Gosh this is a stupid argument.
The whole 9/11 truth movement has yet to produce any reasonable evidence to back up it's approximately 285 different versions of what happened that day.
It's gone beyond silly.
As if we having been over all this repeatedly.
Maybe the thread should have just died without the zombie attack.
Maybe the thread should have just died without the zombie attack.
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 8 2010, 11:44 PM)
Yeah, just like my unproven assertion that I saw an article from a demolition expert, who published an article within hours of both towers collapsing claiming it was explosives.
I swear it's true! Although being a conspiracy theorist
!! I think the NWO took it down and shut him up! lol Although important enough to respond to though?
If music agent claimed he saw Elvis perish in the building would you give that credence?
Every field has people with no imagination that think they know the answer.
For every question truthers come up with they ignore a dozen about their version.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 8 2010, 11:54 PM)
Stundie:
Go to hell.
http://www.alum.dartmouth.org/classes/62/bombdough.htm
I may have been inadvertantly conflating some of what Dougherty had to say with some of what Loizeaux had to say :Shrug:.
An article (may or may not be the one I found before) that discusses some of what Loizeaux had to say (and others).
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/thetowerbu...portraitoflesli
Go to hell.
http://www.alum.dartmouth.org/classes/62/bombdough.htm
I may have been inadvertantly conflating some of what Dougherty had to say with some of what Loizeaux had to say :Shrug:.
An article (may or may not be the one I found before) that discusses some of what Loizeaux had to say (and others).
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/thetowerbu...portraitoflesli
I like how you left out the fact he claims he is a professor of linguistics! lol Anyway you were mistaken and mixed up different articles and authors?
Oh well, mistakes do happen and I will take this out of the BS file and put it down as a mistake then Trippy.
p.s. There is no hell I'm afraid! lol
Oh well, mistakes do happen and I will take this out of the BS file and put it down as a mistake then Trippy.
p.s. There is no hell I'm afraid! lol
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jan 9 2010, 12:21 AM)
Gosh this is a stupid argument.
The whole 9/11 truth movement has yet to produce any reasonable evidence to back up it's approximately 285 different versions of what happened that day.
It's gone beyond silly.
What is stupid is believing you have an argument like scientific evidence that supports the NIST conclusions of the collapse being inevitable, when there is no evidence to back up their many different theory of collapses that happened that day.
I'm sure you remember?
Pancake! Progressive, Column! Truss! Piston! Or any variation!! lol
That is gone beyond silly!
Although not as silly as the laser beam theories!! lol
The whole 9/11 truth movement has yet to produce any reasonable evidence to back up it's approximately 285 different versions of what happened that day.
It's gone beyond silly.
What is stupid is believing you have an argument like scientific evidence that supports the NIST conclusions of the collapse being inevitable, when there is no evidence to back up their many different theory of collapses that happened that day.
I'm sure you remember?
Pancake! Progressive, Column! Truss! Piston! Or any variation!! lol
That is gone beyond silly!
Although not as silly as the laser beam theories!! lol
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 9 2010, 01:50 PM)
I like how you left out the fact he claims he is a professor of linguistics! lol Anyway you were mistaken and mixed up different articles and authors?
Oh well, mistakes do happen and I will take this out of the BS file and put it down as a mistake then Trippy.
p.s. There is no hell I'm afraid! lol
No dum-dum.
I presented them as if they were by the same person in the same article, when in fact there were two seperate people numb-nuts (which probably occured because I tracked them down through an article discussing fore-knowledge of the collapse, which mentioned these two).
There is no mistake, the articles, between them say exactly what I attributed to them dum-dum, and I came across the references on a single page dum-dum.
You seem to have something on your face, better wipe it off quick before it cakes.
Oh well, mistakes do happen and I will take this out of the BS file and put it down as a mistake then Trippy.
p.s. There is no hell I'm afraid! lol
No dum-dum.
I presented them as if they were by the same person in the same article, when in fact there were two seperate people numb-nuts (which probably occured because I tracked them down through an article discussing fore-knowledge of the collapse, which mentioned these two).
There is no mistake, the articles, between them say exactly what I attributed to them dum-dum, and I came across the references on a single page dum-dum.
You seem to have something on your face, better wipe it off quick before it cakes.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 9 2010, 02:07 AM)
No dum-dum.
I presented them as if they were by the same person in the same article, when in fact there were two seperate people numb-nuts (which probably occured because I tracked them down through an article discussing fore-knowledge of the collapse, which mentioned these two).
There is no mistake, the articles, between them say exactly what I attributed to them dum-dum, and I came across the references on a single page dum-dum.
You seem to have something on your face, better wipe it off quick before it cakes.
Errr there is nothing on my face. You claimed, that....
The plane that hit WTC1 impacted higher on the building.
Doesn't the amount of steel decrease toward the top of a skyscraper and therefore there is less inertia to be overcome?
Oh that's right. No one wants to produce a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers.
Your ability to come up with these NCSTAR1 references is quite impressive even when your interpretation of there meaning is all wrong. I really have to wonder how you do it. No wall panel info below the 78th floor and from two different buildings but you didn't say that when giving the reference. And then provide a page with a diagram of a tree when I had already provided a source with a photograph of its installation.
Sorry, the trees were below the 7th floor.
psik
The plane that hit WTC1 impacted higher on the building.
Doesn't the amount of steel decrease toward the top of a skyscraper and therefore there is less inertia to be overcome?
Yes, the plane impacted higher and it's true that the steel gets a tad smaller as you go up.
Just a tad though.
The CONCRETE on the other hand, and the LIVE LOADS though, which are FAR FAR greater than the weight of the steel, are essentially the same for all normal floors.
So no, the inertia would not be significantly changed by the slight decrease in the amount of STEEL in the towers.
But the points I made are STILL valid.
The plane that hit the WTC 1 was 100 mph slower and hit at a much steeper angle and so imparted significantly less horizontal force on the tower than the WTC 2 impact.
The oscillation in WTC 2 takes 2 SECONDS to reach its maximum.
The WTC 1 plane on the other hand reached the middle of the core by .2 seconds.
Its highly unlikely that WTC 1 swayed as much as WTC 2, but even if it did, one would expect that at .2 seconds one would have less than 1 inch of horizontal movement in those columns.
Not something one would see in a video of that resolution.
Your attempt to discredit the Purdue simulation FAILS and only shows how little you understand of the dynamics of the impact.
I've taken the time to read them and I try to reference them as often as possible when I'm debating idiots who haven't .
I've taken the time to read them and I try to reference them as often as possible when I'm debating idiots who haven't .
I really have to wonder how you do it.
Like I do anything else, I work at it so I can be good at it.
Arthur
I presented them as if they were by the same person in the same article, when in fact there were two seperate people numb-nuts (which probably occured because I tracked them down through an article discussing fore-knowledge of the collapse, which mentioned these two).
There is no mistake, the articles, between them say exactly what I attributed to them dum-dum, and I came across the references on a single page dum-dum.
You seem to have something on your face, better wipe it off quick before it cakes.
Errr there is nothing on my face. You claimed, that....
QUOTE (Trippy+)
I'm not sure if I have it bookmarked or not, but in my travels I came across an article written by an individual who specializes in what amounts to the forensic analysis of building collapses.
He correctly predicted (at the time) which tower would come down first, based on impact times, I have it in my head, but can't say for certain that he correctly predicted in advance about how long the towers would take to come down, and he also stated that once the tilt in the towers exceeded 3°, total collapse was inevitable.
You didn't come across a article written by an individual, you merged 2 article written by 2 individuals together and while you are there celebrating, neither of them predicted which tower would come down first.
So there is nothing on my face Trippy, except a smile.
It could have been worse, it could have been BS instead of your mistake. lol
He correctly predicted (at the time) which tower would come down first, based on impact times, I have it in my head, but can't say for certain that he correctly predicted in advance about how long the towers would take to come down, and he also stated that once the tilt in the towers exceeded 3°, total collapse was inevitable.
You didn't come across a article written by an individual, you merged 2 article written by 2 individuals together and while you are there celebrating, neither of them predicted which tower would come down first.
So there is nothing on my face Trippy, except a smile.
It could have been worse, it could have been BS instead of your mistake. lol
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 8 2010, 07:56 PM)
What is stupid is believing you have an argument like scientific evidence that supports the NIST conclusions of the collapse being inevitable, when there is no evidence to back up their many different theory of collapses that happened that day.
I'm sure you remember?
Pancake! Progressive, Column! Truss! Piston! Or any variation!! lol
That is gone beyond silly!
Although not as silly as the laser beam theories!! lol
FEMA, who did a much simpler analysis than NIST, suggested several alternatives.
NIST didn't have many different theories though.
For reference, see NIST NCSTAR 1-6
Section 9.3 Probable Collapse Sequence (which stops the analysis with collapse initiation and ends with "Global Collapse Ensued")
Section 9.3.3 Events Following Collapse Initiation (certainly not as detailed as the FAQ 1 answer)
In one of the NIST reports, describing the visual evidence they use the term pancaking to describe what was happening AFTER collapse ensued.
Arthur
I'm sure you remember?
Pancake! Progressive, Column! Truss! Piston! Or any variation!! lol
That is gone beyond silly!
Although not as silly as the laser beam theories!! lol
FEMA, who did a much simpler analysis than NIST, suggested several alternatives.
NIST didn't have many different theories though.
For reference, see NIST NCSTAR 1-6
Section 9.3 Probable Collapse Sequence (which stops the analysis with collapse initiation and ends with "Global Collapse Ensued")
Section 9.3.3 Events Following Collapse Initiation (certainly not as detailed as the FAQ 1 answer)
In one of the NIST reports, describing the visual evidence they use the term pancaking to describe what was happening AFTER collapse ensued.
Arthur
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 8 2010, 09:18 PM)
while you are there celebrating, neither of them predicted which tower would come down first.
Wrong.
From Trippy's source:
Arthur
Wrong.
From Trippy's source:
QUOTE
Among the dozens of people I have spoken to recently who are experts in the construction of tall buildings (and many of whom witnessed the events of September 11th as they unfolded), only one said that he knew immediately, upon learning, from TV, of the planes' hitting the buildings, that the towers were going to fall. This was Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated, a Maryland-based family business that specializes in reducing tall buildings to manageable pieces of rubble. "Within a nanosecond," he told me. "I said, 'It's coming down. And the second tower will fall first, because it was hit lower down.' "
Arthur
QUOTE
Consider that the plane that hit the WTC 1 was going ~100 mph SLOWER, thus much less oscillation would be expected if the impacts were at identical angles.
The plane that hit WTC1 impacted higher on the building.
Doesn't the amount of steel decrease toward the top of a skyscraper and therefore there is less inertia to be overcome?
Oh that's right. No one wants to produce a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers.
Your ability to come up with these NCSTAR1 references is quite impressive even when your interpretation of there meaning is all wrong. I really have to wonder how you do it. No wall panel info below the 78th floor and from two different buildings but you didn't say that when giving the reference. And then provide a page with a diagram of a tree when I had already provided a source with a photograph of its installation.
Sorry, the trees were below the 7th floor.
psik
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 9 2010, 02:32 AM)
FEMA, who did a much simpler analysis than NIST, suggested several alternatives.
NIST didn't have many different theories though.
For reference, see NIST NCSTAR 1-6
Section 9.3 Probable Collapse Sequence (which stops the analysis with collapse initiation and ends with "Global Collapse Ensued")
Section 9.3.3 Events Following Collapse Initiation (certainly not as detailed as the FAQ 1 answer)
In one of the NIST reports, describing the visual evidence they use the term pancaking to describe what was happening AFTER collapse ensued.
Arthur
I'm aware that FEMA don't have a scientific explanation of the collapses either.
Unless you trust pancakes of course! lol
You know it's OK to admit there are no scientific explanations of how towers collapsed.
That automatically doesn't mean that it was blown up by demolition either.
NIST didn't have many different theories though.
For reference, see NIST NCSTAR 1-6
Section 9.3 Probable Collapse Sequence (which stops the analysis with collapse initiation and ends with "Global Collapse Ensued")
Section 9.3.3 Events Following Collapse Initiation (certainly not as detailed as the FAQ 1 answer)
In one of the NIST reports, describing the visual evidence they use the term pancaking to describe what was happening AFTER collapse ensued.
Arthur
I'm aware that FEMA don't have a scientific explanation of the collapses either.
Unless you trust pancakes of course! lol
You know it's OK to admit there are no scientific explanations of how towers collapsed.
That automatically doesn't mean that it was blown up by demolition either.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 9 2010, 02:36 AM)
Wrong.
From Trippy's source:
Arthur
My bad, I should have read the link to 9/11 myths as well as the Ray Dougherty link but I find that website quite dirty. lol
However, the rest of my point still stands.
From Trippy's source:
Arthur
My bad, I should have read the link to 9/11 myths as well as the Ray Dougherty link but I find that website quite dirty. lol
However, the rest of my point still stands.
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 8 2010, 10:13 PM)
You know it's OK to admit there are no scientific explanations of how towers collapsed.
But there is.
The NIST report takes it to the point of collapse initiation.
FAQ 1 explains why the kinetic energy of the falling top section is FAR above what the first intact floor below the point of collapse can absorb.
It just get's worse after that.
Arthur
But there is.
The NIST report takes it to the point of collapse initiation.
FAQ 1 explains why the kinetic energy of the falling top section is FAR above what the first intact floor below the point of collapse can absorb.
It just get's worse after that.
Arthur
QUOTE (psikeyhackr+Jan 8 2010, 09:42 PM)
The plane that hit WTC1 impacted higher on the building.
Doesn't the amount of steel decrease toward the top of a skyscraper and therefore there is less inertia to be overcome?
Yes, the plane impacted higher and it's true that the steel gets a tad smaller as you go up.
Just a tad though.
The CONCRETE on the other hand, and the LIVE LOADS though, which are FAR FAR greater than the weight of the steel, are essentially the same for all normal floors.
So no, the inertia would not be significantly changed by the slight decrease in the amount of STEEL in the towers.
But the points I made are STILL valid.
The plane that hit the WTC 1 was 100 mph slower and hit at a much steeper angle and so imparted significantly less horizontal force on the tower than the WTC 2 impact.
The oscillation in WTC 2 takes 2 SECONDS to reach its maximum.
The WTC 1 plane on the other hand reached the middle of the core by .2 seconds.
Its highly unlikely that WTC 1 swayed as much as WTC 2, but even if it did, one would expect that at .2 seconds one would have less than 1 inch of horizontal movement in those columns.
Not something one would see in a video of that resolution.
Your attempt to discredit the Purdue simulation FAILS and only shows how little you understand of the dynamics of the impact.
QUOTE
Your ability to come up with these NCSTAR1 references is quite impressive
I've taken the time to read them and I try to reference them as often as possible when I'm debating idiots who haven't .
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your ability to come up with these NCSTAR1 references is quite impressive |
I've taken the time to read them and I try to reference them as often as possible when I'm debating idiots who haven't .
I really have to wonder how you do it.
Like I do anything else, I work at it so I can be good at it.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 9 2010, 03:42 AM)
But there is.
The NIST report takes it to the point of collapse initiation.
FAQ 1 explains why the kinetic energy of the falling top section is FAR above what the first intact floor below the point of collapse can absorb.
It just get's worse after that.
Arthur
Taking it to the point of collapse initiation is not scientifically explaining how the tower collapsed or why it was inevitable.
And while we are on the subject, why do they not explained the impact effects on the upper portions and concentrate on the effect on the lower portions??
The NIST report takes it to the point of collapse initiation.
FAQ 1 explains why the kinetic energy of the falling top section is FAR above what the first intact floor below the point of collapse can absorb.
It just get's worse after that.
Arthur
Taking it to the point of collapse initiation is not scientifically explaining how the tower collapsed or why it was inevitable.
And while we are on the subject, why do they not explained the impact effects on the upper portions and concentrate on the effect on the lower portions??
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 9 2010, 03:18 PM)
You didn't come across a article written by an individual, you merged 2 article written by 2 individuals together and while you are there celebrating, neither of them predicted which tower would come down first.
So there is nothing on my face Trippy, except a smile.
It could have been worse, it could have been BS instead of your mistake. lol
Wrong again.
Learn to read.
And I've already told you, that I came across these two as references used in another article.
So there is nothing on my face Trippy, except a smile.
It could have been worse, it could have been BS instead of your mistake. lol
Wrong again.
Learn to read.
QUOTE
.This was Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated, a Maryland-based family business that specializes in reducing tall buildings to manageable pieces of rubble. "Within a nanosecond," he told me. "I said, 'It's coming down. And the second tower will fall first, because it was hit lower down.' "
And I've already told you, that I came across these two as references used in another article.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 8 2010, 02:07 PM)
I guess to the people who planted the explosives it was so convenient that a plane slammed into each tower.
Oh and that they managed to place the the explosives where they wouldn't be damaged by the fires.
Oh, and damn good pilots to hit exactly where they needed to.
Oh, And the entire scientific world is SO in love with Bush/Cheney that OF COURSE they helped them cover it up.
In fact, they are STILL so in love with the MEMORY of Bush/Cheney, that even though we now have a Democratic controlled House, Senate and Whitehouse, THEY all continue to cover it up.
What I find particularly amazing is that the scientists in OTHER countries, like France, are still so in love with Bush/Cheney that even they continue the cover up.
I never knew that Bush/Cheney were SO admired, and on such a global scale, that all these people would be willing to overlook the demoliton of the WTCs.
