; associate members (AM), who have backgrounds and interests relevant to 9/11 research; and student members (SM), who are concerned about these issues and want to pursue them; as follows:
Scott Daniel (FM)
Physics and Astronomy, BYU
Jeffrey Farrer (FM)
Physics/ Materials Science, BYU
Steven Jones (FM)
Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum
I love their self proclamation of being "influential", so I cut the list down to just Full Members who had listed degrees that in any way qualified them to actually have anything to do with the position they claim.
This left this small group.
A little inbred, don't you think?
Talk about a circle of jerks.
Arthur
for more clarity initial velocity V(o) will be written as lower case v, final velocity as upper case V
Plugging in the known factors we have
12= 0.5(32)t^2 + vt
rearranging
0=16t^2 + vt - 12
using the solution for this quadratic equation we get
t= (v+sqrt(v^2 +768))/32
The change in velocity written here as 'u' , at each floor is
u= at
substituting the above eq'n for t
u=32(v + sqrt(v^2+768))/32
u=v + sqrt(v^2 + 768)
Final velocity at each floor is
V=v+u
V=v + sqrt(v^2+768)
Not as you list above
Vf = (Vo^2 + 768)^0.5 (in my nomenclature yours would be V=sqrt(v^2 + 768) )
This would make your calculations of time and velocity slower
If my algebra is off somewhere I invite correction.
Found my problem. Dropped a minus sign.
Yes V=sqrt(v^2 +768)
Plugging in the known factors we have
12= 0.5(32)t^2 + vt
rearranging
0=16t^2 + vt - 12
using the solution for this quadratic equation we get
t= (v+sqrt(v^2 +768))/32
The change in velocity written here as 'u' , at each floor is
u= at
substituting the above eq'n for t
u=32(v + sqrt(v^2+768))/32
u=v + sqrt(v^2 + 768)
Final velocity at each floor is
V=v+u
V=v + sqrt(v^2+768)
Not as you list above
Vf = (Vo^2 + 768)^0.5 (in my nomenclature yours would be V=sqrt(v^2 + 768) )
This would make your calculations of time and velocity slower
If my algebra is off somewhere I invite correction.
Found my problem. Dropped a minus sign.
Yes V=sqrt(v^2 +768)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 28 2006, 03:04 PM)
Let me know when the english teacher and other non STRUCTUAL ENGINEERS pass a peer reviewed paper saying the buildings couldn't have fallen due to fire.
An excellent point, thank-you. We need more structural engineers to join Scholars for 911 Truth, on both sides of the argument. Activists, please oblige this very relevant complaint of Sensable's and alert Ph.D. construction engineers (as well as advanced students in that department) at a university near you to Scholars for 911 Truth.
Personal appeals are much better than email. We all get way too much email.....
QUOTE
Until then I'll take the word of more qualifed people...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
Henri Gavin, Duke University
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
Science isn't about taking the word of people. It's about "knowing", according to a relevant scientific paradigm, and within the limits of that paradigm. Even this statement is a bit misleading, as science tends to be tentative, and ultimately most all non-trivial conclusions are assumed to have a probability of certainty < 1.
Your posting of all these names strikes me as misleading.
Do you, or don't you, believe that all these people peer reviewed Bazant - Zhou's paper?
If anybody has time to contact these folks to find out who exactly thought BZ to be hunky-dory, I'd appreciate it if you could get them to comment on my and Gordon't objections to BZ. I contend that their paper is basically useless, hence I expect that it's not taken seriously by the structural engineering community.
BTW, have there been any analyses and/or critical reviews of NIST's report in structural engineering journals?
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 28 2006, 04:09 PM)
QUOTE
An influential group of prominent experts and scholars have joined together alleging that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. The members of this new non-partisan association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts contend that books and articles by members and associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the official story about the attack on the Pentagon. They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
An influential group of prominent experts and scholars have joined together alleging that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. The members of this new non-partisan association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C. These experts contend that books and articles by members and associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the official story about the attack on the Pentagon. They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda. |
Currently, S9/11T has three categories of members: full members (FM), who have or had academic appointments or the equivalent; associate members (AM), who have backgrounds and interests relevant to 9/11 research; and student members (SM), who are concerned about these issues and want to pursue them; as follows:
Scott Daniel (FM)
Physics and Astronomy, BYU
Jeffrey Farrer (FM)
Physics/ Materials Science, BYU
Steven Jones (FM)
Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum
I love their self proclamation of being "influential", so I cut the list down to just Full Members who had listed degrees that in any way qualified them to actually have anything to do with the position they claim.
This left this small group.
A little inbred, don't you think?
Talk about a circle of jerks.
Arthur
Frank Carmen (AM)
Physics Ph.D., BYU
may not have an academic appointment at this time, but anybody who gets a Ph.D. from an accredited university will certainly have a strong background with which to approach various aspects of the WTC collapses.
The fact that he is also from BYU means very little, one way or another. It's almost certainly just a consequence of the fact that ice-breaker Jones is from BYU, and presented a seminar on the WTC collapses, locally.
If activists do their job, there will soon be comparatively many more non-BYU members.
Metamars writes:
Actually I feel that the most serious of those who believe that gravity alone was enough to collapse these buildings, use B-Z as a starting point and never as a "must have happened like this". It shows, as did you own analysis that 30+ times the normal load was imparted to the lower floor. This initiates an elastic response from the columns. The columns were not designed to react to loads in this fashion, a sudden increase in vertical load.
Actually I feel that the most serious of those who believe that gravity alone was enough to collapse these buildings, use B-Z as a starting point and never as a "must have happened like this". It shows, as did you own analysis that 30+ times the normal load was imparted to the lower floor. This initiates an elastic response from the columns. The columns were not designed to react to loads in this fashion, a sudden increase in vertical load.
The most charitable, yet realistic approach to take is the "may have happened". I don't consider the "well, they were just providing motivation for their inelastic analysis" as realistic, even if it's even more charitable than this.
In either of the charitable interpretations, we still cannot ascribe any intrinsic validity to "elastic dynamic analysis" as a means of understanding the collapse. My reading of JayUtah is that he does not see things this way.
Since I choose to be charitable to JayUtah and BZ, I will simply say that I believe JayUtah misunderstood the significance of this part of BZ's paper. I would be interested in hearing, from him, after reading this thread, what he then believes of BZ's use of 'elastic dynamic analysis'. However, as previously noted, I concluded that he lost any desire to respond to my posts, so I don't expect this information to be forthcoming.
You would have to bring this up with Jay Utah. As you are aware he is not a poster on this forum. If you wish to continue this with him, contact him. You are registered at AH. re-post this there and perhaps you will get a response. Try e-mailing Bazant himself perhaps with your objections. Keep in mind that yours will be one of many, mostly true crackpots and some of an actual threatening nature.
JU has not posted on that thread at AH for some time. His main interest is of course Apollo, not 9/11, and as all of us do, has a real job as well.
How does the visible evidence contradict B-Z?
The cross bracing was horizontal only at at the level of the floors. It looks to be in place as much or more, for a support of the floor of the core section, as for actual cross bracing purposes. The 12 foot distance between floors had no bracing and no diagonal bracing was used. Buckling, at least at that first impacted floor, would be constrained largely to that 12 foot distance. Any buckling through a larger vertical distance would have also had to buckle the cross bracing or snap the connection between column and beam. What would you say would be the max deflection over that 12 feet could be on a column before kneeling occurs? What radius of the buckling curve would that represent? Would not 'h' always be much smaller than 'r'?
How does the visible evidence contradict B-Z?
The cross bracing was horizontal only at at the level of the floors. It looks to be in place as much or more, for a support of the floor of the core section, as for actual cross bracing purposes. The 12 foot distance between floors had no bracing and no diagonal bracing was used. Buckling, at least at that first impacted floor, would be constrained largely to that 12 foot distance. Any buckling through a larger vertical distance would have also had to buckle the cross bracing or snap the connection between column and beam. What would you say would be the max deflection over that 12 feet could be on a column before kneeling occurs? What radius of the buckling curve would that represent? Would not 'h' always be much smaller than 'r'?
Furthermore, were the constraints more realistic, I believe BZ would completely fall apart. The energy is dissipated in the buckle, not the unbuckled parts of the columns. If the buckles are allowed to occur multiple times in a floor length h, and furthermore the physics/engineering is such that they actually do, and furthermore if buckling occurs in a progressive fashion from top to bottom, this would result in much more energy dissipation in buckling of the first floor. Also, the decrease in potential energy between buckles would then be far less than otherwise.
Why would the buckling occur in more than one location along that 12 foot vertical distance? A simple experiment with dry spaghetti, where I can easily impact a vertical force much greater than the design load shows that it very rarely buckles or breaks at more than one spot along its length. It is a very simplified analogy but I am not sure where it would breakdown in showing that once the first buckle starts, secondary buckles (in an originally stiff column) do not develop. Probably because as soon as it starts buckling , that location becomes the weakest point.
NOTE TO FOXX, ,, see others use analogy as well.
Perhaps you could buy 16 of them and glue Popsicle sticks arose them laterally every 10th or so joint, making sure to randomize the bending plane. It may well stand on its own, though perhaps wobbly. One thing is for sure, every 'column' will be bent. What this proves through is beyond me since there are at least ten locations along its length where there is essentially no resistance to buckling, no elastic response whatsoever. They may well buckle at more than one location.
I would prefer a 4X4 grid of uncooked spaghetti with similar glued cross bracing. Then , by slowly adding weight determine the max load that the structure can take(ie until failure). Next , rebuild it and suspend 6 times the max load just on the top of the structure but with out that weight actually being on the structure yet.(if the WTC towers were designed to withstand 5 times typical loading and BZ shows 30 times typical loading was imparted we need 6 times max load)
Now allow that weight to go but only as far half the distance to the the first cross brace. You will need a video filming in slow motion.
Do the columns buckle at more than one location of that first 'floor'?
I would love to do this but alas there are two problems.
1) I don't have the time
2) my wife's reaction to this
NOTE TO FOXX, ,, see others use analogy as well.
Perhaps you could buy 16 of them and glue Popsicle sticks arose them laterally every 10th or so joint, making sure to randomize the bending plane. It may well stand on its own, though perhaps wobbly. One thing is for sure, every 'column' will be bent. What this proves through is beyond me since there are at least ten locations along its length where there is essentially no resistance to buckling, no elastic response whatsoever. They may well buckle at more than one location.
I would prefer a 4X4 grid of uncooked spaghetti with similar glued cross bracing. Then , by slowly adding weight determine the max load that the structure can take(ie until failure). Next , rebuild it and suspend 6 times the max load just on the top of the structure but with out that weight actually being on the structure yet.(if the WTC towers were designed to withstand 5 times typical loading and BZ shows 30 times typical loading was imparted we need 6 times max load)
Now allow that weight to go but only as far half the distance to the the first cross brace. You will need a video filming in slow motion.
Do the columns buckle at more than one location of that first 'floor'?
I would love to do this but alas there are two problems.
1) I don't have the time
2) my wife's reaction to this
** The current state of my intuition on this score is different than it was earlier. Formerly, I expected a symetric frame/lattice having roughly the properties of the WTC frames to bend/buckle towards the center, but somewhat closer to the top because the columns were weaker going upwards. In a theoretical model, perfect symmetry is possible. In a more realistic model, this is not the case, and some columns will buckle sooner. The first columns that buckle are thus have to contend with lateral resistance due to all the rest of the columns, as well, where the resistance forces are propagated through cross bracings, trusses, and the like.
But a few inches from the top of the first sound storey, there is 'no' cross bracing, which consequently predisposes the location of the buckle to be constrained to this region (call it roughly = h/4).
Note that these considerations imply that if the WTC buildings had been made without the spandrels, then BZ's inelastic model might have been applicable, and the buildings may have well collapsed globally once a local collapse got going.
Looks like the spandrels weren't there just for decorative purposes.....
Unless your consideration that the buckling would be absorbed along the entire length of the column, from basement to collapse floor is incorrect and instead each floor distance , 12 feet of column bore the majority of buckling force.
Such as Bazant ot the Ph.D.'s that worked on the NIST report?
At least a few of them did indeed peer review the paper prior to publication. Given the hub-bub about it subsequent to its publication I would be surprised that none of the others did.
How many qualified readers of this article amoung the subscribers have registered complaints about it that mirror or are similar to yours?
Have you attempted to contact JOM editors to find out?
Have you sent your objections to B-Z's analysis to JOM or to Bazant himself?
Such as Bazant ot the Ph.D.'s that worked on the NIST report?
Absolutely. And I would love it if they defended their paper, against the complaints in this thread. Either that, or retracted it. Until now, I did not consider either of those possibilities very likely, as I have no Ph.D., and that is not the way that the academia game is usually played.
With the advent of Scholar's for 911 Truth, hopefully somebody with more standing than myself will press the issue.
At least a few of them did indeed peer review the paper prior to publication.
Of course. (Am assuming that the "editorial board" = 'peers that do the reviewing' )
At least a few of them did indeed peer review the paper prior to publication.
Of course. (Am assuming that the "editorial board" = 'peers that do the reviewing' )
How many qualified readers of this article amoung the subscribers have registered complaints about it that mirror or are similar to yours?
Good question. Another good question is: how many structural engineers have spoken out in support of the paper?
Have you attempted to contact JOM editors to find out?
No. This was the point of posting the suggestion. In the hope that somebody might pursue it. I do not expect ferreting out this info to be easy. If BZ's paper is worthless, do you honestly think that the "gatekeepers" of the publication that it appeared in might not be a bit embarrassed?
Furthermore, my success rate with ferreting out technical information from engineers, even in the form of leads, isn't very good. Of course, I don't really know how many real "engineers" were at AH, and suspect precious few of them.
No. This was the point of posting the suggestion. In the hope that somebody might pursue it. I do not expect ferreting out this info to be easy. If BZ's paper is worthless, do you honestly think that the "gatekeepers" of the publication that it appeared in might not be a bit embarrassed?
Furthermore, my success rate with ferreting out technical information from engineers, even in the form of leads, isn't very good. Of course, I don't really know how many real "engineers" were at AH, and suspect precious few of them.
Have you sent your objections to B-Z's analysis to JOM or to Bazant himself?
No, but see my previous post. Also, note that I had already pointed Dr. Jones to my efforts re BZ, in the hope that somebody with more standing would take up the issue.
Perhaps Professor Jones does not feel that BZ needs rebuttal beyond what he has mentioned in his paper, but if so, I would respectfully disagree. Even if it's understood amongst construction engineers that the paper is not to be taken any more seriously than, say: one in the physics community on the time machine characteristics of a perfectly symmetrical rotating black hole, into which not a single spec of dust can fall (thus destroying the symmetry), and which depends on negative energy of a sort that has never been detected, that is not how people outside of the structural engineering community have interpreted the paper.
A cop-out IMHO.
If you are worried that JOM will not take you seriously then it certainly cannot be me who writes them. You claim a B.Sc. in physics IIRC and thus would have more qualification wrt to writing to JOM then I.
Is AH the only place where you have asked for engineering comment on BZ?
A quick google search produced many engineering forums.
I did a search on two for the word 'Bazant' and this one had several hits for that word. You could try there.
This one did not return anything on WTC or Bazant but it is an engineering forum, you could ask there.
Asking me to show you where you are wrong or where B-Z is better than yours is a straw man attack. Asking me to have JU do it is no better. Requiring that the only engineer that you have actually have contact with to do so isn't much better given that he stopped speaking to the issue and you stopped posting where he is.
A cop-out IMHO.
If you are worried that JOM will not take you seriously then it certainly cannot be me who writes them. You claim a B.Sc. in physics IIRC and thus would have more qualification wrt to writing to JOM then I.
Is AH the only place where you have asked for engineering comment on BZ?
A quick google search produced many engineering forums.
I did a search on two for the word 'Bazant' and this one had several hits for that word. You could try there.
This one did not return anything on WTC or Bazant but it is an engineering forum, you could ask there.
Asking me to show you where you are wrong or where B-Z is better than yours is a straw man attack. Asking me to have JU do it is no better. Requiring that the only engineer that you have actually have contact with to do so isn't much better given that he stopped speaking to the issue and you stopped posting where he is.
Huh? What is the straw man?
I never asked you, specifically, to write JOM. I asked you to write JayUtah, if you had contact with him. Furthermore, my request for both Scheibster and JayUtah was to write essays containing their strongest arguments. This need not have anything at all to do with BZ or my criticisms of BZ, yet you somehow want to throw this into the mix.
Where have I "required" anybody to do anything???
You seem to be implying that because no serious engineer has so far responded to my criticisms, that I take this as somehow proof of the infallibility of them. The straw man is an assertion that there would not be this lack of response if my criticisms are essentially correct - is that it?
If so, ask yourself some obvious questions, like "Why does metamars want BZ discussed and debunked at a higher level? Why, in fact, did he encourage Professor Jones to do just this, beyond the point that he has already gone to in his paper?" and "Why does metamars encourage the dissemination of serious technical works to the individuals most capable of understanding them and contributing to the debate, and, consequently, possibly point out errors in metamars' criticisms?" and "Why does metamars request activists to make structural engineers aware of Scholars for 911 Truth"?
If your answer is, "Well, in this way if nobody discusses metamars' and gordons' (at least implicit) criticisms of BZ, he can then claim victory", I must say I find this line of thinking rather bizarre. If BZ's paper is of any value at all, and structural engineers join the debate, do you honestly think that they will not defend the paper, even if BZ will not? How many physicists do you know who will not defend relativity theory?
Perhaps you had some other straw man in mind. If so, do tell us what it is. Otherwise, I must assume that your straw man argument accusation not only has no merit, but is a straw man argument, in and of itself.
A straw man squared, if you will.
(Another reason for kicking the debate to a higher level is that I don't have time for pointing out the silliness of arguments and accusations such as this one. Serous debaters with serious technical backgrounds will not be interested in wasting time like this. I certainly hope that Fetzer limits any forums to serious individuals, who can think clearly.)
Asking me, with no engineering degree, to show in technical detail, where B-Z goes right and you go wrong
Asking me, with no engineering degree, to show in technical detail, where B-Z goes right and you go wrong
I never asked you, specifically, to write JOM. I asked you to write JayUtah, if you had contact with him. Furthermore, my request for both Scheibster and JayUtah was to write essays containing their strongest arguments. This need not have anything at all to do with BZ or my criticisms of BZ, yet you somehow want to throw this into the mix.
So write JOM already. What the hell is stopping you? Just do it and stop complaining that JOM hasn't addressed the issue.
As for my contacting JU, I have already stated that I have never had anymore contact with him than you have had. I have never met the man nor corresponded with him other than in the forums of AH and BAUT.
You are registered at AH and can pm any other member there as well as I can. Yet you want to have me be an intermediary. This isn't high school.
You seem to be implying that because no serious engineer has so far responded to my criticisms, that I take this as somehow proof of the infallibility of them. The straw man is an assertion that there would not be this lack of response if my criticisms are essentially correct - is that it?
If so, ask yourself some obvious questions, like "Why does metamars want BZ discussed and debunked at a higher level? Why, in fact, did he encourage Professor Jones to do just this, beyond the point that he has already gone to in his paper?" and "Why does metamars encourage the dissemination of serious technical works to the individuals most capable of understanding them and contributing to the debate, and, consequently, possibly point out errors in metamars' criticisms?" and "Why does metamars request activists to make structural engineers aware of Scholars for 911 Truth"?
I am all for having structural engineers discuss the B-Z report for you. I am not standing in your way. So far you have contacted a total of one engineer who specializes in the aerospace side of things and a physicist.
I am all for having structural engineers discuss the B-Z report for you. I am not standing in your way. So far you have contacted a total of one engineer who specializes in the aerospace side of things and a physicist.
If your answer is, "Well, in this way if nobody discusses metamars' and gordons' (at least implicit) criticisms of BZ, he can then claim victory", I must say I find this line of thinking rather bizarre. If BZ's paper is of any value at all, and structural engineers join the debate, do you honestly think that they will not defend the paper, even if BZ will not? How many physicists do you know who will not defend relativity theory?
In that no structural engineers have questioned B-Z that I know of I see that as implicit agreement. You want explicit agreement. For that you will have to go and ask for it. I am satisfied, so far with implicit agreement. Also I do not want to be the one who goes asking what may be stupid questions of engineers. If that does not bother you because you are so convinced of your own analysis then go for it.
(Another reason for kicking the debate to a higher level is that I don't have time for pointing out the silliness of arguments and accusations such as this one. Serous debaters with serious technical backgrounds will not be interested in wasting time like this. I certainly hope that Fetzer limits any forums to serious individuals, who can think clearly.)
Again, I have no objection to you kicking the debate up to a higher level. You seem to be implying that I do and that I am impeding you in this somehow.
Like they say on the NIKE ads, "just do it".
As for silliness of arguments, I agree.
In this case you keep talking about having engineers discuss this, I keep telling you to contact some, you keep asking me to do it.
You and gordon being the one's with specific problems with B-Z should be the ones doing the asking. Am I to take your analysis and ask an engineer, "this is posted elsewhere, what do you think of it?", then come back here post the response and get your reaction and go back to that engineer ,,,etc. ? Again, I do not want to be intermediary!
So why is it that we have to debate(that's the universal 'we', not just you and me) frater's silliness or reasonwhy's? Arguments about neo-con politics, arguments about the existence of Al-Qeada, about Israeli involvements all creep in here and they are not introduced by me, or Arthur or Schneibster or R.C. or anyone else who one could place on the same side of the table as I. Freater claims it is all physics related.
Why? Because it is an open forum and silliness will creep in but from what I see the majority of it comes from the other side of the table.
QUOTE
IMO, BZ is basically worthless. While most of my bitter criticism re BZ was inspired more by how their paper was being used than by what B&Z actually wrote (here I confess I did confuse the two, as well as basically forgetting about the inelastic part of their paper after I debunked the elastic part of their paper), I was still being charitable when I suggested that their "elastic dynamic analysis" part of their paper may have merely been motivation to show that a consideration of inelastic deformations is necessary.
It seems to me that B&Z presented the elastic part of their paper because they wanted to convey the impression that "something" bad 'must have happened' or 'may have happened'.
Let's assume that one of these is the case.
>> If you adopt the "may have happened" interpretation, that is basically OK, because none of your peers will take you too seriously, so they will grant you some leeway to be thinking outside of the box.
(Of course, what is not OK is for others to then take the statement in the other sense of "must have happened")
>> If you adopt the "must have happened" interpretation, you now have a huge problem, with B&Z drawing conclusions from a clearly flawed method of analysis. If you are a FEMA Fairy Tale proponent, you may draw a sense of reasurring confirmation from this, but only until somebody shows the flaws in this line of inquiry and draws the obvious conclusion that, were B&Z to truly to have intended this interpretation, they will have discredited themselves.
It seems to me that B&Z presented the elastic part of their paper because they wanted to convey the impression that "something" bad 'must have happened' or 'may have happened'.
Let's assume that one of these is the case.
>> If you adopt the "may have happened" interpretation, that is basically OK, because none of your peers will take you too seriously, so they will grant you some leeway to be thinking outside of the box.
(Of course, what is not OK is for others to then take the statement in the other sense of "must have happened")
>> If you adopt the "must have happened" interpretation, you now have a huge problem, with B&Z drawing conclusions from a clearly flawed method of analysis. If you are a FEMA Fairy Tale proponent, you may draw a sense of reasurring confirmation from this, but only until somebody shows the flaws in this line of inquiry and draws the obvious conclusion that, were B&Z to truly to have intended this interpretation, they will have discredited themselves.
Actually I feel that the most serious of those who believe that gravity alone was enough to collapse these buildings, use B-Z as a starting point and never as a "must have happened like this". It shows, as did you own analysis that 30+ times the normal load was imparted to the lower floor. This initiates an elastic response from the columns. The columns were not designed to react to loads in this fashion, a sudden increase in vertical load.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| IMO, BZ is basically worthless. While most of my bitter criticism re BZ was inspired more by how their paper was being used than by what B&Z actually wrote (here I confess I did confuse the two, as well as basically forgetting about the inelastic part of their paper after I debunked the elastic part of their paper), I was still being charitable when I suggested that their "elastic dynamic analysis" part of their paper may have merely been motivation to show that a consideration of inelastic deformations is necessary. It seems to me that B&Z presented the elastic part of their paper because they wanted to convey the impression that "something" bad 'must have happened' or 'may have happened'. Let's assume that one of these is the case. >> If you adopt the "may have happened" interpretation, that is basically OK, because none of your peers will take you too seriously, so they will grant you some leeway to be thinking outside of the box. (Of course, what is not OK is for others to then take the statement in the other sense of "must have happened") >> If you adopt the "must have happened" interpretation, you now have a huge problem, with B&Z drawing conclusions from a clearly flawed method of analysis. If you are a FEMA Fairy Tale proponent, you may draw a sense of reasurring confirmation from this, but only until somebody shows the flaws in this line of inquiry and draws the obvious conclusion that, were B&Z to truly to have intended this interpretation, they will have discredited themselves. |
Actually I feel that the most serious of those who believe that gravity alone was enough to collapse these buildings, use B-Z as a starting point and never as a "must have happened like this". It shows, as did you own analysis that 30+ times the normal load was imparted to the lower floor. This initiates an elastic response from the columns. The columns were not designed to react to loads in this fashion, a sudden increase in vertical load.
The most charitable, yet realistic approach to take is the "may have happened". I don't consider the "well, they were just providing motivation for their inelastic analysis" as realistic, even if it's even more charitable than this.
In either of the charitable interpretations, we still cannot ascribe any intrinsic validity to "elastic dynamic analysis" as a means of understanding the collapse. My reading of JayUtah is that he does not see things this way.
Since I choose to be charitable to JayUtah and BZ, I will simply say that I believe JayUtah misunderstood the significance of this part of BZ's paper. I would be interested in hearing, from him, after reading this thread, what he then believes of BZ's use of 'elastic dynamic analysis'. However, as previously noted, I concluded that he lost any desire to respond to my posts, so I don't expect this information to be forthcoming.
You would have to bring this up with Jay Utah. As you are aware he is not a poster on this forum. If you wish to continue this with him, contact him. You are registered at AH. re-post this there and perhaps you will get a response. Try e-mailing Bazant himself perhaps with your objections. Keep in mind that yours will be one of many, mostly true crackpots and some of an actual threatening nature.
JU has not posted on that thread at AH for some time. His main interest is of course Apollo, not 9/11, and as all of us do, has a real job as well.
QUOTE
The inelastic part of BZ has much greater potential for telling us something significant about possible collapse scenarios. (The elastic part has none.)
However, as I have recently noted, BZ's inelastic model is constrained in ways* that seem to
a) contradict the visible evidence
b ) contradict my intuitive notions about what the effects of cross bracing would have been **
c) is not justified by B&Z in any way (that I could detect)
d) may well be quite valid if h << r, where r is a typical radius of curvature for buckles (instead, h >> r )
However, as I have recently noted, BZ's inelastic model is constrained in ways* that seem to
a) contradict the visible evidence
b ) contradict my intuitive notions about what the effects of cross bracing would have been **
c) is not justified by B&Z in any way (that I could detect)
d) may well be quite valid if h << r, where r is a typical radius of curvature for buckles (instead, h >> r )
How does the visible evidence contradict B-Z?
The cross bracing was horizontal only at at the level of the floors. It looks to be in place as much or more, for a support of the floor of the core section, as for actual cross bracing purposes. The 12 foot distance between floors had no bracing and no diagonal bracing was used. Buckling, at least at that first impacted floor, would be constrained largely to that 12 foot distance. Any buckling through a larger vertical distance would have also had to buckle the cross bracing or snap the connection between column and beam. What would you say would be the max deflection over that 12 feet could be on a column before kneeling occurs? What radius of the buckling curve would that represent? Would not 'h' always be much smaller than 'r'?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The inelastic part of BZ has much greater potential for telling us something significant about possible collapse scenarios. (The elastic part has none.) However, as I have recently noted, BZ's inelastic model is constrained in ways* that seem to a) contradict the visible evidence b ) contradict my intuitive notions about what the effects of cross bracing would have been ** c) is not justified by B&Z in any way (that I could detect) d) may well be quite valid if h << r, where r is a typical radius of curvature for buckles (instead, h >> r ) |
How does the visible evidence contradict B-Z?
The cross bracing was horizontal only at at the level of the floors. It looks to be in place as much or more, for a support of the floor of the core section, as for actual cross bracing purposes. The 12 foot distance between floors had no bracing and no diagonal bracing was used. Buckling, at least at that first impacted floor, would be constrained largely to that 12 foot distance. Any buckling through a larger vertical distance would have also had to buckle the cross bracing or snap the connection between column and beam. What would you say would be the max deflection over that 12 feet could be on a column before kneeling occurs? What radius of the buckling curve would that represent? Would not 'h' always be much smaller than 'r'?
Furthermore, were the constraints more realistic, I believe BZ would completely fall apart. The energy is dissipated in the buckle, not the unbuckled parts of the columns. If the buckles are allowed to occur multiple times in a floor length h, and furthermore the physics/engineering is such that they actually do, and furthermore if buckling occurs in a progressive fashion from top to bottom, this would result in much more energy dissipation in buckling of the first floor. Also, the decrease in potential energy between buckles would then be far less than otherwise.
Why would the buckling occur in more than one location along that 12 foot vertical distance? A simple experiment with dry spaghetti, where I can easily impact a vertical force much greater than the design load shows that it very rarely buckles or breaks at more than one spot along its length. It is a very simplified analogy but I am not sure where it would breakdown in showing that once the first buckle starts, secondary buckles (in an originally stiff column) do not develop. Probably because as soon as it starts buckling , that location becomes the weakest point.
QUOTE
In fairness to BZ, I relate the following: I was in Wal-Mart 2 days ago, and saw a toy snake that was made of about 30 pieces of plastic, that swiveled about joints that ran perpendicularly to the length of the snake. The connections from swiveled joint to swiveled joint were rigid.
Well, I couldn't resist! I stretched out the snake vertically, held the bottom, and let go of the head. It basically "buckled" in the middle section, though the buckling was rather rounded, since the "plastic hinges" each only had a limited range to rotate through.
I repeated the "experiment" twice, with the same result.
Thus, an isolated, unbraced toy snake appear to behave in a manner susceptible to BZ's description, though even this conclusion is somewhat flimsy in that the snake was constrained to only "buckle" in a single plane. Still, we can charitably score one for BZ, in the case of the Wal-Mart toy snake!! Woo-hoo!!
However, a lattice consisting of a bunch of toy snakes with cross bracing, with the snakes rotated so that their planar directional constraints varied, would represent a very different system, and one more analogous to the WTC frame.
Well, I couldn't resist! I stretched out the snake vertically, held the bottom, and let go of the head. It basically "buckled" in the middle section, though the buckling was rather rounded, since the "plastic hinges" each only had a limited range to rotate through.
I repeated the "experiment" twice, with the same result.
Thus, an isolated, unbraced toy snake appear to behave in a manner susceptible to BZ's description, though even this conclusion is somewhat flimsy in that the snake was constrained to only "buckle" in a single plane. Still, we can charitably score one for BZ, in the case of the Wal-Mart toy snake!! Woo-hoo!!
However, a lattice consisting of a bunch of toy snakes with cross bracing, with the snakes rotated so that their planar directional constraints varied, would represent a very different system, and one more analogous to the WTC frame.
NOTE TO FOXX, ,, see others use analogy as well.
Perhaps you could buy 16 of them and glue Popsicle sticks arose them laterally every 10th or so joint, making sure to randomize the bending plane. It may well stand on its own, though perhaps wobbly. One thing is for sure, every 'column' will be bent. What this proves through is beyond me since there are at least ten locations along its length where there is essentially no resistance to buckling, no elastic response whatsoever. They may well buckle at more than one location.
I would prefer a 4X4 grid of uncooked spaghetti with similar glued cross bracing. Then , by slowly adding weight determine the max load that the structure can take(ie until failure). Next , rebuild it and suspend 6 times the max load just on the top of the structure but with out that weight actually being on the structure yet.(if the WTC towers were designed to withstand 5 times typical loading and BZ shows 30 times typical loading was imparted we need 6 times max load)
Now allow that weight to go but only as far half the distance to the the first cross brace. You will need a video filming in slow motion.
Do the columns buckle at more than one location of that first 'floor'?
I would love to do this but alas there are two problems.
1) I don't have the time
2) my wife's reaction to this
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In fairness to BZ, I relate the following: I was in Wal-Mart 2 days ago, and saw a toy snake that was made of about 30 pieces of plastic, that swiveled about joints that ran perpendicularly to the length of the snake. The connections from swiveled joint to swiveled joint were rigid. Well, I couldn't resist! I stretched out the snake vertically, held the bottom, and let go of the head. It basically "buckled" in the middle section, though the buckling was rather rounded, since the "plastic hinges" each only had a limited range to rotate through. I repeated the "experiment" twice, with the same result. Thus, an isolated, unbraced toy snake appear to behave in a manner susceptible to BZ's description, though even this conclusion is somewhat flimsy in that the snake was constrained to only "buckle" in a single plane. Still, we can charitably score one for BZ, in the case of the Wal-Mart toy snake!! Woo-hoo!! However, a lattice consisting of a bunch of toy snakes with cross bracing, with the snakes rotated so that their planar directional constraints varied, would represent a very different system, and one more analogous to the WTC frame. |
NOTE TO FOXX, ,, see others use analogy as well.
Perhaps you could buy 16 of them and glue Popsicle sticks arose them laterally every 10th or so joint, making sure to randomize the bending plane. It may well stand on its own, though perhaps wobbly. One thing is for sure, every 'column' will be bent. What this proves through is beyond me since there are at least ten locations along its length where there is essentially no resistance to buckling, no elastic response whatsoever. They may well buckle at more than one location.
I would prefer a 4X4 grid of uncooked spaghetti with similar glued cross bracing. Then , by slowly adding weight determine the max load that the structure can take(ie until failure). Next , rebuild it and suspend 6 times the max load just on the top of the structure but with out that weight actually being on the structure yet.(if the WTC towers were designed to withstand 5 times typical loading and BZ shows 30 times typical loading was imparted we need 6 times max load)
Now allow that weight to go but only as far half the distance to the the first cross brace. You will need a video filming in slow motion.
Do the columns buckle at more than one location of that first 'floor'?
I would love to do this but alas there are two problems.
1) I don't have the time
2) my wife's reaction to this
** The current state of my intuition on this score is different than it was earlier. Formerly, I expected a symetric frame/lattice having roughly the properties of the WTC frames to bend/buckle towards the center, but somewhat closer to the top because the columns were weaker going upwards. In a theoretical model, perfect symmetry is possible. In a more realistic model, this is not the case, and some columns will buckle sooner. The first columns that buckle are thus have to contend with lateral resistance due to all the rest of the columns, as well, where the resistance forces are propagated through cross bracings, trusses, and the like.
But a few inches from the top of the first sound storey, there is 'no' cross bracing, which consequently predisposes the location of the buckle to be constrained to this region (call it roughly = h/4).
Note that these considerations imply that if the WTC buildings had been made without the spandrels, then BZ's inelastic model might have been applicable, and the buildings may have well collapsed globally once a local collapse got going.
Looks like the spandrels weren't there just for decorative purposes.....
Unless your consideration that the buckling would be absorbed along the entire length of the column, from basement to collapse floor is incorrect and instead each floor distance , 12 feet of column bore the majority of buckling force.
QUOTE
anybody who gets a Ph.D. from an accredited university will certainly have a strong background with which to approach various aspects of the WTC collapses.
Such as Bazant ot the Ph.D.'s that worked on the NIST report?
QUOTE
Do you, or don't you, believe that all these people peer reviewed Bazant - Zhou's paper?
If anybody has time to contact these folks to find out who exactly thought BZ to be hunky-dory, I'd appreciate it if you could get them to comment on my and Gordon't objections to BZ. I contend that their paper is basically useless, hence I expect that it's not taken seriously by the structural engineering community.
If anybody has time to contact these folks to find out who exactly thought BZ to be hunky-dory, I'd appreciate it if you could get them to comment on my and Gordon't objections to BZ. I contend that their paper is basically useless, hence I expect that it's not taken seriously by the structural engineering community.
At least a few of them did indeed peer review the paper prior to publication. Given the hub-bub about it subsequent to its publication I would be surprised that none of the others did.
How many qualified readers of this article amoung the subscribers have registered complaints about it that mirror or are similar to yours?
Have you attempted to contact JOM editors to find out?
Have you sent your objections to B-Z's analysis to JOM or to Bazant himself?
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 28 2006, 05:32 PM)
QUOTE
anybody who gets a Ph.D. from an accredited university will certainly have a strong background with which to approach various aspects of the WTC collapses.
Such as Bazant ot the Ph.D.'s that worked on the NIST report?
Absolutely. And I would love it if they defended their paper, against the complaints in this thread. Either that, or retracted it. Until now, I did not consider either of those possibilities very likely, as I have no Ph.D., and that is not the way that the academia game is usually played.
With the advent of Scholar's for 911 Truth, hopefully somebody with more standing than myself will press the issue.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 28 2006, 05:39 PM)
QUOTE
Do you, or don't you, believe that all these people peer reviewed Bazant - Zhou's paper?