What BS
Arthur
And the team that could pull it all off could not then accomplish the simple task of "finding" WMD in Iraq. which would have made a Bush a hero in the States.
Oh and that they managed to place the the explosives where they wouldn't be damaged by the fires.
Oh, and damn good pilots to hit exactly where they needed to.
Oh, And the entire scientific world is SO in love with Bush/Cheney that OF COURSE they helped them cover it up.
In fact, they are STILL so in love with the MEMORY of Bush/Cheney, that even though we now have a Democratic controlled House, Senate and Whitehouse, THEY all continue to cover it up.
What I find particularly amazing is that the scientists in OTHER countries, like France, are still so in love with Bush/Cheney that even they continue the cover up.
I never knew that Bush/Cheney were SO admired, and on such a global scale, that all these people would be willing to overlook the demoliton of the WTCs.
What BS
Arthur
And the team that could pull it all off could not then accomplish the simple task of "finding" WMD in Iraq. which would have made a Bush a hero in the States.
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 8 2010, 10:59 PM)
Taking it to the point of collapse initiation is not scientifically explaining how the tower collapsed or why it was inevitable.
Yes it is.
When the collapse starts, it means that the columns on the failing wall begin to BUCKLE.
When they were just pulled in, they were still carrying a LOT of load, as each perimeter wall carried about 12% of the total, but when they buckled they gave up all their load carrying ability to the remaining walls, but the load would not have been spread evenly, the majority of that load, because of the tilt, would be on the columns near the adjacent walls, and the core columns on the side of the buckling (the opposite wall would also unload due to tilt) and so these adjacent walls are almost instantly overloaded as well by nearly 24% higher load and also fail. Their failure overloads the remaining core columns and then the entire top starts moving down as these buckled columns offer almost no resistance.
As the top block starts moving down, it's massive amount of potential energy is changing into kinetic energy and when it arrives at the next intact floor, two or three floors down, the force is far more than that floor can support, so it fails, and so on and so on, as long as the kinetic energy remains higher than the lower floors can support the collapse will continue.
Looking at the debris field after the collapse, its clear that this falling mass sort of unzipped the building, and not that many of the external perimeter columns were bent up, they were essentially just pushed outward (they were only held on by two bolts per truss seat), six truss seats per panel and just bolted to their adjacent panels.
http://www.boulder.nist.gov/div853/Program...es/image017.jpg
Arthur
Yes it is.
When the collapse starts, it means that the columns on the failing wall begin to BUCKLE.
When they were just pulled in, they were still carrying a LOT of load, as each perimeter wall carried about 12% of the total, but when they buckled they gave up all their load carrying ability to the remaining walls, but the load would not have been spread evenly, the majority of that load, because of the tilt, would be on the columns near the adjacent walls, and the core columns on the side of the buckling (the opposite wall would also unload due to tilt) and so these adjacent walls are almost instantly overloaded as well by nearly 24% higher load and also fail. Their failure overloads the remaining core columns and then the entire top starts moving down as these buckled columns offer almost no resistance.
As the top block starts moving down, it's massive amount of potential energy is changing into kinetic energy and when it arrives at the next intact floor, two or three floors down, the force is far more than that floor can support, so it fails, and so on and so on, as long as the kinetic energy remains higher than the lower floors can support the collapse will continue.
Looking at the debris field after the collapse, its clear that this falling mass sort of unzipped the building, and not that many of the external perimeter columns were bent up, they were essentially just pushed outward (they were only held on by two bolts per truss seat), six truss seats per panel and just bolted to their adjacent panels.
http://www.boulder.nist.gov/div853/Program...es/image017.jpg
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 9 2010, 04:42 AM)
Yes it is.
No it isn't, this may satisfy your curiousity but no matter how much you repeat it as a mantra, doesn't make it true.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 9 2010, 04:42 AM)
When the collapse starts, it means that the columns on the failing wall begin to BUCKLE.
Not doubting that at all.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 9 2010, 04:42 AM)
When they were just pulled in, they were still carrying a LOT of load, as each perimeter wall carried about 12% of the total, but when they buckled they gave up all their load carrying ability to the remaining walls, but the load would not have been spread evenly, the majority of that load, because of the tilt, would be on the columns near the adjacent walls, and the core columns on the side of the buckling (the opposite wall would also unload due to tilt) and so these adjacent walls are almost instantly overloaded as well by nearly 24% higher load and also fail. Their failure overloads the remaining core columns and then the entire top starts moving down as these buckled columns offer almost no resistance.
But as I asked previously, what about these columns in the upper portions??
Does the energy in the collision transfer between both upper and lower portions? Or are you suggest the upper portions were somehow stronger than the lower portions??
You see it sounds to me like you are proposing Bazants collapse model, which even as I a complete amateur can spot the flaws in it, that it treats the upper portion as a rigid block and the bottom portion as individual floors.
Does the energy in the collision transfer between both upper and lower portions? Or are you suggest the upper portions were somehow stronger than the lower portions??
You see it sounds to me like you are proposing Bazants collapse model, which even as I a complete amateur can spot the flaws in it, that it treats the upper portion as a rigid block and the bottom portion as individual floors.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 9 2010, 04:42 AM)
As the top block starts moving down, it's massive amount of potential energy is changing into kinetic energy and when it arrives at the next intact floor, two or three floors down, the force is far more than that floor can support, so it fails, and so on and so on, as long as the kinetic energy remains higher than the lower floors can support the collapse will continue.
Of course, you completely ignore the effect of this kinetic energy in the upper portions.
You also suggest that it arrives at the next intact floor, ignoring basic principles in physics that the kinetic energy will be transferred equally through the load bearing paths in both upper and lower portions, through both structures and not on a single floor as you suggest.
You also suggest that it arrives at the next intact floor, ignoring basic principles in physics that the kinetic energy will be transferred equally through the load bearing paths in both upper and lower portions, through both structures and not on a single floor as you suggest.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 9 2010, 04:42 AM)
Looking at the debris field after the collapse, its clear that this falling mass sort of unzipped the building, and not that many of the external perimeter columns were bent up, they were essentially just pushed outward (they were only held on by two bolts per truss seat), six truss seats per panel and just bolted to their adjacent panels.
http://www.boulder.nist.gov/div853/Program...es/image017.jpg
Arthur
http://www.boulder.nist.gov/div853/Program...es/image017.jpg
Arthur
I'm not doubting that the building was unzipped and looking at the debris field, there were sections weighing tons flung many meters away from the building.
I just do not think the methods that progressive collapse method explains this and many other anomalies which are conveniently swept under the carpet.
I just do not think the methods that progressive collapse method explains this and many other anomalies which are conveniently swept under the carpet.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 9 2010, 03:53 AM)
Yes, the plane impacted higher and it's true that the steel gets a tad smaller as you go up.
Just a tad though.
And how do we KNOW it's just a TAD?
Why can't the EXPERTS just produce a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level in EIGHT YEARS?
Why is that TOO MUCH TO ASK? It is not like it was the first skyscraper ever built and it should be some GREAT SECRET?
So how much does a COMPLETE floor assembly weigh, concrete, plus corrugated pans, plus trusses? Why hasn't that been seen anywhere in EIGHT YEARS?
Of course people who BELIEVE IN AUTHORITY no matter what don't need to question anything.
AMEN!
psik
Just a tad though.
And how do we KNOW it's just a TAD?
Why can't the EXPERTS just produce a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level in EIGHT YEARS?
Why is that TOO MUCH TO ASK? It is not like it was the first skyscraper ever built and it should be some GREAT SECRET?
So how much does a COMPLETE floor assembly weigh, concrete, plus corrugated pans, plus trusses? Why hasn't that been seen anywhere in EIGHT YEARS?
Of course people who BELIEVE IN AUTHORITY no matter what don't need to question anything.
AMEN!
psik
Stundie and psikeyhackr....
I am going to repeat my request from the other thread where you are bashing this around....
Propose an alternative sequence of events.... and prove it.
If you cannot, then we have to go with the official findings as being the better proven scenario.
It's easy... we apply the same rigor to your theories as you are trying to do with the official findings.
Let's see if you have any other alternative to the official scenario that makes more sense. I bet you won't because you would rather fiddle all day with your nitpicking than do actual science.
Try it...
I dare you.
I am going to repeat my request from the other thread where you are bashing this around....
Propose an alternative sequence of events.... and prove it.
If you cannot, then we have to go with the official findings as being the better proven scenario.
It's easy... we apply the same rigor to your theories as you are trying to do with the official findings.
Let's see if you have any other alternative to the official scenario that makes more sense. I bet you won't because you would rather fiddle all day with your nitpicking than do actual science.
Try it...
I dare you.
QUOTE (psikeyhackr+Jan 9 2010, 01:14 PM)
And how do we KNOW it's just a TAD?
Because I computed the weights myself from the data provided by NIST.
120 series column trees weighed in at 3.5 tons
121 series column trees weighed in at 3.9 tons
122 series column trees weighed in at 4.4 tons
123 series column trees weighed in at 4.8 tons
124 series column trees weighed in at 5.3 tons
125 series column trees weighed in at 5.7 tons
126 series column trees weighed in at 6.2 tons
127 series column trees weighed in at 6.6 tons
128 series column trees weighed in at 7.1 tons
129 series column trees weighed in at 7.8 tons
130 series column trees weighed in at 8.3 tons
131 series column trees weighed in at 8.7 tons
132 series column trees weighed in at 9.5 tons
So it's pretty easy to see that the difference in weight of the steel, from floor to floor is not that much.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5G Table B1 Column Schedule.
Floor 90 had:
46 120 series or 161 tons
8 123 series or 38.4 tons
13 124 series or 68.9 tons
11 125 series or 62.7 tons
2 126 series or or 12.4 tons
4 corner columns or ~24 tons
For a total of 367.4 tons which since these span 3 floors, is but 122.5 tons of external column steel on the 90th floor.
Floor 91 had:
46 120 series or 161 tons
4 122 series or 17.6 tons
8 123 series or 38.4 tons
15 124 series or 79.5 tons
7 125 series or 39.9 tons
4 corner columns or ~24 tons
For a total of 360.4 tons which since these span 3 floors, is but 120.1 tons of external column steel on the 91st floor.
or a decrease of a bit less than 2%.
So YEAH, just a TAD.
Because I computed the weights myself from the data provided by NIST.
120 series column trees weighed in at 3.5 tons
121 series column trees weighed in at 3.9 tons
122 series column trees weighed in at 4.4 tons
123 series column trees weighed in at 4.8 tons
124 series column trees weighed in at 5.3 tons
125 series column trees weighed in at 5.7 tons
126 series column trees weighed in at 6.2 tons
127 series column trees weighed in at 6.6 tons
128 series column trees weighed in at 7.1 tons
129 series column trees weighed in at 7.8 tons
130 series column trees weighed in at 8.3 tons
131 series column trees weighed in at 8.7 tons
132 series column trees weighed in at 9.5 tons
So it's pretty easy to see that the difference in weight of the steel, from floor to floor is not that much.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5G Table B1 Column Schedule.
Floor 90 had:
46 120 series or 161 tons
8 123 series or 38.4 tons
13 124 series or 68.9 tons
11 125 series or 62.7 tons
2 126 series or or 12.4 tons
4 corner columns or ~24 tons
For a total of 367.4 tons which since these span 3 floors, is but 122.5 tons of external column steel on the 90th floor.
Floor 91 had:
46 120 series or 161 tons
4 122 series or 17.6 tons
8 123 series or 38.4 tons
15 124 series or 79.5 tons
7 125 series or 39.9 tons
4 corner columns or ~24 tons
For a total of 360.4 tons which since these span 3 floors, is but 120.1 tons of external column steel on the 91st floor.
or a decrease of a bit less than 2%.
So YEAH, just a TAD.
QUOTE (psik+)
Why can't the EXPERTS just produce a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level in EIGHT YEARS?
Why is that TOO MUCH TO ASK? It is not like it was the first skyscraper ever built and it should be some GREAT SECRET?
So how much does a COMPLETE floor assembly weigh, concrete, plus corrugated pans, plus trusses? Why hasn't that been seen anywhere in EIGHT YEARS?
See previous reply to Stundie.
The NIST scientists used a structural database to feed a dynamica model and so the data, in the form you want to see it in, was not useful to them.
But as shown above, it's NOT that hard to figure out.
As for the floor plans, the steel for the trusses and the floor plans was 3.5lbs per square ft. The core was 11,745 sq feet.
The concrete in the area outside the core was 110 lbs per cubic ft.
The concrete in the area outside the core was 5 3/4 in thick.
See, maybe 30 minutes and a little math and YOU can figure out how much a complete floor assembly weighed.
You're continual insistence that it this is being withheld only shows how inept you are.
Arthur
Why is that TOO MUCH TO ASK? It is not like it was the first skyscraper ever built and it should be some GREAT SECRET?
So how much does a COMPLETE floor assembly weigh, concrete, plus corrugated pans, plus trusses? Why hasn't that been seen anywhere in EIGHT YEARS?
See previous reply to Stundie.
The NIST scientists used a structural database to feed a dynamica model and so the data, in the form you want to see it in, was not useful to them.
But as shown above, it's NOT that hard to figure out.
As for the floor plans, the steel for the trusses and the floor plans was 3.5lbs per square ft. The core was 11,745 sq feet.
The concrete in the area outside the core was 110 lbs per cubic ft.
The concrete in the area outside the core was 5 3/4 in thick.
See, maybe 30 minutes and a little math and YOU can figure out how much a complete floor assembly weighed.
You're continual insistence that it this is being withheld only shows how inept you are.
Arthur
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 9 2010, 12:48 PM)
No it isn't, this may satisfy your curiousity but no matter how much you repeat it as a mantra, doesn't make it true.
We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I can lead you to water but I can't make you drink.
But it would be so difficult for those SCIENTISTS to have the database fed into a program that would compute and print the information in HUMAN READABLE form even though they had THREE YEARS and $20,000,000.
But they can tell us one plane had 4 tons of cargo and the other had 9.
AMEN!!!
Anything to come up with excuses for leaving out information by the NIST.
AUTHORITY can do no wrong. Shut up and eat it.
Be a good mushroom.
psik
But it would be so difficult for those SCIENTISTS to have the database fed into a program that would compute and print the information in HUMAN READABLE form even though they had THREE YEARS and $20,000,000.
But they can tell us one plane had 4 tons of cargo and the other had 9.
AMEN!!!
Anything to come up with excuses for leaving out information by the NIST.
AUTHORITY can do no wrong. Shut up and eat it.
Be a good mushroom.
psik
That's ALL you have to say?
Friggin AMAZING.
I compute for you:
The weight of the various column panels
120 series columns weighed in at 3.5 tons
121 series columns weighed in at 3.9 tons
122 series columns weighed in at 4.4 tons
123 series columns weighed in at 4.8 tons
124 series columns weighed in at 5.3 tons
125 series columns weighed in at 5.7 tons
126 series columns weighed in at 6.2 tons
127 series columns weighed in at 6.6 tons
128 series columns weighed in at 7.1 tons
129 series columns weighed in at 7.8 tons
130 series columns weighed in at 8.3 tons
131 series columns weighed in at 8.7 tons
132 series columns weighed in at 9.5 tons
And then showed that the difference in weight of the steel, from floor to floor is not that much.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5G Table B1 Column Schedule.
Floor 90 had:
46 120 series or 161 tons
8 123 series or 38.4 tons
13 124 series or 68.9 tons
11 125 series or 62.7 tons
2 126 series or or 12.4 tons
4 corner columns or ~24 tons
For a total of 367.4 tons which since these span 3 floors, is but 122.5 tons of external column steel on the 90th floor.
Floor 91 had:
46 120 series or 161 tons
4 122 series or 17.6 tons
8 123 series or 38.4 tons
15 124 series or 79.5 tons
7 125 series or 39.9 tons
4 corner columns or ~24 tons
For a total of 360.4 tons which since these span 3 floors, is but 120.1 tons of external column steel on the 91st floor.
Which shows that the weight of the perimeter steel on two floors of the towers only varies by 2% per floor and since the core columns carried 47% of the gravity load, the weight of the core columns would be nearly the same as the perimeter columns, showing the kind of data you have claimed that you have been desperate to find
and
ALL YOU DO IS WHINE THAT IT'S TOO HARD
What a putz.
NIST's job was to figure out why the towers fell and if changes to the building codes should be made.
It wasn't to provide tables of data in forms that they didn't need for that job.
They created a structural Database because THAT WAS WHAT THEY NEEDED.
But regardless, of how easy or difficult it might have been, since NIST didn't provide the data in exactly the form that YOU wanted, that's no reason why over the last 5 friggin years you couldn't have done a little math and figured it out for yourself.
Because as shown above, it's NOT that hard to do.
BUT
You're continual insistence that YOU are stymied because this TRIVIAL piece of data has to be calculated only shows how INEPT you are.
Your continual whining about it only show how vapid your argument is.
Of course, you've been "had" so many times just in the last few days, it makes me think:
You're really not here for the hunting, are you?
Arthur
You're continual insistence that YOU are stymied because this TRIVIAL piece of data has to be calculated only shows how INEPT you are.
Your continual whining about it only show how vapid your argument is.
Of course, you've been "had" so many times just in the last few days, it makes me think:
You're really not here for the hunting, are you?
Arthur
But the problem is that you just gave us the weights of THIRTEEN PANELS but the NIST says there were only 12.