If anybody has time to contact these folks to find out who exactly thought BZ to be hunky-dory, I'd appreciate it if you could get them to comment on my and Gordon't objections to BZ. I contend that their paper is basically useless, hence I expect that it's not taken seriously by the structural engineering community.
If anybody has time to contact these folks to find out who exactly thought BZ to be hunky-dory, I'd appreciate it if you could get them to comment on my and Gordon't objections to BZ. I contend that their paper is basically useless, hence I expect that it's not taken seriously by the structural engineering community.
At least a few of them did indeed peer review the paper prior to publication.
Of course. (Am assuming that the "editorial board" = 'peers that do the reviewing' )
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do you, or don't you, believe that all these people peer reviewed Bazant - Zhou's paper? If anybody has time to contact these folks to find out who exactly thought BZ to be hunky-dory, I'd appreciate it if you could get them to comment on my and Gordon't objections to BZ. I contend that their paper is basically useless, hence I expect that it's not taken seriously by the structural engineering community. |
At least a few of them did indeed peer review the paper prior to publication.
Of course. (Am assuming that the "editorial board" = 'peers that do the reviewing' )
How many qualified readers of this article amoung the subscribers have registered complaints about it that mirror or are similar to yours?
Good question. Another good question is: how many structural engineers have spoken out in support of the paper?
QUOTE
Have you attempted to contact JOM editors to find out?
No. This was the point of posting the suggestion. In the hope that somebody might pursue it. I do not expect ferreting out this info to be easy. If BZ's paper is worthless, do you honestly think that the "gatekeepers" of the publication that it appeared in might not be a bit embarrassed?
Furthermore, my success rate with ferreting out technical information from engineers, even in the form of leads, isn't very good. Of course, I don't really know how many real "engineers" were at AH, and suspect precious few of them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Have you attempted to contact JOM editors to find out? |
No. This was the point of posting the suggestion. In the hope that somebody might pursue it. I do not expect ferreting out this info to be easy. If BZ's paper is worthless, do you honestly think that the "gatekeepers" of the publication that it appeared in might not be a bit embarrassed?
Furthermore, my success rate with ferreting out technical information from engineers, even in the form of leads, isn't very good. Of course, I don't really know how many real "engineers" were at AH, and suspect precious few of them.
Have you sent your objections to B-Z's analysis to JOM or to Bazant himself?
No, but see my previous post. Also, note that I had already pointed Dr. Jones to my efforts re BZ, in the hope that somebody with more standing would take up the issue.
Perhaps Professor Jones does not feel that BZ needs rebuttal beyond what he has mentioned in his paper, but if so, I would respectfully disagree. Even if it's understood amongst construction engineers that the paper is not to be taken any more seriously than, say: one in the physics community on the time machine characteristics of a perfectly symmetrical rotating black hole, into which not a single spec of dust can fall (thus destroying the symmetry), and which depends on negative energy of a sort that has never been detected, that is not how people outside of the structural engineering community have interpreted the paper.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 28 2006, 12:59 PM)
Frank Carmen (AM)
Physics Ph.D., BYU
may not have an academic appointment at this time, but anybody who gets a Ph.D. from an accredited university will certainly have a strong background with which to approach various aspects of the WTC collapses.
The fact that he is also from BYU means very little, one way or another. It's almost certainly just a consequence of the fact that ice-breaker Jones is from BYU, and presented a seminar on the WTC collapses, locally.
I don't know, a search on:
Frank Carmen BYU
or
Frank Carmen Ph.D BYU
or
Frank Carmen Ph.D
Turns up NOTHING.
Does he really exist?
If so why is he just an AM not an FM?
Arthur
Physics Ph.D., BYU
may not have an academic appointment at this time, but anybody who gets a Ph.D. from an accredited university will certainly have a strong background with which to approach various aspects of the WTC collapses.
The fact that he is also from BYU means very little, one way or another. It's almost certainly just a consequence of the fact that ice-breaker Jones is from BYU, and presented a seminar on the WTC collapses, locally.
I don't know, a search on:
Frank Carmen BYU
or
Frank Carmen Ph.D BYU
or
Frank Carmen Ph.D
Turns up NOTHING.
Does he really exist?
If so why is he just an AM not an FM?
Arthur
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 28 2006, 08:54 AM)
Hey, this is fun- if I can guess any of these peoples' RL IDs, I can sue them for slander. That's amusing.
Bring it on.
Of course, you'll have to give your RL ID so that we'll know who we're slandering...
For a bright guy, you sure are dim.
Bring it on.
Of course, you'll have to give your RL ID so that we'll know who we're slandering...
For a bright guy, you sure are dim.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Have you attempted to contact JOM editors to find out?
No. This was the point of posting the suggestion. In the hope that somebody might pursue it. I do not expect ferreting out this info to be easy. If BZ's paper is worthless, do you honestly think that the "gatekeepers" of the publication that it appeared in might not be a bit embarrassed?
Furthermore, my success rate with ferreting out technical information from engineers, even in the form of leads, isn't very good. Of course, I don't really know how many real "engineers" were at AH, and suspect precious few of them.
QUOTE
Have you sent your objections to B-Z's analysis to JOM or to Bazant himself?
No, but see my previous post. Also, note that I had already pointed Dr. Jones to my efforts re BZ, in the hope that somebody with more standing would take up the issue.
Perhaps Professor Jones does not feel that BZ needs rebuttal beyond what he has mentioned in his paper, but if so, I would respectfully disagree. Even if it's understood amongst construction engineers that the paper is not to be taken any more seriously than, say: one in the physics community on the time machine characteristics of a perfectly symmetrical rotating black hole, into which not a single spec of dust can fall (thus destroying the symmetry), and which depends on negative energy of a sort that has never been detected, that is not how people outside of the structural engineering community have interpreted the paper.
Have you attempted to contact JOM editors to find out?
No. This was the point of posting the suggestion. In the hope that somebody might pursue it. I do not expect ferreting out this info to be easy. If BZ's paper is worthless, do you honestly think that the "gatekeepers" of the publication that it appeared in might not be a bit embarrassed?
Furthermore, my success rate with ferreting out technical information from engineers, even in the form of leads, isn't very good. Of course, I don't really know how many real "engineers" were at AH, and suspect precious few of them.
QUOTE
Have you sent your objections to B-Z's analysis to JOM or to Bazant himself?
No, but see my previous post. Also, note that I had already pointed Dr. Jones to my efforts re BZ, in the hope that somebody with more standing would take up the issue.
Perhaps Professor Jones does not feel that BZ needs rebuttal beyond what he has mentioned in his paper, but if so, I would respectfully disagree. Even if it's understood amongst construction engineers that the paper is not to be taken any more seriously than, say: one in the physics community on the time machine characteristics of a perfectly symmetrical rotating black hole, into which not a single spec of dust can fall (thus destroying the symmetry), and which depends on negative energy of a sort that has never been detected, that is not how people outside of the structural engineering community have interpreted the paper.
A cop-out IMHO.
If you are worried that JOM will not take you seriously then it certainly cannot be me who writes them. You claim a B.Sc. in physics IIRC and thus would have more qualification wrt to writing to JOM then I.
Is AH the only place where you have asked for engineering comment on BZ?
A quick google search produced many engineering forums.
I did a search on two for the word 'Bazant' and this one had several hits for that word. You could try there.
This one did not return anything on WTC or Bazant but it is an engineering forum, you could ask there.
Asking me to show you where you are wrong or where B-Z is better than yours is a straw man attack. Asking me to have JU do it is no better. Requiring that the only engineer that you have actually have contact with to do so isn't much better given that he stopped speaking to the issue and you stopped posting where he is.
Observe closely, Mel.
Schneibster, you've reached an all time low. Every single half-baked, illogical analysis you've put forth has been exposed. Apparently you have nothing left to offer, except threats of litigation.
That's rich.
You, sir, are a joke.
That's rich.
You, sir, are a joke.
hi,
i definitly want to use the right formulas.
i'm using what a phyics professor told me to use.
so i guess we agree on the time formula? t = (V - v)/ 32.1
it shows the same thing here:
http://www.ajdesigner.com/constantaccelera...cavelocityt.php
your equation is in terms of time. but, we don't know the time, we have to have an equation in terms of initial velocity and distance. then once we find the final velocity we can find the time based on the formula above.
i found a site that shows the same formulas i used.
http://www.lippsphysics.com/physics/formulas.html
here's some basic formulas this site shows, (scroll down to see)
V = v +a*t ( useful when you know the initial velocity, acceleration and length of time)
d = 1/2(v +V)*t (you must know the time)
d = v*t + 1/2(a*t^2) (must know the time)
and the one i used we can find the final velocity with just the initial velocity and distance:
V^2 = v^2 +2*a*d
a=32 ; d is always equal to 12 ; 2*12*32 = 768
V^2 = v^2 + 768
can be rewritten
V = sqrt(v^2 +768)
I'm pretty sure i used the right formula. the formula you used is for when you are trying to find the distance and you know the time; here, i'm trying to find the final velocity and i don't know the time, i just know how far it's going to go, 12 feet.
what do you think? thanks for your input.
i definitly want to use the right formulas.
i'm using what a phyics professor told me to use.
so i guess we agree on the time formula? t = (V - v)/ 32.1
it shows the same thing here:
http://www.ajdesigner.com/constantaccelera...cavelocityt.php
your equation is in terms of time. but, we don't know the time, we have to have an equation in terms of initial velocity and distance. then once we find the final velocity we can find the time based on the formula above.
i found a site that shows the same formulas i used.
http://www.lippsphysics.com/physics/formulas.html
here's some basic formulas this site shows, (scroll down to see)
V = v +a*t ( useful when you know the initial velocity, acceleration and length of time)
d = 1/2(v +V)*t (you must know the time)
d = v*t + 1/2(a*t^2) (must know the time)
and the one i used we can find the final velocity with just the initial velocity and distance:
V^2 = v^2 +2*a*d
a=32 ; d is always equal to 12 ; 2*12*32 = 768
V^2 = v^2 + 768
can be rewritten
V = sqrt(v^2 +768)
I'm pretty sure i used the right formula. the formula you used is for when you are trying to find the distance and you know the time; here, i'm trying to find the final velocity and i don't know the time, i just know how far it's going to go, 12 feet.
what do you think? thanks for your input.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 28 2006, 07:38 PM)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Have you attempted to contact JOM editors to find out?
No. This was the point of posting the suggestion. In the hope that somebody might pursue it. I do not expect ferreting out this info to be easy. If BZ's paper is worthless, do you honestly think that the "gatekeepers" of the publication that it appeared in might not be a bit embarrassed?
Furthermore, my success rate with ferreting out technical information from engineers, even in the form of leads, isn't very good. Of course, I don't really know how many real "engineers" were at AH, and suspect precious few of them.
QUOTE
Have you sent your objections to B-Z's analysis to JOM or to Bazant himself?
No, but see my previous post. Also, note that I had already pointed Dr. Jones to my efforts re BZ, in the hope that somebody with more standing would take up the issue.
Perhaps Professor Jones does not feel that BZ needs rebuttal beyond what he has mentioned in his paper, but if so, I would respectfully disagree. Even if it's understood amongst construction engineers that the paper is not to be taken any more seriously than, say: one in the physics community on the time machine characteristics of a perfectly symmetrical rotating black hole, into which not a single spec of dust can fall (thus destroying the symmetry), and which depends on negative energy of a sort that has never been detected, that is not how people outside of the structural engineering community have interpreted the paper.
Have you attempted to contact JOM editors to find out?
No. This was the point of posting the suggestion. In the hope that somebody might pursue it. I do not expect ferreting out this info to be easy. If BZ's paper is worthless, do you honestly think that the "gatekeepers" of the publication that it appeared in might not be a bit embarrassed?
Furthermore, my success rate with ferreting out technical information from engineers, even in the form of leads, isn't very good. Of course, I don't really know how many real "engineers" were at AH, and suspect precious few of them.
QUOTE
Have you sent your objections to B-Z's analysis to JOM or to Bazant himself?
No, but see my previous post. Also, note that I had already pointed Dr. Jones to my efforts re BZ, in the hope that somebody with more standing would take up the issue.
Perhaps Professor Jones does not feel that BZ needs rebuttal beyond what he has mentioned in his paper, but if so, I would respectfully disagree. Even if it's understood amongst construction engineers that the paper is not to be taken any more seriously than, say: one in the physics community on the time machine characteristics of a perfectly symmetrical rotating black hole, into which not a single spec of dust can fall (thus destroying the symmetry), and which depends on negative energy of a sort that has never been detected, that is not how people outside of the structural engineering community have interpreted the paper.
A cop-out IMHO.
If you are worried that JOM will not take you seriously then it certainly cannot be me who writes them. You claim a B.Sc. in physics IIRC and thus would have more qualification wrt to writing to JOM then I.
Is AH the only place where you have asked for engineering comment on BZ?
A quick google search produced many engineering forums.
I did a search on two for the word 'Bazant' and this one had several hits for that word. You could try there.
This one did not return anything on WTC or Bazant but it is an engineering forum, you could ask there.
Asking me to show you where you are wrong or where B-Z is better than yours is a straw man attack. Asking me to have JU do it is no better. Requiring that the only engineer that you have actually have contact with to do so isn't much better given that he stopped speaking to the issue and you stopped posting where he is.
Huh? What is the straw man?
I never asked you, specifically, to write JOM. I asked you to write JayUtah, if you had contact with him. Furthermore, my request for both Scheibster and JayUtah was to write essays containing their strongest arguments. This need not have anything at all to do with BZ or my criticisms of BZ, yet you somehow want to throw this into the mix.
Where have I "required" anybody to do anything???
You seem to be implying that because no serious engineer has so far responded to my criticisms, that I take this as somehow proof of the infallibility of them. The straw man is an assertion that there would not be this lack of response if my criticisms are essentially correct - is that it?
If so, ask yourself some obvious questions, like "Why does metamars want BZ discussed and debunked at a higher level? Why, in fact, did he encourage Professor Jones to do just this, beyond the point that he has already gone to in his paper?" and "Why does metamars encourage the dissemination of serious technical works to the individuals most capable of understanding them and contributing to the debate, and, consequently, possibly point out errors in metamars' criticisms?" and "Why does metamars request activists to make structural engineers aware of Scholars for 911 Truth"?
If your answer is, "Well, in this way if nobody discusses metamars' and gordons' (at least implicit) criticisms of BZ, he can then claim victory", I must say I find this line of thinking rather bizarre. If BZ's paper is of any value at all, and structural engineers join the debate, do you honestly think that they will not defend the paper, even if BZ will not? How many physicists do you know who will not defend relativity theory?
Perhaps you had some other straw man in mind. If so, do tell us what it is. Otherwise, I must assume that your straw man argument accusation not only has no merit, but is a straw man argument, in and of itself.
A straw man squared, if you will. (Another reason for kicking the debate to a higher level is that I don't have time for pointing out the silliness of arguments and accusations such as this one. Serous debaters with serious technical backgrounds will not be interested in wasting time like this. I certainly hope that Fetzer limits any forums to serious individuals, who can think clearly.)
QUOTE
Huh? What is the straw man?
Asking me, with no engineering degree, to show in technical detail, where B-Z goes right and you go wrong
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Huh? What is the straw man? |
Asking me, with no engineering degree, to show in technical detail, where B-Z goes right and you go wrong
I never asked you, specifically, to write JOM. I asked you to write JayUtah, if you had contact with him. Furthermore, my request for both Scheibster and JayUtah was to write essays containing their strongest arguments. This need not have anything at all to do with BZ or my criticisms of BZ, yet you somehow want to throw this into the mix.
So write JOM already. What the hell is stopping you? Just do it and stop complaining that JOM hasn't addressed the issue.
As for my contacting JU, I have already stated that I have never had anymore contact with him than you have had. I have never met the man nor corresponded with him other than in the forums of AH and BAUT.
You are registered at AH and can pm any other member there as well as I can. Yet you want to have me be an intermediary. This isn't high school.
QUOTE
You seem to be implying that because no serious engineer has so far responded to my criticisms, that I take this as somehow proof of the infallibility of them. The straw man is an assertion that there would not be this lack of response if my criticisms are essentially correct - is that it?
If so, ask yourself some obvious questions, like "Why does metamars want BZ discussed and debunked at a higher level? Why, in fact, did he encourage Professor Jones to do just this, beyond the point that he has already gone to in his paper?" and "Why does metamars encourage the dissemination of serious technical works to the individuals most capable of understanding them and contributing to the debate, and, consequently, possibly point out errors in metamars' criticisms?" and "Why does metamars request activists to make structural engineers aware of Scholars for 911 Truth"?
I am all for having structural engineers discuss the B-Z report for you. I am not standing in your way. So far you have contacted a total of one engineer who specializes in the aerospace side of things and a physicist.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
You seem to be implying that because no serious engineer has so far responded to my criticisms, that I take this as somehow proof of the infallibility of them. The straw man is an assertion that there would not be this lack of response if my criticisms are essentially correct - is that it? If so, ask yourself some obvious questions, like "Why does metamars want BZ discussed and debunked at a higher level? Why, in fact, did he encourage Professor Jones to do just this, beyond the point that he has already gone to in his paper?" and "Why does metamars encourage the dissemination of serious technical works to the individuals most capable of understanding them and contributing to the debate, and, consequently, possibly point out errors in metamars' criticisms?" and "Why does metamars request activists to make structural engineers aware of Scholars for 911 Truth"? |
I am all for having structural engineers discuss the B-Z report for you. I am not standing in your way. So far you have contacted a total of one engineer who specializes in the aerospace side of things and a physicist.
If your answer is, "Well, in this way if nobody discusses metamars' and gordons' (at least implicit) criticisms of BZ, he can then claim victory", I must say I find this line of thinking rather bizarre. If BZ's paper is of any value at all, and structural engineers join the debate, do you honestly think that they will not defend the paper, even if BZ will not? How many physicists do you know who will not defend relativity theory?
In that no structural engineers have questioned B-Z that I know of I see that as implicit agreement. You want explicit agreement. For that you will have to go and ask for it. I am satisfied, so far with implicit agreement. Also I do not want to be the one who goes asking what may be stupid questions of engineers. If that does not bother you because you are so convinced of your own analysis then go for it.
QUOTE
(Another reason for kicking the debate to a higher level is that I don't have time for pointing out the silliness of arguments and accusations such as this one. Serous debaters with serious technical backgrounds will not be interested in wasting time like this. I certainly hope that Fetzer limits any forums to serious individuals, who can think clearly.)
Again, I have no objection to you kicking the debate up to a higher level. You seem to be implying that I do and that I am impeding you in this somehow.
Like they say on the NIKE ads, "just do it".
As for silliness of arguments, I agree.
In this case you keep talking about having engineers discuss this, I keep telling you to contact some, you keep asking me to do it.
You and gordon being the one's with specific problems with B-Z should be the ones doing the asking. Am I to take your analysis and ask an engineer, "this is posted elsewhere, what do you think of it?", then come back here post the response and get your reaction and go back to that engineer ,,,etc. ? Again, I do not want to be intermediary!
So why is it that we have to debate(that's the universal 'we', not just you and me) frater's silliness or reasonwhy's? Arguments about neo-con politics, arguments about the existence of Al-Qeada, about Israeli involvements all creep in here and they are not introduced by me, or Arthur or Schneibster or R.C. or anyone else who one could place on the same side of the table as I. Freater claims it is all physics related.
Why? Because it is an open forum and silliness will creep in but from what I see the majority of it comes from the other side of the table.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 28 2006, 07:38 PM)
Is AH the only place where you have asked for engineering comment on BZ?
A quick google search produced many engineering forums.
I did a search on two for the word 'Bazant' and this one had several hits for that word. You could try there.
This one did not return anything on WTC or Bazant but it is an engineering forum, you could ask there.
No, I have asked here, also, and discussed it briefly this past Thanksgiving with a cousin who is a professor of applied mathematics, who took his Ph.D. at the same university that Bazant did. He knew of Bazant, though he didn't know him personally.
My cousin was intrigued about the collapse of the mysterious spire, less so by my discussion of BZ. I mentioned that their model seemed to consist of rigid rods connected by springs which could also bend. (I had mistakenly melded their general notion of an elastic bottom with their assumption of plastic hinge joints). I also mistakenly mischaracterized their entire paper as employing "elastic dynamic analysis", which my cousin wasn't familiar with. (Probably because it's too simple. Doubtless, my cuz knows perturbation theory very well, and thus I expect he deals with simple vibrations and/or oscillations as a matter of course, if need be, and typically goes quite beyond this point.)
I did not have the paper with me, and we have not met or talked subsequently, on any subject. At the time, he offered no opinion about it, which is hardly surprising.
I certainly intend to discuss it further, though I'm more interested in talking to structural and civil engineers. My cuz's undergraduate background is in electrical engineering, and he probably knows less about beams than I do.
A quick google search produced many engineering forums.
I did a search on two for the word 'Bazant' and this one had several hits for that word. You could try there.
This one did not return anything on WTC or Bazant but it is an engineering forum, you could ask there.
No, I have asked here, also, and discussed it briefly this past Thanksgiving with a cousin who is a professor of applied mathematics, who took his Ph.D. at the same university that Bazant did. He knew of Bazant, though he didn't know him personally.
My cousin was intrigued about the collapse of the mysterious spire, less so by my discussion of BZ. I mentioned that their model seemed to consist of rigid rods connected by springs which could also bend. (I had mistakenly melded their general notion of an elastic bottom with their assumption of plastic hinge joints). I also mistakenly mischaracterized their entire paper as employing "elastic dynamic analysis", which my cousin wasn't familiar with. (Probably because it's too simple. Doubtless, my cuz knows perturbation theory very well, and thus I expect he deals with simple vibrations and/or oscillations as a matter of course, if need be, and typically goes quite beyond this point.)
I did not have the paper with me, and we have not met or talked subsequently, on any subject. At the time, he offered no opinion about it, which is hardly surprising.
I certainly intend to discuss it further, though I'm more interested in talking to structural and civil engineers. My cuz's undergraduate background is in electrical engineering, and he probably knows less about beams than I do.
Regarding Arthurs demands for where in the Final report does NIST claim 'No Steel WAS recovered from WTC 7'
-----
NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm
"A final report on the collapse of the WTC towers is being issued as NIST NCSTAR 1. A companion report on the collapse of WTC 7 is being issued as NIST NCSTAR 1A. The present report is one of a set that provides more detailed documentation of the Investigation findings and the means by which these technical results were achieved. As such, it is part of the archival record of this Investigation." (page xviii / adobe 20 )
"The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure..." (page iii / adobe 5 )
{The same statement is repeated on (page xxvi / adobe 28)}
"No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC 7" (page 26 / adobe 54)
The above quotes are taken from the FINAL report section...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3B.pdf
In the 'Draft' Report on the Mechanical & Metallurgical studies 'that report' contained the following...
*Executive Summary
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
*Full Report (184 pgs.)
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf
*Draft supporting technical reports
A - Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3ADraft.pdf
B - Steel Inventory and Identification
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf
C - Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components (Appendices)
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3CchapsDraft.pdf
D - Mechanical Properties of Structural Steels
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3DDraft.pdf
E - Physical Properties of Structural Steels
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3EDraft.pdf
Found in the Executive Summary (page xliv / adobe 9) is the explicit statement that...
"NO Steel WAS Recovered from WTC 7"
In the 'FINAL' report the 'Executive Summary' was dispensed with and the 'summary' has now been included in the 'Final' report...
NIST NCSTAR 1-3 - Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm
Since NIST has now separated the towers report from the long overdue WTC 7 report the Final Report makes very little mention of that building and the steel related to # 7.
The explicit statement that "No Steel WAS Recovered from WTC 7" has been 'left out', yet is reworded as...
"The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure..."[/b]
Different words - same meaning. No Steel WAS recovered from WTC 7.
They hedge a little on this in other parts of the same document claiming that...
"No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC 7"
This statement flies in the face of previous statements from government sources which clearly and explicitly state that steel WAS recovered from WTC 7.
Gov't 'experts' (J. R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr., authored an appendix for the Initial FEMA report called Limited Metallurgical Examination, where they clearly state that 'Sample 1' had been recovered from WTC 7...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
An html copy of the above pdf has been cached here...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/m.../WTC_apndxC.htm
It is interesting to note the statement that this unexpected 'erosion' of steel was found in several beams (although ALL of those steel 'beams' were not collected - just a representative sample for study)
J.R. Barnett is a professor of fire protection engineering, and R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson, Jr. are professors of materials science and engineering, at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts, 01609. Biederman and Barnett took part in the recovery and collection process for relevant steel parts from WTC.
As experts in their field, they make no statements regarding doubt that this steel HAD come from WTC 7, and they would certainly know having been part of the collection process.
These 'findings' were also published in JOM...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
An html copy of the above pdf has been cached here...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/m.../WTC_apndxC.htm
It is interesting to note the statement that this unexpected 'erosion' of steel was found in several beams (although ALL of those steel 'beams' were not collected - just a representative sample for study)
J.R. Barnett is a professor of fire protection engineering, and R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson, Jr. are professors of materials science and engineering, at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts, 01609. Biederman and Barnett took part in the recovery and collection process for relevant steel parts from WTC.
As experts in their field, they make no statements regarding doubt that this steel HAD come from WTC 7, and they would certainly know having been part of the collection process.
These 'findings' were also published in JOM...
Journal of Metals (JOM): J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.
"A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001...While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway."
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...erman-0112.html
There is NO question that this beam was RECOVERED from WTC 7... even though the exact location within Building 7 could not be determined. This is probably due to the steel in WTC 7 NOT being marked with stampings for location (as the steel within the towers was).
The photos of this WTC 7 steel give a clear indication as to WHY NIST is trying to rewrite history and now states that No Steel Was Recovered from WTC 7...
Ordinary office fires do NOT melt and 'dissolve' solid steel structural members. It does not melt holes in steel turning it to the appearance of Swiss Cheese.
These findings were also reported in the Worcester Polytechnic Institute publication 'Transformations' early in 2002...
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/20...ring/steel.html
The last sentence above is very important for historical reflection on what has happened to this investigation into "the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation". FEMA called for further investigations into this anomaly. Biederman, et al were hoping to obtain further funding and more samples to continue investigating this mystery. I emailed Biederman in 2005 to ask if he had ever received more samples or funding. His response was that the investigation into this 'deep mystery' was terminated.
Yesitdid (the 'YID') tried arguing (sophisizing) that NIST was NOT in possession of these samples from WTC 7 (and that was the reason that NIST claimed they had NO Steel from WTC 7). It is clear from the above statement that NIST 'IS' / 'WAS' in FACT in possesion of these WTC 7 samples... otherwise why would Biederman 'et al' be asking NIST for access to more samples?
It is clear that NIST is trying to 'bury' this important forensic evidence, by hiding the fact that steel WAS recovered from WTC 7. What else can they say? The ONLY steel recovered from WTC 7 holds evidence which DOES NOT support the official fairy tale. IF they state... "yes, there WAS steel collected from WTC 7"... then they would have to explain this anomaly and fit it into the fairy tale. This evidence CAN NOT be fit into the official fairy tale (whether the euctectic actions took place before OR after the collapse), so best to just discard that evidence, and hope no one remembers that there WAS this steel collected from WTC 7.
You really don't need to be a rocket scientist or a quantum physics professor to figure out what is going on here. There are elements at the highest levels within NIST who are fully participating in the dissemination of false information as part of the cover-up attempt. Usually when faced with this dilemma, the gravity-driven collapse obfuscators start chanting the mantra that now the CT's are saying there are hundreds of engineers at NIST or the entire NIST organization are part of this 'conspiracy'. Don't be misled by disinformation. The respected engineers compartmentalized in their various studies hand these studies to senior administration, and it would only take a VERY few of these to assist the cover-up. One must remember that NIST is a government organization and as such their ultimate 'bosses' are part of the neo-con administration.
NIST is outright LYING when they claim "No steel was recovered from WTC 7".
The legends of 'Arthur' fall flat again.
Asking me, with no engineering degree, to show in technical detail, where B-Z goes right and you go wrong
And where have I asked you, a non-engineer, to show me this? If I state that I believe BZ is worthless, and that people (probably you also) have used it in a bad way (even beyond it's defects), this is not the same as asking you to defend it technically. If you are not able to defend it technically, why would I want you to attempt to do so?
My dissapointment with AH was more centered on the fact that I initially expected techinically competent engineers to respond in a helpful way. Those less competent can be annoying to deal with, but one can just not respond, or even vote with one's feet, and that is exactly what I did.
I also find it annoying that people would continue to speak well of it after being exposed to serious criticisms of it, without any serious rebuttal, by anybody. And yes, that apparently includes you. However, you are twisting this around to interpret this as some sort of demand on my part that you speak to my criticisms in a technical way. Frankly, I think you're a bit foolish if you pretend that there may not be the fatal flaws in the paper like I've discussed, but that's your call.
These are minor annoyances, compared to the fact that serious debate by technically competent people re BZ is not to be found (yet).
Asking me, with no engineering degree, to show in technical detail, where B-Z goes right and you go wrong
And where have I asked you, a non-engineer, to show me this? If I state that I believe BZ is worthless, and that people (probably you also) have used it in a bad way (even beyond it's defects), this is not the same as asking you to defend it technically. If you are not able to defend it technically, why would I want you to attempt to do so?
My dissapointment with AH was more centered on the fact that I initially expected techinically competent engineers to respond in a helpful way. Those less competent can be annoying to deal with, but one can just not respond, or even vote with one's feet, and that is exactly what I did.
I also find it annoying that people would continue to speak well of it after being exposed to serious criticisms of it, without any serious rebuttal, by anybody. And yes, that apparently includes you. However, you are twisting this around to interpret this as some sort of demand on my part that you speak to my criticisms in a technical way. Frankly, I think you're a bit foolish if you pretend that there may not be the fatal flaws in the paper like I've discussed, but that's your call.
These are minor annoyances, compared to the fact that serious debate by technically competent people re BZ is not to be found (yet).
In this case you keep talking about having engineers discuss this, I keep telling you to contact some, you keep asking me to do it.
Can you please quote me one line where I have specifically asked YOU to contact technically competent people to discuss my complaints about BZ? I don't recall even asking you once, let alone many times.*
I did ask you to contact JayUtah regarding writing an essay for Fetzer's web site, where the specific topics would be determined by - drumroll, please - JayUtah.
What about this don't you understand?
And yes, I get it that you don't want to do this and think I should do it. Please don't repeat that again. Consider that request dropped.
* I normally address such requests to the activist community, a community which I have never assumed you are a member of. I sometimes sarcastically ask FEMA Fairy Tale proponents to wish us good luck in getting the word out to the techical community. You are the only one of the recurring posters who favors such ideas that I can think of that is OK with such an activity. The rest are normally silent.
You appear to be making the assumption that the BZ paper CAN BE refuted.
Considering how long it has been out, is it not more likely that this may NOT be possible?
That what is MORE likely is that THOUSANDS of engineers HAVE looked at the paper and found NOTHING wrong with it.
Arthur
How does the visible evidence contradict B-Z?
The cross bracing was horizontal only at at the level of the floors. It looks to be in place as much or more, for a support of the floor of the core section, as for actual cross bracing purposes. The 12 foot distance between floors had no bracing and no diagonal bracing was used. Buckling, at least at that first impacted floor, would be constrained largely to that 12 foot distance. Any buckling through a larger vertical distance would have also had to buckle the cross bracing or snap the connection between column and beam. What would you say would be the max deflection over that 12 feet could be on a column before kneeling occurs? What radius of the buckling curve would that represent? Would not 'h' always be much smaller than 'r'?
How does the visible evidence contradict B-Z?
The cross bracing was horizontal only at at the level of the floors. It looks to be in place as much or more, for a support of the floor of the core section, as for actual cross bracing purposes. The 12 foot distance between floors had no bracing and no diagonal bracing was used. Buckling, at least at that first impacted floor, would be constrained largely to that 12 foot distance. Any buckling through a larger vertical distance would have also had to buckle the cross bracing or snap the connection between column and beam. What would you say would be the max deflection over that 12 feet could be on a column before kneeling occurs? What radius of the buckling curve would that represent? Would not 'h' always be much smaller than 'r'?
Furthermore, were the constraints more realistic, I believe BZ would completely fall apart. The energy is dissipated in the buckle, not the unbuckled parts of the columns. If the buckles are allowed to occur multiple times in a floor length h, and furthermore the physics/engineering is such that they actually do, and furthermore if buckling occurs in a progressive fashion from top to bottom, this would result in much more energy dissipation in buckling of the first floor. Also, the decrease in potential energy between buckles would then be far less than otherwise.
Why would the buckling occur in more than one location along that 12 foot vertical distance? A simple experiment with dry spaghetti, where I can easily impact a vertical force much greater than the design load shows that it very rarely buckles or breaks at more than one spot along its length. It is a very simplified analogy but I am not sure where it would breakdown in showing that once the first buckle starts, secondary buckles (in an originally stiff column) do not develop. Probably because as soon as it starts buckling , that location becomes the weakest point.
By visible evidence I mean, mostly the picture in the FEMA reports, with the woman standing in the impact zone. You see essentially straight pieces of metal. There seems to be no instance of a curved piece curving over an arc greater than 1 foot. *
Also, pictures of a beam undergoing 4 point bending, that I had posted earlier in the thread, shows basically an "elbow" type bend, not a "banana" type bend.
I wrote down roughly h/4 based on memory, but your post forced me to look. Measuring the spandrel from a picture at wtc7.net, I get 32 pixels high for the spandrel vs. 94 pixels high for a floor.
see http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-above-deck.jpg
Thus, the spandrel is covering 34% of a storey height, h. Thus, I can accept the first buckle as occuring at approximately 1/2(2/3) h = 1/3 h from the bottom of the spandrel, which is 33% more than the 1/4 h I had guesstimated as an upper bound.
However, what about a second buckle? And a third, fourth, etc?
At this point, I am reduced to further guessing how many buckles we would actually get, but consider that the FEMA impact photo suggests a radius r of roughly 1 foot, if we continue halving the distance, we get buckles at:
1/2 (7.92 feet) = 3.96 feet
1/2 (3.96 feet) = 1.98 feet
1/2 (1.98 feet) = .99 feet
below the bottom of a spandrel.
(Note: .66 h = 7.92 feet )
So, 3 buckles per exterior column along a floor length h seems reasonable, if there is enough energy to actually create those buckles.**
Now, so far this analysis ignores a rather obvious complication. And that is, that the spandrels tend to resist buckling from the upper part of each column on each floor as it collapses. I don't have time to get into a detailed discussion about what the most likely geometries are (and I'd be mostly guessing, anyway), but I will note that a symmetric inward or outward buckling of each floor would tend to reduce this effect to 0. Thus, this particular aspect of an assumption of symmetry favors a FEMA Fairy Tale type of outcome, also.
Of course, the most realistic scenarios may involve the spandrels getting destroyed before, or mostly before, the columns on a floor start buckling. What is the energy dissipated in doing so?
I've no idea!
If B&Z had any idea, they have either rolled it up into their assumed modulus, or just ignored it. My guess is the latter.
Unless your consideration that the buckling would be absorbed along the entire length of the column, from basement to collapse floor is incorrect and instead each floor distance , 12 feet of column bore the majority of buckling force.
This sounds to me like another argument for reducing the range of expected buckling to the top floor. I am arguing that the spandrels predispose the system to buckle at the topmost floor of the lower portion of the tower, and multiple times, at that.
If you want to agree with me, then agree with me. And if you want to disagree with me, then disagree with me. Doing both at once confuses me.
I'm assuming, of course, that if 12 topmost feet of a column "bore the majority of buckling force", then the initial buckle will tend to occur at the center, etc. You have not argued for any frequency of failure, but seem to assume that the first buckle will occur at 12 feet.
* I probably should have spoken about a circumference of curvature, rather than a radius of curvature. The point is that the inelastic deformation is highly localized, and the arc lengths of these deformations << h
** Note that a this distribution of buckles is probably implicitly assuming sequential bending, leading to fracturing, with the process repeating within a given storey.
This seems consistent with what we visually observe, but not with the picture that B&Z paint of what real buckling looks like in columns.
I believe that 'paradox' is resolved by noting that, in a 7.92 length of column, the height to width ratio is large, and reducing the height of a column in this scenario implies a larger angular bend than if the column was 150x as long. The more acute bend makes fracturing more likely.
How much more likely, you need to talk to engineers to figure out....
-----
NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
QUOTE
"Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents.
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents. |
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm
"A final report on the collapse of the WTC towers is being issued as NIST NCSTAR 1. A companion report on the collapse of WTC 7 is being issued as NIST NCSTAR 1A. The present report is one of a set that provides more detailed documentation of the Investigation findings and the means by which these technical results were achieved. As such, it is part of the archival record of this Investigation." (page xviii / adobe 20 )
"The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure..." (page iii / adobe 5 )
{The same statement is repeated on (page xxvi / adobe 28)}
"No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC 7" (page 26 / adobe 54)
The above quotes are taken from the FINAL report section...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3B.pdf
In the 'Draft' Report on the Mechanical & Metallurgical studies 'that report' contained the following...