NIST NCSTAR 1-3 pdf page 64
wtc.nist (dot) gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf
But the problem is that you just gave us the weights of THIRTEEN PANELS but the NIST says there were only 12.
NIST NCSTAR 1-3 pdf page 64
wtc.nist (dot) gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf
3.3 PERIMETER COLUMNS AND SPANDRELS
PC&F of Seattle, Washington, fabricated the perimeter wall panels. The perimeter panels were comprised of three important subassemblies: the columns, the spandrels, and the truss seats. The structural plans called for the columns to be fabricated from 14 grades of steel with Fy = 36, 42, 45, 46, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, and 100 ksi, although PC&F received approval to upgrade all 85 and 90 ksi steels to 100 ksi. Above the 75th floor, more than half of the columns had yield strengths between 55 ksi and 70 ksi, inclusive. The spandrels were fabricated from twelve grades of steel with Fy = 36, 42, 45, 46, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, and 100 ksi (again with all 85 ksi steel upgraded to 100 ksi). The truss seats were specified to be fabricated from steel with Fy = 36 ksi minimum.
So how can the NIST give us all of that detailed information but not tell us the exact number and exact weight of each type of panel?
But you don't tell us what kind of panels were on the 10th floor. But then you have already used up 13 grades of panels even though there were only 12.
ROFL
And I already provided a source saying the heaviest panel was 22 TONS.
psik
But the problem is that you just gave us the weights of THIRTEEN PANELS but the NIST says there were only 12.
NIST NCSTAR 1-3 pdf page 64
wtc.nist (dot) gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf
So how can the NIST give us all of that detailed information but not tell us the exact number and exact weight of each type of panel?
But you don't tell us what kind of panels were on the 10th floor. But then you have already used up 13 grades of panels even though there were only 12.
Grades of steel used in columns is NOT the same thing as COLUMN types.
And again, you are referring to ONLY what is contained in the printed reports.
The Structural Database has ALL the info you need.
If you didn't spend so much time WHINING, you could have actually done this YEARS ago.
But you really don't want the answer do you, because then you would have to actually PRODUCE something.
Which it would appear that you are TOTALLY incapable of.
Arthur
But as I asked previously, what about these columns in the upper portions??
Are you seriously saying that what happens to the lower columns that have the Earth on one side blocking them with the other section that had nothing resisting them?
I have a question to test your general physics knowledge.
Tie a string to a curtain rod, tie the other end to a weight such as a book.
Tie another string below the book.
If you pull the bottom string which string will break first? (both strings are identical)
We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I can lead you to water but I can't make you drink.
QUOTE (Stundie+)
But as I asked previously, what about these columns in the upper portions??
Does the energy in the collision transfer between both upper and lower portions? Or are you suggest the upper portions were somehow stronger than the lower portions??
You see it sounds to me like you are proposing Bazants collapse model, which even as I a complete amateur can spot the flaws in it, that it treats the upper portion as a rigid block and the bottom portion as individual floors.
But they ARE individual floors below the collapse.
It wasn't the COLUMNS that took the brunt of the collapsing mass, it was the FLOORS.
That's why the columns were unzipped (as you agreed to before)
Meaning the mass from above hit the FLOOR, not the columns (which as explained before, in the collapse zone had buckled to allow the floor to move down)
I'm sure that damage was done to both the falling mass and the mass it hit, BUT the the destruction kept piling up at the interface point till it overwelmed the first intact floor. As NIST pointed out, there was more than enough mass for that to occur, even WITHOUT the kinetic effect.
I think its somewhat obvious what is happening in this photo:
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/JudyWood/WTC1_redLines.gif
But Stundie, you really are out on a limb.
If you accept that the plane and fires started the initial collapse, are you suggesting that something else was done right BELOW this initial collapse point to make it progress?
That defies all rational logic.
Arthur
Does the energy in the collision transfer between both upper and lower portions? Or are you suggest the upper portions were somehow stronger than the lower portions??
You see it sounds to me like you are proposing Bazants collapse model, which even as I a complete amateur can spot the flaws in it, that it treats the upper portion as a rigid block and the bottom portion as individual floors.
But they ARE individual floors below the collapse.
It wasn't the COLUMNS that took the brunt of the collapsing mass, it was the FLOORS.
That's why the columns were unzipped (as you agreed to before)
Meaning the mass from above hit the FLOOR, not the columns (which as explained before, in the collapse zone had buckled to allow the floor to move down)
I'm sure that damage was done to both the falling mass and the mass it hit, BUT the the destruction kept piling up at the interface point till it overwelmed the first intact floor. As NIST pointed out, there was more than enough mass for that to occur, even WITHOUT the kinetic effect.
I think its somewhat obvious what is happening in this photo:
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/JudyWood/WTC1_redLines.gif
But Stundie, you really are out on a limb.
If you accept that the plane and fires started the initial collapse, are you suggesting that something else was done right BELOW this initial collapse point to make it progress?
That defies all rational logic.
Arthur
QUOTE
The NIST scientists used a structural database to feed a dynamica model and so the data, in the form you want to see it in, was not useful to them.
But it would be so difficult for those SCIENTISTS to have the database fed into a program that would compute and print the information in HUMAN READABLE form even though they had THREE YEARS and $20,000,000.
But they can tell us one plane had 4 tons of cargo and the other had 9.
AMEN!!!
Anything to come up with excuses for leaving out information by the NIST.
AUTHORITY can do no wrong. Shut up and eat it.
Be a good mushroom.
psik
QUOTE (psikeyhackr+Jan 9 2010, 07:56 PM)
But it would be so difficult for those SCIENTISTS to have the database fed into a program that would compute and print the information in HUMAN READABLE form even though they had THREE YEARS and $20,000,000.
But they can tell us one plane had 4 tons of cargo and the other had 9.
AMEN!!!
Anything to come up with excuses for leaving out information by the NIST.
AUTHORITY can do no wrong. Shut up and eat it.
Be a good mushroom.
psik
That's ALL you have to say?
Friggin AMAZING.
I compute for you:
The weight of the various column panels
120 series columns weighed in at 3.5 tons
121 series columns weighed in at 3.9 tons
122 series columns weighed in at 4.4 tons
123 series columns weighed in at 4.8 tons
124 series columns weighed in at 5.3 tons
125 series columns weighed in at 5.7 tons
126 series columns weighed in at 6.2 tons
127 series columns weighed in at 6.6 tons
128 series columns weighed in at 7.1 tons
129 series columns weighed in at 7.8 tons
130 series columns weighed in at 8.3 tons
131 series columns weighed in at 8.7 tons
132 series columns weighed in at 9.5 tons
And then showed that the difference in weight of the steel, from floor to floor is not that much.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5G Table B1 Column Schedule.
Floor 90 had:
46 120 series or 161 tons
8 123 series or 38.4 tons
13 124 series or 68.9 tons
11 125 series or 62.7 tons
2 126 series or or 12.4 tons
4 corner columns or ~24 tons
For a total of 367.4 tons which since these span 3 floors, is but 122.5 tons of external column steel on the 90th floor.
Floor 91 had:
46 120 series or 161 tons
4 122 series or 17.6 tons
8 123 series or 38.4 tons
15 124 series or 79.5 tons
7 125 series or 39.9 tons
4 corner columns or ~24 tons
For a total of 360.4 tons which since these span 3 floors, is but 120.1 tons of external column steel on the 91st floor.
Which shows that the weight of the perimeter steel on two floors of the towers only varies by 2% per floor and since the core columns carried 47% of the gravity load, the weight of the core columns would be nearly the same as the perimeter columns, showing the kind of data you have claimed that you have been desperate to find
and
ALL YOU DO IS WHINE THAT IT'S TOO HARD
What a putz.
NIST's job was to figure out why the towers fell and if changes to the building codes should be made.
It wasn't to provide tables of data in forms that they didn't need for that job.
They created a structural Database because THAT WAS WHAT THEY NEEDED.
But regardless, of how easy or difficult it might have been, since NIST didn't provide the data in exactly the form that YOU wanted, that's no reason why over the last 5 friggin years you couldn't have done a little math and figured it out for yourself.
Because as shown above, it's NOT that hard to do.
BUT
You're continual insistence that YOU are stymied because this TRIVIAL piece of data has to be calculated only shows how INEPT you are.
Your continual whining about it only show how vapid your argument is.
Of course, you've been "had" so many times just in the last few days, it makes me think:
You're really not here for the hunting, are you?
Arthur
Same ol', same ol'. 
QUOTE
You're continual insistence that YOU are stymied because this TRIVIAL piece of data has to be calculated only shows how INEPT you are.
Your continual whining about it only show how vapid your argument is.
Of course, you've been "had" so many times just in the last few days, it makes me think:
You're really not here for the hunting, are you?
Arthur
But the problem is that you just gave us the weights of THIRTEEN PANELS but the NIST says there were only 12.
NIST NCSTAR 1-3 pdf page 64
wtc.nist (dot) gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
You're continual insistence that YOU are stymied because this TRIVIAL piece of data has to be calculated only shows how INEPT you are. Your continual whining about it only show how vapid your argument is. Of course, you've been "had" so many times just in the last few days, it makes me think: You're really not here for the hunting, are you? Arthur |
But the problem is that you just gave us the weights of THIRTEEN PANELS but the NIST says there were only 12.
NIST NCSTAR 1-3 pdf page 64
wtc.nist (dot) gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf
3.3 PERIMETER COLUMNS AND SPANDRELS
PC&F of Seattle, Washington, fabricated the perimeter wall panels. The perimeter panels were comprised of three important subassemblies: the columns, the spandrels, and the truss seats. The structural plans called for the columns to be fabricated from 14 grades of steel with Fy = 36, 42, 45, 46, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, and 100 ksi, although PC&F received approval to upgrade all 85 and 90 ksi steels to 100 ksi. Above the 75th floor, more than half of the columns had yield strengths between 55 ksi and 70 ksi, inclusive. The spandrels were fabricated from twelve grades of steel with Fy = 36, 42, 45, 46, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, and 100 ksi (again with all 85 ksi steel upgraded to 100 ksi). The truss seats were specified to be fabricated from steel with Fy = 36 ksi minimum.
So how can the NIST give us all of that detailed information but not tell us the exact number and exact weight of each type of panel?
But you don't tell us what kind of panels were on the 10th floor. But then you have already used up 13 grades of panels even though there were only 12.
ROFL
And I already provided a source saying the heaviest panel was 22 TONS.
psik
QUOTE (psikeyhackr+Jan 10 2010, 12:10 PM)
But the problem is that you just gave us the weights of THIRTEEN PANELS but the NIST says there were only 12.
NIST NCSTAR 1-3 pdf page 64
wtc.nist (dot) gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf
So how can the NIST give us all of that detailed information but not tell us the exact number and exact weight of each type of panel?
But you don't tell us what kind of panels were on the 10th floor. But then you have already used up 13 grades of panels even though there were only 12.
Grades of steel used in columns is NOT the same thing as COLUMN types.
And again, you are referring to ONLY what is contained in the printed reports.
The Structural Database has ALL the info you need.
If you didn't spend so much time WHINING, you could have actually done this YEARS ago.
But you really don't want the answer do you, because then you would have to actually PRODUCE something.
Which it would appear that you are TOTALLY incapable of.
Arthur
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 9 2010, 05:48 PM)
But as I asked previously, what about these columns in the upper portions??
Are you seriously saying that what happens to the lower columns that have the Earth on one side blocking them with the other section that had nothing resisting them?
I have a question to test your general physics knowledge.
Tie a string to a curtain rod, tie the other end to a weight such as a book.
Tie another string below the book.
If you pull the bottom string which string will break first? (both strings are identical)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 9 2010, 07:25 PM)
We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I can lead you to water but I can't make you drink.
That is because it looks like water, but doesn't smell like it.
So I'll skip the drink thanks!
So I'll skip the drink thanks!
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 9 2010, 07:25 PM)
But they ARE individual floors below the collapse.
But they ARE individual floors above the collapse too?
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 9 2010, 07:25 PM)
It wasn't the COLUMNS that took the brunt of the collapsing mass, it was the FLOORS.
Let me guess, only in the lower portion though??
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 9 2010, 07:25 PM)
That's why the columns were unzipped (as you agreed to before)
Meaning the mass from above hit the FLOOR, not the columns (which as explained before, in the collapse zone had buckled to allow the floor to move down)
Meaning the mass from above hit the FLOOR, not the columns (which as explained before, in the collapse zone had buckled to allow the floor to move down)
But the mass from above doesn't just hit a single floor in the lower portion, it hits the entire structure below and is transferred through the load paths.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 9 2010, 07:25 PM)
I'm sure that damage was done to both the falling mass and the mass it hit, BUT the the destruction kept piling up at the interface point till it overwelmed the first intact floor. As NIST pointed out, there was more than enough mass for that to occur, even WITHOUT the kinetic effect.
I think its somewhat obvious what is happening in this photo:
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/JudyWood/WTC1_redLines.gif
But Stundie, you really are out on a limb.
I think its somewhat obvious what is happening in this photo:
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/JudyWood/WTC1_redLines.gif
But Stundie, you really are out on a limb.
Wait a minute, this actually disproves what you claim??
The GIF clearly shows the upper portions destruction before the lower portion start being destroyed.
Clearly, the upper portion is not crushing any of the lower portions, as the lower portion is not moving, yet the upper portion floor is already destroyed.
The GIF clearly shows the upper portions destruction before the lower portion start being destroyed.
Clearly, the upper portion is not crushing any of the lower portions, as the lower portion is not moving, yet the upper portion floor is already destroyed.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 9 2010, 07:25 PM)
If you accept that the plane and fires started the initial collapse, are you suggesting that something else was done right BELOW this initial collapse point to make it progress?
That defies all rational logic.
Arthur
Well considering that the upper portion in the GIF is already disintegrating before the destruction of the lower section, I do not even know how you dare suggest this defies rational logic. lol
That defies all rational logic.
Arthur
Well considering that the upper portion in the GIF is already disintegrating before the destruction of the lower section, I do not even know how you dare suggest this defies rational logic. lol
You did this:
Then you said this:
Then you said this:
Grades of steel used in columns is NOT the same thing as COLUMN types.
And again, you are referring to ONLY what is contained in the printed reports.
The Structural Database has ALL the info you need.
Did you just claim to compute the weights of 13 types of exterior wall panels or not?
psik
QUOTE
I compute for you:
The weight of the various column panels
120 series columns weighed in at 3.5 tons
121 series columns weighed in at 3.9 tons
122 series columns weighed in at 4.4 tons
123 series columns weighed in at 4.8 tons
124 series columns weighed in at 5.3 tons
125 series columns weighed in at 5.7 tons
126 series columns weighed in at 6.2 tons
127 series columns weighed in at 6.6 tons
128 series columns weighed in at 7.1 tons
129 series columns weighed in at 7.8 tons
130 series columns weighed in at 8.3 tons
131 series columns weighed in at 8.7 tons
132 series columns weighed in at 9.5 tons
The weight of the various column panels
120 series columns weighed in at 3.5 tons
121 series columns weighed in at 3.9 tons
122 series columns weighed in at 4.4 tons
123 series columns weighed in at 4.8 tons
124 series columns weighed in at 5.3 tons
125 series columns weighed in at 5.7 tons
126 series columns weighed in at 6.2 tons
127 series columns weighed in at 6.6 tons
128 series columns weighed in at 7.1 tons
129 series columns weighed in at 7.8 tons
130 series columns weighed in at 8.3 tons
131 series columns weighed in at 8.7 tons
132 series columns weighed in at 9.5 tons
Then you said this:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I compute for you: The weight of the various column panels 120 series columns weighed in at 3.5 tons 121 series columns weighed in at 3.9 tons 122 series columns weighed in at 4.4 tons 123 series columns weighed in at 4.8 tons 124 series columns weighed in at 5.3 tons 125 series columns weighed in at 5.7 tons 126 series columns weighed in at 6.2 tons 127 series columns weighed in at 6.6 tons 128 series columns weighed in at 7.1 tons 129 series columns weighed in at 7.8 tons 130 series columns weighed in at 8.3 tons 131 series columns weighed in at 8.7 tons 132 series columns weighed in at 9.5 tons |
Then you said this:
Grades of steel used in columns is NOT the same thing as COLUMN types.
And again, you are referring to ONLY what is contained in the printed reports.
The Structural Database has ALL the info you need.
Did you just claim to compute the weights of 13 types of exterior wall panels or not?
psik
QUOTE (psikeyhackr+Jan 10 2010, 05:18 PM)
Did you just claim to compute the weights of 13 types of exterior wall panels or not?
Yes
So?
Arthur
Yes
So?
Arthur
Don't know what to do ith the irrationally rigid.
R: I no nothing about this stuff and even I figured out he provided a menu of column types from which one could select what you needed to construct a floor.
It is clear you have no argument save for attempting to show that not providing what you want is grounds for proving your argument. I imagine it's time for everyone to simply shun you and not engage in any further conversations.
It is clear you have no argument save for attempting to show that not providing what you want is grounds for proving your argument. I imagine it's time for everyone to simply shun you and not engage in any further conversations.
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 10 2010, 03:16 PM)
But the mass from above doesn't just hit a single floor in the lower portion, it hits the entire structure below and is transferred through the load paths.
Doing fine till you get to this.
Yes, the loads are tranferred, but for the floor trusses, the entire load is ONLY supported by the TRUSS SEATS.
http://www.boulder.nist.gov/div853/Program...es/image017.jpg
A floor gets detached if the capacity of those truss seats/bolts is exceeded.
Which during the collapse comes FAR sooner than the capacity of the columns is exceeded.
Which is why the building was unzipped.
The downward loads weren't primarily bending large columns they were bending/breaking Truss seats.
This was discussed in the NIST Report.
Arthur
Doing fine till you get to this.
Yes, the loads are tranferred, but for the floor trusses, the entire load is ONLY supported by the TRUSS SEATS.
http://www.boulder.nist.gov/div853/Program...es/image017.jpg
A floor gets detached if the capacity of those truss seats/bolts is exceeded.
Which during the collapse comes FAR sooner than the capacity of the columns is exceeded.
Which is why the building was unzipped.
The downward loads weren't primarily bending large columns they were bending/breaking Truss seats.
This was discussed in the NIST Report.
Arthur
For me, the highlight of contributing to this forum is when these idiots get banned. Unfortunately, 9/11 threads and creationist threads are immune to moderation.
flyingbuttressman --- Not this one, but the banning is for bad language or going very seriiously off-topic.
Rigid stupidity is allowed.
Rigid stupidity is allowed.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 10 2010, 06:37 PM)
flyingbuttressman --- Not this one, but the banning is for bad language or going very seriiously off-topic.
Rigid stupidity is allowed.
To believe that Controlled Demolition was used to bring the towers down REQUIRES rigid supidity.
Arthur
Rigid stupidity is allowed.
To believe that Controlled Demolition was used to bring the towers down REQUIRES rigid supidity.
Arthur
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 9 2010, 12:48 PM)
You see it sounds to me like you are proposing Bazants collapse model, which even as I a complete amateur can spot the flaws in it, that it treats the upper portion as a rigid block and the bottom portion as individual floors.
Bazant produced a paper just a few days after 9/11 that answered the most fundamental questions about the tower's collape, and to produce this paper in such a short time, he made a number of simplifing assumptions.
But ALL of the assumptions though were made COUNTER to the towers collapsing.
Subsequent to that, with the help of David Benson (who posts here) and Frank Greening (who posted here as Neu Fonze) and Jia-Liang Le, they produced a longer and more detailed paper in 2007 which took into what was learned via FEMA and NIST and accounted for many of the key issues brought up by the various conspiracy theorists.
See: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b...0Cause%20It.pdf
What did and did not cause the collapse of the WTC towers.
Its much more informative than the first Bazant paper.
Arthur
Bazant produced a paper just a few days after 9/11 that answered the most fundamental questions about the tower's collape, and to produce this paper in such a short time, he made a number of simplifing assumptions.
But ALL of the assumptions though were made COUNTER to the towers collapsing.
Subsequent to that, with the help of David Benson (who posts here) and Frank Greening (who posted here as Neu Fonze) and Jia-Liang Le, they produced a longer and more detailed paper in 2007 which took into what was learned via FEMA and NIST and accounted for many of the key issues brought up by the various conspiracy theorists.
See: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b...0Cause%20It.pdf
What did and did not cause the collapse of the WTC towers.
Its much more informative than the first Bazant paper.
Arthur
Colossal expanding pyroclastic dust clouds 5 or more times the volume of the WTC building indicating amazing extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional controlled demolition explosives.
http://911review.com/means/demolition/imgs/tower2_exp1.jpg
http://911review.com/means/demolition/imgs/tower2_exp1.jpg
QUOTE (giuseppe+Jan 11 2010, 10:55 AM)
Colossal expanding piroclastic dust clouds 5 or more times the volume of the WTC building indicating amazing extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional controlled demolition explosives.
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...v%3D2%26hl%3Den
True.
Explosives don't create much dust.
Collapsing buildings DO however.
Watch ANY demolition, and you will see that the explosives tend to create relatively small amounts of dust, but do create Bright Flashes and rather distinctive SHARP Supersonic CRACKS as they go off. (the lack of these is why many Conspiracists have latched onto Thermite as the CD material of choice, since there are obviously no sharp supersonic cracks of High Explosives going off in any of the WTC collapse videos)
See Hudson Dept store video for comparison purposes:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807
Notice the SHARP explosions,
Notice the FLASHES of LIGHT,
Then the building begins to collapse and
Then LOTS of dust is generated by the falling building.
Compare to WTC tower.
There are NO sharp supersonic cracks of High Exlplosives.
There are LOUD NOISES as massive pieces of structure come together, and since each floor of the tower was about 1 acre in size, made up mainly of low weight concrete with sheet rock for the majority of partitions, stairways etc, then YES, the amount of dust generated is greater than any CD, because the size of the towers were far greater than any CD ever done.
But ANY collapse of a large building generates LOTS of dust.
Keep in mind, in the CDs, the office materials have been removed PRIOR to the demolition.
In the WTC towers, they collapsed in an "as occupied" state.
Arthur
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...v%3D2%26hl%3Den
True.
Explosives don't create much dust.
Collapsing buildings DO however.
Watch ANY demolition, and you will see that the explosives tend to create relatively small amounts of dust, but do create Bright Flashes and rather distinctive SHARP Supersonic CRACKS as they go off. (the lack of these is why many Conspiracists have latched onto Thermite as the CD material of choice, since there are obviously no sharp supersonic cracks of High Explosives going off in any of the WTC collapse videos)
See Hudson Dept store video for comparison purposes:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807
Notice the SHARP explosions,
Notice the FLASHES of LIGHT,
Then the building begins to collapse and
Then LOTS of dust is generated by the falling building.
Compare to WTC tower.
There are NO sharp supersonic cracks of High Exlplosives.
There are LOUD NOISES as massive pieces of structure come together, and since each floor of the tower was about 1 acre in size, made up mainly of low weight concrete with sheet rock for the majority of partitions, stairways etc, then YES, the amount of dust generated is greater than any CD, because the size of the towers were far greater than any CD ever done.
But ANY collapse of a large building generates LOTS of dust.
Keep in mind, in the CDs, the office materials have been removed PRIOR to the demolition.
In the WTC towers, they collapsed in an "as occupied" state.
Arthur
QUOTE (giuseppe+Jan 11 2010, 03:55 PM)
Colossal expanding pyroclastic dust clouds 5 or more times the volume of the WTC building indicating amazing extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional controlled demolition explosives.
http://911review.com/means/demolition/imgs/tower2_exp1.jpg
Most people would take that as evidence that they were not a controlled demolition.
But truthers use "it doesn't look like a controlled demolition" as evidence it was a controlled demolition.
http://911review.com/means/demolition/imgs/tower2_exp1.jpg
Most people would take that as evidence that they were not a controlled demolition.
But truthers use "it doesn't look like a controlled demolition" as evidence it was a controlled demolition.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jan 11 2010, 12:07 PM)
Most people would take that as evidence that they were not a controlled demolition.
But truthers use "it doesn't look like a controlled demolition" as evidence it was a controlled demolition.
They also throw in the term "pyroclastic", but the clouds of dust were just that, clouds of dust.
As the aftermath photos clearly show, that while there were scattered fires, the streets were primarily littered with dust and paper.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...-damage_201.jpg
http://www.redrat.net/thoughts/wtc/911pix/x911_06.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...rroundings.html
Arthur
But truthers use "it doesn't look like a controlled demolition" as evidence it was a controlled demolition.
They also throw in the term "pyroclastic", but the clouds of dust were just that, clouds of dust.
As the aftermath photos clearly show, that while there were scattered fires, the streets were primarily littered with dust and paper.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...-damage_201.jpg
http://www.redrat.net/thoughts/wtc/911pix/x911_06.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...rroundings.html
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 10 2010, 10:22 PM)
Yes
So?
Arthur
So you think you are cool by not saying that the 12 grades of steel were used in different combinations that resulted in more than 12 weights of wall panels but you still can't specify any of the weights
BELOW THE 78th FLOOR
So we still don't know the distribution of steel in the building and can't do any conservation of momenum calculations on a top down collapse.
You feel that has demonstrated your brilliance?
psik
So?
Arthur
So you think you are cool by not saying that the 12 grades of steel were used in different combinations that resulted in more than 12 weights of wall panels but you still can't specify any of the weights
BELOW THE 78th FLOOR
So we still don't know the distribution of steel in the building and can't do any conservation of momenum calculations on a top down collapse.
You feel that has demonstrated your brilliance?
psik
QUOTE (psikeyhackr+Jan 11 2010, 03:11 PM)
So you think you are cool by not saying that the 12 grades of steel were used in different combinations that resulted in more than 12 weights of wall panels but you still can't specify any of the weights
BELOW THE 78th FLOOR
So we still don't know the distribution of steel in the building and can't do any conservation of momenum calculations on a top down collapse.
You feel that has demonstrated your brilliance?
psik
YOU were the one that claimed that NIST said were only 12 types of Wall panels.
BELOW THE 78th FLOOR
So we still don't know the distribution of steel in the building and can't do any conservation of momenum calculations on a top down collapse.
You feel that has demonstrated your brilliance?
psik
YOU were the one that claimed that NIST said were only 12 types of Wall panels.
QUOTE (psik+ Jan 4)
But the NIST does not tell us the weights and quantities of each of the 12 types of exterior wall panel so we can't compute the weight on each level
I didn't recall that statement so I couldn't say you were wrong.
Since then it's become clear you don't understand the difference between TYPE of panel and GRADE of steel used in a panel.
BUT
The information IS available, you just don't want to do the work to find it out.
http://razor.occams.info/nist-wtc/
You think that demonstrates anything besides how LAZY you are?
Look psik, NO ONE CARES what you CAN'T DO.
Or why you think you can't do it.
Do something (anything actually) and then someone might care.
Arthur
I didn't recall that statement so I couldn't say you were wrong.
Since then it's become clear you don't understand the difference between TYPE of panel and GRADE of steel used in a panel.
BUT
The information IS available, you just don't want to do the work to find it out.
http://razor.occams.info/nist-wtc/
You think that demonstrates anything besides how LAZY you are?
Look psik, NO ONE CARES what you CAN'T DO.
Or why you think you can't do it.
Do something (anything actually) and then someone might care.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 10 2010, 10:30 PM)
Doing fine till you get to this.
Yes, the loads are tranferred, but for the floor trusses, the entire load is ONLY supported by the TRUSS SEATS.
http://www.boulder.nist.gov/div853/Program...es/image017.jpg
A floor gets detached if the capacity of those truss seats/bolts is exceeded.
Yes, the loads are tranferred, but for the floor trusses, the entire load is ONLY supported by the TRUSS SEATS.
http://www.boulder.nist.gov/div853/Program...es/image017.jpg
A floor gets detached if the capacity of those truss seats/bolts is exceeded.
But according to you and the OCT supporters, this ONLY happens in the lower section. Why does this not happen in the upper section?
Also if your premise was true, then surely we wouldn't be seeing the destruction of the upper portions BEFORE the destruction of the lower portion as you showed us in your GIF on the other page and as this shows.
User posted image: User posted image
Also if your premise was true, then surely we wouldn't be seeing the destruction of the upper portions BEFORE the destruction of the lower portion as you showed us in your GIF on the other page and as this shows.
User posted image: User posted image
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 10 2010, 10:30 PM)
Which during the collapse comes FAR sooner than the capacity of the columns is exceeded.
Which is why the building was unzipped.
Which is why the building was unzipped.
The photo above shows that premise as false, because if the capacity of the truss had been exceeded in the lower sections, we wouldn't be seeing the destruction of the upper portions, before the lower portions
The downward loads weren't primarily bending large columns they were bending/breaking Truss seats.
This was discussed in the NIST Report.
Arthur
Ahh...But you can't rely on the NIST report for the collapse, remember, they have not scientifically explained how the towers collapsed.
Also there was some bent columns, this being the most famous one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzTEIqkZKIM
Another one of those unexplained anamolies in the OCT, which is better brushed under the carpet than addressed.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 10 2010, 10:30 PM)
The downward loads weren't primarily bending large columns they were bending/breaking Truss seats.
This was discussed in the NIST Report.
Arthur
Ahh...But you can't rely on the NIST report for the collapse, remember, they have not scientifically explained how the towers collapsed.
Also there was some bent columns, this being the most famous one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzTEIqkZKIM
Another one of those unexplained anamolies in the OCT, which is better brushed under the carpet than addressed.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 11 2010, 05:58 PM)
They also throw in the term "pyroclastic", but the clouds of dust were just that, clouds of dust.
As the aftermath photos clearly show, that while there were scattered fires, the streets were primarily littered with dust and paper.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...-damage_201.jpg
http://www.redrat.net/thoughts/wtc/911pix/x911_06.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...rroundings.html
Arthur
The term "Pyroclastic Flow" is not a term used by "they" (I suspect you mean truthers!), it was used by scientists Won-Young Kim, Lynn R. Sykes and J.H. Armitage who describe the flow after the collapse, which is adopted by "They" because it was very similar according those scientists.
The RJ Lee report, highlights that it was not just "dust" as you claim either, it had nearly 150 times the amount of iron rich spheres, as ordinary "dust" and contained all kinds of toxins which is causing respitory problems of those who worked at GZ to this day.
As the aftermath photos clearly show, that while there were scattered fires, the streets were primarily littered with dust and paper.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...-damage_201.jpg
http://www.redrat.net/thoughts/wtc/911pix/x911_06.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...rroundings.html
Arthur
The term "Pyroclastic Flow" is not a term used by "they" (I suspect you mean truthers!), it was used by scientists Won-Young Kim, Lynn R. Sykes and J.H. Armitage who describe the flow after the collapse, which is adopted by "They" because it was very similar according those scientists.
QUOTE
The authors also noted that as seen in television images, the fall of the towers was similar to that of a pyroclastic flow down a volcano, where hot dust and chunks of material move in a dust/mud matrix down the volcano’s slope. The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures common in volcanic flows.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/anal...ry11_16_01.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/anal...ry11_16_01.html
The RJ Lee report, highlights that it was not just "dust" as you claim either, it had nearly 150 times the amount of iron rich spheres, as ordinary "dust" and contained all kinds of toxins which is causing respitory problems of those who worked at GZ to this day.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 11 2010, 02:06 AM)
Bazant produced a paper just a few days after 9/11 that answered the most fundamental questions about the tower's collape, and to produce this paper in such a short time, he made a number of simplifing assumptions.
He most certainly did, this is why it isn't of much use to anyone who wants to know how and why the towers collapsed.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 11 2010, 02:06 AM)
But ALL of the assumptions though were made COUNTER to the towers collapsing.
That is the problem, it's not scientific, it's assumptions.
In other words, you do not make the assumption the towers collapsed of plane damage and fire, then create a model to fit that assumption.
In other words, you do not make the assumption the towers collapsed of plane damage and fire, then create a model to fit that assumption.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 11 2010, 02:06 AM)
Subsequent to that, with the help of David Benson (who posts here) and Frank Greening (who posted here as Neu Fonze) and Jia-Liang Le, they produced a longer and more detailed paper in 2007 which took into what was learned via FEMA and NIST and accounted for many of the key issues brought up by the various conspiracy theorists.
See: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b...0Cause%20It.pdf
What did and did not cause the collapse of the WTC towers.
Its much more informative than the first Bazant paper.
Arthur
I know of the paper and if you honestly think that it addresses the key issue brought up by people who you refer to as conspiracy theorists, then you couldn't be more mistaken.
From what I understand, it is nothing more than 1D mathamatical model, which assumes that the upper portion was rigid and destroyed the lower portion on a cushion of debris. Its more of a crush down model and at no point address the reality of crush up of the upper portions and it certainly doesn't matched the observed events.
There is so much wrong with it, it doesn't explain any of the early ejections in the collapse before the bottom part start collapsing but if you want to accept a model that includes a rigid body that doesn't in anyway shape or form accurately describe the behaviour the WTC collapses, then by my guest.
Just don't dress it up as science or evidence that it explains the collapses!!
See: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b...0Cause%20It.pdf
What did and did not cause the collapse of the WTC towers.
Its much more informative than the first Bazant paper.
Arthur
I know of the paper and if you honestly think that it addresses the key issue brought up by people who you refer to as conspiracy theorists, then you couldn't be more mistaken.
From what I understand, it is nothing more than 1D mathamatical model, which assumes that the upper portion was rigid and destroyed the lower portion on a cushion of debris. Its more of a crush down model and at no point address the reality of crush up of the upper portions and it certainly doesn't matched the observed events.
There is so much wrong with it, it doesn't explain any of the early ejections in the collapse before the bottom part start collapsing but if you want to accept a model that includes a rigid body that doesn't in anyway shape or form accurately describe the behaviour the WTC collapses, then by my guest.
Just don't dress it up as science or evidence that it explains the collapses!!
Here is a quick question for all you OCT supporters who think that NIST, FEMA, Bazant et all explain the collapses.
If the planes had hit the 107th floor of the WTC and caused the same impact and fire damage as the NIST describe, albleit higher up.
Would the building have still collapsed??
If your answer is no? Then at what floor would you think the difference between the WTC surviving to collapsing is?
If the answer is yes, then am I right in assuming that nothing would have stopped those towers from collapsing then??
Even if the collapse initiation point was at floor 109??
Cheers
Stundie
If the planes had hit the 107th floor of the WTC and caused the same impact and fire damage as the NIST describe, albleit higher up.
Would the building have still collapsed??