*Executive Summary
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
*Full Report (184 pgs.)
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf
*Draft supporting technical reports
A - Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3ADraft.pdf
B - Steel Inventory and Identification
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf
C - Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components (Appendices)
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3CchapsDraft.pdf
D - Mechanical Properties of Structural Steels
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3DDraft.pdf
E - Physical Properties of Structural Steels
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3EDraft.pdf
Found in the Executive Summary (page xliv / adobe 9) is the explicit statement that...
"NO Steel WAS Recovered from WTC 7"
In the 'FINAL' report the 'Executive Summary' was dispensed with and the 'summary' has now been included in the 'Final' report...
NIST NCSTAR 1-3 - Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm
Since NIST has now separated the towers report from the long overdue WTC 7 report the Final Report makes very little mention of that building and the steel related to # 7.
The explicit statement that "No Steel WAS Recovered from WTC 7" has been 'left out', yet is reworded as...
"The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure..."[/b]
Different words - same meaning. No Steel WAS recovered from WTC 7.
They hedge a little on this in other parts of the same document claiming that...
"No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC 7"
This statement flies in the face of previous statements from government sources which clearly and explicitly state that steel WAS recovered from WTC 7.
Gov't 'experts' (J. R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr., authored an appendix for the Initial FEMA report called Limited Metallurgical Examination, where they clearly state that 'Sample 1' had been recovered from WTC 7...
QUOTE
Section C.2 ( pg 1)
"C.2 Sample 1 (from WTC 7)
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstuctural changes that occured in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam of this building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration.
"C.2 Sample 1 (from WTC 7)
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstuctural changes that occured in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam of this building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
An html copy of the above pdf has been cached here...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/m.../WTC_apndxC.htm
It is interesting to note the statement that this unexpected 'erosion' of steel was found in several beams (although ALL of those steel 'beams' were not collected - just a representative sample for study)
J.R. Barnett is a professor of fire protection engineering, and R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson, Jr. are professors of materials science and engineering, at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts, 01609. Biederman and Barnett took part in the recovery and collection process for relevant steel parts from WTC.
As experts in their field, they make no statements regarding doubt that this steel HAD come from WTC 7, and they would certainly know having been part of the collection process.
These 'findings' were also published in JOM...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Section C.2 ( pg 1) "C.2 Sample 1 (from WTC 7) Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstuctural changes that occured in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam of this building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration. |
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
An html copy of the above pdf has been cached here...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/m.../WTC_apndxC.htm
It is interesting to note the statement that this unexpected 'erosion' of steel was found in several beams (although ALL of those steel 'beams' were not collected - just a representative sample for study)
J.R. Barnett is a professor of fire protection engineering, and R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson, Jr. are professors of materials science and engineering, at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts, 01609. Biederman and Barnett took part in the recovery and collection process for relevant steel parts from WTC.
As experts in their field, they make no statements regarding doubt that this steel HAD come from WTC 7, and they would certainly know having been part of the collection process.
These 'findings' were also published in JOM...
Journal of Metals (JOM): J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.
"A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001...While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway."
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...erman-0112.html
There is NO question that this beam was RECOVERED from WTC 7... even though the exact location within Building 7 could not be determined. This is probably due to the steel in WTC 7 NOT being marked with stampings for location (as the steel within the towers was).
The photos of this WTC 7 steel give a clear indication as to WHY NIST is trying to rewrite history and now states that No Steel Was Recovered from WTC 7...
Ordinary office fires do NOT melt and 'dissolve' solid steel structural members. It does not melt holes in steel turning it to the appearance of Swiss Cheese.
These findings were also reported in the Worcester Polytechnic Institute publication 'Transformations' early in 2002...
QUOTE
The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel
"There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.
...The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.
A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.
The FEMA report calls for further metallurgic investigations, and Barnett, Biederman and Sisson hope that WPI will obtain NIST funding and access to more samples.
"There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.
...The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.
A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.
The FEMA report calls for further metallurgic investigations, and Barnett, Biederman and Sisson hope that WPI will obtain NIST funding and access to more samples.
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/20...ring/steel.html
The last sentence above is very important for historical reflection on what has happened to this investigation into "the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation". FEMA called for further investigations into this anomaly. Biederman, et al were hoping to obtain further funding and more samples to continue investigating this mystery. I emailed Biederman in 2005 to ask if he had ever received more samples or funding. His response was that the investigation into this 'deep mystery' was terminated.
Yesitdid (the 'YID') tried arguing (sophisizing) that NIST was NOT in possession of these samples from WTC 7 (and that was the reason that NIST claimed they had NO Steel from WTC 7). It is clear from the above statement that NIST 'IS' / 'WAS' in FACT in possesion of these WTC 7 samples... otherwise why would Biederman 'et al' be asking NIST for access to more samples?
It is clear that NIST is trying to 'bury' this important forensic evidence, by hiding the fact that steel WAS recovered from WTC 7. What else can they say? The ONLY steel recovered from WTC 7 holds evidence which DOES NOT support the official fairy tale. IF they state... "yes, there WAS steel collected from WTC 7"... then they would have to explain this anomaly and fit it into the fairy tale. This evidence CAN NOT be fit into the official fairy tale (whether the euctectic actions took place before OR after the collapse), so best to just discard that evidence, and hope no one remembers that there WAS this steel collected from WTC 7.
You really don't need to be a rocket scientist or a quantum physics professor to figure out what is going on here. There are elements at the highest levels within NIST who are fully participating in the dissemination of false information as part of the cover-up attempt. Usually when faced with this dilemma, the gravity-driven collapse obfuscators start chanting the mantra that now the CT's are saying there are hundreds of engineers at NIST or the entire NIST organization are part of this 'conspiracy'. Don't be misled by disinformation. The respected engineers compartmentalized in their various studies hand these studies to senior administration, and it would only take a VERY few of these to assist the cover-up. One must remember that NIST is a government organization and as such their ultimate 'bosses' are part of the neo-con administration.
NIST is outright LYING when they claim "No steel was recovered from WTC 7".
The legends of 'Arthur' fall flat again.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 28 2006, 09:57 PM)
QUOTE
Huh? What is the straw man?
Asking me, with no engineering degree, to show in technical detail, where B-Z goes right and you go wrong
And where have I asked you, a non-engineer, to show me this? If I state that I believe BZ is worthless, and that people (probably you also) have used it in a bad way (even beyond it's defects), this is not the same as asking you to defend it technically. If you are not able to defend it technically, why would I want you to attempt to do so?
My dissapointment with AH was more centered on the fact that I initially expected techinically competent engineers to respond in a helpful way. Those less competent can be annoying to deal with, but one can just not respond, or even vote with one's feet, and that is exactly what I did.
I also find it annoying that people would continue to speak well of it after being exposed to serious criticisms of it, without any serious rebuttal, by anybody. And yes, that apparently includes you. However, you are twisting this around to interpret this as some sort of demand on my part that you speak to my criticisms in a technical way. Frankly, I think you're a bit foolish if you pretend that there may not be the fatal flaws in the paper like I've discussed, but that's your call.
These are minor annoyances, compared to the fact that serious debate by technically competent people re BZ is not to be found (yet).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Huh? What is the straw man? |
Asking me, with no engineering degree, to show in technical detail, where B-Z goes right and you go wrong
And where have I asked you, a non-engineer, to show me this? If I state that I believe BZ is worthless, and that people (probably you also) have used it in a bad way (even beyond it's defects), this is not the same as asking you to defend it technically. If you are not able to defend it technically, why would I want you to attempt to do so?
My dissapointment with AH was more centered on the fact that I initially expected techinically competent engineers to respond in a helpful way. Those less competent can be annoying to deal with, but one can just not respond, or even vote with one's feet, and that is exactly what I did.
I also find it annoying that people would continue to speak well of it after being exposed to serious criticisms of it, without any serious rebuttal, by anybody. And yes, that apparently includes you. However, you are twisting this around to interpret this as some sort of demand on my part that you speak to my criticisms in a technical way. Frankly, I think you're a bit foolish if you pretend that there may not be the fatal flaws in the paper like I've discussed, but that's your call.
These are minor annoyances, compared to the fact that serious debate by technically competent people re BZ is not to be found (yet).
In this case you keep talking about having engineers discuss this, I keep telling you to contact some, you keep asking me to do it.
Can you please quote me one line where I have specifically asked YOU to contact technically competent people to discuss my complaints about BZ? I don't recall even asking you once, let alone many times.*
I did ask you to contact JayUtah regarding writing an essay for Fetzer's web site, where the specific topics would be determined by - drumroll, please - JayUtah.
What about this don't you understand?
And yes, I get it that you don't want to do this and think I should do it. Please don't repeat that again. Consider that request dropped.
* I normally address such requests to the activist community, a community which I have never assumed you are a member of. I sometimes sarcastically ask FEMA Fairy Tale proponents to wish us good luck in getting the word out to the techical community. You are the only one of the recurring posters who favors such ideas that I can think of that is OK with such an activity. The rest are normally silent.
Can you explain to me again why OUR SIDE needs more structural engineers to convince you of something already peer reviewed?
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Ah, so NOW we get to the bottom of the LIE that Foxx claims that NIST makes.
They say:
"No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC 7" (page 26 / adobe 54)
And since NONE have been positively identified as coming from WTC 7
(not surprising since most of the metal was recovered from the scrap yards where origin would be questionable and as we also find out they are not stamped with an ID)
And yet here we have an article from JOM
A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined,
So the LOGICAL assumption is that NIST did not agree that there was CONCLUSIVE evidence that this flange was from WTC 7.
It does NOT appear to be a LIE (since that is STUPID as they NIST are certainly aware of the JOM article), but a matter of a disagreement over level of PROOF required for claiming a piece of steel came from a specific building.
So on this INSIGNIFICANT issue, Foxx believes he can DISCOUNT the entire NIST report?
Talk about sophistry, particularly since he claims
Which is OF COURSE ALSO BS since the OFFICIAL report is not out.
What's more, what the JOM points out is that while steel doesn't melt till 2800 degrees, mix in some sulfur and you can lower the melting point significantly.
So what it says is that because of sulfur the steel might have weakened at much lower temps than one would expect.
What potential source of the sulfur do they suggest?
ACID RAIN.
Foxx, four YEARS and this is ALL you've amassed?
LOSER.
Arthur
They say:
"No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC 7" (page 26 / adobe 54)
And since NONE have been positively identified as coming from WTC 7
(not surprising since most of the metal was recovered from the scrap yards where origin would be questionable and as we also find out they are not stamped with an ID)
And yet here we have an article from JOM
A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined,
So the LOGICAL assumption is that NIST did not agree that there was CONCLUSIVE evidence that this flange was from WTC 7.
It does NOT appear to be a LIE (since that is STUPID as they NIST are certainly aware of the JOM article), but a matter of a disagreement over level of PROOF required for claiming a piece of steel came from a specific building.
So on this INSIGNIFICANT issue, Foxx believes he can DISCOUNT the entire NIST report?
Talk about sophistry, particularly since he claims
QUOTE
The ONLY steel recovered from WTC 7 holds evidence which DOES NOT support the official fairy tale.
Which is OF COURSE ALSO BS since the OFFICIAL report is not out.
What's more, what the JOM points out is that while steel doesn't melt till 2800 degrees, mix in some sulfur and you can lower the melting point significantly.
So what it says is that because of sulfur the steel might have weakened at much lower temps than one would expect.
What potential source of the sulfur do they suggest?
ACID RAIN.
Foxx, four YEARS and this is ALL you've amassed?
LOSER.
Arthur
I E-mailed Greening and he responded to me. Gordon insulted him in tone and he responded in kind. I never posted that message. My point is e-mail them yourself. I made it very easy. Most of the links above have E-mail addresses. You have NO excuse.
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 28 2006, 11:50 PM)
Can you explain to me again why OUR SIDE needs more structural engineers to convince you of something already peer reviewed?
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
I just recently spoke to the tentativeness of science. Did you miss that? You also haven't answered my question as to whether or not you really believe all these people reviewed BZ's article.
Also, if you are implying that once an article makes it into a peer-reviewed journal, it is immune from further discussion, criticism, and the possible need for defense or even retraction (or charitable benign neglect ), you are completely mistaken.
Rather than take my word for this, I suggest you contact any academic and ask them about this, point blank.
If BZ's article needs defending or retraction, I don't foresee any realistic scenario whereby it will come to this unless a challenge comes from within the scientific or engineering community, by somebody with a Ph.D. who is known. Jones has challenged it on the basis of unrealistic initial assumption, but IMO, it is not only begging to be challenged on many fronts, being almost completely flawed, but it is important to do so, since the paper has done so much damage to the prospects of a timely, serious inquiry. It doesn't help, either, that Professor Jones is a trained physicist, not a trained engineer.
A thorough refutation of BZ might open the minds of many scientists and engineers to seriously examine the issue.
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
I just recently spoke to the tentativeness of science. Did you miss that? You also haven't answered my question as to whether or not you really believe all these people reviewed BZ's article.
Also, if you are implying that once an article makes it into a peer-reviewed journal, it is immune from further discussion, criticism, and the possible need for defense or even retraction (or charitable benign neglect
), you are completely mistaken. Rather than take my word for this, I suggest you contact any academic and ask them about this, point blank.
If BZ's article needs defending or retraction, I don't foresee any realistic scenario whereby it will come to this unless a challenge comes from within the scientific or engineering community, by somebody with a Ph.D. who is known. Jones has challenged it on the basis of unrealistic initial assumption, but IMO, it is not only begging to be challenged on many fronts, being almost completely flawed, but it is important to do so, since the paper has done so much damage to the prospects of a timely, serious inquiry. It doesn't help, either, that Professor Jones is a trained physicist, not a trained engineer.
A thorough refutation of BZ might open the minds of many scientists and engineers to seriously examine the issue.
QUOTE
A thorough refutation of BZ might open the minds of many scientists and engineers to seriously examine the issue.
You appear to be making the assumption that the BZ paper CAN BE refuted.
Considering how long it has been out, is it not more likely that this may NOT be possible?
That what is MORE likely is that THOUSANDS of engineers HAVE looked at the paper and found NOTHING wrong with it.
Arthur
Packed away, in one of my many moving boxes is an old, yellowed and tattered novel. The exact rendition of its' title, escapes me at the moment. It addresses the life of an aging professor emerging into the 20th century, safe and secure, in the robe of Classical Physics. All around him, science is looking closer in, at the atom and further out, into space. His wall of incomprehension was growing exponentially and he could no longer see over it, standing only on the shoulders of Newton. Space and time, once independent, were now integral. The nature of sub-atomic particles were now functions of probability and statistical analysis. The Universe was accelerating away and from a common origin. The professor was trapped in an abridged paradigm. He rallied his dwindling colleagues against these evolutionary and revolutionary forces. He tried to discredit principles, he couldn't comprehend. Newton was his god and Einstein, by default, was a heretic. He battled against the inevitable and was left broken, disillusioned and alone. As I reflect on it, the Professor was traversing the same path through academia that "Willie Lowman" would later take through "Death of a Salesman".
I see an analogous division in this forum. The "keepers", are those who hold on for dear life to fluctuating "Nistian" accounts. Inflict some damage, apply some heat and the old reliable forces of nature, one way or another, will prevail. If there were 10 more identical WTC collapses they would still be happy and content with the same defined failure modalities. It would never occur to them to question the probability of extension through multiple events. NIST and FEMA are paternal entities. I guess some of us are more subservient to the concept of "father knows best" than others. The skeptics ask; why do 3 buildings fall to earth the same way. Why wouldn't at least one, have gone a little side ways or stuttered before falling. Why did the upper south section arrest and not fall off . How could all that destruction happen so quickly and neatly. How do you crush that much cement down to micron magnitudes with out lots of time consuming deceleration. As long as these questions remain, so will we. And now, photographic evidence of the core still standing. How is the official story going to explain this??? Initially they said the upper section released and acted on the lower, crushing the core and slamming floors in succession downward. That didn't fly, so they referenced some "photo-shopped" enhanced images of inward compression along a horizontal band of one face. Did this happen along the other faces? This set up the lateral stress theory between the core and periphery. Weather it was compressive or tensive depends depends on who you ask. Normally, heat makes steel expand but instead of seeing compressive force, we get tensive. The photos show inward movement, so it's gotta' be tensive. These lateral forces contributed to core degradation and initiated the collapse. But the core was left still standing. I thought it was supposed to be torn asunder by lateral forces. What force was left, to make the still standing core, collapse vertically. You would think that after such a chaotic event the core would sustain, irregular damage. Why didn't it pivot, side-ways, off of its' weakest section? Did the core remain, momentarily, in the other building? Now what?
Garbage in>"official" garbage out
I see an analogous division in this forum. The "keepers", are those who hold on for dear life to fluctuating "Nistian" accounts. Inflict some damage, apply some heat and the old reliable forces of nature, one way or another, will prevail. If there were 10 more identical WTC collapses they would still be happy and content with the same defined failure modalities. It would never occur to them to question the probability of extension through multiple events. NIST and FEMA are paternal entities. I guess some of us are more subservient to the concept of "father knows best" than others. The skeptics ask; why do 3 buildings fall to earth the same way. Why wouldn't at least one, have gone a little side ways or stuttered before falling. Why did the upper south section arrest and not fall off . How could all that destruction happen so quickly and neatly. How do you crush that much cement down to micron magnitudes with out lots of time consuming deceleration. As long as these questions remain, so will we. And now, photographic evidence of the core still standing. How is the official story going to explain this??? Initially they said the upper section released and acted on the lower, crushing the core and slamming floors in succession downward. That didn't fly, so they referenced some "photo-shopped" enhanced images of inward compression along a horizontal band of one face. Did this happen along the other faces? This set up the lateral stress theory between the core and periphery. Weather it was compressive or tensive depends depends on who you ask. Normally, heat makes steel expand but instead of seeing compressive force, we get tensive. The photos show inward movement, so it's gotta' be tensive. These lateral forces contributed to core degradation and initiated the collapse. But the core was left still standing. I thought it was supposed to be torn asunder by lateral forces. What force was left, to make the still standing core, collapse vertically. You would think that after such a chaotic event the core would sustain, irregular damage. Why didn't it pivot, side-ways, off of its' weakest section? Did the core remain, momentarily, in the other building? Now what?
Garbage in>"official" garbage out
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 28 2006, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE
The inelastic part of BZ has much greater potential for telling us something significant about possible collapse scenarios. (The elastic part has none.)