If your answer is no? Then at what floor would you think the difference between the WTC surviving to collapsing is?
If the answer is yes, then am I right in assuming that nothing would have stopped those towers from collapsing then??
Even if the collapse initiation point was at floor 109??
Cheers
Stundie
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 12 2010, 07:50 AM)
But according to you and the OCT supporters, this ONLY happens in the lower section. Why does this not happen in the upper section?
The exact way the initial collapse unfolds is unclear because of all the expelled smoke and dust. Floors could have been detached above and below the collapse point, but it hardly matters since they would both move down and gather more kinetic energy.
But we also know that the buildings TILTED toward the bowed in long truss sides of the towers, so when the collapse started the exterior columns are seen to BUCKLE INWARD, which means THEY were pushing on the heated/sagging floor below the point of collapse and it would be these columns that first arrive at the next floor, not the upper floor trusses.
Still, after the first or second floor worth of movement who can say exactly what is happening? No one, surely not NIST
BUT
One doesn't have to add any additional energy into the process for the collapse to progress.
I don't think you can say exactly what is going on in the towers based on what you are seeing at that distance.
The towers were MOSTLY AIR.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...eshilouette.jpg
It appears to me (opinion follows) that the two sections are creating a crushed front of material and when that crushed front of material (containing material from both upper and lower floors), overwhelms the intact floors below the collapse point, then the bottom part of the tower begins to come apart.
I don't think you can say exactly what is going on in the towers based on what you are seeing at that distance.
The towers were MOSTLY AIR.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...eshilouette.jpg
It appears to me (opinion follows) that the two sections are creating a crushed front of material and when that crushed front of material (containing material from both upper and lower floors), overwhelms the intact floors below the collapse point, then the bottom part of the tower begins to come apart.
Ahh...But you can't rely on the NIST report for the collapse, remember, they have not scientifically explained how the towers collapsed.
Also there was some bent columns, this being the most famous one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzTEIqkZKIM
Another one of those unexplained anamolies in the OCT, which is better brushed under the carpet than addressed.
That's why I directed you to the Bazant, Benson, Greening paper. They did analyze the collapse.
But
You don't expect SOME bent columns?
One would expect a lot of bent columns at the point of collapse.
One would expect other bent columns as the towers came down.
This is not an anomaly, its what one WOULD expect in a collapse of this magnitude.
Doesn't change the fact that the majority of the perimeter columns weren't bent like this.
No one is brushing what you call anomalies under the carpet.
You see, to dispute the gravity driven collapse, it is not sufficient for you to trot out something that TO YOU isn't easily explained, we have nothing like these jet plane crashes/building collapses in the history of buildings to compare it to, so one would expect a number of things that have no simple explanation as it was a complex event and so complex things can occur.
Arthur
The exact way the initial collapse unfolds is unclear because of all the expelled smoke and dust. Floors could have been detached above and below the collapse point, but it hardly matters since they would both move down and gather more kinetic energy.
But we also know that the buildings TILTED toward the bowed in long truss sides of the towers, so when the collapse started the exterior columns are seen to BUCKLE INWARD, which means THEY were pushing on the heated/sagging floor below the point of collapse and it would be these columns that first arrive at the next floor, not the upper floor trusses.
Still, after the first or second floor worth of movement who can say exactly what is happening? No one, surely not NIST
BUT
One doesn't have to add any additional energy into the process for the collapse to progress.
QUOTE
Also if your premise was true, then surely we wouldn't be seeing the destruction of the upper portions BEFORE the destruction of the lower portion as you showed us in your GIF on the other page and as this shows.
User posted image: 'http://gordonssite.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/2003-0101.jpg'
The photo above shows that premise as false, because if the capacity of the truss had been exceeded in the lower sections, we wouldn't be seeing the destruction of the upper portions, before the lower portions
User posted image: 'http://gordonssite.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/2003-0101.jpg'
The photo above shows that premise as false, because if the capacity of the truss had been exceeded in the lower sections, we wouldn't be seeing the destruction of the upper portions, before the lower portions
I don't think you can say exactly what is going on in the towers based on what you are seeing at that distance.
The towers were MOSTLY AIR.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...eshilouette.jpg
It appears to me (opinion follows) that the two sections are creating a crushed front of material and when that crushed front of material (containing material from both upper and lower floors), overwhelms the intact floors below the collapse point, then the bottom part of the tower begins to come apart.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Also if your premise was true, then surely we wouldn't be seeing the destruction of the upper portions BEFORE the destruction of the lower portion as you showed us in your GIF on the other page and as this shows. User posted image: 'http://gordonssite.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/2003-0101.jpg' The photo above shows that premise as false, because if the capacity of the truss had been exceeded in the lower sections, we wouldn't be seeing the destruction of the upper portions, before the lower portions |
I don't think you can say exactly what is going on in the towers based on what you are seeing at that distance.
The towers were MOSTLY AIR.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...eshilouette.jpg
It appears to me (opinion follows) that the two sections are creating a crushed front of material and when that crushed front of material (containing material from both upper and lower floors), overwhelms the intact floors below the collapse point, then the bottom part of the tower begins to come apart.
Ahh...But you can't rely on the NIST report for the collapse, remember, they have not scientifically explained how the towers collapsed.
Also there was some bent columns, this being the most famous one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzTEIqkZKIM
Another one of those unexplained anamolies in the OCT, which is better brushed under the carpet than addressed.
That's why I directed you to the Bazant, Benson, Greening paper. They did analyze the collapse.
But
You don't expect SOME bent columns?
One would expect a lot of bent columns at the point of collapse.
One would expect other bent columns as the towers came down.
This is not an anomaly, its what one WOULD expect in a collapse of this magnitude.
Doesn't change the fact that the majority of the perimeter columns weren't bent like this.
No one is brushing what you call anomalies under the carpet.
You see, to dispute the gravity driven collapse, it is not sufficient for you to trot out something that TO YOU isn't easily explained, we have nothing like these jet plane crashes/building collapses in the history of buildings to compare it to, so one would expect a number of things that have no simple explanation as it was a complex event and so complex things can occur.
Arthur
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 12 2010, 08:08 AM)
The term "Pyroclastic Flow" is not a term used by "they" (I suspect you mean truthers!), it was used by scientists Won-Young Kim, Lynn R. Sykes and J.H. Armitage who describe the flow after the collapse, which is adopted by "They" because it was very similar according those scientists.
Ahh, but one can't use the term PYROCLASTIC flow like Kim, Sykes, Armitage did WITHOUT also including the DISCLAIMER that they did
What giuseppe said was:
What giuseppe said was: Colossal expanding pyroclastic dust clouds 5 or more times the volume of the WTC building indicating amazing extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional controlled demolition explosives.
Which is NOT a True Statement.
Ahh, but one can't use the term PYROCLASTIC flow like Kim, Sykes, Armitage did WITHOUT also including the DISCLAIMER that they did
QUOTE
The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures common in volcanic flows.
What giuseppe said was:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures common in volcanic flows. |
What giuseppe said was: Colossal expanding pyroclastic dust clouds 5 or more times the volume of the WTC building indicating amazing extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional controlled demolition explosives.
Which is NOT a True Statement.
QUOTE (stundie+)
The RJ Lee report, highlights that it was not just "dust" as you claim either, it had nearly 150 times the amount of iron rich spheres, as ordinary "dust" and contained all kinds of toxins which is causing respitory problems of those who worked at GZ to this day
NO, the RJ Lee report didn't say that the dust wasn't consistent with the collapse of a massive building that had been run into at high speed by a large jet and had raging fires burning for hours and then underwent a massive energy release via a gravitational collapse and then had fires burning like "roaring ovens" in the debris pile for many weeks after the collapse.
Arthur
NO, the RJ Lee report didn't say that the dust wasn't consistent with the collapse of a massive building that had been run into at high speed by a large jet and had raging fires burning for hours and then underwent a massive energy release via a gravitational collapse and then had fires burning like "roaring ovens" in the debris pile for many weeks after the collapse.
Arthur
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 12 2010, 09:38 AM)
That is the problem, it's not scientific, it's assumptions.
In other words, you do not make the assumption the towers collapsed of plane damage and fire, then create a model to fit that assumption.
Science includes assumptions.
His assumptions didn't assume the towers collapse, his assumptions were FAVORABLE to the towers remaining standing.
Maybe Benson will take the time to answer you.
Arthur
In other words, you do not make the assumption the towers collapsed of plane damage and fire, then create a model to fit that assumption.
Science includes assumptions.
His assumptions didn't assume the towers collapse, his assumptions were FAVORABLE to the towers remaining standing.
QUOTE
I know of the paper and if you honestly think that it addresses the key issue brought up by people who you refer to as conspiracy theorists, then you couldn't be more mistaken.
From what I understand, it is nothing more than 1D mathamatical model, which assumes that the upper portion was rigid and destroyed the lower portion on a cushion of debris. Its more of a crush down model and at no point address the reality of crush up of the upper portions and it certainly doesn't matched the observed events.
There is so much wrong with it, it doesn't explain any of the early ejections in the collapse before the bottom part start collapsing but if you want to accept a model that includes a rigid body that doesn't in anyway shape or form accurately describe the behaviour the WTC collapses, then by my guest.
Just don't dress it up as science or evidence that it explains the collapses!!
From what I understand, it is nothing more than 1D mathamatical model, which assumes that the upper portion was rigid and destroyed the lower portion on a cushion of debris. Its more of a crush down model and at no point address the reality of crush up of the upper portions and it certainly doesn't matched the observed events.
There is so much wrong with it, it doesn't explain any of the early ejections in the collapse before the bottom part start collapsing but if you want to accept a model that includes a rigid body that doesn't in anyway shape or form accurately describe the behaviour the WTC collapses, then by my guest.
Just don't dress it up as science or evidence that it explains the collapses!!
Maybe Benson will take the time to answer you.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 11 2010, 05:58 PM)
They also throw in the term "pyroclastic", but the clouds of dust were just that, clouds of dust.
As the aftermath photos clearly show, that while there were scattered fires, the streets were primarily littered with dust and paper.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...-damage_201.jpg
http://www.redrat.net/thoughts/wtc/911pix/x911_06.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...rroundings.html
Arthur
But you agree it's a rather strange arguement.
It must have been a controlled demolition, here's some evidence that shows it doesn't look like a controlled demolition.
It would be like me saying I drive a Rolls Royce, here's evidence and I show a photo of my Hyndai and say see it doesn't look like a Rolls Royce.
As the aftermath photos clearly show, that while there were scattered fires, the streets were primarily littered with dust and paper.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...-damage_201.jpg
http://www.redrat.net/thoughts/wtc/911pix/x911_06.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...rroundings.html
Arthur
But you agree it's a rather strange arguement.
It must have been a controlled demolition, here's some evidence that shows it doesn't look like a controlled demolition.
It would be like me saying I drive a Rolls Royce, here's evidence and I show a photo of my Hyndai and say see it doesn't look like a Rolls Royce.
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 12 2010, 09:45 AM)
Here is a quick question for all you OCT supporters who think that NIST, FEMA, Bazant et all explain the collapses.
If the planes had hit the 107th floor of the WTC and caused the same impact and fire damage as the NIST describe, albleit higher up.
Would the building have still collapsed??
If your answer is no? Then at what floor would you think the difference between the WTC surviving to collapsing is?
If the answer is yes, then am I right in assuming that nothing would have stopped those towers from collapsing then??
Even if the collapse initiation point was at floor 109??
Cheers
Stundie
NIST answered that in their FAQs.
You need an upper section of about 6 floors for the collapse to progress.
By the way, your use of is generally done in rather poor taste.
Arthur
If the planes had hit the 107th floor of the WTC and caused the same impact and fire damage as the NIST describe, albleit higher up.
Would the building have still collapsed??
If your answer is no? Then at what floor would you think the difference between the WTC surviving to collapsing is?
If the answer is yes, then am I right in assuming that nothing would have stopped those towers from collapsing then??
Even if the collapse initiation point was at floor 109??
Cheers
Stundie
NIST answered that in their FAQs.
You need an upper section of about 6 floors for the collapse to progress.
By the way, your use of
is generally done in rather poor taste.Arthur
QUOTE (buttershug+Jan 12 2010, 10:15 AM)
But you agree it's a rather strange arguement.
It must have been a controlled demolition, here's some evidence that shows it doesn't look like a controlled demolition.
It would be like me saying I drive a Rolls Royce, here's evidence and I show a photo of my Hyndai and say see it doesn't look like a Rolls Royce.
It's not exactly an argument for CD, its an argument for something besides a gravitational collapse.
The argument isn't that it looks like a regular CD, its that it looks like a SUPER SIZED CD (sometimes nuclear in origin) and the PROOF that it is not a dust cloud, but a PYROCLASTIC cloud.
They originally went on and on about the size of the dust cloud to PROVE it was super hot to have expanded as fast as it did.
The fact that it was filled with unburnt paper and people running away didn't faze them at all.
Arthur
It must have been a controlled demolition, here's some evidence that shows it doesn't look like a controlled demolition.
It would be like me saying I drive a Rolls Royce, here's evidence and I show a photo of my Hyndai and say see it doesn't look like a Rolls Royce.
It's not exactly an argument for CD, its an argument for something besides a gravitational collapse.
The argument isn't that it looks like a regular CD, its that it looks like a SUPER SIZED CD (sometimes nuclear in origin) and the PROOF that it is not a dust cloud, but a PYROCLASTIC cloud.
They originally went on and on about the size of the dust cloud to PROVE it was super hot to have expanded as fast as it did.
The fact that it was filled with unburnt paper and people running away didn't faze them at all.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 12 2010, 03:07 PM)
Ahh, but one can't use the term PYROCLASTIC flow like Kim, Sykes, Armitage did WITHOUT also including the DISCLAIMER that they did
I'm sorry, did these scientist copyright the term "Pyroclastic Flow"??
Anyone can use the term pyroclastic flow because these scientists describe it as one and the dust cloud eminating from the collapse looked like one.
This just highlights a double standard in your arguments, it would be like me saying you can't use the term "truss floor failure" without a disclaimer from the NIST or something!!
Anyone can use the term pyroclastic flow because these scientists describe it as one and the dust cloud eminating from the collapse looked like one.
This just highlights a double standard in your arguments, it would be like me saying you can't use the term "truss floor failure" without a disclaimer from the NIST or something!!
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 12 2010, 03:07 PM)
What giuseppe said was:
QUOTE (giuseppe+)
Colossal expanding pyroclastic dust clouds 5 or more times the volume of the WTC building indicating amazing extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional controlled demolition explosives.
Which is NOT a True Statement.
Which is NOT a True Statement.
Which part is NOT true?
The volume??
The extreme levels of heat maybe?? I'll refer you back to a link your friend Trippy posted from someone who was there!
The volume??
The extreme levels of heat maybe?? I'll refer you back to a link your friend Trippy posted from someone who was there!
QUOTE (Ray Dougherty+)
As each building imploded, this burning cloud of asbestos laden dust spread out from river to river and as high as the original erect World Trade Centers. I imagine that most of the deaths of the rescue workers came from being enveloped in this thousand degree dust cloud. On one ambulance caught up in the cloud, all of the paint was burned off of one side, according to one radio report.
http://www.alum.dartmouth.org/classes/62/bombdough.htm
Does this extreme heat or pyroclastic flow often happen when buildings just collapse??
http://www.alum.dartmouth.org/classes/62/bombdough.htm
Does this extreme heat or pyroclastic flow often happen when buildings just collapse??
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 12 2010, 03:07 PM)
QUOTE (stundie+)
The RJ Lee report, highlights that it was not just "dust" as you claim either, it had nearly 150 times the amount of iron rich spheres, as ordinary "dust" and contained all kinds of toxins which is causing respitory problems of those who worked at GZ to this day
NO, the RJ Lee report didn't say that the dust wasn't consistent with the collapse of a massive building that had been run into at high speed by a large jet and had raging fires burning for hours and then underwent a massive energy release via a gravitational collapse and then had fires burning like "roaring ovens" in the debris pile for many weeks after the collapse.
Arthur
How does a high speed jet account, or the raging fires which the NIST say were never hotter than 650C, burning for just over an hour, or a massive gravitational collapse, or roaring ovens in the debris (Which is another issue all together!) account for the iron rich spheres??
Oh I forgot, jet fuel is known vapourise metal isn't it??
NO, the RJ Lee report didn't say that the dust wasn't consistent with the collapse of a massive building that had been run into at high speed by a large jet and had raging fires burning for hours and then underwent a massive energy release via a gravitational collapse and then had fires burning like "roaring ovens" in the debris pile for many weeks after the collapse.
Arthur
How does a high speed jet account, or the raging fires which the NIST say were never hotter than 650C, burning for just over an hour, or a massive gravitational collapse, or roaring ovens in the debris (Which is another issue all together!) account for the iron rich spheres??
Oh I forgot, jet fuel is known vapourise metal isn't it??
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 13 2010, 07:44 AM)
I'm sorry, did these scientist copyright the term "Pyroclastic Flow"??
Anyone can use the term pyroclastic flow because these scientists describe it as one and the dust cloud eminating from the collapse looked like one.
This just highlights a double standard in your arguments, it would be like me saying you can't use the term "truss floor failure" without a disclaimer from the NIST or something!!
Because Pyroclastic flow has a very specific meaning, that involves temperature you idiot.
Pyroclastic Flow
Because it wasn't underwater (a requirement for a cold flow) and because nobody (as far as we know) had the skin flayed from their bodies by 1000°C temperatures, it's not a true pyroclastic flow (it's a gravity surge, it's more like a turbidity current than a pyroclastic flow, but the debris was carried by air, rather than water).
Pyroclastic, ultimately derived from Pyroclast Pyro + Clast FIRE + Broken.
If ain't hot, or it aint under water, it aint a pyroclastic flow.
So yes, the disclaimer is absolutely neccessary - unless you have proof of thousands of deaths as people had the skin flayed from their bodies as they were enveloped in the debris cloud from the collapse...
Anyone can use the term pyroclastic flow because these scientists describe it as one and the dust cloud eminating from the collapse looked like one.
This just highlights a double standard in your arguments, it would be like me saying you can't use the term "truss floor failure" without a disclaimer from the NIST or something!!
Because Pyroclastic flow has a very specific meaning, that involves temperature you idiot.
Pyroclastic Flow
Because it wasn't underwater (a requirement for a cold flow) and because nobody (as far as we know) had the skin flayed from their bodies by 1000°C temperatures, it's not a true pyroclastic flow (it's a gravity surge, it's more like a turbidity current than a pyroclastic flow, but the debris was carried by air, rather than water).
Pyroclastic, ultimately derived from Pyroclast Pyro + Clast FIRE + Broken.
If ain't hot, or it aint under water, it aint a pyroclastic flow.
So yes, the disclaimer is absolutely neccessary - unless you have proof of thousands of deaths as people had the skin flayed from their bodies as they were enveloped in the debris cloud from the collapse...
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 12 2010, 01:44 PM)
I'm sorry, did these scientist copyright the term "Pyroclastic Flow"??
Anyone can use the term pyroclastic flow because these scientists describe it as one and the dust cloud eminating from the collapse looked like one.
Yes a Pyroclastic flow is a very SPECIFIC thing.
The scientists used the term as a description, saying it LOOKED like a Pyroclastic flow, but they noted that it did not have the characteristic high heat of a TRUE Pyroclastic flow.
To call it a Pyroclastic flow without the disclaimer is a LIE.
The buildings didn't JUST collapse.
Both contained the remains of a jet.
Both had fires that had released several Gigajoules of energy into the structure, raising the temp of the steel and concrete.
Both were on fire across multiple floors when they collapsed.
Unlike CDs of buildings which are highly stripped of internal material before they are brought down, there were plenty of highly flamable materials still in the buildings when they collapsed.
No other buildings approaching the height and volume of these towers have ever collapsed.
See a much much smaller building brought down.
Notice how OBVIOUS the High Explosives are along with the flashes as they go off.
Clearly NOT part of the demise of the twin towers.
http://haha.nu/entertainment/landmark-tower-implosion/
The fact that SOME of the material ejected was very hot or on fire is not at all unusual, but the cloud was not in itself very hot, since it engulfed many hundreds of people who were not burned by it and was full of paper which did not ignite.
Arthur
Anyone can use the term pyroclastic flow because these scientists describe it as one and the dust cloud eminating from the collapse looked like one.
Yes a Pyroclastic flow is a very SPECIFIC thing.
The scientists used the term as a description, saying it LOOKED like a Pyroclastic flow, but they noted that it did not have the characteristic high heat of a TRUE Pyroclastic flow.
To call it a Pyroclastic flow without the disclaimer is a LIE.
QUOTE
Does this extreme heat or pyroclastic flow often happen when buildings just collapse??
The buildings didn't JUST collapse.
Both contained the remains of a jet.
Both had fires that had released several Gigajoules of energy into the structure, raising the temp of the steel and concrete.
Both were on fire across multiple floors when they collapsed.
Unlike CDs of buildings which are highly stripped of internal material before they are brought down, there were plenty of highly flamable materials still in the buildings when they collapsed.
No other buildings approaching the height and volume of these towers have ever collapsed.
See a much much smaller building brought down.
Notice how OBVIOUS the High Explosives are along with the flashes as they go off.
Clearly NOT part of the demise of the twin towers.
http://haha.nu/entertainment/landmark-tower-implosion/
The fact that SOME of the material ejected was very hot or on fire is not at all unusual, but the cloud was not in itself very hot, since it engulfed many hundreds of people who were not burned by it and was full of paper which did not ignite.
Arthur
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 12 2010, 01:44 PM)
How does a high speed jet account, or the raging fires which the NIST say were never hotter than 650C, burning for just over an hour, or a massive gravitational collapse, or roaring ovens in the debris (Which is another issue all together!) account for the iron rich spheres??
RJ Lee stated:
The conflagration activated processes that caused materials to form into
spherical particles such as metals (e.g., Fe, Zn, Pb) and spherical or vesicular
silicates or fly ash. The heat generated during the WTC Event caused some
plastics to form residual vesicular carbonaceous particles, and paints to form
residual spherical particles. Some metals, plastics and other materials were
vaporized thus producing new chemicals that were deposited onto the
surfaces of solid particulate matter, such as asbestos, quartz, and mineral
wool.
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liber...ology.Final.pdf
Arthur
RJ Lee stated:
The conflagration activated processes that caused materials to form into
spherical particles such as metals (e.g., Fe, Zn, Pb) and spherical or vesicular
silicates or fly ash. The heat generated during the WTC Event caused some
plastics to form residual vesicular carbonaceous particles, and paints to form
residual spherical particles. Some metals, plastics and other materials were
vaporized thus producing new chemicals that were deposited onto the
surfaces of solid particulate matter, such as asbestos, quartz, and mineral
wool.
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liber...ology.Final.pdf
Arthur
Quote :adoucette
True.
Explosives don't create much dust.
Collapsing buildings DO however.
Watch ANY demolition, and you will see that the explosives tend to create relatively small amounts of dust
See Hudson Dept store video for comparison purposes:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807
Compare to WTC tower.
Arthur
Can't you realise that you are making a big ridiculous with your non sense statements ?, You show a example of controlled demolition with huge amount of pulverised dust product of the controlled demolition process, and you want to tell me that this have nothing to do with the controlled demolition process and huge amount of pulverised dust of the WTC ?
True.
Explosives don't create much dust.
Collapsing buildings DO however.
Watch ANY demolition, and you will see that the explosives tend to create relatively small amounts of dust
See Hudson Dept store video for comparison purposes:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807
Compare to WTC tower.
Arthur
Can't you realise that you are making a big ridiculous with your non sense statements ?, You show a example of controlled demolition with huge amount of pulverised dust product of the controlled demolition process, and you want to tell me that this have nothing to do with the controlled demolition process and huge amount of pulverised dust of the WTC ?
QUOTE (david66+Jan 12 2010, 03:56 PM)
Quote :adoucette
True.
Explosives don't create much dust.
Collapsing buildings DO however.
Watch ANY demolition, and you will see that the explosives tend to create relatively small amounts of dust
See Hudson Dept store video for comparison purposes:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807
Compare to WTC tower.
Arthur
Can't you realise that you are making a big ridiculous with your non sense statements ?, You show a example of controlled demolition with huge amount of pulverised dust product of the controlled demolition process, and you want to tell me that this have nothing to do with the controlled demolition process and huge amount of pulverised dust of the WTC ?
Even in the CD collapse, the dust is created by the collapsing building, not when the High Explosives go off.
My point is that a collapsing building creates a large amount of dust, regardless of why it collapses.
The WTC would have created far more dust than a typical CD because of all the material that was in the WTC when it collapsed that would have been removed prior to a normal CD
The very hot concrete over several acres of floors would have probably also created more dust than room temp concrete.
Arthur.
True.
Explosives don't create much dust.
Collapsing buildings DO however.
Watch ANY demolition, and you will see that the explosives tend to create relatively small amounts of dust
See Hudson Dept store video for comparison purposes:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807
Compare to WTC tower.
Arthur
Can't you realise that you are making a big ridiculous with your non sense statements ?, You show a example of controlled demolition with huge amount of pulverised dust product of the controlled demolition process, and you want to tell me that this have nothing to do with the controlled demolition process and huge amount of pulverised dust of the WTC ?
Even in the CD collapse, the dust is created by the collapsing building, not when the High Explosives go off.
My point is that a collapsing building creates a large amount of dust, regardless of why it collapses.
The WTC would have created far more dust than a typical CD because of all the material that was in the WTC when it collapsed that would have been removed prior to a normal CD
The very hot concrete over several acres of floors would have probably also created more dust than room temp concrete.
Arthur.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 12 2010, 02:47 PM)
The exact way the initial collapse unfolds is unclear because of all the expelled smoke and dust.
So if it is unclear how it unfolds, then it is unscientific then??
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 12 2010, 02:47 PM)
Floors could have been detached above and below the collapse point, but it hardly matters since they would both move down and gather more kinetic energy.
Well it matters because floors could have been detached above and below, as opposed to would or did.
Could is speculative.
And also you claim it would hardly matter and gather more kinetic energy, which would be transferred through both portions.
But as the photo and the GIF you posted shows, this was not the case because the upper portion is being destoryed before the lower portion.
Observation is much better than conjuring theories which don't fit.
Could is speculative.
And also you claim it would hardly matter and gather more kinetic energy, which would be transferred through both portions.
But as the photo and the GIF you posted shows, this was not the case because the upper portion is being destoryed before the lower portion.
Observation is much better than conjuring theories which don't fit.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 12 2010, 02:47 PM)
But we also know that the buildings TILTED toward the bowed in long truss sides of the towers, so when the collapse started the exterior columns are seen to BUCKLE INWARD, which means THEY were pushing on the heated/sagging floor below the point of collapse and it would be these columns that first arrive at the next floor, not the upper floor trusses.
And on the opposite side of the tilt where the exterior columns are buckling, it would be these columns on the opposite side that would meet the upper floor trusses then?
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 12 2010, 02:47 PM)
Still, after the first or second floor worth of movement who can say exactly what is happening? No one, surely not NIST
Well whatever is happening, there is no upper portion destroying the lower portion.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 12 2010, 02:47 PM)
BUT
One doesn't have to add any additional energy into the process for the collapse to progress.
One doesn't have to add any additional energy into the process for the collapse to progress.
How so?
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 12 2010, 02:47 PM)
I don't think you can say exactly what is going on in the towers based on what you are seeing at that distance.
The towers were MOSTLY AIR.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...eshilouette.jpg
The towers were MOSTLY AIR.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...eshilouette.jpg
I know they were mostly air. I also know that they were designed in the way they were to give the towers large open spaces.
We can see clearly from the images posted of the collapse and many others from various distances, the same thing happening, the destruction of the upper portion which clearly is not rigid any more before the lower portions starts to move.
We can see clearly from the images posted of the collapse and many others from various distances, the same thing happening, the destruction of the upper portion which clearly is not rigid any more before the lower portions starts to move.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 12 2010, 02:47 PM)
It appears to me (opinion follows) that the two sections are creating a crushed front of material and when that crushed front of material (containing material from both upper and lower floors), overwhelms the intact floors below the collapse point, then the bottom part of the tower begins to come apart.
It appears to me that (opinion follows!) that the upper section is being destroyed and the lower portion which is already holding up the lower portion was capable of holding the falling mass for at least the 1st few seconds.
Maybe your opinion is right, but maybe your opinion is wrong and the lower portion were more than capable of arresting the falling mass.
Another way of looking it would be if we were to consider that the collapse initiated at floor 93, so we would have floor 94-110 (16) versus floors 92-0 (92) not including the basements of course in a collision.
As I've said many times before, I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but if we are to have a collision between these two, I do not see how the upper portion as the energy to overcome the lower portions, even with gravity on it's side.
Do you see where I am coming from here?
Maybe your opinion is right, but maybe your opinion is wrong and the lower portion were more than capable of arresting the falling mass.
Another way of looking it would be if we were to consider that the collapse initiated at floor 93, so we would have floor 94-110 (16) versus floors 92-0 (92) not including the basements of course in a collision.
As I've said many times before, I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but if we are to have a collision between these two, I do not see how the upper portion as the energy to overcome the lower portions, even with gravity on it's side.
Do you see where I am coming from here?
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 12 2010, 02:47 PM)
That's why I directed you to the Bazant, Benson, Greening paper. They did analyze the collapse.
I am aware of their paper and I have spoken to both Benson and Greening on here and at the9/11forums about their paper.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 12 2010, 02:47 PM)
You don't expect SOME bent columns?
One would expect a lot of bent columns at the point of collapse.
One would expect other bent columns as the towers came down.
This is not an anomaly, its what one WOULD expect in a collapse of this magnitude.
One would expect a lot of bent columns at the point of collapse.
One would expect other bent columns as the towers came down.
This is not an anomaly, its what one WOULD expect in a collapse of this magnitude.
Well the people in this video who are examining it are surprised.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzTEIqkZKIM
And I would expect bent columns, but not ones bent into horse shoe shapes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzTEIqkZKIM
And I would expect bent columns, but not ones bent into horse shoe shapes.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 12 2010, 02:47 PM)
Doesn't change the fact that the majority of the perimeter columns weren't bent like this.
I know and I never claimed the majority were.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 12 2010, 02:47 PM)
No one is brushing what you call anomalies under the carpet.
It is either brushed or hand waved away.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 12 2010, 02:47 PM)
You see, to dispute the gravity driven collapse, it is not sufficient for you to trot out something that TO YOU isn't easily explained, we have nothing like these jet plane crashes/building collapses in the history of buildings to compare it to, so one would expect a number of things that have no simple explanation as it was a complex event and so complex things can occur.
Arthur
Arthur
We have had planes hit buildings before, we have had building fires before, we have had building collapses before.
There shouldn't be any anomalies, even in the event of all 3 happening together!
Any theory should be able to explain this, whether it is simple or more complex.
I am well within my right to dispute a gravity driven collapse, especially when there is no theory which scientifically explains and demonstrates how they collapsed by gravity.
And just in case you bring it up, I do not need to provide an alternative theory to disprove the gravity driven collapse either.
Cheers
Stundie
There shouldn't be any anomalies, even in the event of all 3 happening together!
Any theory should be able to explain this, whether it is simple or more complex.
I am well within my right to dispute a gravity driven collapse, especially when there is no theory which scientifically explains and demonstrates how they collapsed by gravity.
And just in case you bring it up, I do not need to provide an alternative theory to disprove the gravity driven collapse either.
Cheers
Stundie
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 12 2010, 03:11 PM)
Science includes assumptions.
His assumptions didn't assume the towers collapse, his assumptions were FAVORABLE to the towers remaining standing.
Maybe Benson will take the time to answer you.
Arthur
I know science does sometimes include assumptions, but if assumption doesn't match the evidence, then the assumption should be dumped.
The assumptions of the Bazant Paper did assume the towers collapsed, because that is what he was modelling at the time.
And I have spoken with Benson over at the9/11forum.
I seem to recall that he was arguing that the upper portion somehow fell inside the lower portions, even though I and eventually others pointed out it was not possible considering that the perimeters of both portions are the same and it doesn't match the observed events.
Cheers
Stundie
His assumptions didn't assume the towers collapse, his assumptions were FAVORABLE to the towers remaining standing.
Maybe Benson will take the time to answer you.
Arthur
I know science does sometimes include assumptions, but if assumption doesn't match the evidence, then the assumption should be dumped.
The assumptions of the Bazant Paper did assume the towers collapsed, because that is what he was modelling at the time.
And I have spoken with Benson over at the9/11forum.
I seem to recall that he was arguing that the upper portion somehow fell inside the lower portions, even though I and eventually others pointed out it was not possible considering that the perimeters of both portions are the same and it doesn't match the observed events.
Cheers
Stundie
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 13 2010, 12:20 PM)
It appears to me that (opinion follows!) that the upper section is being destroyed and the lower portion which is already holding up the lower portion was capable of holding the falling mass for at least the 1st few seconds.
Maybe your opinion is right, but maybe your opinion is wrong and the lower portion were more than capable of arresting the falling mass.
Another way of looking it would be if we were to consider that the collapse initiated at floor 93, so we would have floor 94-110 (16) versus floors 92-0 (92) not including the basements of course in a collision.
As I've said many times before, I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but if we are to have a collision between these two, I do not see how the upper portion as the energy to overcome the lower portions, even with gravity on it's side.
Do you see where I am coming from here?
We can only speculate on the exact manner of the tower's collapse.
Even the NIST models are just very scientific based speculation. They certainly are not an exact description of what was happening in the towers.
BUT they do give us a scientifically sound way of looking at the damage caused by the jets, and how the forces on the towers evolved over time based on the fires burning in them and how the structures were interconnected.
Yes, I see where you are coming from and your logical mistake is here:
But it's not, it's 16 vs 1, because in the collapse, the columns are no longer connected, so it's at most one intact floor trying to hold up the upper block and it can only do that through the Truss seats.
That's why in the NIST FAQ 1 answer, when they discuss the vertical load capability:
But it's not, it's 16 vs 1, because in the collapse, the columns are no longer connected, so it's at most one intact floor trying to hold up the upper block and it can only do that through the Truss seats.
That's why in the NIST FAQ 1 answer, when they discuss the vertical load capability:
total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C).
They refer to Section 5.2.4 which is Truss Seat Capacity Calculations. They don't refer you to the column capacity.
If the columns had STAYED connected, the top portion COULDN'T MOVE DOWN.
It doesn't matter which floors are being damaged, the top, the bottom, or most likely both, because the total weight of the material which is moving down is far greater than the floor trusses on a single intact floor can hold and so it will fail, as will the next and so on.