However, as I have recently noted, BZ's inelastic model is constrained in ways* that seem to
a) contradict the visible evidence
b ) contradict my intuitive notions about what the effects of cross bracing would have been **
c) is not justified by B&Z in any way (that I could detect)
d) may well be quite valid if h << r, where r is a typical radius of curvature for buckles (instead, h >> r )
However, as I have recently noted, BZ's inelastic model is constrained in ways* that seem to
a) contradict the visible evidence
b ) contradict my intuitive notions about what the effects of cross bracing would have been **
c) is not justified by B&Z in any way (that I could detect)
d) may well be quite valid if h << r, where r is a typical radius of curvature for buckles (instead, h >> r )
How does the visible evidence contradict B-Z?
The cross bracing was horizontal only at at the level of the floors. It looks to be in place as much or more, for a support of the floor of the core section, as for actual cross bracing purposes. The 12 foot distance between floors had no bracing and no diagonal bracing was used. Buckling, at least at that first impacted floor, would be constrained largely to that 12 foot distance. Any buckling through a larger vertical distance would have also had to buckle the cross bracing or snap the connection between column and beam. What would you say would be the max deflection over that 12 feet could be on a column before kneeling occurs? What radius of the buckling curve would that represent? Would not 'h' always be much smaller than 'r'?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The inelastic part of BZ has much greater potential for telling us something significant about possible collapse scenarios. (The elastic part has none.) However, as I have recently noted, BZ's inelastic model is constrained in ways* that seem to a) contradict the visible evidence b ) contradict my intuitive notions about what the effects of cross bracing would have been ** c) is not justified by B&Z in any way (that I could detect) d) may well be quite valid if h << r, where r is a typical radius of curvature for buckles (instead, h >> r ) |
How does the visible evidence contradict B-Z?
The cross bracing was horizontal only at at the level of the floors. It looks to be in place as much or more, for a support of the floor of the core section, as for actual cross bracing purposes. The 12 foot distance between floors had no bracing and no diagonal bracing was used. Buckling, at least at that first impacted floor, would be constrained largely to that 12 foot distance. Any buckling through a larger vertical distance would have also had to buckle the cross bracing or snap the connection between column and beam. What would you say would be the max deflection over that 12 feet could be on a column before kneeling occurs? What radius of the buckling curve would that represent? Would not 'h' always be much smaller than 'r'?
Furthermore, were the constraints more realistic, I believe BZ would completely fall apart. The energy is dissipated in the buckle, not the unbuckled parts of the columns. If the buckles are allowed to occur multiple times in a floor length h, and furthermore the physics/engineering is such that they actually do, and furthermore if buckling occurs in a progressive fashion from top to bottom, this would result in much more energy dissipation in buckling of the first floor. Also, the decrease in potential energy between buckles would then be far less than otherwise.
Why would the buckling occur in more than one location along that 12 foot vertical distance? A simple experiment with dry spaghetti, where I can easily impact a vertical force much greater than the design load shows that it very rarely buckles or breaks at more than one spot along its length. It is a very simplified analogy but I am not sure where it would breakdown in showing that once the first buckle starts, secondary buckles (in an originally stiff column) do not develop. Probably because as soon as it starts buckling , that location becomes the weakest point.
By visible evidence I mean, mostly the picture in the FEMA reports, with the woman standing in the impact zone. You see essentially straight pieces of metal. There seems to be no instance of a curved piece curving over an arc greater than 1 foot. *
Also, pictures of a beam undergoing 4 point bending, that I had posted earlier in the thread, shows basically an "elbow" type bend, not a "banana" type bend.
I wrote down roughly h/4 based on memory, but your post forced me to look. Measuring the spandrel from a picture at wtc7.net, I get 32 pixels high for the spandrel vs. 94 pixels high for a floor.
see http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-above-deck.jpg
Thus, the spandrel is covering 34% of a storey height, h. Thus, I can accept the first buckle as occuring at approximately 1/2(2/3) h = 1/3 h from the bottom of the spandrel, which is 33% more than the 1/4 h I had guesstimated as an upper bound.
However, what about a second buckle? And a third, fourth, etc?
At this point, I am reduced to further guessing how many buckles we would actually get, but consider that the FEMA impact photo suggests a radius r of roughly 1 foot, if we continue halving the distance, we get buckles at:
1/2 (7.92 feet) = 3.96 feet
1/2 (3.96 feet) = 1.98 feet
1/2 (1.98 feet) = .99 feet
below the bottom of a spandrel.
(Note: .66 h = 7.92 feet )
So, 3 buckles per exterior column along a floor length h seems reasonable, if there is enough energy to actually create those buckles.**
Now, so far this analysis ignores a rather obvious complication. And that is, that the spandrels tend to resist buckling from the upper part of each column on each floor as it collapses. I don't have time to get into a detailed discussion about what the most likely geometries are (and I'd be mostly guessing, anyway), but I will note that a symmetric inward or outward buckling of each floor would tend to reduce this effect to 0. Thus, this particular aspect of an assumption of symmetry favors a FEMA Fairy Tale type of outcome, also.
Of course, the most realistic scenarios may involve the spandrels getting destroyed before, or mostly before, the columns on a floor start buckling. What is the energy dissipated in doing so?
I've no idea!
If B&Z had any idea, they have either rolled it up into their assumed modulus, or just ignored it. My guess is the latter.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 28 2006, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE
** The current state of my intuition on this score is different than it was earlier. Formerly, I expected a symetric frame/lattice having roughly the properties of the WTC frames to bend/buckle towards the center, but somewhat closer to the top because the columns were weaker going upwards. In a theoretical model, perfect symmetry is possible. In a more realistic model, this is not the case, and some columns will buckle sooner. The first columns that buckle are thus have to contend with lateral resistance due to all the rest of the columns, as well, where the resistance forces are propagated through cross bracings, trusses, and the like.
But a few inches from the top of the first sound storey, there is 'no' cross bracing, which consequently predisposes the location of the buckle to be constrained to this region (call it roughly = h/4).
Note that these considerations imply that if the WTC buildings had been made without the spandrels, then BZ's inelastic model might have been applicable, and the buildings may have well collapsed globally once a local collapse got going.
Looks like the spandrels weren't there just for decorative purposes.....
But a few inches from the top of the first sound storey, there is 'no' cross bracing, which consequently predisposes the location of the buckle to be constrained to this region (call it roughly = h/4).
Note that these considerations imply that if the WTC buildings had been made without the spandrels, then BZ's inelastic model might have been applicable, and the buildings may have well collapsed globally once a local collapse got going.
Looks like the spandrels weren't there just for decorative purposes.....
Unless your consideration that the buckling would be absorbed along the entire length of the column, from basement to collapse floor is incorrect and instead each floor distance , 12 feet of column bore the majority of buckling force.
This sounds to me like another argument for reducing the range of expected buckling to the top floor. I am arguing that the spandrels predispose the system to buckle at the topmost floor of the lower portion of the tower, and multiple times, at that.
If you want to agree with me, then agree with me. And if you want to disagree with me, then disagree with me. Doing both at once confuses me.
I'm assuming, of course, that if 12 topmost feet of a column "bore the majority of buckling force", then the initial buckle will tend to occur at the center, etc. You have not argued for any frequency of failure, but seem to assume that the first buckle will occur at 12 feet.
* I probably should have spoken about a circumference of curvature, rather than a radius of curvature. The point is that the inelastic deformation is highly localized, and the arc lengths of these deformations << h
** Note that a this distribution of buckles is probably implicitly assuming sequential bending, leading to fracturing, with the process repeating within a given storey.
This seems consistent with what we visually observe, but not with the picture that B&Z paint of what real buckling looks like in columns.
I believe that 'paradox' is resolved by noting that, in a 7.92 length of column, the height to width ratio is large, and reducing the height of a column in this scenario implies a larger angular bend than if the column was 150x as long. The more acute bend makes fracturing more likely.
How much more likely, you need to talk to engineers to figure out....
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 29 2006, 12:28 AM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 28 2006, 11:50 PM)
Can you explain to me again why OUR SIDE needs more structural engineers to convince you of something already peer reviewed?
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
I just recently spoke to the tentativeness of science. Did you miss that? You also haven't answered my question as to whether or not you really believe all these people reviewed BZ's article.
Also, if you are implying that once an article makes it into a peer-reviewed journal, it is immune from further discussion, criticism, and the possible need for defense or even retraction (or charitable benign neglect ), you are completely mistaken.
Rather than take my word for this, I suggest you contact any academic and ask them about this, point blank.
If BZ's article needs defending or retraction, I don't foresee any realistic scenario whereby it will come to this unless a challenge comes from within the scientific or engineering community, by somebody with a Ph.D. who is known. Jones has challenged it on the basis of unrealistic initial assumption, but IMO, it is not only begging to be challenged on many fronts, being almost completely flawed, but it is important to do so, since the paper has done so much damage to the prospects of a timely, serious inquiry. It doesn't help, either, that Professor Jones is a trained physicist, not a trained engineer.
A thorough refutation of BZ might open the minds of many scientists and engineers to seriously examine the issue.
They're staking the Journals reputation on this, so while I don't know how many EXACTLY reviewed the paper I can tell you many have. It's the reason they call it "PEER REVIEWED" I know people who have published in Journals. It's no easy task. It usually gets sent back for errors until the hypothesis can be tested and falsified.
The "tentativeness of science" is the same empty argument Intelligent Design crowd bring up to explain why there is no main stream peer reviewed "Theory of Intelligent Design". Just as new information hones the many hypothesis within Evolution, new information in the collapse of the towers my have tweaked the hypothesis until now we have a "probable collapse hypothesis." which came after the preliminary collapse hypothesis.
It's not lost on me that you use a preliminary collapse hypothesis (A hypothesis which is pre-testing of evidence and is simply to quickly explain some overt observations) to discredit the final probable collapse hypothesis. (A hypothesis which is after testing the evidence and as such exposes new evidence which is now taken into consideration)
This has been told to you over and over again by adoucette and I yet you continue to use this obvious straw man. Why would you do something like that?
To prove my point, you haven't shown ONE peer reviewed paper which disproves the NIST FINAL report. NONE EXIST.
You can see the core on one building...
Note the core standing for a short time before collapsing on the other building.
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc100301/wtc064.jpg
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc100301/wtc035.jpg
This proves three things. One is what I said. the core was standing a few seconds after collapse. This supports the pancaking hypothesis. The second is Independent Observer is a lying sock puppet. And the third is the bottom of the core was still standing straight which doesn't support the core bending or collapsing from the basement.
Understand that the pancaking is not what caused the collapse. It's the result of the collapse.
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
I just recently spoke to the tentativeness of science. Did you miss that? You also haven't answered my question as to whether or not you really believe all these people reviewed BZ's article.
Also, if you are implying that once an article makes it into a peer-reviewed journal, it is immune from further discussion, criticism, and the possible need for defense or even retraction (or charitable benign neglect
), you are completely mistaken. Rather than take my word for this, I suggest you contact any academic and ask them about this, point blank.
If BZ's article needs defending or retraction, I don't foresee any realistic scenario whereby it will come to this unless a challenge comes from within the scientific or engineering community, by somebody with a Ph.D. who is known. Jones has challenged it on the basis of unrealistic initial assumption, but IMO, it is not only begging to be challenged on many fronts, being almost completely flawed, but it is important to do so, since the paper has done so much damage to the prospects of a timely, serious inquiry. It doesn't help, either, that Professor Jones is a trained physicist, not a trained engineer.
A thorough refutation of BZ might open the minds of many scientists and engineers to seriously examine the issue.
They're staking the Journals reputation on this, so while I don't know how many EXACTLY reviewed the paper I can tell you many have. It's the reason they call it "PEER REVIEWED" I know people who have published in Journals. It's no easy task. It usually gets sent back for errors until the hypothesis can be tested and falsified.
The "tentativeness of science" is the same empty argument Intelligent Design crowd bring up to explain why there is no main stream peer reviewed "Theory of Intelligent Design". Just as new information hones the many hypothesis within Evolution, new information in the collapse of the towers my have tweaked the hypothesis until now we have a "probable collapse hypothesis." which came after the preliminary collapse hypothesis.
It's not lost on me that you use a preliminary collapse hypothesis (A hypothesis which is pre-testing of evidence and is simply to quickly explain some overt observations) to discredit the final probable collapse hypothesis. (A hypothesis which is after testing the evidence and as such exposes new evidence which is now taken into consideration)
This has been told to you over and over again by adoucette and I yet you continue to use this obvious straw man. Why would you do something like that?
To prove my point, you haven't shown ONE peer reviewed paper which disproves the NIST FINAL report. NONE EXIST.
You would need to refute the FINAL NIST report. Not just take quotes of someone who's unhappy with the amount or quaility of evidence they have to work with.
It's been said over and over again that there is enough evidence to prove beyond a doubt that it's a controlled demolition. If that's true the lack of evidence because it was carted away by scrap companies is a straw man. I don't want to hear this excuse anymore. Just submit what you have and lets see if it's true.
It's been said over and over again that there is enough evidence to prove beyond a doubt that it's a controlled demolition. If that's true the lack of evidence because it was carted away by scrap companies is a straw man. I don't want to hear this excuse anymore. Just submit what you have and lets see if it's true.
You can see the core on one building...
Note the core standing for a short time before collapsing on the other building.
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc100301/wtc064.jpg
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc100301/wtc035.jpg
This proves three things. One is what I said. the core was standing a few seconds after collapse. This supports the pancaking hypothesis. The second is Independent Observer is a lying sock puppet. And the third is the bottom of the core was still standing straight which doesn't support the core bending or collapsing from the basement.
Understand that the pancaking is not what caused the collapse. It's the result of the collapse.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 29 2006, 12:12 AM)
Ah, so NOW we get to the bottom of the LIE that Foxx claims that NIST makes.
They say:
"No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC 7" (page 26 / adobe 54)
And since NONE have been positively identified as coming from WTC 7
(not surprising since most of the metal was recovered from the scrap yards where origin would be questionable and as we also find out they are not stamped with an ID)
And yet here we have an article from JOM
A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined,
So the LOGICAL assumption is that NIST did not agree that there was CONCLUSIVE evidence that this flange was from WTC 7.
It does NOT appear to be a LIE (since that is STUPID as they NIST are certainly aware of the JOM article), but a matter of a disagreement over level of PROOF required for claiming a piece of steel came from a specific building.
[
Arthur,
Your repeated attemps to distort the truth are getting downright stupid.
What part of [B]"retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7" are you having a hard time with??
You know gawdammed well that when it is stated "While the exact location of this beam could not be determined" they mean the exact location within WTC7 (i.e. which floor).
You have demonstrated that you are incapable of honest debate, and your only intention here is to distort and muddy the truth.
Quite frankly, you sicken me.
They say:
"No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC 7" (page 26 / adobe 54)
And since NONE have been positively identified as coming from WTC 7
(not surprising since most of the metal was recovered from the scrap yards where origin would be questionable and as we also find out they are not stamped with an ID)
And yet here we have an article from JOM
A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined,
So the LOGICAL assumption is that NIST did not agree that there was CONCLUSIVE evidence that this flange was from WTC 7.
It does NOT appear to be a LIE (since that is STUPID as they NIST are certainly aware of the JOM article), but a matter of a disagreement over level of PROOF required for claiming a piece of steel came from a specific building.
[
Arthur,
Your repeated attemps to distort the truth are getting downright stupid.
QUOTE
A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined.
What part of [B]"retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7" are you having a hard time with??
You know gawdammed well that when it is stated "While the exact location of this beam could not be determined" they mean the exact location within WTC7 (i.e. which floor).
You have demonstrated that you are incapable of honest debate, and your only intention here is to distort and muddy the truth.
Quite frankly, you sicken me.
Cosmo, well now I feel like I truly accomplished something today. Hope you stay feeling sick for an extended period.
What part of POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED Don't YOU understand?
You see, WE KNOW that WTC 7 was HIT by flying PIECES of WTC 1. Thus even though the steel may have been recovered from the WTC 7 site, that DOES NOT mean it WAS WTC 7 steel.
Now the STUDENT who recovered the steel MIGHT have thought so, and the scientists who did the analysis might have thought so, but LACKING PROOF that the FLANGE was UNIQUE to WTC 7 would put it in the category of NOT POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED as coming from WTC 7.
As NIST pointed out, SOME of the Steel beams could be identified from the towers because they were STAMPED with an ID number. So if the PIECE in question was the piece with the ID then it could be identified, but pieces without ID marks could be from any of several buildings UNLESS the size or shape of the piece identified it. From what I could tell of the piece in question, it appeared to be a pretty generic looking flange. So NO, I'm not at all surprised that its original identity could not be determined.
But the ULTIMATE IRONY is the paper in question points out the fact that steel can loose a great deal more of its strength at much lower temperatures if it is contaminated with Sulfur and as they point out, there are a lot of common sources for sulfur, including ACID RAIN. The Papers concern was quite simple, there could easily be ways that the strength of the steel in the towers could be compromised in a fire situation, at temps much lower than anticipated by designers.
Arthur
What part of POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED Don't YOU understand?
You see, WE KNOW that WTC 7 was HIT by flying PIECES of WTC 1. Thus even though the steel may have been recovered from the WTC 7 site, that DOES NOT mean it WAS WTC 7 steel.
Now the STUDENT who recovered the steel MIGHT have thought so, and the scientists who did the analysis might have thought so, but LACKING PROOF that the FLANGE was UNIQUE to WTC 7 would put it in the category of NOT POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED as coming from WTC 7.
As NIST pointed out, SOME of the Steel beams could be identified from the towers because they were STAMPED with an ID number. So if the PIECE in question was the piece with the ID then it could be identified, but pieces without ID marks could be from any of several buildings UNLESS the size or shape of the piece identified it. From what I could tell of the piece in question, it appeared to be a pretty generic looking flange. So NO, I'm not at all surprised that its original identity could not be determined.
But the ULTIMATE IRONY is the paper in question points out the fact that steel can loose a great deal more of its strength at much lower temperatures if it is contaminated with Sulfur and as they point out, there are a lot of common sources for sulfur, including ACID RAIN. The Papers concern was quite simple, there could easily be ways that the strength of the steel in the towers could be compromised in a fire situation, at temps much lower than anticipated by designers.
Arthur
Quote; Senable
To prove my point, you haven't shown ONE peer reviewed paper which disproves the NIST FINAL report. NONE EXIST.