Arthur
Maybe your opinion is right, but maybe your opinion is wrong and the lower portion were more than capable of arresting the falling mass.
Another way of looking it would be if we were to consider that the collapse initiated at floor 93, so we would have floor 94-110 (16) versus floors 92-0 (92) not including the basements of course in a collision.
As I've said many times before, I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but if we are to have a collision between these two, I do not see how the upper portion as the energy to overcome the lower portions, even with gravity on it's side.
Do you see where I am coming from here?
We can only speculate on the exact manner of the tower's collapse.
Even the NIST models are just very scientific based speculation. They certainly are not an exact description of what was happening in the towers.
BUT they do give us a scientifically sound way of looking at the damage caused by the jets, and how the forces on the towers evolved over time based on the fires burning in them and how the structures were interconnected.
Yes, I see where you are coming from and your logical mistake is here:
QUOTE
so we would have floor 94-110 (16) versus floors 92-0 (92)
But it's not, it's 16 vs 1, because in the collapse, the columns are no longer connected, so it's at most one intact floor trying to hold up the upper block and it can only do that through the Truss seats.
That's why in the NIST FAQ 1 answer, when they discuss the vertical load capability:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| so we would have floor 94-110 (16) versus floors 92-0 (92) |
But it's not, it's 16 vs 1, because in the collapse, the columns are no longer connected, so it's at most one intact floor trying to hold up the upper block and it can only do that through the Truss seats.
That's why in the NIST FAQ 1 answer, when they discuss the vertical load capability:
total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C).
They refer to Section 5.2.4 which is Truss Seat Capacity Calculations. They don't refer you to the column capacity.
If the columns had STAYED connected, the top portion COULDN'T MOVE DOWN.
It doesn't matter which floors are being damaged, the top, the bottom, or most likely both, because the total weight of the material which is moving down is far greater than the floor trusses on a single intact floor can hold and so it will fail, as will the next and so on.
Arthur
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 12 2010, 07:12 PM)
Because Pyroclastic flow has a very specific meaning, that involves temperature you idiot.
Pyroclastic Flow
Because it wasn't underwater (a requirement for a cold flow) and because nobody (as far as we know) had the skin flayed from their bodies by 1000°C temperatures, it's not a true pyroclastic flow (it's a gravity surge, it's more like a turbidity current than a pyroclastic flow, but the debris was carried by air, rather than water).
Pyroclastic, ultimately derived from Pyroclast Pyro + Clast FIRE + Broken.
If ain't hot, or it aint under water, it aint a pyroclastic flow.
So yes, the disclaimer is absolutely neccessary - unless you have proof of thousands of deaths as people had the skin flayed from their bodies as they were enveloped in the debris cloud from the collapse...
WOW! More herrings!! lol
If you have a problem with the dust cloud generated by the WTC collapses being described as a pyroclastic flow, take it up with the scientists who used the term.
And I do not want to appeal to authority, but they seem well versed with geological phenomenons.
Plus, I know it's not a pyroclastic flow, because there was no volcano.
Why do I need proof of "thousands of deaths as people had the skin flayed from their bodies as they were enveloped in the debris cloud from the collapse"
Would it only be correct to use the term if there was thousands of deaths? Or had their skin flayed??
And maybe you should read your own link from Ray Dougherty who says...
" I imagine that most of the deaths of the rescue workers came from being enveloped in this thousand degree dust cloud. On one ambulance caught up in the cloud, all of the paint was burned off of one side, according to one radio report. "
Your point about a disclaimer is nothing more than another smelly red herring.
Pointless, but no doubt you feel a sense of achievement? lol
Pyroclastic Flow
Because it wasn't underwater (a requirement for a cold flow) and because nobody (as far as we know) had the skin flayed from their bodies by 1000°C temperatures, it's not a true pyroclastic flow (it's a gravity surge, it's more like a turbidity current than a pyroclastic flow, but the debris was carried by air, rather than water).
Pyroclastic, ultimately derived from Pyroclast Pyro + Clast FIRE + Broken.
If ain't hot, or it aint under water, it aint a pyroclastic flow.
So yes, the disclaimer is absolutely neccessary - unless you have proof of thousands of deaths as people had the skin flayed from their bodies as they were enveloped in the debris cloud from the collapse...
WOW! More herrings!! lol
If you have a problem with the dust cloud generated by the WTC collapses being described as a pyroclastic flow, take it up with the scientists who used the term.
And I do not want to appeal to authority, but they seem well versed with geological phenomenons.
Plus, I know it's not a pyroclastic flow, because there was no volcano.
Why do I need proof of "thousands of deaths as people had the skin flayed from their bodies as they were enveloped in the debris cloud from the collapse"
Would it only be correct to use the term if there was thousands of deaths? Or had their skin flayed??
And maybe you should read your own link from Ray Dougherty who says...
" I imagine that most of the deaths of the rescue workers came from being enveloped in this thousand degree dust cloud. On one ambulance caught up in the cloud, all of the paint was burned off of one side, according to one radio report. "
Your point about a disclaimer is nothing more than another smelly red herring.
Pointless, but no doubt you feel a sense of achievement? lol
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 13 2010, 12:20 PM)
We have had planes hit buildings before, we have had building fires before, we have had building collapses before.
Red Herring
We have never had buildings anywhere near this size or type of construction run into by planes at anywhere near this speed.
If you don't agree with this statement, please provide an example of a building/plane impact where useful data was derived that would help explain what happened in the WTC towers that day.
Surely you jest?
There shouldn't be ANY anomalies in a totally unprecedented event that happened on such an unprecedented scale?
Surely you jest?
There shouldn't be ANY anomalies in a totally unprecedented event that happened on such an unprecedented scale?
Any theory should be able to explain this, whether it is simple or more complex.
NIST produced a PROBABLE COLLAPSE SEQUENCE. They did not try to resolve every anomaly that was found (or suspected), since most of the "anomalies" are simply people's lack of understanding of the forces involved in such a massive gravitational event.
Of course you are within your rights to believe anything you care to.
Has anyone said otherwise?
Creationists are within their rights to believe the world is 6,500 years old but you will find scientists who will disagree with them.
And becaue the NIST report most definitely scientifically explains why the towers collapsed you will also find scientists who disagree with you.
And no, you don't have to believe the report and you don't have to come up with your own theory, but what you haven't done is show any good reason why we shouldn't accept NIST's explanation of what happened that day.
Nary a scratch in their explanation have you been able to show.
Which makes me wonder, what is it that CONVINCES you that NIST is wrong and that the towers shouldn't have collapsed?
and
What is it that CONVINCES you that you need something in addition to a plane and the fires to cause the towers to collapse?
Arthur
Red Herring
We have never had buildings anywhere near this size or type of construction run into by planes at anywhere near this speed.
If you don't agree with this statement, please provide an example of a building/plane impact where useful data was derived that would help explain what happened in the WTC towers that day.
QUOTE
There shouldn't be any anomalies, even in the event of all 3 happening together!
Surely you jest?
There shouldn't be ANY anomalies in a totally unprecedented event that happened on such an unprecedented scale?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There shouldn't be any anomalies, even in the event of all 3 happening together! |
Surely you jest?
There shouldn't be ANY anomalies in a totally unprecedented event that happened on such an unprecedented scale?
Any theory should be able to explain this, whether it is simple or more complex.
NIST produced a PROBABLE COLLAPSE SEQUENCE. They did not try to resolve every anomaly that was found (or suspected), since most of the "anomalies" are simply people's lack of understanding of the forces involved in such a massive gravitational event.
QUOTE
I am well within my right to dispute a gravity driven collapse, especially when there is no theory which scientifically explains and demonstrates how they collapsed by gravity.
Of course you are within your rights to believe anything you care to.
Has anyone said otherwise?
Creationists are within their rights to believe the world is 6,500 years old but you will find scientists who will disagree with them.
And becaue the NIST report most definitely scientifically explains why the towers collapsed you will also find scientists who disagree with you.
And no, you don't have to believe the report and you don't have to come up with your own theory, but what you haven't done is show any good reason why we shouldn't accept NIST's explanation of what happened that day.
Nary a scratch in their explanation have you been able to show.
Which makes me wonder, what is it that CONVINCES you that NIST is wrong and that the towers shouldn't have collapsed?
and
What is it that CONVINCES you that you need something in addition to a plane and the fires to cause the towers to collapse?
Arthur
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 13 2010, 12:29 PM)
I know science does sometimes include assumptions, but if assumption doesn't match the evidence, then the assumption should be dumped.
The assumptions of the Bazant Paper did assume the towers collapsed, because that is what he was modelling at the time.
Did you read Bazant's paper?
The assumptions of the Bazant Paper did assume the towers collapsed, because that is what he was modelling at the time.
Did you read Bazant's paper?
QUOTE (B&Z+)
For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go
into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely
though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the
most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the
building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the
building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact
forces, it would fail under any other distribution.
into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely
though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the
most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the
building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the
building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact
forces, it would fail under any other distribution.
(Bolding mine)
So, you are wrong, Bazant's made NO ASSUMPTIONS that the towers would fall.
His mathematical model was made with the assumption that the towers resisted it via the COLUMNS and not the much lower strength Truss seats.
Arthur
So, you are wrong, Bazant's made NO ASSUMPTIONS that the towers would fall.
His mathematical model was made with the assumption that the towers resisted it via the COLUMNS and not the much lower strength Truss seats.
Arthur
Of all of the stupid moronic brain-dead arguments you could have made, you pick this exercise in disingenuity and lies?
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 14 2010, 06:39 AM)
WOW! More herrings!! lol
If you have a problem with the dust cloud generated by the WTC collapses being described as a pyroclastic flow, take it up with the scientists who used the term.
And I do not want to appeal to authority, but they seem well versed with geological phenomenons.
They were certainly well versed enough to include the disclaimer which you, and other like you (intellectually challenged) conveniently ignored.
However, they apprarently were not well versed enough to be able to cite better analogies, and I say that as someone who actually has a formal university education in Geology.
If you have a problem with the dust cloud generated by the WTC collapses being described as a pyroclastic flow, take it up with the scientists who used the term.
And I do not want to appeal to authority, but they seem well versed with geological phenomenons.
They were certainly well versed enough to include the disclaimer which you, and other like you (intellectually challenged) conveniently ignored.
However, they apprarently were not well versed enough to be able to cite better analogies, and I say that as someone who actually has a formal university education in Geology.
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 14 2010, 06:39 AM)
Why do I need proof of "thousands of deaths as people had the skin flayed from their bodies as they were enveloped in the debris cloud from the collapse"
Would it only be correct to use the term if there was thousands of deaths? Or had their skin flayed??
Because that would be proof of the heat, had it been a genuine thousand degree pyroclastic flow, there would have been thousands of deaths. because anybody that was enveloped by the dust cloud would have been killed, these things do not cool down quickly.
Certainly those people (for example) on Vesey street that survived the collapse, and emerged afterwards, covered in dust, would have been killed by the injuries they should have recieved.
But no, there is no evidence of relevant injuries, therefore there is NO EVIDENCE OF THOUSAND DEGREE TEMPERATURES.
Would it only be correct to use the term if there was thousands of deaths? Or had their skin flayed??
Because that would be proof of the heat, had it been a genuine thousand degree pyroclastic flow, there would have been thousands of deaths. because anybody that was enveloped by the dust cloud would have been killed, these things do not cool down quickly.
Certainly those people (for example) on Vesey street that survived the collapse, and emerged afterwards, covered in dust, would have been killed by the injuries they should have recieved.
But no, there is no evidence of relevant injuries, therefore there is NO EVIDENCE OF THOUSAND DEGREE TEMPERATURES.
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 14 2010, 06:39 AM)
And maybe you should read your own link from Ray Dougherty who says...
" I imagine that most of the deaths of the rescue workers came from being enveloped in this thousand degree dust cloud. On one ambulance caught up in the cloud, all of the paint was burned off of one side, according to one radio report. "
You dishonest HACK.
Yes, Ray Dougherty, does make this statement, however, there's a few key points to note in this statement, which I will emphasize for you.
" I imagine that most of the deaths of the rescue workers came from being enveloped in this thousand degree dust cloud. On one ambulance caught up in the cloud, all of the paint was burned off of one side, according to one radio report. "
First, he's forwarding a supposition.
Second he's talking about a singular event.
Third, he's talking about a singular event that he's heard about through a third or fourth person.
Had there been a genuine thousand degree cloud, all of the paint would have been burned off the ambulance.
Had there been a genuine thousand degree cloud, there would have been hundreds of vehicles with similar damage.
There were no immolated people.
There were no thousands of people suffering burns from contact of the cloud.
There were no hundreds of vehicles with similar damage (although there were vehicles near by that suffered fire damage).
There was no raging inferno in downtown manhattan as the thousand degree cloud ignited every flammable object it contacted.
Therefore, there was no thousand degree cloud.
" I imagine that most of the deaths of the rescue workers came from being enveloped in this thousand degree dust cloud. On one ambulance caught up in the cloud, all of the paint was burned off of one side, according to one radio report. "
You dishonest HACK.
Yes, Ray Dougherty, does make this statement, however, there's a few key points to note in this statement, which I will emphasize for you.
" I imagine that most of the deaths of the rescue workers came from being enveloped in this thousand degree dust cloud. On one ambulance caught up in the cloud, all of the paint was burned off of one side, according to one radio report. "
First, he's forwarding a supposition.
Second he's talking about a singular event.
Third, he's talking about a singular event that he's heard about through a third or fourth person.
Had there been a genuine thousand degree cloud, all of the paint would have been burned off the ambulance.
Had there been a genuine thousand degree cloud, there would have been hundreds of vehicles with similar damage.
There were no immolated people.
There were no thousands of people suffering burns from contact of the cloud.
There were no hundreds of vehicles with similar damage (although there were vehicles near by that suffered fire damage).
There was no raging inferno in downtown manhattan as the thousand degree cloud ignited every flammable object it contacted.
Therefore, there was no thousand degree cloud.
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 14 2010, 06:39 AM)
Your point about a disclaimer is nothing more than another smelly red herring.
Pointless, but no doubt you feel a sense of achievement? lol
Yes, we all know that you're perfectly comfortable quoting others out of context to misrepresent what they've said to suite your own dishonest needs.
Pointless, but no doubt you feel a sense of achievement? lol
Yes, we all know that you're perfectly comfortable quoting others out of context to misrepresent what they've said to suite your own dishonest needs.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 05:36 PM)
We can only speculate on the exact manner of the tower's collapse.
Even the NIST models are just very scientific based speculation. They certainly are not an exact description of what was happening in the towers.
Even the NIST models are just very scientific based speculation. They certainly are not an exact description of what was happening in the towers.
Well maybe if the NIST actually had enough of the steel from the scene, instead of it being shipped off for recycling, then maybe the NIST may have been able to give us more than speculation and more of a description of what was happening.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 05:36 PM)
BUT they do give us a scientifically sound way of looking at the damage caused by the jets, and how the forces on the towers evolved over time based on the fires burning in them and how the structures were interconnected.
Well that is according you arthur, but there are others including Dr Greening who would probably disagree with you.
I think he refers to people who use the NIST reports as a bible as NISTIANS!
I think he refers to people who use the NIST reports as a bible as NISTIANS!
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 05:36 PM)
Yes, I see where you are coming from and your logical mistake is here:
But it's not, it's 16 vs 1, because in the collapse, the columns are no longer connected, so it's at most one intact floor trying to hold up the upper block and it can only do that through the Truss seats.
But it's not, it's 16 vs 1, because in the collapse, the columns are no longer connected, so it's at most one intact floor trying to hold up the upper block and it can only do that through the Truss seats.
I'm sorry but the columns are still connected in the undamaged floor below the initiation point.
So I'm afraid you can't dismiss this as 16 vs 1 because there is 92 undamaged floors.
Any weight applied in each of the truss is transferred to the exterior and core columns and the rest of the structure.
Also in this collision, you forget that there will equal/opposite damage in the upper portions. So while you want to believe that this upper block is resting on a single floor in the lower portions, it is also resting against a single floor in the upper portions, which is just as likely to fail.
So I'm afraid you can't dismiss this as 16 vs 1 because there is 92 undamaged floors.
Any weight applied in each of the truss is transferred to the exterior and core columns and the rest of the structure.
Also in this collision, you forget that there will equal/opposite damage in the upper portions. So while you want to believe that this upper block is resting on a single floor in the lower portions, it is also resting against a single floor in the upper portions, which is just as likely to fail.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 05:36 PM)
That's why in the NIST FAQ 1 answer, when they discuss the vertical load capability:
They refer to Section 5.2.4 which is Truss Seat Capacity Calculations. They don't refer you to the column capacity.
They refer to Section 5.2.4 which is Truss Seat Capacity Calculations. They don't refer you to the column capacity.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 05:36 PM)
If the columns had STAYED connected, the top portion COULDN'T MOVE DOWN.
The columns on the undamaged structure below were STILL together.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 05:36 PM)
It doesn't matter which floors are being damaged, the top, the bottom, or most likely both, because the total weight of the material which is moving down is far greater than the floor trusses on a single intact floor can hold and so it will fail, as will the next and so on.
Arthur
Arthur
Well I'm going to have disagree with you and the NIST dare I say it.
You see you need the 16 v 1 for your crush down theory to work but I'm afraid we are in the real world.
Lets start at the bottom, I'm sure you aware that the 1st floor is holding every single floor above it. I know that most of this is through the core columns and the exterior columns. And it's the same with the 2nd floor, any additional weight I add on the 2nd floor is transferred through the trusses and it's load path on to 1st floor core columns and so on and so forth.
And it is no different when we get to the 93rd floor.
Now you want to claim the core columns are not connected, now maybe on the floor that failed, but the core columns are connected through the rest of the structure below, so even if the trusses fail, there are still 47 core columns and umpteen (I can't remember the figure off the top of my head!) exterior columns which still have the capacity to hold up what's coming down, because it was doing so before the collapse for many years.
So if you want to explain the collapse, then treat both the upper and lower portions the same because after all, they are essentially the same, just different masses.
You see you need the 16 v 1 for your crush down theory to work but I'm afraid we are in the real world.
Lets start at the bottom, I'm sure you aware that the 1st floor is holding every single floor above it. I know that most of this is through the core columns and the exterior columns. And it's the same with the 2nd floor, any additional weight I add on the 2nd floor is transferred through the trusses and it's load path on to 1st floor core columns and so on and so forth.
And it is no different when we get to the 93rd floor.
Now you want to claim the core columns are not connected, now maybe on the floor that failed, but the core columns are connected through the rest of the structure below, so even if the trusses fail, there are still 47 core columns and umpteen (I can't remember the figure off the top of my head!) exterior columns which still have the capacity to hold up what's coming down, because it was doing so before the collapse for many years.
So if you want to explain the collapse, then treat both the upper and lower portions the same because after all, they are essentially the same, just different masses.
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 13 2010, 05:29 PM)
I know science does sometimes include assumptions, but if assumption doesn't match the evidence, then the assumption should be dumped.
The assumptions of the Bazant Paper did assume the towers collapsed, because that is what he was modelling at the time.
Cheers
Stundie
Are you saying that there is evidence the the towers did not collapse?
Are they still standing?
The assumptions of the Bazant Paper did assume the towers collapsed, because that is what he was modelling at the time.
Cheers
Stundie
Are you saying that there is evidence the the towers did not collapse?
Are they still standing?
QUOTE (stundie+Jan 13 2010, 03:47 PM)
Well maybe if the NIST actually had enough of the steel from the scene, instead of it being shipped off for recycling, then maybe the NIST may have been able to give us more than speculation and more of a description of what was happening.
Maybe.
So?
I'm quite aware of Dr Greening's views but REMEMBER, he is a co-author of the Bazant, Le, Benson & Greening paper, so he does agree that the towers, once the collapse started, would have fallen. I do know that he wishes that the chemistry of what was happening in the towers had been explored in more detail. What do you expect, he is a Dr of Chemistry after all.
I'm quite aware of Dr Greening's views but REMEMBER, he is a co-author of the Bazant, Le, Benson & Greening paper, so he does agree that the towers, once the collapse started, would have fallen. I do know that he wishes that the chemistry of what was happening in the towers had been explored in more detail. What do you expect, he is a Dr of Chemistry after all.
I'm sorry but the columns are still connected in the undamaged floor below the initiation point.
So I'm afraid you can't dismiss this as 16 vs 1 because there is 92 undamaged floors.
Any weight applied in each of the truss is transferred to the exterior and core columns and the rest of the structure.
Correct, the force is transferred to the columns UNTIL the truss seats are OVERLOADED, and then the floor falls, unloading those columns.
As NIST pointed out, you needed about 6 floors worth of material (mainly floor concrete and office furnishings) to overload the TRUSS SEATS on an intact floor.
The truss seats will fail well BEFORE the columns fails, so the floor falls INSIDE THE STRUCTURE, on to the floor below it, and with it comes all the material above it.
This is what you continue to miss.
The Truss Seats were the WEAK LINK.
http://www.boulder.nist.gov/div853/Program...es/image017.jpg
Sure, if the columns could have taken the load, it might have been different, but once the towers started to tilt and fall there was no way the columns on the bottom of the tower would again magically line up with the columns in the top part.
The net is the falling material from the floors above piled up on the first intact floor below the collapse and quickly caused that floor to collapse, and then all that mess fell on the floor below it and so on.
It doesn't matter which floors fail because gravity pulls it all down.
It doesn't matter which floors fail because gravity pulls it all down.
The columns on the undamaged structure below were STILL together.
Doesn't increase the load carrying ability of a specific floor though since it is only held up by it's set of truss seats.
Nope.
After the initial collapse, it isn't the columns that are failing.
EACH floor (save the mechanical floors) weighs about 2,500,000 lbs.
EACH floor, rests on a set of Truss Seats.
A set of intact truss seats on each floor can hold 29,000,000 lbs of a static load before failing and about 15,000,000 lbs of a dynamic load.
A dynamic load would be about 6 floors worth of material (plus the remains of the jet)
These values don't change no matter where in the tower you are.
Nope.
After the initial collapse, it isn't the columns that are failing.
EACH floor (save the mechanical floors) weighs about 2,500,000 lbs.
EACH floor, rests on a set of Truss Seats.
A set of intact truss seats on each floor can hold 29,000,000 lbs of a static load before failing and about 15,000,000 lbs of a dynamic load.
A dynamic load would be about 6 floors worth of material (plus the remains of the jet)
These values don't change no matter where in the tower you are.
Now you want to claim the core columns are not connected, now maybe on the floor that failed, but the core columns are connected through the rest of the structure below, so even if the trusses fail, there are still 47 core columns and umpteen (I can't remember the figure off the top of my head!) exterior columns which still have the capacity to hold up what's coming down, because it was doing so before the collapse for many years.
Nope
The columns are designed to take the loads from the truss seats. But if the load on the floor's trust seats exceeds 29,000,000 lbs it doesn't matter that the columns are connected or that the columns could support ten times that weight. The floor still fails.
NIST treats all floors around the impact zones and the initial collapse front the same.
Doesn't help you though because it's the floor truss seats which are failing not the columns.
Arthur
Maybe.
So?
QUOTE
Well that is according you arthur, but there are others including Dr Greening who would probably disagree with you.
I think he refers to people who use the NIST reports as a bible as NISTIANS!
I think he refers to people who use the NIST reports as a bible as NISTIANS!
I'm quite aware of Dr Greening's views but REMEMBER, he is a co-author of the Bazant, Le, Benson & Greening paper, so he does agree that the towers, once the collapse started, would have fallen. I do know that he wishes that the chemistry of what was happening in the towers had been explored in more detail. What do you expect, he is a Dr of Chemistry after all.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Well that is according you arthur, but there are others including Dr Greening who would probably disagree with you. I think he refers to people who use the NIST reports as a bible as NISTIANS! |
I'm quite aware of Dr Greening's views but REMEMBER, he is a co-author of the Bazant, Le, Benson & Greening paper, so he does agree that the towers, once the collapse started, would have fallen. I do know that he wishes that the chemistry of what was happening in the towers had been explored in more detail. What do you expect, he is a Dr of Chemistry after all.
I'm sorry but the columns are still connected in the undamaged floor below the initiation point.
So I'm afraid you can't dismiss this as 16 vs 1 because there is 92 undamaged floors.
Any weight applied in each of the truss is transferred to the exterior and core columns and the rest of the structure.
Correct, the force is transferred to the columns UNTIL the truss seats are OVERLOADED, and then the floor falls, unloading those columns.
As NIST pointed out, you needed about 6 floors worth of material (mainly floor concrete and office furnishings) to overload the TRUSS SEATS on an intact floor.
The truss seats will fail well BEFORE the columns fails, so the floor falls INSIDE THE STRUCTURE, on to the floor below it, and with it comes all the material above it.
This is what you continue to miss.
The Truss Seats were the WEAK LINK.
http://www.boulder.nist.gov/div853/Program...es/image017.jpg
Sure, if the columns could have taken the load, it might have been different, but once the towers started to tilt and fall there was no way the columns on the bottom of the tower would again magically line up with the columns in the top part.
The net is the falling material from the floors above piled up on the first intact floor below the collapse and quickly caused that floor to collapse, and then all that mess fell on the floor below it and so on.
QUOTE
Also in this collision, you forget that there will equal/opposite damage in the upper portions. So while you want to believe that this upper block is resting on a single floor in the lower portions, it is also resting against a single floor in the upper portions, which is just as likely to fail.
It doesn't matter which floors fail because gravity pulls it all down.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Also in this collision, you forget that there will equal/opposite damage in the upper portions. So while you want to believe that this upper block is resting on a single floor in the lower portions, it is also resting against a single floor in the upper portions, which is just as likely to fail. |
It doesn't matter which floors fail because gravity pulls it all down.
The columns on the undamaged structure below were STILL together.
Doesn't increase the load carrying ability of a specific floor though since it is only held up by it's set of truss seats.
QUOTE
Lets start at the bottom, I'm sure you aware that the 1st floor is holding every single floor above it. I know that most of this is through the core columns and the exterior columns. And it's the same with the 2nd floor, any additional weight I add on the 2nd floor is transferred through the trusses and it's load path on to 1st floor core columns and so on and so forth.
And it is no different when we get to the 93rd floor.
And it is no different when we get to the 93rd floor.
Nope.
After the initial collapse, it isn't the columns that are failing.
EACH floor (save the mechanical floors) weighs about 2,500,000 lbs.
EACH floor, rests on a set of Truss Seats.
A set of intact truss seats on each floor can hold 29,000,000 lbs of a static load before failing and about 15,000,000 lbs of a dynamic load.
A dynamic load would be about 6 floors worth of material (plus the remains of the jet)
These values don't change no matter where in the tower you are.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Lets start at the bottom, I'm sure you aware that the 1st floor is holding every single floor above it. I know that most of this is through the core columns and the exterior columns. And it's the same with the 2nd floor, any additional weight I add on the 2nd floor is transferred through the trusses and it's load path on to 1st floor core columns and so on and so forth. And it is no different when we get to the 93rd floor. |
Nope.
After the initial collapse, it isn't the columns that are failing.
EACH floor (save the mechanical floors) weighs about 2,500,000 lbs.
EACH floor, rests on a set of Truss Seats.
A set of intact truss seats on each floor can hold 29,000,000 lbs of a static load before failing and about 15,000,000 lbs of a dynamic load.
A dynamic load would be about 6 floors worth of material (plus the remains of the jet)
These values don't change no matter where in the tower you are.
Now you want to claim the core columns are not connected, now maybe on the floor that failed, but the core columns are connected through the rest of the structure below, so even if the trusses fail, there are still 47 core columns and umpteen (I can't remember the figure off the top of my head!) exterior columns which still have the capacity to hold up what's coming down, because it was doing so before the collapse for many years.
Nope
The columns are designed to take the loads from the truss seats. But if the load on the floor's trust seats exceeds 29,000,000 lbs it doesn't matter that the columns are connected or that the columns could support ten times that weight. The floor still fails.
QUOTE
So if you want to explain the collapse, then treat both the upper and lower portions the same because after all, they are essentially the same, just different masses.
NIST treats all floors around the impact zones and the initial collapse front the same.
Doesn't help you though because it's the floor truss seats which are failing not the columns.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 05:57 PM)
Red Herring
We have never had buildings anywhere near this size or type of construction run into by planes at anywhere near this speed.
We have never had buildings anywhere near this size or type of construction run into by planes at anywhere near this speed.
No, we haven't had any building near the size or type of constructions. But why does that matter??
Considering the size of the towers, consider the size of the plane, consider the damage, and consider the fires, it was all less than 5% of the building.
Considering the size of the towers, consider the size of the plane, consider the damage, and consider the fires, it was all less than 5% of the building.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 05:57 PM)
If you don't agree with this statement, please provide an example of a building/plane impact where useful data was derived that would help explain what happened in the WTC towers that day.
I agree that "we have never had buildings anywhere near this size or type of construction run into by planes at anywhere near this speed."
But stating the obvious is not really an argument or a point. A bit like claiming that the WTC were not designed to arrest the collapse.
But stating the obvious is not really an argument or a point. A bit like claiming that the WTC were not designed to arrest the collapse.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 05:57 PM)
Surely you jest?
No, I do not jest, if the theory explains everything, why should there be any anomalies?
If there are anomolies that the theory doesn't explain, then it's not a good theory.
If there are anomolies that the theory doesn't explain, then it's not a good theory.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 05:57 PM)
There shouldn't be ANY anomalies in a totally unprecedented event that happened on such an unprecedented scale?
Why should there be any anomalies?
I do not know much about science, but I'm sure there are many more complex things in this universe than the collapse of the WTC. And I'm pretty sure there are theories which these explain complex things without any or anywhere near the amount of the anomalies.
I do not know much about science, but I'm sure there are many more complex things in this universe than the collapse of the WTC. And I'm pretty sure there are theories which these explain complex things without any or anywhere near the amount of the anomalies.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 05:57 PM)
NIST produced a PROBABLE COLLAPSE SEQUENCE. They did not try to resolve every anomaly that was found (or suspected), since most of the "anomalies" are simply people's lack of understanding of the forces involved in such a massive gravitational event.
So if NIST produce something which is probable, then it doesn't mean that is the final word on it.
Of course, you think it's probable, and you know something, I think it's probable too.
But that doesn't mean I do not look for other explanation that may also be probable, because I might find something which is more probable or something that might discount what I thought was probable.
And I like how you claim the anomalies are simply people's lack of understanding, when it is maybe a lack of understanding that makes the NIST ignore these anomalies in the first place.
Of course, you think it's probable, and you know something, I think it's probable too.
But that doesn't mean I do not look for other explanation that may also be probable, because I might find something which is more probable or something that might discount what I thought was probable.
And I like how you claim the anomalies are simply people's lack of understanding, when it is maybe a lack of understanding that makes the NIST ignore these anomalies in the first place.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 05:57 PM)
Of course you are within your rights to believe anything you care to.
Thanks and so are you Arthur.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 05:57 PM)
Has anyone said otherwise?
Kind off...but maybe I took it out of context.
QUOTE (adoucette in previous post+)
You see, to dispute the gravity driven collapse, it is not sufficient for you to trot out something that TO YOU isn't easily explained.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 05:57 PM)
Creationists are within their rights to believe the world is 6,500 years old but you will find scientists who will disagree with them.
And you will find that there are people who believe in the NIST reports, the 9/11 commission etc etc but you will find scientists, academics and the average man on the street who will disagree with them too.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 05:57 PM)
And becaue the NIST report most definitely scientifically explains why the towers collapsed you will also find scientists who disagree with you.
Yeah, they are the ones who are involved in the NIST report and a few who just can't believe the government would ever do such a thing.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 05:57 PM)
And no, you don't have to believe the report and you don't have to come up with your own theory, but what you haven't done is show any good reason why we shouldn't accept NIST's explanation of what happened that day.
Well there are many good reasons, but if you want accept a theory with gaping holes in it, which leaves many anomalies and questions unanswered, then that is fine. As I said, just do not think it's science, the final word or that those who disagree with it as woo, whacko's etc etc.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 05:57 PM)
Nary a scratch in their explanation have you been able to show.
Well I'm not really a scientist and my knowledge on the subject is limited.
Some people refuse to listen anyway, or have a great cognitive reason to deny, ignore, handwave, or brush under the carpet any scratches which are revealed in the NIST theory and report.
Some people refuse to listen anyway, or have a great cognitive reason to deny, ignore, handwave, or brush under the carpet any scratches which are revealed in the NIST theory and report.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 05:57 PM)
Which makes me wonder, what is it that CONVINCES you that NIST is wrong and that the towers shouldn't have collapsed?
As I've said, I use inductive logic by listening to both sides of the argument by people who have the knowledge about the subject. If there is something I do not understand, then I ask questions to obtain the answers.
and
What is it that CONVINCES you that you need something in addition to a plane and the fires to cause the towers to collapse?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 05:57 PM)
and
What is it that CONVINCES you that you need something in addition to a plane and the fires to cause the towers to collapse?
Arthur
To put this simply, lets say I had a 11 story building and I had some explosives and wanted to make it collapse. Could I plant explosives on the 9th story and expect the building to collapse? I doubt it.
You see, even in those verinage demolitions, they usually have to make sure that the upper portion can over come the lower portions for it to demolish the building and I can't imagine them using just 10 or even 20% of the upper portions to try and overcome the lower portions.
Another thing convinces me is that the damage done from the planes and fires to those floors is less than 5% of the overall structure. I do not know of any structure which you could damage 5% of ans it would collapse, maybe if the damage was done at the bottom or foundation this could happen.
Cheers
Stundie
You see, even in those verinage demolitions, they usually have to make sure that the upper portion can over come the lower portions for it to demolish the building and I can't imagine them using just 10 or even 20% of the upper portions to try and overcome the lower portions.
Another thing convinces me is that the damage done from the planes and fires to those floors is less than 5% of the overall structure. I do not know of any structure which you could damage 5% of ans it would collapse, maybe if the damage was done at the bottom or foundation this could happen.
Cheers
Stundie
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 06:02 PM)
Did you read Bazant's paper?
Yes I have, although some of it is beyond my knowledge and understanding.
However, I have spoken with various people regarding this paper grasp the knowledge and understanding of it.
However, I have spoken with various people regarding this paper grasp the knowledge and understanding of it.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2010, 06:02 PM)
So, you are wrong, Bazant's made NO ASSUMPTIONS that the towers would fall.
Bazant built the model to explain how the towers collapsed just 2 days after the attacks.