Could it be that we live under an administration that is setting up shop, to initiate total subjugation over its' citizens. The Executive, Legislature and now the Courts. Their Tri-fecta is about to cross the finish line. The system of checks and balances is gone. This is the era of political "wack-a-mole". Anybody who stands tall will incur retribution. I'm just an occasional poster, on a 911 physics forum and I wonder about the repercussions, down the line, of speaking my mind. Don't you get it, dude! Americans have given up on personal honor and dignity. It's expendable. Your family, job, house and car are not. We are victims of our own success. We have traded the freedom to speak out against injustice for protection from the unknown. They pumped up the Soviet Union into a world class bogey man when in reality it was really a nation of starving drunks who played a lot of chess, in the cold. They're doing it again. So, what engineer is going to tell his wife; "honey, I'm going to submit a paper on why the government is lying about the events of 911. You know my company does a lot of government contracts. So, I'll probably be fired and will never find employment in my field again. Are you OK with that?" You talk the talk of someone who's trying to sound like he's in the biz. But it instantly falls apart when you try to walk the walk. The fact that you don't understand the required concept of being an uncontroversial model citizen, if you want to work, gives you away as a wanna be. They can get somebody from India, who will gladly do the job for half the salary. What they lack in immediate, cultural communications ability, they make up for in reliability, education and respectful personalities. Uncontroversial.
Aluminum foil contains aluminum
Autopsies of Alzheimer's patients indicate accumulations of Au in brain pathology
You have an affinity for aluminum head gear
To prove my point, you haven't shown ONE peer reviewed paper which disproves the NIST FINAL report. NONE EXIST.
Could it be that we live under an administration that is setting up shop, to initiate total subjugation over its' citizens. The Executive, Legislature and now the Courts. Their Tri-fecta is about to cross the finish line. The system of checks and balances is gone. This is the era of political "wack-a-mole". Anybody who stands tall will incur retribution. I'm just an occasional poster, on a 911 physics forum and I wonder about the repercussions, down the line, of speaking my mind. Don't you get it, dude! Americans have given up on personal honor and dignity. It's expendable. Your family, job, house and car are not. We are victims of our own success. We have traded the freedom to speak out against injustice for protection from the unknown. They pumped up the Soviet Union into a world class bogey man when in reality it was really a nation of starving drunks who played a lot of chess, in the cold. They're doing it again. So, what engineer is going to tell his wife; "honey, I'm going to submit a paper on why the government is lying about the events of 911. You know my company does a lot of government contracts. So, I'll probably be fired and will never find employment in my field again. Are you OK with that?" You talk the talk of someone who's trying to sound like he's in the biz. But it instantly falls apart when you try to walk the walk. The fact that you don't understand the required concept of being an uncontroversial model citizen, if you want to work, gives you away as a wanna be. They can get somebody from India, who will gladly do the job for half the salary. What they lack in immediate, cultural communications ability, they make up for in reliability, education and respectful personalities. Uncontroversial.
Aluminum foil contains aluminum
Autopsies of Alzheimer's patients indicate accumulations of Au in brain pathology
You have an affinity for aluminum head gear
And here we see the OTHER common trait of CTers.
They are FRIGGIN scared of their shadows.
They talk of the Govt as if it is the Boogey Man.
Got news for you Luketober.
NO ONE GIVES A SHIIT WHAT YOU SAY OR POST.
Get over yourself.
The ONLY DANGER to you IS you.
Arthur
They are FRIGGIN scared of their shadows.
They talk of the Govt as if it is the Boogey Man.
Got news for you Luketober.
NO ONE GIVES A SHIIT WHAT YOU SAY OR POST.
Get over yourself.
The ONLY DANGER to you IS you.
Arthur
In reply to the latest Arthurian Legend...
The JOM article was preliminary to the much more detailed FEMA metallurgical investigation.
You emphasize part of a sentence from the JOM article which states...
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...erman-0112.html
and claim... "AH-HA ! See, you are lying and twisting the words".
You are quite simply wrong, and on the contrary it is NOT I, but rather YOU who is taking the sentence out of context.
This is obvious because you deliberately leave out the more precise 'corresponding' sentence in the FEMA document...
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...erman-0112.html
and claim... "AH-HA ! See, you are lying and twisting the words".
You are quite simply wrong, and on the contrary it is NOT I, but rather YOU who is taking the sentence out of context.
This is obvious because you deliberately leave out the more precise 'corresponding' sentence in the FEMA document...
"C.2 Sample 1 (from WTC 7)
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstuctural changes that occured in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam of this building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration.
The JOM article was preliminary to the much more detailed FEMA metallurgical investigation.
You emphasize part of a sentence from the JOM article which states...
QUOTE
While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...erman-0112.html
and claim... "AH-HA ! See, you are lying and twisting the words".
You are quite simply wrong, and on the contrary it is NOT I, but rather YOU who is taking the sentence out of context.
This is obvious because you deliberately leave out the more precise 'corresponding' sentence in the FEMA document...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. |
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...erman-0112.html
and claim... "AH-HA ! See, you are lying and twisting the words".
You are quite simply wrong, and on the contrary it is NOT I, but rather YOU who is taking the sentence out of context.
This is obvious because you deliberately leave out the more precise 'corresponding' sentence in the FEMA document...
"C.2 Sample 1 (from WTC 7)
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstuctural changes that occured in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam of this building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration.
.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Your statement that...
... is utter obfuscating bs.
NIST was NOT the 'collector' of the steel. At the time of collection FEMA was essentially in charge of such operations. It is quite clear that FEMA (nor Barnett and Biederman) had any QUESTION as to where these mysteriously-melted beams came from. How can NIST come along later and simply dismiss the original proclamations by the 'collectors' themselves, and make-up a new proclamation that it is no longer 'clear' to them that the collectors got the evidence from the WTC 7 pile in the scrapyards?
You, like your NIST 'gods' are LIARS and OBFUSCATORS.
... is utter obfuscating bs.
NIST was NOT the 'collector' of the steel. At the time of collection FEMA was essentially in charge of such operations. It is quite clear that FEMA (nor Barnett and Biederman) had any QUESTION as to where these mysteriously-melted beams came from. How can NIST come along later and simply dismiss the original proclamations by the 'collectors' themselves, and make-up a new proclamation that it is no longer 'clear' to them that the collectors got the evidence from the WTC 7 pile in the scrapyards?
You, like your NIST 'gods' are LIARS and OBFUSCATORS.
by the Legend Proclamator
It does NOT appear to be a LIE (since that is STUPID as they NIST are certainly aware of the JOM article), but a matter of a disagreement over level of PROOF required for claiming a piece of steel came from a specific building.
NIST may or may not be aware of the JOM article. JOM was not a participant in the Investigation - merely a 'reporter' of the facts related to metals & metallurgy. However, NIST most CERTAINLY was provided ALL the records of FEMA, which would have included the chain of custody during the collection of the steel. From WHICH PILE, at WHICH scrapyard. You imply that all the steel from the entire WTC site was simply randomly dumped in great mixed piles in some scrapyards.
The level of proof required for claiming the steel (under question) came from a specific building (WTC 7) was never under any doubt by Biederman and Barnett who were personally involved in choosing which piece was to be collected from which pile. Do you claim these 'experts' did some shoddy collection without keeping meticulous records of where and when each sample was collected?
Does NIST now (in their re-write of history) wish to claim that Biederman is a LIAR, simply because they cannot deal with this evidence.
As is quite evident from NIST's dragging it's feet on the WTC 7 report, and now trying to solicit subcontractors to 'finish' the report for them.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Draft_SOW_WTC7jan06.pdf
( more info on this aspect here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=53134 )
The LAST thing they want to deal with, is forensic evidence which casts grave doubts on the fairy tale version they are attempting to pass off as a 'scientific investigation'. This evidence ... (which ties into another very serious problem they are faced with - the unexplainable undergound 'fires')... is 'deadly' to the fairy tale.
What a crock of boogie-woogie magic... why don't you bring out your Mo-Jo and put a hex on me, you wacko.
This issue is FAR from Insignificant. Everyone from the New York Times, to FEMA, to JOM, to WPI, classified this evidence as "the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation".
I have never said or implied that the entire NIST report can be 'DISCOUNTED' based on this evidence alone. In fact there is no need to discount 90% of the report which contains no relevant information as to WHY and HOW the buildings suddenly just dematerialized in seconds.
What a crock of boogie-woogie magic... why don't you bring out your Mo-Jo and put a hex on me, you wacko.
This issue is FAR from Insignificant. Everyone from the New York Times, to FEMA, to JOM, to WPI, classified this evidence as "the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation".
I have never said or implied that the entire NIST report can be 'DISCOUNTED' based on this evidence alone. In fact there is no need to discount 90% of the report which contains no relevant information as to WHY and HOW the buildings suddenly just dematerialized in seconds.
adou-obfuscator
What potential source of the sulfur do they suggest?
ACID RAIN.
That is about as likely as Amazing Underground Bellows or Supersonic Jet Fuel.
However, if you are 'comfortable' with that wild speculation (which is completely unfounded), I suggest the immediate evacuation of ALL high-rise buildings in the North East. If 'acid rain' WERE the cause, I'd expect buildings all over the north-east which suffer fires to be exploding into dust.
Quick, get everybody OUT... until we determine that 'acid rain' WAS NOT the cause... Oh, wait... hold your horses... no need to panic... NO ONE ACTUALLY BELIEVES THAT NONSENSE.
Adoucette you are descending into madness so fast, you will soon catch up with the Schneibster.
Once again, the 'pope' is wrong.
'Luketober' posted a very relevant and intelligent addition to this thread, which I believe MOST people here find has MUCH MORE relevance that 'adoucette's shaking his Mo-Jo around like some quack witchdoctor.
Should we take a poll?
Once again, the 'pope' is wrong.
'Luketober' posted a very relevant and intelligent addition to this thread, which I believe MOST people here find has MUCH MORE relevance that 'adoucette's shaking his Mo-Jo around like some quack witchdoctor.
Should we take a poll?
Originally posted by Zoctoberfest
Could it be that we live under an administration that is setting up shop, to initiate total subjugation over its' citizens. The Executive, Legislature and now the courts. There Tri-fecta is about to cross the finish line. The system of checks and balances is gone. This is the era of political "wack-a-mole". Anybody who stands tall will incur retribution. I'm just an occasional poster, on a 911 physics forum and I wonder about the repercussions, down the line, of speaking my mind. Don't you get it, dude! Americans have given up on personal honor and dignity. It's expendable. Your family, job, house and car are not. We are victims of our own success. We have traded the freedom to speak out against injustice for protection from the unknown. They pumped up the Soviet Union into a world class bogey man when in reality it was really a nation of starving drunks who played a lot of chess. There doing it again. So, what engineer is going to tell his wife; "honey, I'm going to submit a paper on why the government is lying about the events of 911. You know my company does a lot of government contracts. So, I'll probably be fired and will never find employment in my field again. Are you OK with that?" You talk the talk of someone who's trying to sound like he's in the biz. But it instantly falls apart when you try to walk the walk. The fact that you don't understand the required concept of being an uncontrovesial model citizen, if you want to work, give you away as a wanna be, who know what.
Simply making a continous stream of unfounded proclamations (as you do adoucette) does NOT add weight to your credibility.
Definately a good post Zoctoberfest!
That is about as likely as Amazing Underground Bellows or Supersonic Jet Fuel.
That is about as likely as Amazing Underground Bellows or Supersonic Jet Fuel.
"The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain."
Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says.
Read your Sources FOXX.
Arthur
I read them ALL IN Context.
If such a wild speculation were to be believed, then it ONLY adds weight to the pressing NEED for this unexpected and unexplained mystery to be solved.
IF this wild speculation should be shown to have any merit whatsoever, then... (as I said)... we had better quickly evacuate ALL high-rises in the north-east UNTIL this speculation can BE DISCOUNTED...
If you believe this speculation, you should pressure your 'people-friendly' government to sign the Kyoto accord.
I read them ALL IN Context.
If such a wild speculation were to be believed, then it ONLY adds weight to the pressing NEED for this unexpected and unexplained mystery to be solved.
IF this wild speculation should be shown to have any merit whatsoever, then... (as I said)... we had better quickly evacuate ALL high-rises in the north-east UNTIL this speculation can BE DISCOUNTED...
If you believe this speculation, you should pressure your 'people-friendly' government to sign the Kyoto accord.
Originally posted by Biederman
"All of these things have to be explored," he says.
I agree wholeheartedly. It definately needs to be explored and investigated. NIST cut off his funding for further research into this important area, refused to provide more samples for study... and is NOW claiming... they DON'T EVEN HAVE these WTC 7 samples.
What fool posts quotes which ONLY damage his own obfuscating position? That would be YOU - 'Arthur Adoucette'
I read them ALL IN Context.
If such a wild speculation were to be believed, then it ONLY adds weight to the pressing NEED for this unexpected and unexplained mystery to be solved.
IF this wild speculation should be shown to have any merit whatsoever, then... (as I said)... we had better quickly evacuate ALL high-rises in the north-east UNTIL this speculation can BE DISCOUNTED...
If you believe this speculation, you should pressure your 'people-friendly' government to sign the Kyoto accord.
Why?
We aren't expecting any more planes to run into buildings.
See we've taken care of the cockpit doors, increased security and added marshals on many of the planes.
No need to abandon high rise buildings.
Arthur
I have never said or implied that the entire NIST report can be 'DISCOUNTED' based on this evidence alone. In fact there is no need to discount 90% of the report which contains no relevant information as to WHY and HOW the buildings suddenly just dematerialized in seconds.
Foxx you don't seem to be able to get through one post withoug a lie.
Or maybe its just that you have a piss-poor memory?
I read them ALL IN Context.
If such a wild speculation were to be believed, then it ONLY adds weight to the pressing NEED for this unexpected and unexplained mystery to be solved.
IF this wild speculation should be shown to have any merit whatsoever, then... (as I said)... we had better quickly evacuate ALL high-rises in the north-east UNTIL this speculation can BE DISCOUNTED...
If you believe this speculation, you should pressure your 'people-friendly' government to sign the Kyoto accord.
I read them ALL IN Context.
If such a wild speculation were to be believed, then it ONLY adds weight to the pressing NEED for this unexpected and unexplained mystery to be solved.
IF this wild speculation should be shown to have any merit whatsoever, then... (as I said)... we had better quickly evacuate ALL high-rises in the north-east UNTIL this speculation can BE DISCOUNTED...
If you believe this speculation, you should pressure your 'people-friendly' government to sign the Kyoto accord.
Originally posted by Biederman
"All of these things have to be explored," he says.
I agree wholeheartedly. It definately needs to be explored and investigated. NIST cut off his funding for further research into this important area, refused to provide more samples for study... and is NOW claiming... they DON'T EVEN HAVE these WTC 7 samples.
What fool posts quotes which ONLY damage his own obfuscating position? That would be YOU - 'Arthur Adoucette'
You posted before I finished adding...
I agree wholeheartedly. It definately needs to be explored and investigated. NIST cut off his funding for further research into this important area, refused to provide more samples for study... and is NOW claiming... they DON'T EVEN HAVE these WTC 7 samples.
What fool posts quotes which ONLY damage his own obfuscating position? That would be YOU - 'Arthur Adoucette'
I agree wholeheartedly. It definately needs to be explored and investigated. NIST cut off his funding for further research into this important area, refused to provide more samples for study... and is NOW claiming... they DON'T EVEN HAVE these WTC 7 samples.
What fool posts quotes which ONLY damage his own obfuscating position? That would be YOU - 'Arthur Adoucette'
Except that pieces of WTC 1 FELL ON WTC 7, so you tell me Foxx, how can you identify a piece of steel from the WTC 7 site as to WHERE it originally came from?
Arthur
Because the twin towers steel was stamped with identification marks and the WTC 7 weren't? ... That would be my guess. Any steel which allegedly fell on WTC 7 (and ended up in the WTC 7 pile) would be quickly identified by the stamped markings which would show conclusively that it had come from WTC 1. Seems you 'forgot' about that little detail, didn't you?
Go home arthur, you are so tired ... you are tripping over yourself.
I now turn the floor over to others... Manyana.
I'm making an honest observation and I think it's relevant. Having read all of this thread, it's plainly obvious that Schneibster is fu<king around with multiple IDs. He's made several blatant slip ups with his log-ins and can't seem to keep his personas separate stylistically, either. This multiple personality game along with his namecalling and attempts to dehumanize his opponents by referring to them as "it" suggests that we may be dealing with a seriously disturbed individual here.
You can't tell the difference between Schneibster "fu@king around with multiple IDs" and someone pretending to be Schneibster "fu@king around with multiple IDs"
It's nice to see that you use the same moronic un-logic no matter what topic you address. Are you accusing Schnensible of trying frame da real Schneib? If not, your argument makes exactly zero sense. Hardly surprising coming from a professional (if mediocre) obfuscator.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Your statement that...
QUOTE
So the LOGICAL assumption is that NIST did not agree that there was CONCLUSIVE evidence that this flange was from WTC 7.
... is utter obfuscating bs.
NIST was NOT the 'collector' of the steel. At the time of collection FEMA was essentially in charge of such operations. It is quite clear that FEMA (nor Barnett and Biederman) had any QUESTION as to where these mysteriously-melted beams came from. How can NIST come along later and simply dismiss the original proclamations by the 'collectors' themselves, and make-up a new proclamation that it is no longer 'clear' to them that the collectors got the evidence from the WTC 7 pile in the scrapyards?
You, like your NIST 'gods' are LIARS and OBFUSCATORS.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So the LOGICAL assumption is that NIST did not agree that there was CONCLUSIVE evidence that this flange was from WTC 7. |
... is utter obfuscating bs.
NIST was NOT the 'collector' of the steel. At the time of collection FEMA was essentially in charge of such operations. It is quite clear that FEMA (nor Barnett and Biederman) had any QUESTION as to where these mysteriously-melted beams came from. How can NIST come along later and simply dismiss the original proclamations by the 'collectors' themselves, and make-up a new proclamation that it is no longer 'clear' to them that the collectors got the evidence from the WTC 7 pile in the scrapyards?
You, like your NIST 'gods' are LIARS and OBFUSCATORS.
by the Legend Proclamator
It does NOT appear to be a LIE (since that is STUPID as they NIST are certainly aware of the JOM article), but a matter of a disagreement over level of PROOF required for claiming a piece of steel came from a specific building.
NIST may or may not be aware of the JOM article. JOM was not a participant in the Investigation - merely a 'reporter' of the facts related to metals & metallurgy. However, NIST most CERTAINLY was provided ALL the records of FEMA, which would have included the chain of custody during the collection of the steel. From WHICH PILE, at WHICH scrapyard. You imply that all the steel from the entire WTC site was simply randomly dumped in great mixed piles in some scrapyards.
The level of proof required for claiming the steel (under question) came from a specific building (WTC 7) was never under any doubt by Biederman and Barnett who were personally involved in choosing which piece was to be collected from which pile. Do you claim these 'experts' did some shoddy collection without keeping meticulous records of where and when each sample was collected?
Does NIST now (in their re-write of history) wish to claim that Biederman is a LIAR, simply because they cannot deal with this evidence.
As is quite evident from NIST's dragging it's feet on the WTC 7 report, and now trying to solicit subcontractors to 'finish' the report for them.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Draft_SOW_WTC7jan06.pdf
( more info on this aspect here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=53134 )
The LAST thing they want to deal with, is forensic evidence which casts grave doubts on the fairy tale version they are attempting to pass off as a 'scientific investigation'. This evidence ... (which ties into another very serious problem they are faced with - the unexplainable undergound 'fires')... is 'deadly' to the fairy tale.
QUOTE
adou-obfuscator
So on this INSIGNIFICANT issue, Foxx believes he can DISCOUNT the entire NIST report?
So on this INSIGNIFICANT issue, Foxx believes he can DISCOUNT the entire NIST report?
What a crock of boogie-woogie magic... why don't you bring out your Mo-Jo and put a hex on me, you wacko.
This issue is FAR from Insignificant. Everyone from the New York Times, to FEMA, to JOM, to WPI, classified this evidence as "the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation".
I have never said or implied that the entire NIST report can be 'DISCOUNTED' based on this evidence alone. In fact there is no need to discount 90% of the report which contains no relevant information as to WHY and HOW the buildings suddenly just dematerialized in seconds.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| adou-obfuscator So on this INSIGNIFICANT issue, Foxx believes he can DISCOUNT the entire NIST report? |
What a crock of boogie-woogie magic... why don't you bring out your Mo-Jo and put a hex on me, you wacko.
This issue is FAR from Insignificant. Everyone from the New York Times, to FEMA, to JOM, to WPI, classified this evidence as "the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation".
I have never said or implied that the entire NIST report can be 'DISCOUNTED' based on this evidence alone. In fact there is no need to discount 90% of the report which contains no relevant information as to WHY and HOW the buildings suddenly just dematerialized in seconds.
adou-obfuscator
What potential source of the sulfur do they suggest?
ACID RAIN.
That is about as likely as Amazing Underground Bellows or Supersonic Jet Fuel.
However, if you are 'comfortable' with that wild speculation (which is completely unfounded), I suggest the immediate evacuation of ALL high-rise buildings in the North East. If 'acid rain' WERE the cause, I'd expect buildings all over the north-east which suffer fires to be exploding into dust.
Quick, get everybody OUT... until we determine that 'acid rain' WAS NOT the cause... Oh, wait... hold your horses... no need to panic... NO ONE ACTUALLY BELIEVES THAT NONSENSE.
Adoucette you are descending into madness so fast, you will soon catch up with the Schneibster.
See:
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc1003...wtc044.jpg.html
Notice all the seats for the floor joists are gone, but the columns are fine, as in PANCAKE.
Arthur
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc1003...wtc044.jpg.html
Notice all the seats for the floor joists are gone, but the columns are fine, as in PANCAKE.
Arthur
QUOTE
by the King of Boogie-Woogie
Got news for you Luketober.
NO ONE GIVES A SHIIT WHAT YOU SAY OR POST.
Got news for you Luketober.
NO ONE GIVES A SHIIT WHAT YOU SAY OR POST.
Once again, the 'pope' is wrong.
'Luketober' posted a very relevant and intelligent addition to this thread, which I believe MOST people here find has MUCH MORE relevance that 'adoucette's shaking his Mo-Jo around like some quack witchdoctor.
Should we take a poll?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by the King of Boogie-Woogie Got news for you Luketober. NO ONE GIVES A SHIIT WHAT YOU SAY OR POST. |
Once again, the 'pope' is wrong.
'Luketober' posted a very relevant and intelligent addition to this thread, which I believe MOST people here find has MUCH MORE relevance that 'adoucette's shaking his Mo-Jo around like some quack witchdoctor.
Should we take a poll?
Originally posted by Zoctoberfest
Could it be that we live under an administration that is setting up shop, to initiate total subjugation over its' citizens. The Executive, Legislature and now the courts. There Tri-fecta is about to cross the finish line. The system of checks and balances is gone. This is the era of political "wack-a-mole". Anybody who stands tall will incur retribution. I'm just an occasional poster, on a 911 physics forum and I wonder about the repercussions, down the line, of speaking my mind. Don't you get it, dude! Americans have given up on personal honor and dignity. It's expendable. Your family, job, house and car are not. We are victims of our own success. We have traded the freedom to speak out against injustice for protection from the unknown. They pumped up the Soviet Union into a world class bogey man when in reality it was really a nation of starving drunks who played a lot of chess. There doing it again. So, what engineer is going to tell his wife; "honey, I'm going to submit a paper on why the government is lying about the events of 911. You know my company does a lot of government contracts. So, I'll probably be fired and will never find employment in my field again. Are you OK with that?" You talk the talk of someone who's trying to sound like he's in the biz. But it instantly falls apart when you try to walk the walk. The fact that you don't understand the required concept of being an uncontrovesial model citizen, if you want to work, give you away as a wanna be, who know what.
Simply making a continous stream of unfounded proclamations (as you do adoucette) does NOT add weight to your credibility.
Definately a good post Zoctoberfest!
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 29 2006, 12:19 AM)
QUOTE
adou-obfuscator
What potential source of the sulfur do they suggest?
ACID RAIN.
What potential source of the sulfur do they suggest?
ACID RAIN.
That is about as likely as Amazing Underground Bellows or Supersonic Jet Fuel.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| adou-obfuscator What potential source of the sulfur do they suggest? ACID RAIN. |
That is about as likely as Amazing Underground Bellows or Supersonic Jet Fuel.
"The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain."
Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says.
Read your Sources FOXX.
Arthur
QUOTE
By an obfuscator
Read your Sources FOXX.
Arthur
Read your Sources FOXX.
Arthur
I read them ALL IN Context.
If such a wild speculation were to be believed, then it ONLY adds weight to the pressing NEED for this unexpected and unexplained mystery to be solved.
IF this wild speculation should be shown to have any merit whatsoever, then... (as I said)... we had better quickly evacuate ALL high-rises in the north-east UNTIL this speculation can BE DISCOUNTED...
If you believe this speculation, you should pressure your 'people-friendly' government to sign the Kyoto accord.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By an obfuscator Read your Sources FOXX. Arthur |
I read them ALL IN Context.
If such a wild speculation were to be believed, then it ONLY adds weight to the pressing NEED for this unexpected and unexplained mystery to be solved.
IF this wild speculation should be shown to have any merit whatsoever, then... (as I said)... we had better quickly evacuate ALL high-rises in the north-east UNTIL this speculation can BE DISCOUNTED...
If you believe this speculation, you should pressure your 'people-friendly' government to sign the Kyoto accord.
Originally posted by Biederman
"All of these things have to be explored," he says.
I agree wholeheartedly. It definately needs to be explored and investigated. NIST cut off his funding for further research into this important area, refused to provide more samples for study... and is NOW claiming... they DON'T EVEN HAVE these WTC 7 samples.
What fool posts quotes which ONLY damage his own obfuscating position? That would be YOU - 'Arthur Adoucette'
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 29 2006, 12:54 AM)
QUOTE
By an obfuscator
Read your Sources FOXX.
Arthur
Read your Sources FOXX.
Arthur
I read them ALL IN Context.
If such a wild speculation were to be believed, then it ONLY adds weight to the pressing NEED for this unexpected and unexplained mystery to be solved.
IF this wild speculation should be shown to have any merit whatsoever, then... (as I said)... we had better quickly evacuate ALL high-rises in the north-east UNTIL this speculation can BE DISCOUNTED...
If you believe this speculation, you should pressure your 'people-friendly' government to sign the Kyoto accord.
Why?
We aren't expecting any more planes to run into buildings.
See we've taken care of the cockpit doors, increased security and added marshals on many of the planes.
No need to abandon high rise buildings.
Arthur
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jan 29 2006, 04:07 AM)
Quote; Senable
To prove my point, you haven't shown ONE peer reviewed paper which disproves the NIST FINAL report. NONE EXIST.
Could it be that we live under an administration that is setting up shop, to initiate total subjugation over its' citizens. The Executive, Legislature and now the courts. There Tri-fecta is about to cross the finish line. The system of checks and balances is gone. This is the era of political "wack-a-mole". Anybody who stands tall will incur retribution. I'm just an occasional poster, on a 911 physics forum and I wonder about the repercussions, down the line, of speaking my mind. Don't you get it, dude! Americans have given up on personal honor and dignity. It's expendable. Your family, job, house and car are not. We are victims of our own success. We have traded the freedom to speak out against injustice for protection from the unknown. They pumped up the Soviet Union into a world class bogey man when in reality it was really a nation of starving drunks who played a lot of chess. There doing it again. So, what engineer is going to tell his wife; "honey, I'm going to submit a paper on why the government is lying about the events of 911. You know my company does a lot of government contracts. So, I'll probably be fired and will never find employment in my field again. Are you OK with that?" You talk the talk of someone who's trying to sound like he's in the biz. But it instantly falls apart when you try to walk the walk. The fact that you don't understand the required concept of being an uncontrovesial model citizen, if you want to work, give you away as a wanna be, who know what.
Aluminum foil contains aluminum
Autopsies of Alzheimer's patients indicate accumulations of Au in brain pathology
Maybe that explains what happening to you
That Bush is using the events of 9/11 to control the masses for his corporate whoring is a very good possibility. That you are HELPING HIM is an even stronger possibility. Because you allow him to paint all liberals with the same nutty brush.
There is a REASON the right doesn't bother refuting this. I don't see as many right wing sites defending Bush on this. There is no other reason I can think of other than they WANT you to believe this lunacy. They will wait until this grows, then release photos or other evidence showing how stupid liberals are for believing it. He will then get away with REAL crimes. Crimes which have a small amount of conspirators and whistle blowers who have already come out. Much more believable conspiracies will be swept away with this maddness.
I hope Rove is at least paying you.
To prove my point, you haven't shown ONE peer reviewed paper which disproves the NIST FINAL report. NONE EXIST.
Could it be that we live under an administration that is setting up shop, to initiate total subjugation over its' citizens. The Executive, Legislature and now the courts. There Tri-fecta is about to cross the finish line. The system of checks and balances is gone. This is the era of political "wack-a-mole". Anybody who stands tall will incur retribution. I'm just an occasional poster, on a 911 physics forum and I wonder about the repercussions, down the line, of speaking my mind. Don't you get it, dude! Americans have given up on personal honor and dignity. It's expendable. Your family, job, house and car are not. We are victims of our own success. We have traded the freedom to speak out against injustice for protection from the unknown. They pumped up the Soviet Union into a world class bogey man when in reality it was really a nation of starving drunks who played a lot of chess. There doing it again. So, what engineer is going to tell his wife; "honey, I'm going to submit a paper on why the government is lying about the events of 911. You know my company does a lot of government contracts. So, I'll probably be fired and will never find employment in my field again. Are you OK with that?" You talk the talk of someone who's trying to sound like he's in the biz. But it instantly falls apart when you try to walk the walk. The fact that you don't understand the required concept of being an uncontrovesial model citizen, if you want to work, give you away as a wanna be, who know what.
Aluminum foil contains aluminum
Autopsies of Alzheimer's patients indicate accumulations of Au in brain pathology
Maybe that explains what happening to you
That Bush is using the events of 9/11 to control the masses for his corporate whoring is a very good possibility. That you are HELPING HIM is an even stronger possibility. Because you allow him to paint all liberals with the same nutty brush.
There is a REASON the right doesn't bother refuting this. I don't see as many right wing sites defending Bush on this. There is no other reason I can think of other than they WANT you to believe this lunacy. They will wait until this grows, then release photos or other evidence showing how stupid liberals are for believing it. He will then get away with REAL crimes. Crimes which have a small amount of conspirators and whistle blowers who have already come out. Much more believable conspiracies will be swept away with this maddness.
I hope Rove is at least paying you.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 29 2006, 12:19 AM)
I have never said or implied that the entire NIST report can be 'DISCOUNTED' based on this evidence alone. In fact there is no need to discount 90% of the report which contains no relevant information as to WHY and HOW the buildings suddenly just dematerialized in seconds.
Foxx you don't seem to be able to get through one post withoug a lie.
Or maybe its just that you have a piss-poor memory?
QUOTE (Foxx+)
Add to that the FACT that NIST has been caught in the red-handed LIE that "NO Steel was recovered from WTC 7"... and we have a case of a report not worth the paper it is written on.
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+)
The level of proof required for claiming the steel (under question) came from a specific building (WTC 7) was never under any doubt by Biederman and Barnett who were personally involved in choosing which piece was to be collected from which pile. Do you claim these 'experts' did some shoddy collection without keeping meticulous records of where and when each sample was collected?
Except that pieces of WTC 1 FELL ON WTC 7, so you tell me Foxx, how can you POSITIVELY identify a piece of steel from the WTC 7 site as to WHICH BUILDING it originally came from?
Arthur
Except that pieces of WTC 1 FELL ON WTC 7, so you tell me Foxx, how can you POSITIVELY identify a piece of steel from the WTC 7 site as to WHICH BUILDING it originally came from?
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 29 2006, 04:54 AM)
QUOTE
By an obfuscator
Read your Sources FOXX.
Arthur
Read your Sources FOXX.
Arthur
I read them ALL IN Context.
If such a wild speculation were to be believed, then it ONLY adds weight to the pressing NEED for this unexpected and unexplained mystery to be solved.
IF this wild speculation should be shown to have any merit whatsoever, then... (as I said)... we had better quickly evacuate ALL high-rises in the north-east UNTIL this speculation can BE DISCOUNTED...
If you believe this speculation, you should pressure your 'people-friendly' government to sign the Kyoto accord.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By an obfuscator Read your Sources FOXX. Arthur |
I read them ALL IN Context.
If such a wild speculation were to be believed, then it ONLY adds weight to the pressing NEED for this unexpected and unexplained mystery to be solved.
IF this wild speculation should be shown to have any merit whatsoever, then... (as I said)... we had better quickly evacuate ALL high-rises in the north-east UNTIL this speculation can BE DISCOUNTED...
If you believe this speculation, you should pressure your 'people-friendly' government to sign the Kyoto accord.
Originally posted by Biederman
"All of these things have to be explored," he says.
I agree wholeheartedly. It definately needs to be explored and investigated. NIST cut off his funding for further research into this important area, refused to provide more samples for study... and is NOW claiming... they DON'T EVEN HAVE these WTC 7 samples.
What fool posts quotes which ONLY damage his own obfuscating position? That would be YOU - 'Arthur Adoucette'
You posted before I finished adding...
QUOTE
Originally posted by Biederman
"All of these things have to be explored," he says.
"All of these things have to be explored," he says.
I agree wholeheartedly. It definately needs to be explored and investigated. NIST cut off his funding for further research into this important area, refused to provide more samples for study... and is NOW claiming... they DON'T EVEN HAVE these WTC 7 samples.
What fool posts quotes which ONLY damage his own obfuscating position? That would be YOU - 'Arthur Adoucette'
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Biederman "All of these things have to be explored," he says. |
I agree wholeheartedly. It definately needs to be explored and investigated. NIST cut off his funding for further research into this important area, refused to provide more samples for study... and is NOW claiming... they DON'T EVEN HAVE these WTC 7 samples.
What fool posts quotes which ONLY damage his own obfuscating position? That would be YOU - 'Arthur Adoucette'
Except that pieces of WTC 1 FELL ON WTC 7, so you tell me Foxx, how can you identify a piece of steel from the WTC 7 site as to WHERE it originally came from?
Arthur
Because the twin towers steel was stamped with identification marks and the WTC 7 weren't? ... That would be my guess. Any steel which allegedly fell on WTC 7 (and ended up in the WTC 7 pile) would be quickly identified by the stamped markings which would show conclusively that it had come from WTC 1. Seems you 'forgot' about that little detail, didn't you?
Go home arthur, you are so tired ... you are tripping over yourself.
I now turn the floor over to others... Manyana.
QUOTE (adouchebag+)
QUOTE (JamesX+Jan 28 2006, 03:48 AM)
QUOTE
You've been reading the thread for a month and your sole contribution after all of that is to call someone a sock puppet.
I'm making an honest observation and I think it's relevant. Having read all of this thread, it's plainly obvious that Schneibster is fu<king around with multiple IDs. He's made several blatant slip ups with his log-ins and can't seem to keep his personas separate stylistically, either. This multiple personality game along with his namecalling and attempts to dehumanize his opponents by referring to them as "it" suggests that we may be dealing with a seriously disturbed individual here.
You can't tell the difference between Schneibster "fu@king around with multiple IDs" and someone pretending to be Schneibster "fu@king around with multiple IDs"
It's nice to see that you use the same moronic un-logic no matter what topic you address. Are you accusing Schnensible of trying frame da real Schneib? If not, your argument makes exactly zero sense. Hardly surprising coming from a professional (if mediocre) obfuscator.
JamesX,
You really ARE this dense?
The ONE person who we can be reasonably sure ISN'T trying to frame Schneibster IS Schneibster.
MORON
Arthur
You really ARE this dense?
The ONE person who we can be reasonably sure ISN'T trying to frame Schneibster IS Schneibster.
MORON
Arthur
Something not seen in any of the internet photos of 7 I've seen is the very large gouge on the south side. I'm not talking about the 18 story gouge in the south west corner. There is a much bigger gouge in the center of the south face of the building. Something like this but worse...
What is most interesting about that picture is the fact that the flying debris cut through the structural members of that building like they were nothing.
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 29 2006, 05:49 AM)
What is most interesting about that picture is the fact that the flying debris cut through the structural members of that building like they were nothing.
Arthur
Yes, and like the gouge in south side of building 7 it started lower than the roof line. So from the roof of WTC 7 you see light damage but it grows significantly below it.
Arthur
Yes, and like the gouge in south side of building 7 it started lower than the roof line. So from the roof of WTC 7 you see light damage but it grows significantly below it.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 28 2006, 08:19 PM)
And here we see the OTHER common trait of CTers.
They are FRIGGIN scared of their shadows.
They talk of the Govt as if it is the Boogey Man.
Got news for you Luketober.
NO ONE GIVES A SHIIT WHAT YOU SAY OR POST.
Get over yourself.
The ONLY DANGER to you IS you.
Arthur
If that is true what are you doing here logged on 24 hours a day?
They are FRIGGIN scared of their shadows.
They talk of the Govt as if it is the Boogey Man.
Got news for you Luketober.
NO ONE GIVES A SHIIT WHAT YOU SAY OR POST.
Get over yourself.
The ONLY DANGER to you IS you.
Arthur
If that is true what are you doing here logged on 24 hours a day?
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.